BrewMoreBeers
Well-Known Member
subscribed.
Testing fermentability of crystal malt
- Thread starter nilo
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
Bigscience
Well-Known Member
Well I'll be damned. I was going to say that you got a false positive due to the paper towel but I just tried it out and it worked out great. I never would have guessed that. I don't even use a waxed paper plate when test. I guess you learn somthing new every day.
Just finished brewing the second test batches, and have good news.
PPG were exactly the same than before for all 3 crystal malts(C10=20, C40=16, C120=16), confirmed also with a hydrometer. Looking good. Will report back once fermentation is completed.
PPG were exactly the same than before for all 3 crystal malts(C10=20, C40=16, C120=16), confirmed also with a hydrometer. Looking good. Will report back once fermentation is completed.
motobrewer
I'm no atheist scientist, but...
interesting. i'm still confused as to why they all stopped at 1.01. i mean, that seems pretty random....
i figured they would all be x% fermentable.
i figured they would all be x% fermentable.
The way I see it is that C10 is more fermentable than the other two and because the PPG is higher, all ended at same FG. The more roasted a malt, the less PPG and less fermentables. For crystal malt, there seems to be a threshold, which I'm not sure where it is (may be at 30 or 40L) after which the roasting level doesn't matter anymore and all will behave the same.
For other roasted malts (not crystals), it could be different. Like a 350L chocolate malt for example. I would expect no fermentables at all.
Once we get more data, we will hopefully see a clear pattern.
theonetrueruss
Senior Member
looking forward to the results.. I've been trying to find info on this myself... with no luck
Awesome experiment.
This has been my understanding, but I knew that you could get some fermentables from steeping as well but no idea how much. Glad to see the confirmation!
I hadn't thought about how the software calculated it...I'll definitely take that into consideration for future recipes! Can't wait to read more!
This has been my understanding, but I knew that you could get some fermentables from steeping as well but no idea how much. Glad to see the confirmation!
I hadn't thought about how the software calculated it...I'll definitely take that into consideration for future recipes! Can't wait to read more!
Great little experiment! I'll be watching this.
BuzzCraft
Well-Known Member
Nice job, nilo. Subscribed.
New update, test batch 2 is completed, and guess what?
Same results!
I did confirm with a hydrometer both OG's and FG's.
Here's a summary of results for both tests, fermentation profiles and a pic in case anyone wonders what a 1# of crystals looks like in 1 gal batch.
My next test will be 3 batches using only 2row malt, then a mix of 50% 2 row and 50% crystals.
Same results!
I did confirm with a hydrometer both OG's and FG's.
Here's a summary of results for both tests, fermentation profiles and a pic in case anyone wonders what a 1# of crystals looks like in 1 gal batch.
My next test will be 3 batches using only 2row malt, then a mix of 50% 2 row and 50% crystals.
theonetrueruss
Senior Member
Interesting that the FG is winding up at 1.01 so far regardless of the malt.. I wonder why that is? It seems unlikely that the different malts would jsut happen to have the exact right amount of fermentables to make it come out that way with different OGs.... I wonder if 2# of 120 was used in 1 gal if it would still make it down to 1.01?
Well, there's one sure fire way to find out.
Do it, and report back with the results.
I surely wouldn't expect nilo to do the experiment for you. I think he is doing quite enough to give us all a better understanding of what goes on during fermentation, and I applaud his efforts.
-a.
theonetrueruss
Senior Member
I just might... might be a good thing to try out over the xmas holiday. Planning a brew day over new years.. might do at the same time... 2 1 gallon with the same yeast in the same temp... 1 with 1#120 and 1 with 2#120 and see if there is a difference. hmm.. I'm gonna need to get another gallon jug. (only have 1 right now)
BreckBastion
Well-Known Member
Have you tasted the final product? Just curious. It would obviously seem very sweet with the lack of hops.
It tastes nasty. I think it could be because the extraction of tanins during sparge as I washed the grain many times to get all possible sugars or because the yeast got stressed in processing the not so much fermentable sugars.
