The strange case of the disappeared under-modified malt

[Birrofilo]

A recent thread draw my attention on the fact that under-modified malt, or malt with the lower value of Kolbach Index is less than 35, is extremely difficult if not impossible to find.

In fact, I went around in various sites, including Czech malters, and found no base malt, for which the Kolbach Index was given, that was under 35, i.e. "under-modified" according to the current wisdom. The only way one can get under-modified malt these days appears to be DIY malting or maybe get a "custom" batch from an established malter. Maybe malters have some under-modified malts "under the table" that they keep for clients who specifically ask for that, but in general this is not something that the industry overall seems to demand.

Then I begun asking what really the Kolbach index is, and that is the ratio of total soluble proteins in the wort to total proteins in the malt, after a "Congress mash".
This raises a first order of doubts: how is Congress mash representative of a real-life mash, and up to which extent this number has a meaning for homebrewers.

But then again, this line of reasoning is negated by the fact that, in general, all malts produced are meant by the producers to be easily mashable. Whatever the way that we adopt to measure the degree of modification, what we get is that malsters produce, invariably, a malt which is easy to mash and requires no protein rest no matter what.

The problem is now to understand why there are so many recipes around which still call for a protein rest, and some brewers appear to do that in their practice. Is this just a fossile remnant of past practices, "I do as my grand-grand-mother did because I trust her recipe", paying homage to a tradition for the sake of it, or is still there, in 2021, some real sense and consequence in making a protein rest?

Which is to say: If we forget the definitions of "well-modified" malt and "under-modified malt", and get to the cathegories of "normally modified malt" and "less-than-normally modified malts", where "less than normally" means a Kolbach index of 35 or maybe 36 at the left margin of the fork, does it make any difference, for a less-than-normally modified malt, to make a protein rest? Is there any paper or test which attempted at make two beers identical in every respect except for the protein rest, and then examine the differences in taste, clarity, head retention, shelf durability etc?

Another doubt arises from reading this: The Oxford Companion to Beer Definition of Kolbach index

The reality is that the index is nothing more than a gauge of the extent to which proteolysis has occurred during malting. [...] It reveals nothing about the nature of the solubilized proteins and whether they are or are not problematic or beneficial.

Which can be read as "not all solubilized proteins are created equal and some are problematic" and, maybe, the protein rest is used by some brewers in order to solve those "problems" that would not appear by the simple reading of the Kolbach index.

I am very grateful for either answers or links to interesting sources.

 

[AlexTurnbull]

Having never heard of the Kolback Index until your post.

A quick look at Thomas Fawcett & Sons Ltd, my local maltsters and there is a Kolback Index listed when choosing the spec sheet for Europe and the rest of the world. The UK and North America have their own separate spec sheet's.

Only oat malt is listed at less than 35(KI) at 29-34 which would appear to make sense to me at least, from a read of the link you posted to a definition. With oak malt in the grist I would be more likely to do a stepped mash.

 

[TheBluePhantom]

Buggy whips and lead based paint are hard to find too. But why would you consider it strange? Obsolescence of older products by newer, improved ones is common. What would be strange is someone bringing back 8-tracks.

 

[grampamark]

What would be strange is someone bringing back 8-tracks.

Vinyl has made quite a comeback in recent years. Just sayin’...

 

[Jayjay1976]

Vinyl has made quite a comeback in recent years. Just sayin’...

Illustrating the fact that 'new' and 'better' don't always go hand in hand.
((8 track<CD)<vinyl)<live performance)

 

[DaWiseBrew]

I've always read that a protein rest is only used with un-malted grains like wheat or rye. In fact, if only using malted grains, you break down the proteins that enable head retention.

http://howtobrew.com/book/section-3...t=Using this rest in a,in a thin, watery beer.

