"Modern" malts - what changed?

[sixhotdogneck]

Often I'll hear people refer to "modern" malts or "today's" malts. Used like thus: "You don't have to worry about that with today's malts!" Mostly in reference to having enough enzymatic power to convert the sugars of adjunct grains or other non-enzymatic malts.

What exactly does that term "modern" mean or refer to? When did the "modern" era of malt start and how did it start?

Before the "modern" era of malt, what would one have experienced when brewing with a malt of the "previous" era? Lower OG, less conversion, etc...?

I have no problems with my home malted grains perhaps this refers to industrial scale malting?

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

gnawlidge changed.

Malts became "modern" once we had the gnawlidge about what was really going on, the science, beyond the "wait! you can get this stuff wet and let it sit and it becomes sweet water" and the "Oh snap! Iffin you shove this stick down into the sweet water and wait til it stops goin all bubbly you get a fire water that don't make you sick lest you drink a LOT of it."

Once we knew, and understood, the impact of modification and could control it or maximize it through the malting process, malt became modern.

 

[sixhotdogneck]

gnawlidge changed.

Malts became "modern" once we had the gnawlidge about what was really going on, the science, beyond the "wait! you can get this stuff wet and let it sit and it becomes sweet water" and the "Oh snap! Iffin you shove this stick down into the sweet water and wait til it stops goin all bubbly you get a fire water that don't make you sick lest you drink a LOT of it."

Once we knew, and understood, the impact of modification and could control it or maximize it through the malting process, malt became modern.

Well sure, but that's like prior to the previous era... if that makes any sense.

Perhaps it's the industrial scale temperature control and mechanization that makes "modern" malt.

Prior to that it was a game played by the maltster waiting until the weather was right and trying to get the temperature of the kiln correct with whatever fuel source was available.

Prior to that I'm not sure malting was done on a large scale, maybe in ancient Egypt, soaking a large batch of grain and drying it in the sun.

Prior to that yeah, it was a container of grain sitting out in the open with a magic stick.

 

[sixhotdogneck]

I'm not sure why I've taken offense to the term "modern" maybe because I make just as good or better malt at home (IMO).

Maybe it's because if "modern" really does refer to industrial scale malting then that started like 100+ years ago and there should no longer be a need to refer to today's malt as "modern" because what maltster would purposely degrade the quality of their malt to something that was produced that long ago.

Even the stuff labeled "floor malted" (whether it's a shovel or some mechanical mechanism turning the malt) is touted as equivalent to the industrial scale stuff.

The term "modern" or "today's" malt should be dropped from vocabulary everywhere. It's just been too long since the change.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I think you are looking for something more profound in the context than is really there.

AFAIK, it is really just the difference between spreading it out and hoping for the best, or knowing moisture content, being able to targetedly control modification, understanding diastatic potential, etc...

i.e. the difference between making malt, and making malt to an analysed specification with an averaged expectation of repeatability. I think the latter denotes the modernization.

 

[sixhotdogneck]

i.e. the difference between making malt, and making malt to an analysed specification with an averaged expectation of repeatability. I think the latter denotes the modernization.

Yup, technology and the industrialization/modernization of the process... but what maltster purposefully makes pre-modern style malt? Can one purchase purposefully under-modified, non-uniform malted, wood fire open kilned - malt and if one could what would the purpose be?

I guess my point is that all malt is "modern" and to me it's a redundant term because you can't say the opposite, "I'd like a bag of pre-modern, under-modified, non-uniform malted, fire kilned - malt please!"

 

[TechFanMD]

@GilaMinumBeer I don't think he's looking for anything more profound that what is there. There has been a lot of research on procedure and technique, modern equipment, more care in the process, and demand for quality that wasn't always there - especially at the commercial brewing level. Malting in 1970 was different than 1990 and is even better today. ......we're not just talking about changes since people lived in caves.

I don't know the answer, but it likely involved a lot of university research and collaboration with industry. From everything I've read and talking to people that have been brewing a long time, there is a huge improvement even since the late 80s /early 90s.