Kaiser
Well-Known Member
Nilo, thanks for the update and thanks for sticking with this experiment. Its the oddities in results that keep you thinking about refined experiments, isnt it?
As for sparging, you dont have to try to get all the sugar out of the grain. Doing a no-sparge, for example is sufficient. You can assess the grain potential based on the mash thickness and the gravity of the wort. Thats what maltsters do when they determine the extract potential.
The formula is
Extract potential = 100 * (Plato R) / (100 Plato)
Where Plato is the extract content of the wort in the mash and R is the mash thickness in l/kg. extract potential is then given in % of the malts weight. This cuts out the lauter efficiency.
Kai
Kai, the extract potential from this formula will still be affected by the milling process, right?
What I'm saying is that if you mill the grain coarse, mash and use this formula, the resulted extract potential will be less than if you mill it fine and redo the test.
What I was trying to do is to make the sugars as much soluble as possible by milling several times and to make my lautering efficiency close to 100% by washing it very well.
I thought it would give me the very max practical sugar extraction of a grain, which brewers would then apply their estimated mashing/lautering efficiency on top of that.
I'm not very convinced yet that I'm doing my best to extract the sugars. I may do a batch next using the grain turned into fine powder.
Thoughts?
Kaiser
Well-Known Member
Yes, this extract potential is still affected by milling and mashing. If you put this potential in relation to the fine grid extract potential (after compensating for moisture content) you get the conversion efficiency.
Yes.
I see your point about getting the lauter efficiency to 100%. However, this is not needed if you determine conversion efficiency or extract achieved after mashing by using aforementioned formula. When I did my mashing experiments I wasnt aware of this either and my process was to keep the lauter efficiency constant by using the same batch sparge method each time. If I would have known about conversion efficiency at the time I would have been able to get actual conversion efficiency numbers.
You can keep doing what you are doing. Just record the first wort or mash gravity at the end of mashing and the mash thickness at this point. The rest can be done when you analyze your results.
Kai
OK, one last round before going on vacation.
Got the malt blended to a fine powder instead of milling it 3 times to check if that would improve the extraction since I was under the impression that I could get more sugars out of the malt.
Guess what happened?
I got a stuck mash, oh yeah
I had to add another 1/4# rice hulls and some more water to have it running.
But that was not the big surprise. The amount of sugars extracted was actually less than before, when I just milled the grain 3 times.
On my previous two test batches, if you remember, I got consistent 20 PPG for crystal 10 and 16 for crystal 40&120.
I got now 17 for C10, 15 for C40 and 13 for C120.
My preliminary conclusion is that the lautering process was impacted, weird I know, but I will stick with the previous milling process on future tests
Anyways, will report back the attenuation I get for this batch. I expect it to me the same than before.
Got the malt blended to a fine powder instead of milling it 3 times to check if that would improve the extraction since I was under the impression that I could get more sugars out of the malt.
Guess what happened?
I got a stuck mash, oh yeah
I had to add another 1/4# rice hulls and some more water to have it running.
But that was not the big surprise. The amount of sugars extracted was actually less than before, when I just milled the grain 3 times.
On my previous two test batches, if you remember, I got consistent 20 PPG for crystal 10 and 16 for crystal 40&120.
I got now 17 for C10, 15 for C40 and 13 for C120.
My preliminary conclusion is that the lautering process was impacted, weird I know, but I will stick with the previous milling process on future tests
Anyways, will report back the attenuation I get for this batch. I expect it to me the same than before.
Kaiser
Well-Known Member
Nilo,
Did you get a chance to test the gravity of the wort in the mash after mashing and before lautering?
Kai
Kai, I didn't and I'm confused. Do you mean to stir the mash before lautering and measure the gravity of the wort? if I just collect a sample from the mash tun from the spigot without stirring, that will mostly be a concentrated wort that sit on the bottom of the mash tun.
I’m trying to understand the formula you listed:
Extract potential = 100 * (Plato – R) / (100 – Plato)
Just for understanding the formula, let’s assume I stirred the mash and took a reading of 17 plato = 1.070. I used 0.75gals of water = 2.84l and 1lb of grains=0.453Kg.