 

[DaWiseBrew]

Another interesting article, Brulosophy ran a side-by-side experiment for single-infusion versus protein rested brew. There take was no difference.

https://brulosophy.com/2018/09/10/the-mash-protein-rest-vs-single-infusion-exbeeriment-results/
Also, on another note, a dough-in period at a cooler temperature than a protein rest is reported to increase your yield. This is akin to brewhouse efficiency, though. With flavor being equal, you probably don't care too much about it as a homebrewer as its pretty cheap to add a little extra grain. Most people are looking to shorten, not lengthen their brew day.

http://howtobrew.com/book/section-3/how-the-mash-works/doughing-in

 

[TheBluePhantom]

Vinyl has made quite a comeback in recent years. Just sayin’...

I specifically did not mention that topic to avoid trashing the thread. I lived through the vinyl once, I do not miss the pops, crackles and skips. Not to mention the reduced bandwidth and dynamic range. This is only a small percentage of sales. You could easily argue the Amish still use the buggy whips, but if we all went back to horses the entire country would be up to our armpits in horse &*%$. My point was that (except for a few recreating history, or a few who cry that 'life was better then') the new product replaces the old and demand for the old ceases. No business wants to make a product they can't sell.

 

[Birrofilo]

Another interesting article, Brulosophy ran a side-by-side experiment for single-infusion versus protein rested brew. There take was no difference.

Thanks for this head up, I did not find this in my search.

The experiment is a bit sloppy in design. We don't know the temperature of the protein rest, and there was no sparge. Also, the grain bill is composed of a mixed bag of highly modified malt and wheat of which we don't know the degree of modification (that was wheat malt, not wheat. It might have been well-modified wheat malt, which would not answer the question).
The result shows maybe a better head retention for the batch with protein rest, but other than that, no appreciable difference. Yet, one might say, maybe this test couldn't have possibly shown any difference, because of the high malt modification.

Brulosophy says maybe they will repeat the test with low-modification malt, which I hope.

I read, as always for this site, all the comments of the readers because they are usually knowledgeable.

Most commenters say they notice a difference in clarity with a protein rest, but don't say what kind of (45°C, 50°C, 55°C). Very interestingly, an user says that he begun noticing a clarity problem when he switched to a Grainfather, a problem that he solved with a protein rest.

I am thinking now that it is like some commenters said, that it might have a beneficial effect, or not, depending on grist and process, and this is probably why most people don't practise it and don't feel the need, and others practice it and feel it is useful. It may be something the usefulness of which is shown only under certain circumstances.

 

[Birrofilo]

I've always read that a protein rest is only used with un-malted grains like wheat or rye. In fact, if only using malted grains, you break down the proteins that enable head retention.

http://howtobrew.com/book/section-3...t=Using this rest in a,in a thin, watery beer.

This text by Palmer is in fact interesting. It says:

" The typical Protein Rest at 120 - 130°F is used to break up proteins which might otherwise cause chill haze and can improve the head retention. This rest should only be used when using moderately-modified malts, or when using fully modified malts with a large proportion (>25%) of unmalted grain, e.g. flaked barley, wheat, rye, or oatmeal. Using this rest in a mash consisting mainly of fully modified malts would break up the proteins responsible for body and head retention and result in a thin, watery beer. The standard time for a protein rest is 20 - 30 minutes. "

This is interesting. I think that I, like many, have been sidetracked by the definition of undermodified malt as a malt with a Kolbach index of less than 35. But that term, "undermodified", means a malt which is somehow problematic in use, which is not well prepared. And that is why it is not found in commerce.

Palmer doesn't use the term "undermodified" but "moderately modified". I think I can take this as a description of German and Czech malts with a Kolbach index of 35-36, which is less than usual. Those malts are mashable with a single step, but may marginally benefit from a protein rest.

 

[Birrofilo]

I have found this interesting source, it is in Italian, but I will extract the juice for the matter on the table:

https://blog.mr-malt.it/leggere-la-scheda-tecnica-di-un-malto/
The article is about reading the data sheet of a malt.

