Enzyme use versus malting process

[Mr_Beer]

In a recent post viewtopic.php?p=7802696#p7802696 regarding ‘natural’ grains versus grains that have been processed for human consumption one commentator indicated he purchased barley from a feed store and then malted it.

Since the diastatic power contribution of malted barley can be accomplished with either enzymes or YLAY, I was curious as to why he went to the trouble and or expense of using malted barley.

More to the point I was interested if the malted barley added something different in taste of the finished product that the use of unmalted barley along with enzymes or YLAY did not.

Twisted Brick provided a great reference to a prior thread. From that thread the notion is malting does alter the taste to provide a 'sweeter' profile for many. The consensus was the conversion was better but that seems incidental for the quantities we use in for a typical mash.

Many will say "try it and see what you like". Good advice, but before I start adding more ageing product and wait the better part of a year, I would like to hear from others who have some actual experience. If the majority say the taste differences is modest or not discernible then that is one thing but if the majority rave about one version versus the other that is another.

Fairly subjective topic but I would be interested in any opinions or views others might have.

Thank you

[Twisted Brick]

Since the diastatic power contribution of malted barley can be accomplished with either enzymes or YLAY, I was curious as to why he went to the trouble and or expense of using malted barley.

Thank you

Flavor. Your best bet is to test both to see which you prefer.

Some opinions and views here.

Malted Rye vs rye grain (unmalted)

[shadylane]

If your fermenting off the grain, malted barley lauters better than raw barley.

[PalCabral]

Malted grains add a lot more flavor than unmalted grains in general, and this is especially true for barley. Bread, sweetness, bisquity and honey flavors, etc. This is why beers are typically made with malted grains, unmalted grains are used as adjuncts at low proportion to add specific flavors or more commonly mouthfeel. In distilling the issue are the volumes needed and costs associated with buying large quantities of malt. It's a trade off. Having said that, the malted barley used in american whiskey, typically six-row barley malt, is not of the most flavorful type - it's there almost solely for the diastatic power. If you want to add more flavor, the mash should contain slightly more roasted malts, like richer pale ale malts, and vienna, munich or, my favorite, melanoidin malts.

[shadylane]

If you want to add more flavor, the mash should contain slightly more roasted malts, like richer pale ale malts, and vienna, munich or, my favorite, melanoidin malts.

[Dancing4dan]

In a recent post viewtopic.php?p=7802696#p7802696 regarding ‘natural’ grains versus grains that have been processed for human consumption one commentator indicated he purchased barley from a feed store and then malted it.

I was lucky enough to get a tour of a local malt house last week with some explanation of the process involved.

Just sprouting and then drying a barley will develop the required enzymes to convert the starch resulting in a malted barley.
However the kilning for different flavour profiles… Malt flavours are developed dependant on the kiln temperature and time. Bit of science and art. To kiln malt consistently for a desired flavour profile is definitely a challenge.

I’m not familiar with malted barley that has not been kilned and how it tastes.

[bilgriss]

I'm a fan of malted grains in my whisky. I wouldn't say it adds "more" flavor, but different. It adds a "maltiness" that is distinct, and body as well. Raw grains are more "grainy" in flavor. Even as I type this, I realize it's not terribly descriptive to someone who doesn't already know what I mean, but there is a distinct difference, not from the enzyme source, but the nature of the malted/unmalted grain.

That's not to say one is better than the other. It really is a matter of taste, preference, and recipe to get what you like.

[Mr_Beer]

I want to thank everyone who responded. The advantage of this forum is to hear the voices of experienced and knowledgeable contributors/members worldwide with their vast experience.

My summary of my original question breaks into two distinct topics…

Topic #1 – Do malted grains provide a different flavor profile.
The answer seems to be that there is a difference between malted grain versus unmalted equivalent and it is related to the subjective matter of taste

PalCabral provided a good summary of the flavor difference

Malted grains add a lot more flavor than unmalted grains in general, and this is especially true for barley…
If you want to add more flavor, the mash should contain slightly more roasted malts, like richer pale ale malts, and vienna, munich or, my favorite, melanoidin malts.

Bilgris did the best in summarizing lots of threads with the added voice of actual experience…

I'm a fan of malted grains in my whisky. I wouldn't say it adds "more" flavor, but different. It adds a "maltiness" that is distinct, and body as well. Raw grains are more "grainy" in flavor. Even as I type this, I realize it's not terribly descriptive to someone who doesn't already know what I mean, but there is a distinct difference, not from the enzyme source, but the nature of the malted/unmalted grain.

That's not to say one is better than the other. It really is a matter of taste, preference, and recipe to get what you like.

For me personally, the concept of using unmalted grains seems to not be worthwhile.

Topic #1A -- Kilning
Dancing4Dan enumerated an aspect which I had previously ignored -- kilning

However the kilning for different flavour profiles… Malt flavours are developed dependant on the kiln temperature and time. Bit of science and art. To kiln malt consistently for a desired flavour profile is definitely a challenge.

Topic #2 – Is it worthwhile to do your own malting activity?
This is a topic related to time, equipment and related interest plus the economic benefit of doing your own malting process versus purchasing malted grains.

My own experience, living in a rural part of America, is that malted grains purchased in bulk cost about 5X to 7X times the equivalent of unmalted feed store grains. Additionally there is the equipment involved, time spent and the inevitable learning experience and associated mistakes. The notion of kilning seems to be an opportunity for further experimentation and potential mistakes.

For me the idea of this experimentation and the six to eight month wait (minimum) to make a meaningful flavor comparison has me deciding to not malt my grains.

[Powder Monkey]

I might add a slightly different point of view as part of my interest in distilling is the historical and agronomic tie ins. Many hobbies are about learning/experiences vs a true economic advantage of doing it yourself. So I think setting aside the flavor contributions, doing some home malting expands knowledge and ties into the historical distillation process before enzymes, or even commercial malts were available to buy. So that makes home malting fun for me, plus an added bragging point for sharing with friends. But I’m aware many people don’t get a kick out of the extra work.

I have two dehydrators ($100 each) and can malt in 15# batches with probably a total of one hour input time over 5 days or so. It’s an investment made, but I can produce it cheaply.