Home Distiller

So yes it's more expensive than an AG mash depending on the grain-bill but in a different perspective a 25L spirit run produces what about may 6-8x 750ml bottles of 80 proof? Which at $50-$100/bottle comes to $400-$800's or whatever...

LME is much easier to squeeze too lol!

I'd do a batch just for that ease and won't be converting to all LME over AG but looking forward to see how the enzymes affect foaming too in a larger strip... Maybe also mixing some LME with other specialty adjuncts or whatever is also an attractive option...

Cheers,
jonny

NormandieStill wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:51 pm This thread got me to take a look at LME for making a whisky. And then I realised that it would cost me over 80EUR for one 25L spirit run (3 x 25L washes). From the same homebrew supplier I can get a 25kg sack of malt barley, which would do me one 25L spirit run with 7kg left over, for 22EUR. I appreciate the time saving, but that's a big investment to make for making 3 washes instead of 3 mashes. How do the prices compare in other countries?

Local to me, 2.5X the cost of grain or more. Closer to 3X.

Here in the USA I paid $79 for 32 pounds of LME

shadylane wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:50 pm Here in the USA I paid $79 for 32 pounds of LME

The way I see it you're paying for someone else's time and energy.
Probably works out to be a pretty good deal, especially if you partial mash something in there for flavor.
I've done it a few times, made damn fine whisky too.

shadylane wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:34 am

So the SEBAmyl-GL enzyme will be more active.

Okay… why the enzyme ?


~ ~

M-1 Yeast
“ The most famous and almost inevitable strain for producing Scotch and single malt whiskies. Produces great congeners, suitable for the aging of the whiskies in barrels. Good alcohol resistance (over 15% v/v). Very good attenuation due to the assimilation of complex sugars, making it the best option for whiskies produced from malt, when enzyme additions are not allowed. Good choice for continuous fermentation. Despite its popularity in Scotland, it is suitable for producing all kind of whiskies or distilled grain (raw or malted) beverages that will be aged in barrels. “

Trapped-in-Oz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:35 pm

shadylane wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:34 am

So the SEBAmyl-GL enzyme will be more active.

Okay… why the enzyme ?

To convert the unfermentable sugars in the LME.
Thereby increasing the yield and decreasing the odds of puking.

shadylane wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:46 pm

To convert the unfermentable sugars in the LME.
Thereby increasing the yield and decreasing the odds of puking.

Okay….. myself I don’t use enzyme and don’t get puking.

Anyone know why the Scots disallow enzymes in their malts ?

Trapped-in-Oz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:16 pm Anyone know why the Scots disallow enzymes in their malts ?

My guess is because someone has to draw the line somewhere, that is where they have chosen to draw theirs .......we on the other hand as hobbyists can make whisky anyway we like and still call it whisky.

'still call it whisky'

yes of course call what you like, but would anticipate there is a reason…... of chemistry?…. or Scottish experience?…. or…. ?

Unlike beer makers, the enzymes aren't denatured because they don't boil their wort. The use of supplemental enzymes is redundant for scotch makers, because the natural enzymes are still active in the ferment.
The LME, however, is made for brewers. The enzymes are denatured. It still contains fermentable sugars that a brewer may not like in a finished beer, but a distiller certainly would like in a whisky.

I plan on skipping the enzymes on one of the ferments, to see what difference it makes.

Jesse from Still it did an LME single malt without any enzymes and if I recall correctly, it had a fairly high final gravity.
I guess it depends on the LME, but I suspect it won't go below 1.000.

If the use of enzymes was redundant for scotch why would they bother to prohibit enzymes ?


If a LME ferment got anywhere near 1.000 …. would it be a poor LME without structure ?

“Scotch” it’s made in Scotland by natural process from an historical perspective and from all natural malted grain. I suspect they have their rules imposed by the government that only malted barley, water, and yeast be used in “Single Malt Scotch” product. Similar to why “Bourbon” must have over 50% corn in the grain bill. It’s probably just a rule imposed by the govt for commercial production - and still be able to call it “Scotch Single Malt”. Most every region has similar rules for the alcoholic beverages they allow to be produced and sold as that regions native product. Pretty sure they don’t use LME either. Your shed do what you want..

