Malt Extract

[Pikey]

Dood,

..... that you have niether tried nor understood.

It seems you are somewhat younger than I thought - Nothing wrong with that of course, just thought I was talking to someone with some maturity and the ability to consider alternative views

All the best

p

[zapata]

Seriously? Geez! Did you miss the half dozen times I said I understand and defend your method? The part where I said I've done it myself?
What did I get wrong? Have you made all grain and all extract whisky? Do you secretly actually understand how to formulate an equivalent all malt and all extract wash and were just questioning it for trolls?
Here's an idea, have someone in private or real life read this thread. Then ask them if it seems appropriate for you to question my age or maturity. No need to respond publicly, this is enough derailment.

OP, sorry for all the side tracking. You can easily make good whisky with malt extract. With or without added sugar, though there are noticable differences. Personally I wouldn't use sugar for more than 25% of the gravity points, and would only do that if shooting for a mild blended whisky pofile. 10% or so might be barely noticable and would help dry the wash out which is something several people have mentioned. Feel free to ask me anything about the glen morangie recipe if it isnt clear. BTW I have done that recipe without the peated malt and it is good. The peat is actually the one part of the recipe I think is not spot on, glen morangie I have had is barely peated at all, I believe they spec malt with less than 2ppm phenols.
You have a perfect still for making malt whsiky. It really is as simple as making an 8-10% wash and double distilling with approrpriate cuts on the 2nd run. I'm not sure about the dark extract as I have never done that, but based on my experience with it in beers and using specialty grains in all grain I wouldn't use dark extract for more than a quarter to half of the total extract. I expect a little goes a long way. It may well be delicious though. Since glen morangie has become a theme of the thread, once a year they make a special batch with a secret amount of chocolate malt. I imagine some amount of dark extract would lend a similar flavor.

But really, if malted barley is available to you it is by far the best and is the easiest fastest grain to work with. Gravity point for gravity point it will cost less than extract, though of course more than sugar. Depending on scale you can knock up an all grain malt wash in 2-3 hours with equipment you probably already have. It's not what you initially asked, but we can help if this interests you.

[Pikey]

.......... and were just questioning it for trolls?
Here's an idea, have someone in private or real life read this thread. Then ask them if it seems appropriate for you to question my age or maturity. No need to respond publicly, .............

Derailment ? I am questioning whether the recipe you posted was consistent in it's flavour profile from "All grain" to "Malt extract plus a little grain" - and clearly it isn't.

I don't care how old you are - we have some young members on here with a maturity and ability to think which is a match for any of us !

There's no need to pretend. The members I speak of don't. Their views are respected and they are treated as very experienced adult.

Sulkiness and petulance is rather a different matter. Return to the discussion in a logical and discussive way, or don't, but this "You know nothing Dood" rubbish is out of order.

[Edit - add adjective ]

[zapata]

Derailment ? I am questioning whether the recipe you posted was consistent in it's flavour profile from "All grain" to "Malt extract plus a little grain" - and clearly it isn't.

It clearly is as close as you can get between malt and extract. I'm sorry you don't understand that.

Lets look at the recipe you don't seem to understand.

mixing it 3 : 1 with unpeated malt (3 of peated, 1 of unpeated).
Aim for a wort of around 8% potential alcohol and a quick ferment....

I won't waste time with how to do it other than to say all grain brewers can work that out in their head, before coffee.
On MY system using actual stats that would be about
3.5 pounds marris otter
10.5 pounds peated malt
OG 1.065
FG 1.005
ABV 7.9%
Compare that to the extract version

For a standard sized wort ~25 litres,
2 kg peated malt
6 kg liquid malt extract

Run that through any brewing calculator (brewers friend, promash, do it by hand via instructions in Palmer's freely available "how to brew") whatever.
You will get something pretty close to:
OG 1.085
FG 1.021
ABV 8.4%
(I assumed 60% efficiency for the peated malt due to high steep temp and relatively inefficient sparge, feel free to adjust if you know better)

Those are VERY similar washes! I get that you don't do all grain, so lets invite any member with experience to critique them for rough equivalence? I will say that I do not think they are very equal in terms of peat phenols, or particularly spot on for glen morangie. I honestly think there was a typo and the ag should be 3:1 unpeated:peated to aproximate the extract version, but I calculated it as written. Nontheless even if 100% peated malt were used with a phenol level of 15ppm, the resulting spirit will be lightly peated, especially using the glen morangie cuts which will not emohasize heavy peating.