Stuff like this happens and our understanding/processes improve, which makes for better quality and utilization.

My best guess, when a homebrewer, talks about modern they are referring to grains today as opposed to when homebrewing took off once it became legal. In the early 80s what grains were available, the yeast availability and quality, etc were quite poor compared to today. When you read older homebrewing books you have to cringe at some of the suggestions (which were often not based on fact), or what they obviously had to do to get around the fact that their ingredients were inferior to what we have available now.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Yup, technology and the industrialization/modernization of the process... but what maltster purposefully makes pre-modern style malt? Can one purchase purposefully under-modified, non-uniform malted, wood fire open kilned - malt and if one could what would the purpose be?

I guess my point is that all malt is "modern" and to me it's a redundant term because you can't say the opposite, "I'd like a bag of pre-modern, under-modified, non-uniform malted, fire kilned - malt please!"

Well, do you have your own home malt analysed? Can you guarantee a degree of modification within a specified tolerance? Can you roast to a tolerance limited lovibond?

If the answer is "No", would you consider that "modern"?

 

[sixhotdogneck]

Well, do you have your own home malt analysed? Can you guarantee a degree of modification within a specified tolerance? Can you roast to a tolerance limited lovibond?

If the answer is "No", would you consider that "modern"?

I can get darn close and for not having an industrialized process I would label it "modern" as far as home malting is concerned.

Even for the competent small batch commercial maltster without the latest and greatest technology they must still be producing something far above and beyond anything available in the distant past just because of the nature and availability of knowledge.

If a new maltster came on deck and produced a sub-quality product it would literally destroy them in an instant especially in the information age.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I can get darn close and for not having an industrialized process I would label it "modern" as far as home malting is concerned.

I don't doubt it. I do think that the modernization of malts is the result of 1 part process and 1 part analysis. Otherwise it is just subjective conjecture. But, in retrospect, if that is in fact the case why don't we call them "modern hops" too?

 

[dmtaylor]

Farming and malting today is super high tech compared to just 10, 20, 30 years ago. Just about everything is down to a science. Simple as that really (which I guess is not simple!).

 

[dmtaylor]

I don't doubt it. I do think that the modernization of malts is the result of 1 part process and 1 part analysis. Otherwise it is just subjective conjecture. But, in retrospect, if that is in fact the case why don't we call them "modern hops" too?

Meanwhile we still really don't know jack about hops.

But we're learning about yeast.

Water is something most of us would be way better off forgetting all about.

 

[tll77]

I certainly don't have the answer to this question, but it does make me wonder how much of the difference may be agriculture and not malting technology, or combination of the two. Not to say that malting knowledge and tech hasn't improved with time, but growers of grain are also providing the maltster with a more advanced raw material.

 

[TechFanMD]

I certainly don't have the answer to this question, but it does make me wonder how much of the difference may be agriculture and not malting technology, or combination of the two. Not to say that malting knowledge and tech hasn't improved with time, but growers of grain are also providing the maltster with a more advanced raw material.

There are agriculture improvements but the malting process is a huge part of it. Getting some done conversion for you, not denaturing the enzymes, etc.....the science of the malting process to be able to make the best use of the grain has come a long way.

 

[dmtaylor]

I certainly don't have the answer to this question, but it does make me wonder how much of the difference may be agriculture and not malting technology, or combination of the two. Not to say that malting knowledge and tech hasn't improved with time, but growers of grain are also providing the maltster with a more advanced raw material.

I was fortunate enough to tour the Briess malting facility here a few months ago, and I can tell you..... their laboratory is scientific. They run little mini-mashes and measure for dozens of different parameters using tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars of lab equipment. They know what's going on with their malt. It is indeed a science there at the malting facility. The farms... I can only guess but I imagine there are at least some if not all that have similar labs.

 

[madscientist451]

What changed?
-global competition
-Varieties if Barley
-research that changed industrial malting
-Industrial controls of temperature and moisture content in the malting process
-more consistency

 

[bleme]

I think it also has to do with the barley itself. As you can see, only 1 variety of barley recommended for planting this year was developed before 2000.

