From: binkley@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Jon Binkley)
Subject: Re: Miller reserve???
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:34:47 GMT


I wrote:

>>If one uses
>>un-malted barley as a grain adjunct, one gets the same effect
>>as using corn or rice; i.e., you get a bunch of starch, which gives
>>you alcohol without any taste.  I am beginning to suspect that Miller
>>is doing this.

maa@sisd.kodak.com (Mark Armstrong soft) wrote:

>Sorry, but this is wrong.

Sorry, but it was right, although perhaps not stated as clearly as it
should have been.

>The malting process of barley will convert
>the starches and unfermentable sugars to fermentable sugars.

The malting process produces amylase enzymes, and begins the breakdown
of the complex starches.  It is the MASHING process in which the enzymes
convert the bulk of the starches in the malted grain to fermentable AND
unfermentable sugars.

>Adding 
>un-malted barley will give the beer more flavor and add color to the beer.

I think you're thinking of unmalted ROASTED barley, which does indeed
add color and flavor.  What I'm talking about is plain old barley,
like the stuff in Campbell's soup.  This is first cooked to
begin the starch breakdown.  It is then added to the mash, up to
50% of the total grist.  The enzymes in the malt which makes up
the rest of the grist (or extraniously added enzymes, more frequently
the case now) then convert the starch, largely to completely fermentable
sugars.  The end result is that this would have the same effect as
the unmalted rice and corn Bud, Miller, etc.  usually add, namely 
a flavorless, bodyless beer (just like Miller Reserve is!).

(In fairness, I should point out that the fermentable/unfermentable
ratio is also controlled by the temperature of the mash;  so you 
CAN get a nearly completely fermentable wort using all malt, and
you could probably get some unfermentables out of adjuncts under the
right conditions.)

Using unmalted barley is not uncommon.  Some Northern German brewers
use "chit malt."  This is barley which goes through such a negligible
malting step that it is, for all practical purposes, unmalted.
It was malted enough to pass Reinheitsgebot, though, and therefore
legal (this confirms my suspicion that Reinheitsgebot was used more
for protectionism than beer purity, but that's another argument).
The point is they use the stuff for the same reason Bud uses rice:
alcohol without body or taste.

>It will also make the beer sweeter since the yeast can convert these
>sugars.

Huh?  If the yeast can "convert" the sugar, i.e. ferment it, all you
get out of it is alcohol and carbon dioxide, neither of which is sweet.
Unmalted adjuncts, used in the way the big brewers do, add very few
of the unfermentable sugars necessary for a sweet product.

>Adding adjuncts such as un-malted barley is use by homebrewers
>extensively. This is a plus when making beer.

Right.  We add roast barley to get color and flavor, and we add cooked,
unmalted, raw grains to get light body and alcohol without much flavor.
It's the latter practice I suspect Miller is using.  If their goal is a 
flavorless, light bodied beer this is indeed a plus.

>Adding these adjucts would be expensive for Millers.

Au contraire. Malted grain is MUCH MORE expensive.   Not only
is there a lot of extra processing involved in malting, but also a
much higher quality grain is needed.  Unmalted barley would be about
as cheap for them as the corn and rice they use in their regular products.

Jon Binkley

P.S:  Once again, I should stress that I don't KNOW Miller does this
with Special Reserve, I merely suspect it.

Newsgroups: alt.beer