For background on how to convert from extract to ag, here are some resources. Feel free to use any of them to critique. I actually tried but can find no guideline for converting any kind of recipe into an extract and sugar recipe.
http://beersmith.com/blog/2008/06/03/co ... t-extract/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/ ... s-extract/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
https://byo.com/bock/item/616-extract-t ... n-and-back" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

There is a calculated and referenced comparison of the recipes. It just simply makes sense in every way, except the pikey way. Which, yet again, is a valid approach, just not an equivalent one.
Got any.more insults for me? I've got all night, I can respond to every insult with plain facts and references.

[zapata]

And just to sidestep the "cooper's malt extract is supposed to be watered down and sugared up" confusion, I will specify I am talking about this extract:
http://www.northernbrewer.com/maillard- ... ract-syrup" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
Where it should be clear it's overwhelmingly intended use is to be diluted to appropriate SG and fermented without additional sugar.

[kiwi Bruce]

What caused this go round? I was going to add my little bit, but I'll wait till the dust settles...

[Pikey]

............On MY system using actual stats that would be about
3.5 pounds marris otter
10.5 pounds peated malt

........Compare that to the extract version

......For a standard sized wort ~25 litres,
2 kg peated malt
6 kg liquid malt extract

So now you're telling us that in your world 14 lb of malt, 10.5lb of which is peated will give the same flavour profile as :

4.4 lb peated malt and 13.2 lb of Malt extract - ie total 17.6 lbs.

That is clearly untrue. You are now advocating almost exactly the same weight of Malt extract in the second recipe as the total weight of malt in the first !

Those two sets of ingredients would produce things which were Very different Flavours indeed.

Have you ever tasted malt extract ?

The Gravity of the wash / mash and the abv are simply Not the only things which should be used to develope a recipe. the FLAVOUR profile is far more important and the abv easily adjusted with a little sugar.

In an All Grain mash, the one is linked to the other. In an extract wash, this link is easily broken and unneccessary.

[Edit - The discussion has always revolved around the mainstream extract - Coopers - as reading the thread would have made evident.

http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... 0#p7457998 ]

[Edit 2 - It would seem that nowadays there are some malt extracts sold with the sugar already in the can - These must by simple logic contain far less flavour than the old style (Coopers type) extracts and would of neccessity need a larger amount to make the same flavour. - If you want to buy your sugar this way - so be it ! ]

[zapata]

I've shared a lot of what I know works. You don't approve of it. Noted. I don't need to convince you. In the unlikely event that I find myself pouring you some of my whisky, I will make sure to choose a sugar head and raise my glass, slainte.
Can we just let it be, maybe hear from the OP or others?
Kiwibruce, please jump in, the dust has settled. Tell us about your malt whiskey.

[kiwi Bruce]

Here's my input...if I go to the homebrew store and get a wine kit, follow the instructions, do all the steps, and I'm patient...in a year I should have Wine. I really don't care if my neighbor has his own grape vines, and poo poo's my effort, because it came out of a box with grape juice concentrate.To ME it's wine and I'm still damned proud of my effort.
To me, liquid or dry malt extract, is just another form of concentrate, only this time it's concentrated barley malt. Back in the beginning, when Dave Line was still alive, LME sucked. It did not make a beer close to one you could get in a pub, it gave beer a cooked nut flavor. That's why Dave Line wrote the book that started this whole homebrewing revolution, that led to home distilling. So I came at this hobby already well established in AG brewing. What happen was, and this was driven by HBer demands, a fantastic improvement in DME & LME. To the point where I can't tell the difference between an IPA made with AG or LME. I did a couple of batches to try the new extracts in a wash for whisky and was very pleased. But my point is... In my opinion...most of the finished flavor of whisky comes from the yeast strain you choose, and the oak that you age on. The malt...I my opinion...is a third place player, whether it's AG or LME.