Using the formula, the Extract Potential would be 13%. How do I get PPG from this value?
I’m trying to understand the formula you listed:
Extract potential = 100 * (Plato – R) / (100 – Plato)
Just for understanding the formula, let’s assume I stirred the mash and took a reading of 17 plato = 1.070. I used 0.75gals of water = 2.84l and 1lb of grains=0.453Kg.
Using the formula, the Extract Potential would be 13%. How do I get PPG from this value?
Here are the results for the 3rd round of testing.
Knowing I had issues with the extraction of last batch (still working with Kai on that), at least the attenuation has been very constant around 50% for Crystal 10 and 38% for Crystal 40 and 120.
Thank you guys for all feedback. I'm excited to continue with the next tests that will include testing with base malt only, then with a mix of 50/50 based malt and crystal.
Happy new years and will be back in few weeks.
Knowing I had issues with the extraction of last batch (still working with Kai on that), at least the attenuation has been very constant around 50% for Crystal 10 and 38% for Crystal 40 and 120.
Thank you guys for all feedback. I'm excited to continue with the next tests that will include testing with base malt only, then with a mix of 50/50 based malt and crystal.
Happy new years and will be back in few weeks.
Kaiser
Well-Known Member
After the mashing is complete, stir up the wort and let the grain settle again. Then take a sample from the top or the spigot. There won't be much of a difference
The formula I gave you is oncorrect. The correct formula is:
Extract potential = 100 * Plato * R / (100 Plato)
In your case this means
100 * 17 * 6.27 l/kg / (100 - 17) = 128%
Which is not possible. Either your mash thickness number or the first wort measurement is too high.
To get the ppg number just multiply the extract percentage with 0.46.
Kai
Thanks, I got it. The 17 value was just a number I picked to test the formula. It was not measured.
I think the formula will result a valid max extraction IF you use the malt blended into powder, in order to make the milling process not a variable, agree?
I think the formula will result a valid max extraction IF you use the malt blended into powder, in order to make the milling process not a variable, agree?
Couldn't go on vacation before testing the extraction as suggested by Kai, so spent another 3lb of crystal malt to get it done.
Here are the results. Used malt blended to powder, 1 gal of water and 1lb of malt:
Crystal 10L, Plato=6.5, Extraction%=58, PPG=26
Crystal 40L, Plato=5.5, Extraction%=48, PPG=22
Crystal 120L, Plato=4.0, Extraction%=35%, PPG=16
Here are the results. Used malt blended to powder, 1 gal of water and 1lb of malt:
Crystal 10L, Plato=6.5, Extraction%=58, PPG=26
Crystal 40L, Plato=5.5, Extraction%=48, PPG=22
Crystal 120L, Plato=4.0, Extraction%=35%, PPG=16
Kaiser
Well-Known Member
yes, powdered malt will have the best extraction.
Interesting results that you got from the malts. I didn't think that C120 would have such a low extraction.
Kai
SC_Ryan
Well-Known Member
Subscribed. I'm really interested to see the difference in just the base malt, then how the base malt affects the fermentability of the crystal malts. I assume you are going to keep your milling, mashing and sparging techniques the same as your first two batches in order to make the data comparable?
SamBrewer
Well-Known Member
that's very interesting!!! I really appreciate people like you who spend time doing experiments and share with us this kind of information!
Pretty awesome thread. I am tracking the effects of different grain bills, mash temps and ferm temps with Wyeast 1968 right now. I am not being scientific about it at all, just recording results of all my batches right now to try and figure out some estimated equation to predict the fermentability of my beers overall.
I'm subscribing and can't wait for your "50/50" results. Btw - Can you repeat this experiment with ALL malts after you're done? I'm sure the brewing community would love a resource like this (even though it apparently exists online already - yeah... good luck finding it).
P.S. It amazes me that people with 1,000's of posts can make such generalized statements about such scientific matters, make simple incorrect assumptions and discourage personal experimentation Thank goodness for people like you and Kai who get it. and provide a great service to the rest of us.
I'm subscribing and can't wait for your "50/50" results. Btw - Can you repeat this experiment with ALL malts after you're done?
