Potential Extract of Rye Malt.

The potential extract of rye malt is listed at 1.029, and I was aware of that going into this. BeerSmith takes care of that, but I’m getting some OG results that I don’t understand:

Rye Brew % Rye Calc OG Actual OG
13 35.0% 1.052 1.059
12 28.6%  1.055 1.058
11 28.6% 1.055 1.055
10 28.6% 1.055 1.062
9 26.2% 1.055 1.060

My all malted barley brews are spot on, and rye 11 is spot on, but the others are high. And Rye 10 is crazy high!

All gravities were taken with Plato Saccharometers (which are pretty damn accurate) and temperature corrected. Usually I take three or four readings as the temperature rises, and they all agree. So I’m getting crazy efficiency on some (but not all) of these rye brews!

The OG samples are taken using the wort that remains in my Thermonator after the brew is chilled which is usually around 200ml. So I’m pretty sure that sampling error is not the issue. My balance is calibrated, and I’m pretty good at taking measurements, so that’s not the issue either.

Charlie

Are these all from the same sack of grain?  Same maltster?  Is the 1.029 expectation a ‘rule of thumb’ that can be explained by variations in an agricultural product?

Who’s the maltster? I use weyermann and a trusted source reported that 1.036 is an accurate potential extract.

1.029 sounds crazy low to me.  Rye is a naked grain with a crap ton of starch.  Analyses I’ve seen give extract potential even higher than wheat malt,  just shy of corn adjunct, like around 84% FGDB.  I’d extrapolate a realistic number from your actual results, and plug that into your software in the future.

Briess lists the potential from their rye malt at1.037 ( 80% yield). Viking lists theirs at 81% yield. I tend to trust the maltster’s analysis.

I have a sheet from Briess that lists theirs at 84%.  Like any brewing ingredient,  it’s an agricultural product and probably highly variable, but still the figure in the OP seems entirely out of range.  Ideally, get a lot analysis.  Realistically, infer your own.

I agree.  I use 1.036 for both Briess and Mecca Grade rye malt and it works for me.

Maltster? Whatever my LBHS gets. I recall Briess, a generic batch from LD Carlson, and a couple I don’t remember being attributed. The rye I have queued up for the next batch is “American Rye Malt” from a company called “Brewmaster”. I habitually use Briess 5298 base malt, so I’ll start paying attention.

Those are excellent observations! Thanks guys.

UPDATE: Brewmaster’s website says that their rye malt is Briess 5332 Rye Malt, and the data sheet says that its potential extract, DBFG, is 80%. That calculates out to a potential of  1.0369. I’m going to change my brew program accordingly.

This issue reminded me of a situation I encountered in 2009-10. I was an all grain newbie having mashed in on my first brew January 4, 2009, and as I became more experienced I began documenting my brews pretty heavily. This included taking OG and FG readings and looking at my mash efficiency.

I was using BeerSmith at the time, and I started getting some crazy efficiency readings. I mean 90% crazy! I mentioned it on my club’s forum and they started saying that the beer fairy was smiling on me. But it turned out to be nothing of the kind. I was doing two things wrong:

  1. I neglected to take the 4% shrinkage of boiling wort when chilled to 68F into consideration.

  2. I was taking my OG samples from the dregs of the boil kettle.

The problem with #1 is obvious, but what was happening with #2 is that it might be 30 minutes or more post-boil until I collected the OG sample. In that 30 minutes or so the  remaining wort in the hot kettle was evaporating and concentrating. Once I factored in the 4% and began taking my OG sample from the Thermonator the errors disappeared.

Here’s an article that I thought might be of interest to the group.

http://beersmith.com/blog/2014/11/05/brewhouse-efficiency-vs-mash-efficiency-in-all-grain-beer-brewing/#targetText=Mash%20efficiency%20is%20simply%20the,points%20extracted%20from%20the%20mash.

Charlie

Good stuff Charlie.

Ck this out: when was a kid I thought I lived in Shreveport–Bossier because all three TV channels we got on the Curtis Mathis were from there. I later learned I was from Kilgore Texas (~45 min W).  LOL

Cheers my friend!

I know Kilgore well. My dad and I delivered and picked up a bunch of drilling equipment in Kilgore in the early '70s. Good times!

Charlie

I may have figured this out.

Yesterday I brewed Ver 15 of my 40% Rye Pale Ale. Calculated OG was 1.056 using 1.035 potential extract for the rye, but my actual OG came in at 1.048. This batch of rye came from Briess, and they list the extract FGDB at 80%, but it still came in at 1.029 PPPPG, and putting that number in the program produces an OG of exactly 1.048. I hope we get some other kind of rye malt soon so that I can test this out further.

Charlie

Rye can be tricky to crush right (which can lead to lower efficiency) and it can also contribute to clogged/stuck mash tuns. A stuck mash/sparge can also lead to lower efficiency. Make sure your malt is crushed properly and your mash tun drains effectively and your gravity will be more consistent. I learned both of those things the hard way.

I’ve never had a problem milling rye malt. If you condition your mat before milling though, you’ll want to add the rye and any other huskless grains AFTER conditioning, I’ve really gummed up the mill before when I brain farted and conditioned the rye with the rest of the grist.

I’m the OP, and the reason for my post was not low efficiency but high efficiency. Using the reported 1.029 potential extract of rye I have always come in high. It was only by changing the potential extract to 1.035 that I was able to square my OG with the result. But this last brew came in low.

My mill (3 row Crankandstein) has always produced good results. The gap is set on 0.035, and it hasn’t changed. I am willing to concede that I may have got a partially stuck mash on the last batch (i.e channeling instead of my usual plug flow) but I dunno. Maybe I’ll add a couple lbs of rice hulls to the next batch and see what it does.

Charlie

OK. I cleaned the LHBS out of rye malt, and got some rice hulls. Jan 29 is the target date.

If using the rice hulls gets me my normal (for rye) 1.035 potential extract I won’t have learned anything, but if it goes lower then I might have. We’ll see.

Charlie