Crisps No. 19 Maris Otter

[Cobnut]

I got a sack of this malt with high hope earlier in the year, but have had some rather bizarre brews with it.

In each case that I’ve used it, it has finished fermenting somewhat above target FG.

I have even tried a multi-step mash 15mins @ 50C, 30 mins @ 63C, 30 mins @ 70C rather than a more typical 60 mins @ 66C and got the same result.

I also passed some of the malt onto a fellow HBer and he has seen the same happen.

I’ve emailed Crisps to ask their opinion (still awaiting a reply), but anyone got any ideas as to what might be the cause (or even the remedy)?

I’ve resorted to adding some amyloglucosidase enzyme to the fermenter on seeing the lack of fermentation, but this has led to over-attenuated beers (can’t win!).

I still have sufficient of the malt left for a couple more brews and I hate throwing it away, so I’m going to try using a smaller quantity of this malt mixed with other malts AND adding a little amyloglucosidase to the mash in the hope of countering the issue.

Will advise what Crisps say, if and when I get a reply.

And I’ll let you know know how my next beer goes with this malt.

(Corrected name of malt in title of post)

[JonB]

(I'm assuming no.9 is a typo and you're referring to no 19 Heritage Maris Otter that's floor malted).

Given the background of this malt it might be that it's not as well modified as modern Maris Otter (MA), but I'd expect to see a difference when step-mashed. What sort of difference in mash efficiency were you getting when step mashing versus an infusion mash?

It may be your yeast in combination with loads of extra complex sugars like dextrins, etc. produced by this malt that your yeast can't eat. This tends to be more of an issue with traditional British yeasts which attenuate lower as they struggle with dextrins but on the flip side you'll be getting a bigger chewier malt flavour and thicker body. If you're brewing bitters, molds, porters, English IPA, etc. then this should actually work in your favour; not so much for a classic American pale, but something like US-05 or similar strains should eat through these extra dextrins and dry the beer out more.

[MashBag]

Blimey. V strange?

Have you considered the yeast?

Did you mean amyloglucosidase or amylase?

[drjim]

I generally use no19 and it all comes out fine. Mash at 65 for an hour, sometimes with a bit of a 75 mash out, but that's it.

What yeast is it - if I use crossmyloof ale /s04 it comes out about 1008, CML Five comes out about 1004

[Cobnut]

Yes my bad No. 19. I’ve used a few different yeasts: most recent was US05 where I expected it to drop from 1.037 to 1.005, but it stopped at 1.012. I then added 1ml amyloglucosidase enzyme and it dropped to 1.001. This beer was step-mashed as per my original post.

Before that I used Imperial Pub yeast. OG1041, expected FG 1.009, but stopped at 1.018. Again amyloglucosidase enzyme then got it down to 1.006. Mash 6min @60C + 76c mash out for 10mins.

And the 3rd beer I used S-33. OG 1041, expected FG 1012, but stopped at 1021. This was the first beer I’d made with this malt and I thought it was down to the S-33 yeast which is known to not ferment maltotriose, so I added a sachet of US05, but it didn’t help. The beer ended up being dumped as it developed an unwanted pellicle and tasted nasty. Mash schedule 60mins @67C + 10min mashout at 76C

So different yeasts, but similar behaviour.

Confused!

[MashBag]

I really am intregued. Wonder if an overnight 20c (good wetting) then a protein rest, then 65c/60m then boil would be any different?

It does sound like it's not converting so the yeast doesn't have enough to do.

[PeeBee]

This thread certainly encourages me to give No.19 a try! I couldn't previously see the point: A 1970s malt brought out at the height (or should I say "low", that's the bilge loveliest lowest of the low) of some of the nastiest "beer" the UK could produce (and in many cases are still producing) ... the "heritage" label sounded pretty stupid to me. Perhaps it has been malted to bring out features expected (by some) in the past?

"Cobnut": I'm surprised at you expecting FGs of sub-1.012 from a "premium", and relatively pricy, "heritage" malt. Resorting to "amyloglucosidase" to! You might be excused for wondering why you can't get pissy beer from it while others seem to have little trouble, but why would you want to?