Cheers!
-j

As a point of reference, liquid malt extract (LME) and dry malt extract (DME) are brewing adjuncts made for home (beer) brewers. And as such, the extracts are made/mashed from grains to replicate beers produced by commercial beer brewers. So, the extracts often contain fermentable sugars as well as non-fermentable sugars (maltodextrin & lactose) for flavor and body.

Often too, the extracts may be pre-hopped to adjust the product similar to a commercial beer. However, because homebrewers like to hop their beers according to their preference, much of the LME and DME made now is unhopped. But with a malt extract, you can’t control the grain selection or fermentable vs non-fermentable sugar ratios as they’re “locked in” when produced. And the active enzymes in the mash have been denatured in the process.

Using gluco-amylase enzymes in a fermenter will aid in reducing some of the non-fermentable sugars that have been “locked in” the wort, beit for beer, or a “distiller’s beer”. But the activity level may be regulated by the ferment conditions such as pH, temperature, or even alcohol content simply because enzyme activity requires desireable environmental conditions. So, the “time required” to attain fully attenuate fermentation of non-fermentable sugars will depend on the conditions.

Using malt extracts certainly is an easy way to get a ferment working. It is more expensive than the labor involved process of mashing cereal grains yourself. And you won’t have to same control over the beer’s flavor that you would if you’d formulated the grain recipe yourself. But you certainly can make a beer or a spirit from the product. If you’ve got it…..why not?

And using enzymes (if you’ve got them) to scavenge available non-fermentable sugars into fermentable products…..again, why not?
ss

The production of whisky in Scotland is governed by the Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009

Definition of “Scotch Whisky” and categories of Scotch Whisky

3.—(1) In these Regulations “Scotch Whisky” means a whisky produced in Scotland—
(a) that has been distilled at a distillery in Scotland from water and malted barley (to which
only whole grains of other cereals may be added) all of which have been—
(i) processed at that distillery into a mash;
(ii) converted at that distillery into a fermentable substrate only by endogenous enzyme
systems; and
(iii) fermented at that distillery only by the addition of yeast;
(b) that has been distilled at an alcoholic strength by volume of less than 94.8 per cent so that
the distillate has an aroma and taste derived from the raw materials used in, and the
method of, its production;
(c) that has been matured only in oak casks of a capacity not exceeding 700 litres;
(d) that has been matured only in Scotland;
(e) that has been matured for a period of not less than three years;
(f) that has been matured only in an excise warehouse or a permitted place;
(g) that retains the colour, aroma and taste derived from the raw materials used in, and the
method of, its production and maturation;
(h) to which no substance has been added, or to which no substance has been added except—
(i) water;
(ii) plain caramel colouring; or
(iii) water and plain caramel colouring; and
(i) that has a minimum alcoholic strength by volume of 40%.
(2) In these Regulations—
“Single Malt Scotch Whisky” means a Scotch Whisky that has been distilled in one or more
batches—
(a) at a single distillery;
(b) from water and malted barley without the addition of any other cereals; and
(c) in pot stills;

Slainte

Slainte!

SaltyStaves wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:03 am Jesse from Still it did an LME single malt without any enzymes and if I recall correctly, it had a fairly high final gravity.
I guess it depends on the LME, but I suspect it won't go below 1.000.

I think it depends not only on the LME but also the yeast.
Some types of yeast can produce the enzymes needed to ferment part of the complex sugars.

Anyway here's the video

shadylane wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:40 pm

I think it depends not only on the LME but also the yeast.
Some types of yeast can produce the enzymes needed to ferment part of the complex sugars.

Okay…… so puking is caused by unfermented sugars in LME and some yeasts may produce the necessary enzymes to ferment complex sugars.

would M-1 yeast eliminate your puking problem ?