For those who don't know who Dave Line was, he is the father of modern homebrewing and wrote several books, the main one being "The Big Book of Brewing" in the late 60's.
And some of us are old farts...I didn't personally know Moses, but I could have pointed out where his tent was pitched.

[Pikey]

Thanks for your post Bruce, I remember the time you speak of. I made few "brew kit" beers back then and they were dreadful - tasted a bit of vomit ! In those days you had to boil the extract with water and we soon found that a scum formed as it came to the boil. If that scum was skimmed off, the vomit taste disappeared. Unfortunately a little of the "bitterness" disappeared too as the hop oils were concentrated in that scum as well. How that simple "fix" never made it into the instructions I don't know - but it worked.

It was recognisable as beer and drinkable. Settled out, syphoned off the lees and gassed up with a CO2 apparatus, it was clear and acceptable. Most people never got to that stage, giving up after one or two tries at just "Following the instructions".

The wine kits were a little better. My mum used to make what they called "3 week wine" which was to be fermented, metabisulphited and sorbated in a frenetic 3 week period, but it was drinkable, even if the "3 weeks" was a little optimistic and was better made in 5-6 weeks.

Your point is well taken about the modern "Brew kits" and whilst I have no interest in "Beer" (too many calories ) I think it coud be important to reiterate that there is now stuff about, called "Malt Extract Syrup", which I believe is what the home brewers zapata speaks of concentrate on.

My thoughts above refer to simple "Malt extract", without sugar, added or otherwise and I invariably use Coopers, as it is cheap and works for me. But clearly there is far more flavour concentrated in "Coopers" for example than in the "Malt Extract Syrup". It may be that much of the confusion in this thread comes from this semantics issue and people like me speaking of Malt Extract (ok then - just me ! ) and people like zapata speaking of "Malt Extract Syrup". There is in my opinion a case to be made for calling this stuff something else rather than it riding on the back of the name of traditional Malt Extract.

I think it's important that the two are clearly differentiated in future posts.

[zapata]

I am not aware of the two kinds of extract pikey speaks of. The malt extract I linked above is typical of modern homebrewer's extract and has no added sugar. It is made by mashing barley malt and removing water.

100% Maris Otter, with no added caramel malts or simple sugars

I believe coopers is the same.

We brew beer, malt extract and beer kit wort in the same way. All worts are boiled and produce hot break, which is then removed in the whirlpool. Rather than being cooled down for fermentation, the malt extract and beer kit worts are centrifuged and transferred to evaporators where all but around 20% of the water is removed.

http://store.coopers.com.au/brewing-inf ... move-break" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
They don't specifically say if their wort has non-malt sugar added before boiling, but I would doubt it.
Pikey, I appreciate you trying to find what is causing the confusion, but I don't think this is it.

Kiwi, how about a general summary of an extract batch? Recipe, boil or not, yeast, fermentation parameters?

[Pikey]

I am not aware of the two kinds of extract pikey speaks of. The malt extract I linked above is typical of modern homebrewer's extract and has no added sugar. It is made by mashing barley malt and removing water.

100% Maris Otter, with no added caramel malts or simple sugars

..................

What that says is perhaps more relevanced by what it Doesn't say about "no added complex sugars"

Advertisers are forever writing things like that and misleading punters. (No added sugar, no added fat etc)

However, your producer says that the malt is mashed and then the mash is reduced to a state where it only contains 20% water. so 1.5 kg malt extract Syrup contains 1.3 kg dry matter

Your friends recipe stated that he wanted 6kg of malt extract in there (13.2 lb). Your calculation above shows the same Gravity to be produced by 9.6 lb malt

Edit: , so you are using more malt extract than actual granular malt, if your argument is to have any validity. So where has the weight of the skin and the flour etc gone ?

In conclusion, you state that you don't see Any difference between the "Two types of extract" - Well just look at the names. My version is called malt extract and calls for sugar to be added to make 40 pints imperial from 1.5 kg malt extract.

You linked to some stuff called "Malt extract Syrup"

6 kg of that stuff I linked to would be be enough to make

Edit: pints (imperial) or

Edit: pints (US) of bitter beer !