It lists three cases when a multi-step (or a decoction mash) might be advisable:

a) the case of an "undermodified" malt. As we have seen, there are no "undermodified" malts in normal commerce. But maybe they mean "moderately modified";

b) the case with a "Viscosity 8,6%" number > 1,6 cP.

c) the case of the parameter " F/C Difference " > 2%.

Cases b) and c) are actually in commerce.

For instance my Pilsner malt, Castle Malting Pilsen 2RS, has this data sheet:

https://www.castlemalting.com/Castl...&CropYear=2019&Language=Italian&FileType=HTML
The Kolbach index is 35-45, which is "moderately modified".

The Viscosity 8,6% is 1,6 cP, which is borderline.

The "Fine / Coarse difference", (Differenza Fine / Grossa) is 1,5 - 2,5 %, which means that the upper limit is way above the threshold.

For this malt, the article would suggest a step mash, because it has two "borderline" parameters and one parameter above the threshold.

Again, this seems to suggest an utility for a protein rest for this Pils malt, even though it has a Kolbach index = 35.

 

[DaWiseBrew]

Yeah, the points in the article make sense. Those values would indicate you want to further modify or thin out the mash by further breaking the proteins and freeing more starches for conversion. Sorry I can't read Italian, although I wish I could for many reasons Here is an English language source to consider.

http://blog.brewingwithbriess.com/understanding-a-malt-analysis/

• Modification as determined by the Fine Grind/Coarse Grind Difference*

Significance: This attribute has minor impact in the brewhouse because the difference between these two extracts is such a small variation that it is difficult to measure using even the most sophisticated equipment.

Test: Determined by a Congress Mash wort analysis. The FG/CG Difference is determined when two worts are prepared from the same malt, one ground coarser than the other. Both samples are analyzed for extract on a dry basis. The difference between these values is called the Fine Grind/Coarse Grind Difference. But the difference between the extract of a fine and coarse ground sample is very small in well modified malt, typically 0.5 percent in well modified malts. This small difference is roughly the same as the error in the extract method, so it’s not impossible for a properly reported fine-coarse difference to be zero or negative.

Ideally: A FG/CG difference of 1.5% or less indicates well modified malt. Well modified malts have the potential for high extract yields with in an infusion mash.

• Viscosity****

Significance: A high viscosity value will indicate potential problems in brewhouse operations.

Test: Malt viscosity is performed on Congress Mash wort usually in a viscometer tube. It is a measure of a liquid’s ability to resist flow through a capillary column. The measurement is the amount of time required for a predetermined volume to flow through the thin tube in comparison with water, and is frequently reported in units centipoise (CPS).

Ideally: Typical Congress Mash wort viscosities from Base Malt are 1.45 to 1.60 CPS. Values in excess of 1.60 may indicate a potential for slow runoff.

 

[Twinkeelfool]

It’s not really strange, big breweries would take the vast majority of malted barley, and they don’t want to play around with extra steps involved with under modified malt. Time is money

 

[Jako]

Heritage malt is around, its expensive and as stated above. Time is money. on a small scale or one off beer sure it has a place and lots of cool things can be done with this malt or lost flavors. But the malt doesn't yeld enough more grain per mash = more man power to move said malt then plus you need to step mash or decoction mash to really get the most of the malt. i like this process but if i had to sell beer. i would be looking at adjuncts and highly modified malt so i could buy less.

hops cost a good chunk and hoppy beer sells right now. so cheap beer base and toss hops at it =$$

 

[Birrofilo]

The entire thread motivation was due to the fact that professional brewers still do the protein rest with some Pils malts and that would seem, by the knowledge gained in this forum, useless.

Now, I don't think people do useless thing. With all due respect for this forum, I don't think that people here are smart and people outside here, who make a living out of brewing, are dumb. That's why I was wondering about the contradiction between the ubiquitousness of "well-modified" malt as defined by a Kolbach index of 35 or more, and the persistence of the protein rest which is deemed to be useless with nowadays malts.