~ ~

I had puking with DME but not with LME....... used M-1 for both........ is it possible that some LME are not completely denatured ?

I don't have any experience with M-1 yeast.

https://bsgdistilling.com/safspirit-m1-dry-yeast-500g

shadylane wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:40 pm Anyway here's the video

FG 1.013. Quite a lot of potential left for some additional enzymes to take care of.

I use M1 yeast for single malts more than anything else. It certainly won't prevent puking my dry (0.096) washes.
I don't boil and so proteins aren't broken. Its the proteins that will get you the big foam-overs.

SaltyStaves wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:44 pm
FG 1.013. Quite a lot of potential left for some additional enzymes to take care of.

I use M1 yeast for single malts more than anything else. It certainly won't prevent puking my dry (0.096) washes.
I don't boil and so proteins aren't broken. Its the proteins that will get you the big foam-overs.

Bakers and gluco has this first, full sized ferment down to 1.001 from 1.060
After 76 hours it's almost done fermenting, now I'm waiting for it to clear.
With luck most of the proteins will settle on the bottom of the fermenter.

I like to run a sight glass at the bottom of my riser on stripping runs to catch the foam BEFORE it becomes a puke. Fact of the matter is, Its gonna want to foam up. Be prepared and get ahead of it, or don't and just embrace it.

I'll be using a sight glass with copper mesh.
If it begins to puke, I'll be able to see it.

SaltyStaves wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:44 pm

FG 1.013. Quite a lot of potential left for some additional enzymes to take care of.

I use M1 yeast for single malts more than anything else. It certainly won't prevent puking my dry (0.096) washes.
I don't boil and so proteins aren't broken. Its the proteins that will get you the big foam-overs.

I don’t overly concern myself with FG….. go by taste and appearance….. but I do record my FG

used M-1 for all, none puked.

Morgan’s Roasted Dark (LME) with wheat germ 1.032

Morgan’s Roasted Dark (LME) with polenta 1.020

Cooper’s Amber (LME) with polenta 1.025

again Morgan’s Roasted Dark with wheat germ 1.032

The difference between the Morgan’s and Cooper’s is noteworthy.


~ ~

Morgan’s with wheat germ on French is my default…... those with polenta and/or an American finish have not yet been evaluated.

Trapped-in-Oz wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:18 pm used M-1 for all, none puked.

I think the fact that you are stripping with an air still, one drip at a time, is probably the biggest contributing factor to not puking. Most of us are trying to strip considerably more and in less time. Hence the puke-factor.

The yeast would have little to no impact. This is off-topic and I don't want to crap in Shady's thread, so I'll leave it at that.

SaltyStaves wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:35 pm
one drip at a time, is probably the biggest contributing factor to not puking.

Shady was saying it’s the unfermented sugars and you think it’s the proteins…… and now the biggest factor is the speed of distilling.

Even with the slowest drip drip mine puked with DME. Why?

Trapped-in-Oz wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:52 pm
Even with the slowest drip drip mine puked with DME. Why?

Earlier I did three small test ferments.
The two with enzymes quickly fermented, cleared and formed a well defined layer on the bottom of the jars.
The ferment without enzymes is still slightly hazy and the sediment is easily disturbed.

A well settled and clear boiler charge is less likely to foam up.

shadylane wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 2:37 pm
Earlier I did three small test ferments.
The two with enzymes quickly fermented, cleared and formed a well defined layer on the bottom of the jars.
The ferment without enzymes is still slightly hazy and the sediment is easily disturbed.

The tightness sediment I have seen was with M-1 and polenta!

In addition to the abilities of M-1………. the point I am making is that foam/puking may depend on the malt.

Why does LME foam less than DME ?

Comparing Morgan’s Roasted Dark with Cooper’s Amber in otherwise identical washes.

The Morgan’s SG started higher and finished lower, why?…….. Morgan’s claim their malts are have “excess proteins removed when kettled”.

To me proteins would seem to beneficial……. yet……… explanations ?

I use 5 star defoamer with all malt mashes, would work for LME or DME I expect…