What sort of flavour profile can you expect by concentrating all that in 25 litres (about 6 pints US) of wash ? - And more to the point - WHY ?

If there is no difference in these products, I have to say you're simply wrong.

However I did have a little bet with myself that you wouldn't be able to "let it go" unless you had the last word

[zapata]

Pikey, the only thing in my last post directed specifically to you was a statement of appreciation. Can you please stop with the personal jabs?

What that says is perhaps more relevanced by what it Doesn't say about "no added complex sugars"

Why would they add complex sugars? They would offer no cost savings or utility in the product. Do you have any reason to suspect it was made with anything other than the advertised 100% marris otter malt?

However, your producer says that the malt is mashed and then the mash is reduced to a state where it only contains 20% water.

I think you are confused again. The quoted 20% water was for cooper's, with a link to their website.

Your friends recipe stated that he wanted 6kg of malt extract in there (13.2 lb). Your calculation above shows the same Gravity to be produced by 9.6 lb malt

Edit: , so you are using more malt extract than actual granular malt, if your argument is to have any validity. So where has the weight of the skin and the flour etc gone ?

I would really appreciate it if you could phrase things in terms of trying to understand rather than in terms of questioning my validity. I am explaining things that I have actually done and are widely documented and practiced, they are inherrently valid. You come across as very argumentative, on a subject you admitedly have no experience in. I'm not sure why are even arguing about all grain mashing in a thread about extract, but I will be glad to try to explain it to you.

The simple explanation is that when mashing malt it is entirely possible (typical even) to optimize the mash for whisky compared to malt extract which was mashed for beer. Temperature (or temperatures in a multi rest schedule) of the mash is the main variable, but grain:water ratio and time also contribute. Washes made from malt are also enzymatically active throughout fermentation meaning virtually all the starch is converted. If adding in on grain fermentation, literally all the starch in is converted, and there is surprisingly little "skin" and no "flour".
It is fairly typical for malt extract fermentations to finish in 1.015 range, while all grain mashes can finish below 1.000, which would be a difference of 2% ABV, or 25% of the total alcohol in an 8% wash. The numbers I posted were calculated for an easier to achieve 1.005.

TL/DR, you can make all grain wash 25% more fermentable than an extract wash.

My version is called malt extract and calls for sugar to be added to make 40 pints imperial from 1.5 kg malt extract.

You keep saying things like that but take a look at cooper's own recipes, many of which use all extract and no sugar.
https://us.diybeer.com/brewing-info/recipes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

Kiwibruce, sorry to put you on the spot, but can I ask you a couple specific questions to maybe, hopefully put this to rest? I know you have done both AG and extract washes.
1. Do you think all malt and all extract washes of the same abv are relatively similar?
2. Have you done any sugar and extract washes? Why/not?

[Pikey]

.........What sort of flavour profile can you expect by concentrating all that in 25 litres (about 6 gallons (US) of wash ? - And more to the point - WHY ?

If there is no difference in these products, I have to say you're simply wrong.

However I did have a little bet with myself that you wouldn't be able to "let it go" unless you had the last word

[NZChris]

NZ Chris, does a method whereby he strips down to his required %abv just by leaving the still to run on.

I didn't make that up, Pikey. That method is way older than I am and I get my targets from distilleries and literature that existed well before I was born.

[kiwi Bruce]

Kiwibruce, sorry to put you on the spot, but can I ask you a couple specific questions to maybe, hopefully put this to rest? I know you have done both AG and extract washes.
1. Do you think all malt and all extract washes of the same abv are relatively similar?
Yes..they are relatively similar, I have a personal preference for a mixed bag of tricks, I like Single Malts with peat smoked finish so I do a mini mash with smoked malt.
2. Have you done any sugar and extract washes? Why/not?
Yes, I've done both. When in a homebrew club in Philly, we had a club member how had a bagel shop and got me a 40 gal drum of bagel malt that was 60/40 malt/corn sugar. I used it for both beer and whisky.
The whisky made with it was light, I didn't use any smoked malt with it, think along the lines of a nice clean Lowlander...like a Glenkinchie 7 to 10 year old...not long on the oak 14 days three weeks (I only use used Bourbon staves, back then in strips, now I like T-Pee's cut staves) gives a nice honey yellow and not too much oak. If I ran the still to the very end of the run and took the sweet water to cut back with, and give it an extra 14 days on the oak, it is very similar to Cardhu with that nice clean honey under taste. The yeast was one like Nottingham, with no ester addition at all. I could not get anything like a Speyside or a Highlander with this malt...but for what it was, it made a very drinkable whisky.