I begin seeing the light, in the sense that it's the Kolbach index which is not the entire story. A Kolbach index of 35 makes the protein rest "not mandatory", but it doesn't make it useless either!

I'm not particularly religious but, in times of dire straights, one is inclined to take the "Holy Scriptures" in his hand, so I did and I found this in the Braukaiser site:

<<
Generally, when a protein rest is held in a mash, it is held between 122ºF (50ºC) and 133ºF (55ºC) where protoelytic activity shows a maximum. But even at higher temperatures, and in the starch conversion range is significant protein conversion happening [Narziss, 2005].

Rest temperatures closer to 122ºF (50ºC) tend to produce more short chained proteins (amino acids) while depleting the long and medium chained proteins. In sufficiently modified malts, this depletion of medium chained proteins can lead to a loss of body and head retention.

Rest temperatures closer to 155ºF (55ºC) emphasize the formation of medium chained proteins. Such a rest is better suited for most modern European lager malts.
[...]
Overmodified malts (like English or American Pale malts) do not require a protein rest
>>

It seems that St. Braukaiser, in fact, is confirming the case for a protein rest with Pils and Lager malts (what he calls "European" malts), and it rules it out for English and American Pale ale malts, which he calls over-modified.

He's not talking about a more normal 40-55°C for a protein rest, but only deals with a 50°C rest or a 55°C rest. 50°C can be counteproductive with most malts (In sufficiently modified malts... can lead to a loss of body and head retention) but 55°C is still OK for "European lager malts". So the old Protein rest is now taken into consideration only at his higher temperature.

This is very interesting. A recipe which I had, and which is formulated by an Italian "artisanal" beer producer, called for a two protein rests of 15 minutes each, one at 55 °C and one at 59 °C. I could not believe this was due only to grand-ma doing this when she was young, and now I begin thinking that this has a rationale, a confirmation in the theory by Braukeiser.

What I get from all this doubt and research, is that it still makes sense to perform a 55°C and 59°C protein rest when I use a Pils or a Kolbach Index = 35 or 36 malt, and that a "well-modified" malt is not a sufficient reason to skip the protein rest.

 

[VikeMan]

With all due respect for this forum, I don't think that people here are smart and people outside here, who make a living out of brewing, are dumb.

Putting the question of the usefulness of proteins rests aside for a moment, I have to ask... how long have you been around home brewers and how many pro brewers have you discussed brewing with and/or witnessed their processes first hand? I'm not going to call anyone dumb, but I'll state that it would be a mistake to assume that serious home brewers know less about malt and mash parameters than craft brewers in general. Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that.

Back to protein rests. There are reasons to do them with modern malts...easier clarity for example. This is a brewer's decision to make, and like many of them, involves a tradeoff. In this case, trading some mouthfeel and foam retention for a beer that drops clear faster. But the basic (original) compelling reasons for protein rests, i.e. degradation of excess long proteins, mash efficiency, and improved lauterability are moot. Or put another way, I believe that if brewers of yore had started with today's malts, they would likely not have discovered/developed the protein rest.

Among modern malts, is the exact Kolbach number useful in making this decision? Maybe. Sort of. While it tells you the percent of proteins that are soluble, it's not a perfect indicator of the mix of protein lengths, nor is length the only factor in solubility. The "proteins" in malt include amino acids, peptides, oligopeptides, polypeptides, and longer proteins. Each of these categories also contains a staggering array of types/lengths/sizes/shapes. The largest proteins are thousands of times larger than individual amino acids, and there's everything in between. The Kolbach number is not really an assay of all this. I submit that, with modern malts, a brewer's observations of the results with a particular malt in a particular recipe is more important than the exact Kolbach number.

All that said, I'd encourage you to go ahead and experiment with it and see what it does to/for your beers and the results you want.

 

[VikeMan]

Heritage malt is around, its expensive and as stated above.

