Talk:Mash ingredients
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Beer, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to beers and breweries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Contents |
[edit] enzymes
- Malted barley contains enzymes such as amylase which convert starch into sugar.
Is that true of crystal malt? — goethean ॐ 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)
[edit] Syrups and extracts
Syrups aren't mashed. Should this section be removed? — goethean ॐ 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)
[edit] possible article spit
I'm wondering if the entire "Variables and considerations" section might be better in an article on the mashing process. — goethean ॐ 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] formatting
I think that the malt names should be in bold rather than italics. Who's with me? — goethean ॐ 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)