I'm sure the brewing community would love a resource like this (even though it apparently exists online already - yeah... good luck finding it).P.S. It amazes me that people with 1,000's of posts can make such generalized statements about such scientific matters, make simple incorrect assumptions and discourage personal experimentation
Thank goodness for people like you and Kai who get it. and provide a great service to the rest of us.motobrewer
I'm no atheist scientist, but...
P.S. It amazes me that people with 1,000's of posts can make such generalized statements about such scientific matters, make simple incorrect assumptions and discourage personal experimentation
uh, what?
Hermit
fuddle
I use Brewtarget. If you change the amount of crystal malt the ABV number changes. The author of the program must be modeling it off of something.
Interesting results so far, but you have only tried gravities around 1.020 which I suspect is artificially limiting your attenuation.
A factor in attenuation of yeast is the amount of fermentable sugar which remains in the wort when the concentration is too low for the crabtree effect to continue causing the yeast to switch off their metabolism, which for most saccharomyces strains is around 2*P. Since you are starting with a 5*P wort, there isn't much alcohol to decrease your FG, so this threshold will be just below 2*P apparent attenuation which is about 1.008 -- suspiciously close to your results.
Your methods are sound, so I think you will produce very useful data if you try wort gravities of 1.040, 1.050, 1.060 which are more typical of normal strength beers.
As an aside, many brettanomyces strains are capable of consuming sugars at below 2*P, even as low as 0.5*P, which is why it's so easy to get a significant brett infection (eg. gusher) even after a beer is fermented...
A factor in attenuation of yeast is the amount of fermentable sugar which remains in the wort when the concentration is too low for the crabtree effect to continue causing the yeast to switch off their metabolism, which for most saccharomyces strains is around 2*P. Since you are starting with a 5*P wort, there isn't much alcohol to decrease your FG, so this threshold will be just below 2*P apparent attenuation which is about 1.008 -- suspiciously close to your results.
Your methods are sound, so I think you will produce very useful data if you try wort gravities of 1.040, 1.050, 1.060 which are more typical of normal strength beers.
As an aside, many brettanomyces strains are capable of consuming sugars at below 2*P, even as low as 0.5*P, which is why it's so easy to get a significant brett infection (eg. gusher) even after a beer is fermented...
Sorry. Not directed at you Motor (and definitely not OP). I wondered if I should even say anything at all - didn't want to start a pissing match with someone...
There were just some comments earlier in the thread with some info that I would not expect from someone with 1,000's of posts.
Anyway, I don't want to detract from the awesome work nilo has done so far and can't wait for the next series!
Demolitron
New Member
My understanding is that the Crabtree effect is a metabolic regulator that inhibits aerobic respiration in the presence of high concentrations of sugars and causes the yeast to perform fermentation under aerobic conditions. If you could post a link for further information I would like to read it.
I also have come to understand that gusher infections are caused by bacteria and yeasts that are capable of utilizing the long chain sugars that "normal" yeasts are incapable of metabolizing. I believe that "brett" is a good example of such a critter.
It sounds like the OP is performing a forced fermentation by extreme over-pitching and warm conditions. So all of the ferment-able sugars should be consumed before the yeast flocculate out/die off.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Attenuation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crabtree_effect
http://mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/44/2/149.pdf
I also have come to understand that gusher infections are caused by bacteria and yeasts that are capable of utilizing the long chain sugars that "normal" yeasts are incapable of metabolizing. I believe that "brett" is a good example of such a critter.
It sounds like the OP is performing a forced fermentation by extreme over-pitching and warm conditions. So all of the ferment-able sugars should be consumed before the yeast flocculate out/die off.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Attenuation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crabtree_effect
http://mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/44/2/149.pdf
gxm
Well-Known Member
I just wanted to say cheers to Nilo
I'd been wanting to do these experiments since I started writing my own beer spreadsheet after realizing that the brewing apps didn't handle fermentability correctly.
I'd been wanting to do these experiments since I started writing my own beer spreadsheet after realizing that the brewing apps didn't handle fermentability correctly.
Great work Nilo.
Similar threads