 

[bracconiere]

Farming and malting today is super high tech compared to just 10, 20, 30 years ago. Just about everything is down to a science. Simple as that really (which I guess is not simple!).

With the people with their, what are they called?, bluetooth tilt hydrometers. and BeerSmith...

i thought i was the only one that malted my own on these forums? i know i get 85% effc. with mine,and 95% with store bought...i also have to do a 3 step mash, 125->150->162 to get a decent beer out of it...(but it's worth it for a 8 dollar 10 gal batch!)

 

[TechFanMD]

With the people with their, what are they called?, bluetooth tilt hydrometers. and BeerSmith...

i thought i was the only one that malted my own on these forums? i know i get 85% effc. with mine,and 95% with store bought...i also have to do a 3 step mash, 125->150->162 to get a decent beer out of it...(but it's worth it for a 8 dollar 10 gal batch!)

95% efficiency? How? Are you calculating correctly (kidding....anyone who malts their own probably isn't making a calculation error on efficiency).
.....this is a bit unheard of though.......I don't think John Palmer gets that high.

 

[tll77]

i also have to do a 3 step mash, 125->150->162 to get a decent beer out of it...(but it's worth it for a 8 dollar 10 gal batch!)

possibly you are using feed barley which has a higher crude protein content than malting barley.

I think it also has to do with the barley itself. As you can see, only 1 variety of barley recommended for planting this year was developed before 2000.

agricultural advancements in plant breeding and better crop management have given us barley varieties with greater 'malting quality'

 

[dmtaylor]

i thought i was the only one that malted my own on these forums? i know i get 85% effc. with mine,and 95% with store bought...i also have to do a 3 step mash, 125->150->162 to get a decent beer out of it...(but it's worth it for a 8 dollar 10 gal batch!)

Kudos on malting your own. The big companies will pretend to sell "undermodified" malts, but they LIE. They're ALL well modified.

 

[bracconiere]

95% efficiency? How? Are you calculating correctly (kidding....anyone who malts their own probably isn't making a calculation error on efficiency).
.....this is a bit unheard of though.......I don't think John Palmer gets that high.

I don't calculate it myself, i just weigh everything and enter my recipe into beersmith...then measure OG and adjust beersmith to the right efficiency...

I used to get 83% effc, but from what i learned with home malt, i found that i can get a big boost from doing a two step mash, one beta at 150 then a second at 162 for alpha...don't know how this would affect FG, because i use gluco in every batch...

possibly you are using feed barley which has a higher crude protein content than malting barley.




agricultural advancements in plant breeding and better crop management have given us barley varieties with greater 'malting quality'

yes, the extra protein rest could be because feed barley...

and i don't know how plant patents work, but they may need to keep coming up with new ones so they can have 'current' patents on them...

 

[TechFanMD]

I don't calculate it myself, i just weigh everything and enter my recipe into beersmith...then measure OG and adjust beersmith to the right efficiency...

I used to get 83% effc, but from what i learned with home malt, i found that i can get a big boost from doing a two step mash, one beta at 150 then a second at 162 for alpha...don't know how this would affect FG, because i use gluco in every batch...



yes, the extra protein rest could be because feed barley...

and i don't know how plant patents work, but they may need to keep coming up with new ones so they can have 'current' patents on them...

Cool! I doubt is is actually 95% but who knows.....

What kind of beers do you like? With the two set and glucoamylase....they must be very dry (which I tend to like).

 

[bracconiere]

Cool! I doubt is is actually 95% but who knows.....

What kind of beers do you like? With the two set and glucoamylase....they must be very dry (which I tend to like).

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/cuss-me-out-for-being-a-crappy-homebrewer-lol.654988/

don't want to hijack this thread about 'modern malts'

 

[sixhotdogneck]

I get Conlon variety from here:

https://www.naturalwaymills.com/product.php?product=50

and Full Pint variety from here:

www.meccagrade.com/collections/raw-grain/products/raw-2-row-spring-barley

and Baronnesse and Palouse from here:

www.amazon.com/Josephs-Grainery-Unhulled-Non-GMO-Certified/dp/B003A162H6

All of them make good beer though.

