Talk:Mash ingredients

DME
I was under the impression that DME stood for "dry malt extract" as opposed to LME "liquid malt extract". At least, this is the way the terminology is used in Palmer's "How To Brew". This article seems to disagree, so i am confused. 76.242.146.4 (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC) (Archtemplar)

DME does stand for dry malt extract. Without the color being specified, it is assumed to be light dry extract, as dark dry is less popular. If there are four letters in the acronym, then the first letter is the color, e.g.: DDME is dark dry malt extract. D=dark, M=medium, L=light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.89.71 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

enzymes

 * Malted barley contains enzymes such as amylase which convert starch into sugar.

Is that true of crystal malt? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think crystal's still got amylase in it; I'm not sure. In general, kilned malts don't. --Stlemur 16:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that crystal has any diastatic power as it is kilned 24.98.188.198 14:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is quite wrong regarding crystal, or stewed, malts. Uncracked grains are soaked in water until the husks hold some moisture. Next, the kilning process then turns the moisture to steam, and the starches are converted to sugars via heat. The longer the stewing, the more intense tasting and darker the sugars become. Lighter crystals may require a short mash mixed with other grains for their enzymes. Full crystal conversions generally make no more than 10% of the wort, as their flavors are too intense. English and Belgian beers make use of the crystal grains, giving these beers their distinctive red hues. The stewing process is not strictly malting so that these beers do not adhere to the traditional Reinheitsgebot. Chocolate and black grains are also kilned before cracking, but the heating is more intense, and all starches are heavily caramelized. They are then cracked and steeped with the mash simply for their flavor and color.203.219.70.207 (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Syrups and extracts
Syrups aren't mashed. Should this section be removed? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They aren't technically mashed, but some (Diastatic malt extract) do go in the mash...I don't know. Where would they go, a separate article on adjuncts? --Stlemur 17:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * DME goes in the mash? It goes in the boil. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok...I understand. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * DME refers to Dried Malt Extract, which has no diastatic power. 24.98.188.198 14:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

possible article spit
I'm wondering if the entire "Variables and considerations" section might be better in an article on the mashing process. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree. There's plenty on mashing to be a quite substantial article and this one is starting to get a bit long. --Stlemur 13:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would go further. The whole treatment of production of malt-based beverages is excessively chopped up. I don't think anything would be lost if this article were to be taken down and the material split up into (mostly) existing articles such as beer, brewing, mashing and malt. This article actually has a better treatment of malt than the malt article. Dr Thermo (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Adjunct (beer) would be a bad idea
Most, if not all, non-grain adjuncts are not added during the mash. Merging this article with Mash ingredients would add an unnecessary layer of confusion. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 13:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Adjunct (beer) has material on solids too, though...I'm inclined to think that their definition is a bit of a clinker. Any solid grain you can name, you can name a style of malt beverage that uses it as a base. --Stlemur 13:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We do need a detailed article on the differing malts, and this is a brilliant start - though at the moment this is mainly about homebrewing malts which are different to commercial brewing malts. The section on British malts gives the game away as no commercial brewer uses a "mild" malt.

I propose this is developed as a homebrewing article. The adjuncts article is being developed with world-wide commercial brewing in mind, so would not be an appropriate merge with that. Also, it would be good to keep adjuncts, malts and hops separate in their own articles. Some information can be taken from here and used in the Malt article - though care has to be taken that homebrewing information is not transposed - the processes and ingredients do differ. SilkTork 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't a homebrewing article, this is a brewing article. You as an individual or a professional brewery get some malt, it's the same malt. I've been to breweries, I've seen the big labeled sacks of grain. The ingredients don't differ, and neither do the processes; just the scale. --Stlemur 19:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also: Bass Brewery, Hook Norton Brewery, and Thwaites Brewery all use mild malt in their mild ales. So say Protz & Wheeler. --Stlemur 01:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

stlemur is right that some brewers do use mild malt. I don't know about the breweries he mentions. Bass/Coors no longer produce a mild, and I think Hook Norton and Thwaites don't use mild malt at the moment. But the B&T brewery use wheat, nblack malt, roasted barley, crystal malt and mild ale malt in their Black Dragon Mild. BalfourCentre 23:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense to have fruits, vegetables, spices, and other non-grain adjuncts listed in an article named "Mash ingredients", because these adjuncts are not processed during the mash. Hell, even some grain adjuncts aren't mashed, and are added during the boil. The concept of an adjunct as a beer ingredient is different enough from mashing grains that the two concepts don't need to be merged. It was a bad idea back in July, and it's still a bad idea now. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 06:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

formatting
I think that the malt names should be in bold rather than italics. Who's with me? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I went with italics because on my browser, the five-equals level of headers looked like regular bold print; but if we're reformatting to eliminate that level in the outline, which is on reflection probably a good idea, we can go with bold. While I'm at it, I'll mix up a whole bunch of redirects. --Stlemur 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oats
Suggestions: Needs a section on oats in the grist. Flaked oats, ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.134.23 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wheat flour unfermentable
"Wheat flour was also, erroneously, used as a yeast food in medieval and renaissance brewing; flour would be cast into the fermenter to feed top-floating yeasts, which have no means of absorbing the raw flour."

Saccharomyces can't do anything with starch, but brettanomyces, lactobacillus and pediococcus all can, and medieval and renaissance brewers were not working with pure brewers' yeast cultures under sanitary conditions. I'm highly suspicious of unsourced, logically questionable information resting on the premise that premoderns were a bunch of morons who couldn't tell that they had unfermented starch in their beer from adding wheat flour. TiC (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Britain - pale malt
I am not actually sure what the sentence "Most malts in current use in Britain are derived from pale malt and were invented no earlier than the reign of Queen Anne" is actually meant to mean but it appears to be nonsense: pale malt was certainly around centuries/millennia before Queen Anne, coke-dried pale malt was available from the middle of the 17th century, and there is no evidence that "most malts in current use in Britain are derived from pale malt" - the majority of malt userd in Britain is probably pilsner malt. Zythophile (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)