[doktorno]

Dear kiwi Bruce,

Thank you for this:

"In my opinion...most of the finished flavor of whisky comes from the yeast strain you choose, and the oak that you age on. The malt...I my opinion...is a third place player, whether it's AG or LME."

All major industrial manufacturers know this. So they make Whisky from very cheap grain alcohol - manufactured under industrial conditions. Initial taste does not matter to them - it is very flavourless distillate before placing in oak barrels.

[kiwi Bruce]

I went to a whisky tasting, several years ago, and to help in our understanding of the processes, the presenter had one day old "white" Glenfiddich...so no oak influence at all. It was a surprise to me that it still tasted almost exactly like every Glenfiddich I've ever tried.

[Pikey]

My Whisky tastes a bit "Whisky- like" white, ie you can tell it's a whisky, not a rum or a brandy.
After the oaking process, you are as close as I think is possible to a Glenmorangie.
The oaking process changes the taste a lot, but the taste basic is there in the white.

[kiwi Bruce]

I think if you have come close to a world class single malt like Glenmorangie your are a long why down the road of distilling success! Good on you!

[MichiganCornhusker]

Dear kiwi Bruce,

Thank you for this:

"In my opinion...most of the finished flavor of whisky comes from the yeast strain you choose, and the oak that you age on. The malt...I my opinion...is a third place player, whether it's AG or LME."

All major industrial manufacturers know this. So they make Whisky from very cheap grain alcohol - manufactured under industrial conditions. Initial taste does not matter to them - it is very flavourless distillate before placing in oak barrels.

If all major industrial manufacturers are using cheap grain alcohol, then yes, oaking will make the difference between those similar whiskeys.

But, I can say from experience that my malts, and grains, are no third place player.
My whiskeys made from raw corn, corn malt, homemade wheat malt, marris otter malts, etc. all taste wildly different, and that's without even adding any "specialty malts" like crystal, honey, or roasted.
I have to say that most of the flavor for my homemade stuff comes from the grains themselves.

[Pikey]

I think if you have come close to a world class single malt like Glenmorangie your are a long why down the road of distilling success! Good on you!

Do you think so ? - Bear in mind that Glenmorangie is a very mild flavour, without any peat or smokiness at all. This makes it a fairly easy target. It just happens to be my favourite and suited to my method of making it, but that flavour which takes me a few weeks to achieve, takes them ten years.

Mine is consumed quickly after being oaked. I'm pretty sure that if mine was kept stored for ten years, the flavour balance would change completely. I make no pretence that I am producing the equivalent of theirs, just that it tastes very close.

[kiwi Bruce]

I don't think that coming close to Glenmorangie is a "fairly easy target" My target would be... Talisker Laphroaig Lagavulin ( OH MY!) just follow the yellow brick road...this is were I would like to be. I think, as we have been discussing on the "High ester yeast for whiskey" post started by Redwoodhillbilly that there may be a chance of going down a very interesting "yellow Brick Road" on this quest. If you haven't already, have a look...

http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... 39&t=67528

[Pikey]

Yes I just read that thread KB - I was aware of it before and pop in occasionally, but I'm content with my "Malt whiskey". I have tasted Laphroaig a number of times and someone once gave me a bottle of Talisker, but I actively Dislike that "burnt plastic" taste which to me overpowers everything else. Each to their own of course, but I'd say that taste is due to an ingredient rather than a method - it tastes "chemical" to me and the place I would start would be an AG with 100% the heaviest smoked peated malt I could get hold of, to see whether I was getting a match for that taste and go on from there. I would then over oak it briefly, tasting weekly and taste the heads cuts and tails cuts, to see whether I could balance the rest of the flavours by incorporating some of those.

Subsequent mashes would be based on that result.