 

[The_Professor]

Often I'll hear people refer to "modern" malts or "today's" malts....I have no problems with my home malted grains perhaps this refers to industrial scale malting?

I would think the process is better now. But one thing that is somewhat modern is pale malt as a base for everything. Brewers moved to that when they were actually able to measure their gravity and see that using a grain bill of all dark malt seemed like a bit of a waste. Porter was originally made from all darker malt.
I do my own malt sometimes and I know what you are saying. I can enter the amount in a brew calculator as 2 row and get the expected gravity from my home made malt. I made a porter from homemade pale, amber, and brown malt and it was really tasty.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

I can get darn close and for not having an industrialized process I would label it "modern" as far as home malting is concerned.

Even for the competent small batch commercial maltster without the latest and greatest technology they must still be producing something far above and beyond anything available in the distant past just because of the nature and availability of knowledge.

If a new maltster came on deck and produced a sub-quality product it would literally destroy them in an instant especially in the information age.

I read an article posted by someone on here from a guy that was homebrewing in the 1950s. Part of his love of the hobby was that his batch of beer had a pretty good chance of being infected and it was so special when he got a good batch of beer. For me, I mean screw that, I’m not wasting my time making vomit vinegar. I don’t think I’d be a homebrewer in 1950, all things being equal.

I can 100% guarantee that you have benefited from using the internet to find information on what you need to do to make good malt. I’m sure you are a super smart guy (especially since you call yourself the professor), but it wasn’t you that made the situation that you could make great malt, you did this on the backs of all those people before you that learned how and then further you have the benefit of putting it all together in a way that you can afford and relatively easily execute that that same exact man of your intelligence, virtue and industriousness had absolutely no chance of executing to the level you have in 1950.

At the very least, the internet has become a repository of knowledge that when it wasn’t available was pre-modern times. The internet made doing things soooooooo much easier. So maybe like before 1990 was pre-modern times?

 

[sixhotdogneck]

I can 100% guarantee that you have benefited from using the internet to find information on what you need to do to make good malt.

When I started malting with my Dad and Grandpa in the early to mid 80's the Internet didn't exist (to the public). Each year they malted several bushels of the barley we grew on the farm. The process wasn't difficult at that time and I haven't changed much since. I have since read "Malts and Malting by Briggs, et. al." and several articles from Zymurgy and BYO on the subject.

So no, the Internet was not and is not part of my malting knowledge.

There have recently been several websites dedicated to home malting and one or two books but I haven't had the chance to peruse them.

I’m sure you are a super smart guy (especially since you call yourself the professor), but it wasn’t you that made the situation that you could make great malt, you did this on the backs of all those people before you that learned how and then further you have the benefit of putting it all together in a way that you can afford and relatively easily execute that that same exact man of your intelligence, virtue and industriousness had absolutely no chance of executing to the level you have in 1950.

Since I don't call myself "the professor" you may have flipped a bit on the wrong pseudonym

At the very least, the internet has become a repository of knowledge that when it wasn’t available was pre-modern times. The internet made doing things soooooooo much easier. So maybe like before 1990 was pre-modern times?

The Internet spreads knowledge but it also spreads a lot of disease. I understand what you're trying to say but disagree that malt made before the spread of the Internet was more poorly made than that of today, especially in an industrial setting.

 

[Abilor]

Well sure, but that's like prior to the previous era... if that makes any sense.

Perhaps it's the industrial scale temperature control and mechanization that makes "modern" malt.

Prior to that it was a game played by the maltster waiting until the weather was right and trying to get the temperature of the kiln correct with whatever fuel source was available.

Prior to that I'm not sure malting was done on a large scale, maybe in ancient Egypt, soaking a large batch of grain and drying it in the sun.

Prior to that yeah, it was a container of grain sitting out in the open with a magic stick.

