Diastatic Power for Weyermann Barke Malts

[Beerwildered]

I don’t get it either. DP is not a useful metric in any practical way AFAIK.

Kolbach Index and Extract Potential parameters are the ones to look out for.

Ok. If that’s how you roll - please calculate potential OG based on the grain bill I posted in #10. I’m not sure how to do it based on the information accessible to me.

 

[ba-brewer]

Reading the propaganda for the malt got me curious, so I ordered some pilsner and munich from northern brewer to give it a try.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Ok. If that’s how you roll - please calculate potential OG based on the grain bill I posted in #10. I’m not sure how to do it based on the information accessible to me.

Put 100 for the DP. It's gonna be close enough to accurate and shouldn't make a lick of difference. Protein, moisture, and extract are the important ones. DP only matters when you don't have enough. In your case you have plenty.

http://www.morebeer.com/brewingtechniques/bmg/noonan.html

 

[Big Monk]

Ok. If that’s how you roll - please calculate potential OG based on the grain bill I posted in #10. I’m not sure how to do it based on the information accessible to me.

The best thing to do if you don’t have the lot data directly from Weyermann is to make a reasonable assumption as to the FGDB and Moisture.

I tell people to use the following generic values in The Brewing Engine:

 

[Lefou]

Someone put bad data into Brewer's Friend. BeerSmith back in the day had a similar issue where it's generic Maris Otter was absurdly low for no reason.

I use Brewers Friend regularly and they've done no less than several updates on the malt data and re-arranged the yeast data tables in the past few months.

 

[Qhrumphf]

I use Brewers Friend regularly and they've done no less than several updates on the malt data and re-arranged the yeast data tables in the past few months.

I took a quick browse through their website and saw neither Barke grains (Barke Munich the only explicit Weyermann grain at all), but saw lots a few numbers in process that were definitely wrong.

I don't use it and not sure if there's a paid database I don't have access to, or if I was just looking in the wrong place.

 

[SanPancho]

No - I was looking for DP because it was the single piece of data that I didn’t have to be able to enter a custom fermentable into the software (either Brewersfriend or BeerSmith, btw)

I was trying to track down a discrepancy in OG between two seemingly similar malts. See post #10

Ah, got it. Glossed over that part.

 

[Big Monk]

No - I was looking for DP because it was the single piece of data that I didn’t have to be able to enter a custom fermentable into the software (either Brewersfriend or BeerSmith, btw)

I was trying to track down a discrepancy in OG between two seemingly similar malts. See post #10

I looked at Brewer's Friend and DP is not a required value for entering a custom grain so just leave it blank.

I would concentrate on extract potential in ppg because that is what BF is using. You can get Extract Potential (ppg) from caclulating the Dry Basis As-Is Extract Potential (%) as follows:

Dry Basis As-Is (%) = Dry Basis Fine Grind (%) * (1-Moisture (%)

Extract Potential (ppg) = (Dry Basis As-Is (%) * 0.04621) + 1

You can use the values from Post #34. As an example based on your grain bill:

58% Barke Pilsner (DBFG = 81.5%, Moisture = 4.06%) -> DBAI = 0.815 * (1 - 0.0406) = 0.782 = 78.2% or 1.036 ppg
34% Barke Vienna (DBFG = 81.5%, Moisture = 4.06%) -> DBAI = 0.815 * (1 - 0.0406) = 0.782 = 78.2% or 1.036 ppg
3% Acidulated Malt (DBFG = 81.9%, Moisture = 6.80%) -> DBAI = 0.819 * (1 - 0.0680) = 0.763= 76.3% or 1.035 ppg
5% Carafoam (DBFG = 76.4%, Moisture = 5.15%) -> DBAI = 0.764 * (1 - 0.0515) = 0.725= 72.5% or 1.034 ppg

I didn't see any volumes or total grain weight listed for your batch but punch those numbers in and see how it stacks up to what you observed.

Just to reiterate: Extract potential is king here.

 

[Yooper]

I took a quick browse through their website and saw neither Barke grains (Barke Munich the only explicit Weyermann grain at all), but saw lots a few numbers in process that were definitely wrong.

I don't use it and not sure if there's a paid database I don't have access to, or if I was just looking in the wrong place.

No, there isn't a paid database. One of the options in your profile is to show the other members' custom added grains if you would like.

For the DP, you can add it either via Lintner or WK.

As you can imagine, getting all of the information from the manufacturer can be tough (like in this case) so it's likely that someone just guessed or got the wrong information. I'm trying to track it down, but they haven't answered my request yet.