I've looked at the specs (where available) for some "heritage" malts and haven't actually found anything that's under modified. Are there any in particular you're referring to?

 

[DaWiseBrew]

My take would be that if you want to do a European style decoction mash to encourage melanoidin, the European style moderately modified malts are the way to go. You will likely need to take it through a protein rest, but read the malt analysis sheet. I think Birrofilo was challenging the assumption that you need the protein rest step, but eventually arrived at the conclusion there was merit to it.

I've seen some of these malts for sale and wondered about them. For instance, I think the Weyermann floor malted pilsner is like this, but I'll need to check the analysis sheet. Weyermann is more than capable of producing a higher modified product, and it's not cheaper. The reason for it's existence is that it's more suitable for certain beer styles. After going through this thought exercise, I would definitely do a decoction or at least a step mash with that malt, rather than a single infusion. Maybe I'll give it a whirl this summer and try my hand with one of these malts. The results would be in around Oktoberfest!

 

[Birrofilo]

I'm not going to call anyone dumb, but I'll state that it would be a mistake to assume that serious home brewers know less about malt and mash parameters than craft brewers in general. Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that.

No. I wanted to imply that craft brewers in general don't know less than serious home brewers.

 

[VikeMan]

For instance, I think the Weyermann floor malted pilsner is like this, but I'll need to check the analysis sheet.

It's an often repeated misconception that Weyermann floor malted pilsner is under modified. It's Kolbach number is 38-44. (That may vary, but that's the analysys sheet range I've seen.) I think people see "floor malted" in the name and think that somehow relates to degree of modification.

 

[dmtaylor]

Here are all the reasons I can come up with for why protein rests are still used today for well-modified malts:

1) "Grandpa always did a protein rest", or "the recipe called for a protein rest". This is a very real reason that brewers have... and 99% of the time is NOT a very good reason to do a protein rest.

2) Homebrewers love to over-complicate their process because they believe it might improve some aspect of their brewing, even though it likely won't. This also is a very real phenomenon -- we see it in every facet of homebrewing today. The brewing process can be as simple or as complex as we choose to make it... but in the end I would argue that all of us are making pretty good beer regardless of process, and on average certainly much better quality today than generally was made say just 15-20 years ago. I don't think this is due to process changes like protein rests or water changes or any of this, but primarily because of improvements in quality and freshness of ingredients. Homebrewers always want to try to get to the next level, but truthfully, most will not unless they have access to the freshest high quality ingredients. Beyond this, not much else really seems to matter in my experience.

3) Experimentation purposes. Anyone who does not understand what a protein rest will do for them should indeed experiment with different parameters and find out for themselves. Don't take my word for it or anyone else's, including Brulosophy or others. Run some good experiments and find out your version of truth for yourself. I have used protein rests, I know what a protein rest can do. I can provide details but suffice it to say, I'll never do a protein rest ever again, unless...

4) A brewer who actually knows what he is doing is using a ton of low-enzyme adjuncts and knows not to run the protein rest at 50 C but rather 55 C and only for a short time, 10-15 minutes tops. I don't do this, but I can see it happening. But I think this is a RARE occurrence. I still think 90% of the time, the reason a brewer uses a protein rest is one of the other 3 reasons above.

My 2 cents. Cheers all, this is great discussion.

 

[Birrofilo]

This is a brewer's decision to make, and like many of them, involves a tradeoff. In this case, trading some mouthfeel and foam retention for a beer that drops clear faster.

It is my understanding so far that the "protein rest", when performed, is made to improve "mouthfeel" and foam retention, the idea being that the proteins in the malt need to be converted more in order to improve the beer.

I have very confused ideas regarding proteins in general, though, specifically how they contribute to the "maltosity", and in general to the taste of the beer.

The brulosophy test, which is as said not well designed to answer this particular question, seem (albeit "aneddotically") to indicate that the protein rest improves the head retention.