This. The single most definitive technology in modern malting, in my view, is the use digital controllers in kilns and other equipment. Being able to dial a number, "387F", and actually hit that temperature accurately and hold it consistently within 1 degree fahrenheit is nothing short of divine wizardry. From that digital precision controlling otherwise ancient processes, a whole host of techniques are open to the hobbyist market, from the manufacturers on down to the homebrew homesteaders. You can see this trend finally seeping into the brewing community itself with the use of electric kettles. Sitting in your driveway with a gas ring blazing away under a keggle is one of my favorite things, but I'm equally in love with my 8 gallon electric kettle that can get 7.5 gallons of water from 55F to 190F in under 45 minutes, and hold it there, all as I gaze out at the slush and snow.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

When I started malting with my Dad and Grandpa in the early to mid 80's the Internet didn't exist (to the public). Each year they malted several bushels of the barley we grew on the farm. The process wasn't difficult at that time and I haven't changed much since. I have since read "Malts and Malting by Briggs, et. al." and several articles from Zymurgy and BYO on the subject.

So no, the Internet was not and is not part of my malting knowledge.

There have recently been several websites dedicated to home malting and one or two books but I haven't had the chance to peruse them.



Since I don't call myself "the professor" you may have flipped a bit on the wrong pseudonym



The Internet spreads knowledge but it also spreads a lot of disease. I understand what you're trying to say but disagree that malt made before the spread of the Internet was more poorly made than that of today, especially in an industrial setting.

The “you” that I meant was the proverbial one and I agree that we agree because as I was about to say on another thread, how just because it’s the time we live in, we think that whatever we do is done better than it was in the past. This isn’t true. But more people, more easily, more often do better now. The proverbial you likely didn’t have a father to show you how to malt even if the literal one did and assuming that you care about the quality of your malt, I’m certain that you have improved upon your father’s process. The fact that I can have this conversation with you, an expert malter, who makes as good of malt as anyone provides our world with the chance to improve your methods through the internet and proves my point. I would be very surprised if the guy from Mecca Grade Malts didn’t lean heavily on the internet to understand and implement his processes when starting the business up.

 

[The_Professor]

......I’m sure you are a super smart guy (especially since you call yourself the professor), but it wasn’t you that made the situation that you could make great malt, you did this on the backs of all those people before you that learned how and then further you have the benefit of putting it all together in a way that you can afford and relatively easily execute that that same exact man of your intelligence, virtue and industriousness had absolutely no chance of executing to the level you have in 1950...

Since I don't call myself "the professor" you may have flipped a bit on the wrong pseudonym

So, AZCoolerBrewer, in regards to "...you did this on the backs of all those people before you..."; this would be why all modern brewers worship Ninkasi to this day.

 

[bracconiere]

This. The single most definitive technology in modern malting, in my view, is the use digital controllers in kilns and other equipment. Being able to dial a number, "387F", and actually hit that temperature accurately and hold it consistently within 1 degree fahrenheit is nothing short of divine wizardry. From that digital precision controlling otherwise ancient processes, a whole host of techniques are open to the hobbyist market, from the manufacturers on down to the homebrew homesteaders. You can see this trend finally seeping into the brewing community itself with the use of electric kettles. Sitting in your driveway with a gas ring blazing away under a keggle is one of my favorite things, but I'm equally in love with my 8 gallon electric kettle that can get 7.5 gallons of water from 55F to 190F in under 45 minutes, and hold it there, all as I gaze out at the slush and snow.

as far as kilning and temp, my 200ohm mod for my oven probe, and a infrared thermometer helped me be able to make light beer again!

 

[lowtones84]

Does somebody have a more specific answer other than "more scientific techniques" for what makes modern malt "well modified" though? What exactly made it so that we don't need to be doing step mashes anymore, where 100 (maybe even 50?) years ago they would have to?

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Does somebody have a more specific answer other than "more scientific techniques" for what makes modern malt "well modified" though? What exactly made it so that we don't need to be doing step mashes anymore, where 100 (maybe even 50?) years ago they would have to?