 

[Beerwildered]

I looked at Brewer's Friend and DP is not a required value for entering a custom grain so just leave it blank.

I would concentrate on extract potential in ppg because that is what BF is using. You can get Extract Potential (ppg) from caclulating the Dry Basis As-Is Extract Potential (%) as follows:

Dry Basis As-Is (%) = Dry Basis Fine Grind (%) * (1-Moisture (%)

Extract Potential (ppg) = (Dry Basis As-Is (%) * 0.04621) + 1

You can use the values from Post #34. As an example based on your grain bill:

58% Barke Pilsner (DBFG = 81.5%, Moisture = 4.06%) -> DBAI = 0.815 * (1 - 0.0406) = 0.782 = 78.2% or 1.036 ppg
34% Barke Vienna (DBFG = 81.5%, Moisture = 4.06%) -> DBAI = 0.815 * (1 - 0.0406) = 0.782 = 78.2% or 1.036 ppg
3% Acidulated Malt (DBFG = 81.9%, Moisture = 6.80%) -> DBAI = 0.819 * (1 - 0.0680) = 0.763= 76.3% or 1.035 ppg
5% Carafoam (DBFG = 76.4%, Moisture = 5.15%) -> DBAI = 0.764 * (1 - 0.0515) = 0.725= 72.5% or 1.034 ppg

I didn't see any volumes or total grain weight listed for your batch but punch those numbers in and see how it stacks up to what you observed.

Just to reiterate: Extract potential is king here.

This is helpful. Let’s see if I’ve got this.

I’m doing an 11 gallon batch here - so...

12 lbs Barke Pilsner: 12lbs * 36ppg/ 11 gallons = 39.27
7 lbs Barke Vienna: 7lbs * 36ppg/11 gal = 23
.5lbs Acidulated: .5*35/11=1.6
1 lb Carafoam: 1*34/11=3.09

Total = 67

Now I need to adjust this for efficiency, right? My efficiency is 70% - so this puts me at 46.87... or an OG of 1.046 which is almost exactly what Brewersfriend calculated...

so it looks like maybe the Barke numbers are correct but the Weyermann Pilsner numbers are messed up somehow.

Either way, it looks like I need to increase my grain bill a bit to meet my desired OG.

Also: thank you for your help.

 

[Big Monk]

This is helpful. Let’s see if I’ve got this.

I’m doing an 11 gallon batch here - so...

12 lbs Barke Pilsner: 12lbs * 36ppg/ 11 gallons = 39.27
7 lbs Barke Vienna: 7lbs * 36ppg/11 gal = 23
.5lbs Acidulated: .5*35/11=1.6
1 lb Carafoam: 1*34/11=3.09

Total = 67

Now I need to adjust this for efficiency, right? My efficiency is 70% - so this puts me at 46.87... or an OG of 1.046 which is almost exactly what Brewersfriend calculated...

so it looks like maybe the Barke numbers are correct but the Weyermann Pilsner numbers are messed up somehow.

Either way, it looks like I need to increase my grain bill a bit to meet my desired OG.

Also: thank you for your help.

11 gallons into the fermenter?

 

[Big Monk]

One issue I see here there isn't enough info to make an assessment of your batch. Did you sparge? What was your first wort extract and therefore your conversion efficiency? What's your boil-off and therefore your difference between pre- and post-boil gravity?

I try and separate gravities and volumes at all stages of the process because more information is always better than less:

First Wort Extract
Important Parameters - Conversion Efficiency, Grain Weights, First Wort Volume, Extract Potential for Each Grain

Batch Sparge Extract
Important Parameters - Sparge Volume, Extract Potential for Each Grain

Pre-Boil Extract
Important Parameters - Mash Efficiency, Pre-Boil Volume, MLT losses, Extract Potential of Pre-Boil sugars

Post-Boil Extract (O.G.)
Important Parameters - Post-Boil Volume, Boil-off, Extract Potential of Post-Boil sugars

 

[Beerwildered]

One issue I see here there isn't enough info to make an assessment of your batch. Did you sparge? What was your first wort extract and therefore your conversion efficiency? What's your boil-off and therefore your difference between pre- and post-boil gravity?

I try and separate gravities and volumes at all stages of the process because more information is always better than less:

First Wort Extract
Important Parameters - Conversion Efficiency, Grain Weights, First Wort Volume, Extract Potential for Each Grain

Batch Sparge Extract
Important Parameters - Sparge Volume, Extract Potential for Each Grain

Pre-Boil Extract
Important Parameters - Mash Efficiency, Pre-Boil Volume, MLT losses, Extract Potential of Pre-Boil sugars

Post-Boil Extract (O.G.)
Important Parameters - Post-Boil Volume, Boil-off, Extract Potential of Post-Boil sugars

I haven’t done this batch yet - Wednesday.