If any of my beers fell below 1.010 I'd be concerned, apart from the odd "Saison" and the like (okay, I had a couple last year about 1.005, but they were Boddington clones which I accept should be filed under "P" for "pissy"). I would accept sub-1.010 beers for bottling, but I personally don't care for bottled beer either.

[Rookie]

What else is in this recipe besides the M O?

[Cobnut]

Beers as above:

1: 92% No. 19 MO, 7% 60EBC Crystal, 1% chocolate.

2: 70% No. 19 MO, 30% Crisps Amber malt (this was a "historic beer" from the Durden Park Beer Circle book).

3: 88% No. 19 MO, 8% oats, 2% Crystal 60EBC, 2% malted wheat

I was also thinking next time I use this malt, I should do an iodine test and if necessary extend the mash time to allow for more complete conversion...just need to buy some iodine.

[JonB]

To me only the 3rd beer is out of step with what I would expect from a Heritage malt, but by your own admission this was your first go with this malt and it got infected.

1st beer sounds bang in line, and I've brewed similar recipes that have finished around the ~1.010 mark. How did this taste? Was it a good brew?

2nd beer is probably 1.018 due to the very high amount of Amber malt, and I'm guessing would have gone to ~1.012 if it wasn't for this. I suspect that amyloglucosidase stripped out all the contributions from the Amber & heritage malt, and most of the body & flavours...

Gravities in the low teens is probably about right for heritage malt, so I wouldn't worry. Malts have been progressively "improved" over the years to produce maximum fermentable yield (and consequently a really low FG), so you have to throw in lots of crystal malt etc. to not make tasteless yellow water. If you're using enzymes, etc. to force convert the unfermentables generated by the heritage malt, to me you're throwing away the benefits of it (lots of extra malt character and some extra body) by forcing the yeast to turn these benefits into alcohol. You might as well be using basic Pale malt...

I'd embrace this quirk and brew something fun and malt forward with it (Bitter/ESB/Brown/Stout/etc.), and just accept that a reasonable FG with this malt will not be in single figures.

[PeeBee]

I've been doing a little more digging into "No.19 M.O." as this thread has pepped up my interest in the stuff.

It is considered to be (by Crisp) "well modified". Which I take to mean the cell walls in the grains are sufficiently compromised to mobilise the starch for conversion. So stepped mashes with protein rest (which I guess the 50C step was for) will be unnecessary. I presume ('cos you've not said otherwise) the OG weren't considered too low, just the FG too high? So, iodine tests won't help (apparently, you can determine a mainly dextrin result or mainly maltose result from the shade of red-brown the iodine turns ... sounds like complete bo11ocks to me). But your "maltose rest" in your stepped mash is very short (30 minutes) before stepping up to a more "dextrin friendly" 70C.

When I'm dealing with Chavallier "heritage" barley malt (which can also finish a tad high) I'd give it at least 75-90 minutes at 64-5C before mashing out at 74-5 (beyond that I don't bother with stepped mashes, or "Hochkurz" mashes, anymore).

Yeast won't ferment anything longer chain than three glucoses (malt-triose), S-33 yeast won't have the time for that either. Some of the "var. diastaticus" yeasts can manage longer chain dextrins/oligosaccharides.



Hopefully you'll find that a bit more helpful than my "pissy beer" response! But on the subject of "pissy beer", Ron Pattinson is currently doing a series on Mild Ale (among other things) such as:

Snippet.jpg (121.53 KiB) Viewed 2839 times

Mild Ale in 1972

1972 ... a few years before Maris Otter barley (it was possibly Plumage-Archer or Spratt-Archer) but Mild, perhaps the weakest stuff on sale (apart from the then less common, super expensive, keg "pseudo" lager). Yet the FGs were still up at 1.008-1.010.

[PeeBee]

... 2: 70% No. 19 MO, 30% Crisps Amber malt (this was a "historic beer" from the Durden Park Beer Circle book). ...

I did warn such a lot of modern, non-diastatic, "amber malt" would create an undrinkably astringent beer. Was I right?