Generally speaking I am not very interested in head retention per se, but do mind taste. I like the "maltosity" of helles beer and I wonder how, and if, this is related to multi-step mashing, to decoction mashing, to proteolitic rest, to the Lager or Pilsner malts. There is a lot to experiment, a life is not sufficient...

 

[DaWiseBrew]

Ah ok, I'm writing this from my phone and so it wasn't convenient to check.

 

[dmtaylor]

No. I wanted to imply that craft brewers in general don't know less than serious home brewers.

I think this depends mostly on the individual, not anything to do with whether they are commercial or at home. For many commercial craft brewers, I can see brewing as being "just a job" they do. I hope most of them want to learn and be educated and can be afforded the opportunity to experiment with different rests and processes.... but fear that many cannot do much of this either.

If anything, homebrewers might actually be at an advantage since we can experiment as much as we want with small batches and no monkeys on our backs if we need to dump a batch or ten.

 

[dmtaylor]

It's an often repeated misconception that Weyermann floor malted pilsner is under modified. It's Kolbach number is 38-44. (That may vary, but that's the analysys sheet range I've seen.) I think people see "floor malted" in the name and think that somehow relates to degree of modification.

+1 This drives me crazy.

 

[VikeMan]

It is my understanding so far that the "protein rest", when performed, is made to improve "mouthfeel" and foam retention, the idea being that the proteins in the malt need to be converted more in order to improve the beer.

Except that it can harm both of those (i.e. take protein degradation too far) if the malt isn't under modified. It depends on what you're starting with.

 

[Birrofilo]

I think people see "floor malted" in the name and think that somehow relates to degree of modification.

I also noticed that misunderstanding. I think it is due to the fact that floor drying is typical of czech malts and czech tradition (and is probably mandatory for Czech Beer DOP) and in general czech pilsen is made with moderately modified malt, and that decoction mashing is mandatory for Czech Beer DOP and this is again supposedly because of the malt.

So the logic link is if it is Czech malting, it is undermodified malt...

 

[dmtaylor]

It is my understanding so far that the "protein rest", when performed, is made to improve "mouthfeel" and foam retention, the idea being that the proteins in the malt need to be converted more in order to improve the beer.

As @VikeMan indicates, an unnecessary protein rest can have the exact opposite effect from "improvement" of mouthfeel and head retention than what was intended!

I fear it will take another decade or two for homebrewers to fully embrace our reality here in 21st century. As with so many things, it will take a lot of celebrities together to realize and understand and reinforce truth before the millions of idol-worshippers who still believe historical guidance from 20, 30, 40+ years ago will listen to the new known truth. Nobody's going to listen to a handful of idiots from the interwebs who don't make money off their contributions.

 

[Birrofilo]

If anything, homebrewers might actually be at an advantage since we can experiment as much as we want with small batches and no monkeys on our backs if we need to dump a batch or ten.

When I read a story about a craft brewer in Italy, he always started as a homebrewer, at home or in his brewpub. He is typically hiring homebrewers in the shop. Also, for what I understand, craft brewers are deeply involved into experimenting and making pilot batches, as a general rule they are making much more "experiments" than homebrewers do.

This might also be something peculiar to the Italian brewing scene. We don't have a brewery tradition and we don't have traditional styles here. This is somehow a drag but also an advantage. Italian producers are "free" to produce all sort of strange experimental beers, using chestnut, cicerchia, all sort of strange ingredients. I remember a wonderful beer which had been aromatized with tobacco. When I buy an Italian craft beer I don't expect really to find a recognized "style" but something new and different.

A Bavarian or a Czech producer would probably concentrate on refining those traditional styles rather than trying to get out something entirely new. A US craft beer would probably start from a higher investment - production volume than in Italy, due to the much larger market at every level. Italy is a wine-consuming country with a relatively small beer market at the industrial level. The "craft" brewers are often tiny enterprises, a niche in sector which is small in itself.