My conversion efficiencies are usually around 85%... and I recirculate total volume in a BrewEasy.

 

[Beerwildered]

11 gallons into the fermenter?

Yes. 11 into the fermenter. My preboil volume is 13.19

 

[Big Monk]

I haven’t done this batch yet - Wednesday.

My conversion efficiencies are usually around 85%... and I recirculate total volume in a BrewEasy.

So in this case I agree with your assessment. If you have a handle on your efficiencies and volumes, then you need to add more grain or reduce volume. Whichever suits you best.

 

[Hopalong]

According to the spec sheet Barke is slightly under modified malt. Weyermann light and dark floor malt is similar to Barke. Under modified malt is richer in enzyme content than high modified malt. Barke malt is low protein which means that it contains a lot of sugar.(homebrew malt is 12 to 16% protein) To take advantage of the rich malt the decoction method or the step mash method should be used, preferably, the decoction method. The decoction method produces authentic ale and lager. The step mash produces pseudo ale and lager. Single infusion won't take advantage of the rich malt, use less expensive high modified malt with single infusion brewing methods. A malt spec sheet is more valuable than an online recipe calculator, it's used to determine the quality of malt before the malt is purchased. A recipe that recommends buying two row pale malt is the same as recommending buying a two door car. A spec sheet comes with every bag of malt because malt is inconsistent. The numbers on the bar code sent to the maltster will obtain the info about the malt in the bag. Weyermann's good on that, they're German. Actually, recipes are a given.
Saccharification is listed on a spec sheet, but, saccharification isn't conversion. Depending on the maltster sometimes conversion is listed. The test uses 1 gallon of water per pound of malt and the rest is capped at 20 minutes. Malt is tested at 145, 153 and 155F, three bags of malt are tested, each bag at a single temperature.
I didn't see any temperatures that were used during mashing or if secondary fermentation was part of the recipe. If there wasn't a rest at 145F, conversion didn't take place. Beta is responsible for conversion and starch has nothing to do with it. Beta converts glucose released by Alpha during saccharification into fermentable, complex types of sugar. When conversion occurs, secondary fermentation occurs and during conditioning the beer naturally carbonates, no sugar or CO2 needed. To shorten the brew day conversion, dextrinization, gelatinization are omitted from recipes. Without the steps ale and lager cannot be produced. It's chemically and enzymatically impossible to make ale and lager by using a single temperature brewing procedure.

 

[Qhrumphf]

According to the spec sheet Barke is slightly under modified malt. Weyermann light and dark floor malt is similar to Barke. Under modified malt is richer in enzyme content than high modified malt. Barke malt is low protein which means that it contains a lot of sugar.(homebrew malt is 12 to 16% protein) To take advantage of the rich malt the decoction method or the step mash method should be used, preferably, the decoction method. The decoction method produces authentic ale and lager. The step mash produces pseudo ale and lager. Single infusion won't take advantage of the rich malt, use less expensive high modified malt with single infusion brewing methods. A malt spec sheet is more valuable than an online recipe calculator, it's used to determine the quality of malt before the malt is purchased. A recipe that recommends buying two row pale malt is the same as recommending buying a two door car. A spec sheet comes with every bag of malt because malt is inconsistent. The numbers on the bar code sent to the maltster will obtain the info about the malt in the bag. Weyermann's good on that, they're German. Actually, recipes are a given.
Saccharification is listed on a spec sheet, but, saccharification isn't conversion. Depending on the maltster sometimes conversion is listed. The test uses 1 gallon of water per pound of malt and the rest is capped at 20 minutes. Malt is tested at 145, 153 and 155F, three bags of malt are tested, each bag at a single temperature.
I didn't see any temperatures that were used during mashing or if secondary fermentation was part of the recipe. If there wasn't a rest at 145F, conversion didn't take place. Beta is responsible for conversion and starch has nothing to do with it. Beta converts glucose released by Alpha during saccharification into fermentable, complex types of sugar. When conversion occurs, secondary fermentation occurs and during conditioning the beer naturally carbonates, no sugar or CO2 needed. To shorten the brew day conversion, dextrinization, gelatinization are omitted from recipes. Without the steps ale and lager cannot be produced. It's chemically and enzymatically impossible to make ale and lager by using a single temperature brewing procedure.

This is gibberish. Beta cannot convert a monosaccharide into a polysaccharide.

Please go away.