Botany?

A better understanding between acrospire development, it's interplay with starch reserves and enzymes.

 

[maisch]

Does somebody have a more specific answer other than "more scientific techniques" for what makes modern malt "well modified" though? What exactly made it so that we don't need to be doing step mashes anymore, where 100 (maybe even 50?) years ago they would have to?

STOP!!!

Step mashes never had to be done. They were never a requirement. The British have been doing single infusion for hundreds of years.

Step mashing evolved as the science of mashing evolved. Tests were done to determine what was happening at the various temperatures and how each temperature could be used to its fullest.

Step mashing has nothing to do with malt modification but rather making use of certain properties of the malt at each temperature. Ferulic acid rest, Protein rest, Beta rest, Alpha rest, etc... None of those care about malt modification.

Grow the acrospires such that they're 75%-100% the length of the kernel and you've got "well modified" malt.
I'll say it again, "Grow the acrospires such that they're 75%-100% the length of the kernel and you've got "well modified" malt!"

That's really all there is to it. No magic involved.

The OP is correct in stating that "modern malts" and all terms referencing that phrase are fallacies.

Other posters are correct in stating that the ability to accurately maintain artificial temperature constraints was a huge step forward such that industrial malt operations could make large quantities of well modified malt (i.e. malt that was not over-modified (acrospires grows longer than kernel length) or under-modified (acrospires length was < 75% the length of the kernel)).

Step mashing isn't going to help over or under modified malts. Decoction mashing may help under modified malts by breaking cell walls through boiling but that's about it.

Why there's so much misunderstanding about such a simple topic is beyond me and why it keeps being repeated and misrepresented is also mystery.

 

[lowtones84]

Step mashes never had to be done. They were never a requirement. The British have been doing single infusion for hundreds of years.

Step mashing evolved as the science of mashing evolved. Tests were done to determine what was happening at the various temperatures and how each temperature could be used to its fullest.

Step mashing has nothing to do with malt modification but rather making use of certain properties of the malt at each temperature. Ferulic acid rest, Protein rest, Beta rest, Alpha rest, etc... None of those care about malt modification.

Grow the acrospires such that they're 75%-100% the length of the kernel and you've got "well modified" malt.
I'll say it again, "Grow the acrospires such that they're 75%-100% the length of the kernel and you've got "well modified" malt!"

Why there's so much misunderstanding about such a simple topic is beyond me and why it keeps being repeated and misrepresented is also mystery.

Ahh that makes total sense. It often does come down to misinformation being spread I suppose. Thanks!

 

[Big Monk]

STOP!!!

Step mashes never had to be done. They were never a requirement. The British have been doing single infusion for hundreds of years.

Step mashing evolved as the science of mashing evolved. Tests were done to determine what was happening at the various temperatures and how each temperature could be used to its fullest.

Step mashing has nothing to do with malt modification but rather making use of certain properties of the malt at each temperature. Ferulic acid rest, Protein rest, Beta rest, Alpha rest, etc... None of those care about malt modification.

Grow the acrospires such that they're 75%-100% the length of the kernel and you've got "well modified" malt.
I'll say it again, "Grow the acrospires such that they're 75%-100% the length of the kernel and you've got "well modified" malt!"

That's really all there is to it. No magic involved.

The OP is correct in stating that "modern malts" and all terms referencing that phrase are fallacies.

Other posters are correct in stating that the ability to accurately maintain artificial temperature constraints was a huge step forward such that industrial malt operations could make large quantities of well modified malt (i.e. malt that was not over-modified (acrospires grows longer than kernel length) or under-modified (acrospires length was < 75% the length of the kernel)).

Step mashing isn't going to help over or under modified malts. Decoction mashing may help under modified malts by breaking cell walls through boiling but that's about it.

Why there's so much misunderstanding about such a simple topic is beyond me and why it keeps being repeated and misrepresented is also mystery.

THANK YOU!!!

Well said and you spared me having to type it up myself.

I challenge anyone to state when the last time they used undermodified malt was.

Here’s a clue: Never.