 

[DaWiseBrew]

Right, the discussion was about when does a protein rest help? What are those parameters? What is under modified? What is moderately modified? It seems there are some guidelines as referenced earlier. It seems cw in homebrewing is always single infusion unless you have a lot of cereal grains, and then do a protein rest. It's something I usually follow. The title of this thread implies there are no under modified malts around. Well, apparently there are moderately modified malts that may benefit from a protein rest. I'm not familiar with them, but willing to take a second look at some malt analysis sheets. Besides kolbach, which is not used so much in the USA, there is the course/fine and viscosity numbers. Obviously we are talking about subtle differences in outcome that most people won't be able to distinguish. To me homebrewing is an interesting mix between art and science, it's what draws me into the hobby. So, taking some esoteric walk into the finer points of process is interesting. I could just say don't bother with a protein rest and walk away, and I'd probably be safe doing so, but that's not very interesting. I want to understand why, the science, and I want to taste the results, the art.

 

[Miraculix]

We also have to differentiate between protein rest and protein rest. One being at the upper end of the temp range and one at the lower. Both activate different enzymes having a different effect on the proteins. Also the length plays a role.

From my own experience, a shorter 15-20 minute rest at the upper end of the temp range can improve head retention and eliminate chill haze.

I didn't do this for a long time but now I am facing cloudy beer all the time so I will try to incorporate it again, just to see if I can get rid of it.

 

[VikeMan]

Besides kolbach, which is Maltsters, look for not used so much in the USA, there is the course/fine and viscosity numbers.

For US maltsters, you can look for Soluble Nitrogen Ratio, or SN/TN, or even S/T, which is what I believe Briess publishes.

 

[VikeMan]

We also have to differentiate between protein rest and protein rest. One being at the upper end of the temp range and one at the lower. Both activate different enzymes having a different effect on the proteins.

I assume you're referring to protease and peptidase. Like any enzyme, they each have their optimum temperatures. But it should be noted that both are active throughout the common protein rest temps.

 

[Miraculix]

I assume you're referring to protease and peptidase. Like any enzyme, they each have their optimum temperatures. But it should be noted that both are active throughout the common protein rest temps.

yes. so? Same deal as with alpha and beta amylase.

 

[VikeMan]

yes. so? Same deal as with alpha and beta amylase.

The "so" is so that people wouldn't think that only one enzyme is active at each end of the range. Like they might infer from: "Both activate different enzymes having a different effect on the proteins."

 

[kevin58]

I specifically did not mention that topic to avoid trashing the thread. I lived through the vinyl once, I do not miss the pops, crackles and skips. Not to mention the reduced bandwidth and dynamic range. This is only a small percentage of sales. You could easily argue the Amish still use the buggy whips, but if we all went back to horses the entire country would be up to our armpits in horse &*%$. My point was that (except for a few recreating history, or a few who cry that 'life was better then') the new product replaces the old and demand for the old ceases. No business wants to make a product they can't sell.

If you have pops and crackles when you play your vinyl you haven't cleaned them very well. Pops and crackles are from the stylus hitting dust and dirt. As for skips... take care of your records!

 

[Miraculix]

The "so" is so that people wouldn't think that only one enzyme is active at each end of the range. Like they might infer from: "Both activate different enzymes having a different effect on the proteins."

COme on.. I think people are smart enough to understand what I meant.

 

[VikeMan]

COme on.. I think people are smart enough to understand what I meant.

ok

 

[Jako]

I've looked at the specs (where available) for some "heritage" malts and haven't actually found anything that's under modified. Are there any in particular you're referring to?

Yeah gateway from meca

 

[dmtaylor]

Yeah gateway from meca

Wow, this is the first and only “moderately” modified malt I've ever seen available commercially. Kolbach 35. I still would not call this under-modified, but it’s getting close. I should try this stuff.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...8d4f4d46ea1ace/1602020024495/MGEM_Gateway.pdf
https://www.midwestsupplies.com/products/mecca-grade-gateway-under-modified-wind-malt