[kiwi Bruce]

but I'd say that taste is due to an ingredient rather than a method

Aha! One of those magical statements I see now and then on HD! All the whisky snobs the world over, will disagree. The "ingredients" they will maintain, are just malted barley, water and yeast. That said...according to what I've read and THINK I know about the history of whisky distilling, this may not be true. Just as no one knew about the Dunder pits of the Navy Rum distillers until recently, and they vehemently denied they existed, so it's conjectured that the historic "Mother" of Whisky distillation is French Brandy, and they make no bones about having "other ingredients" in their spirit production.
Laphroaig has the taste of black Cardamom...but there is NO evidence that Scotch Distillers have ever used "other ingredients" hence the search for a high phenol/ester producing yeast that may do the "trick"
But honestly...I shouldn't care what the commercial stillers do or say...100% smoked, a high phenol/ester producing yeast, and any "other ingredients" I feel like throwing in there...may be just the thing to try, it is after all our hobby!

[kiwi Bruce]

But, I can say from experience that my malts, and grains, are no third place player.
My whiskeys made from raw corn, corn malt, homemade wheat malt, marris otter malts, etc. all taste wildly different, and that's without even adding any "specialty malts" like crystal, honey, or roasted.
I have to say that most of the flavor for my homemade stuff comes from the grains themselves.

I have to give this some careful thought...if the malt/grains are more that just a third place player...then they becomes a one third partner in the final taste profile...and your right, the addition of "specialty malts" does make a huge difference. You have a very good point.

[Pikey]

but I'd say that taste is due to an ingredient rather than a method

............Laphroaig has the taste of black Cardamom...but there is NO evidence that Scotch Distillers have ever used "other ingredients" hence the search for a high phenol/ester producing yeast that may do the "trick"
But honestly...I shouldn't care what the commercial stillers do or say...100% smoked, a high phenol/ester producing yeast, and any "other ingredients" I feel like throwing in there...may be just the thing to try, it is after all our hobby!

If that's what you think, scrap what I said before, do a "Coopers" malt extract to a 50 Litre wash, with 10kg sugar (Double my concentration as those whiskys are stronger flavour) and put some of that stuff in the boiler before you still it - See how that tastes white and if it needs more, add more in the oaking stage ! {my thoughts still relate to a 1.5 type run - you'll need more if double distilling}

I'd also add a little bourbon to the "oaking bottle" where I add sherry.

I have to say this does sound a little "burnt plastic" and it's cheap enough - even for Scots !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cardamom

If that tastes as if it's going the right way - well make your own decisions

[doktorno]

Hi Pikey,

Thank you for yoyr effort at this topic. According to your last post:

- sometimes you add some 'Cooper' LME in the boiler, before destilation of completely fermented wash, to get more flavour in final spirit.

- sometimes you add some LME in distilled final spirit - together wirh oak. So, you improve maturation taste with LME? How much LME you add per one liter of spirit, and which ABV% is that spirit? 62?

Sorry for my bad english, and also if I misunderstood everything.

Best Regards,

DrNo

[Pikey]

Sorry for confusing you DrNo, No I was not talking about LME but the ingredient kiwibruce mentioned ie Black Cardamum when I said he might get more of that taste by adding some. We were talking of a completely different type of "Scotch", with a much harsher flavour.

You have to do a ferment and follow an idea, then distill and taste, age and adjust the next protocol from where you got to , to where you want to go flavour wise. Otherwise use one of the "Tried and True" recipes.

[kiwi Bruce]

You have to do a ferment and follow an idea, then distill and taste, age and adjust the next protocol from where you got to , to where you want to go flavour wise. Otherwise use one of the "Tried and True" recipes.

Never a truer word spoken/written Your right...work with the results of your last effort...make the adjustments that you think will move your effort in the right direction...make a new wash, ferment and distill...age, taste :- repeat

To any nu-bees reading this...you MUST keep damned good notes. If you don't you'll end up repeating yourself...wasting your time and coin and drinking your mistakes. Most of these were, for me anyway, not that terrible...however some were like sucking canal water through a straw. You can keep these to a minimum and keep moving forward, if you keep good note.