Crisp Crystal malts

Get advice on making beer from raw ingredients (malt, hops, water and yeast)
Post Reply
dave_h
Tippler
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:21 pm

Crisp Crystal malts

Post by dave_h » Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:20 pm

I wanted some medium crystal malt so ordered some of Crisps Crystal malt, ( called crystal 240). When I put it into Beersmith it told me this was an extra dark crystal!

Looking at Crisps data sheet it says their medium crystal is 250-290 EBC 95-110 °L.

Looking at other maltsters their medium crystal seems to come in around 140-160 EBC.

I ended up throwing 150g of this and 200g of Crisps (so called) light crystal (160-180 EBC 60-70 °L) into an ESB, it did come out much darker than it looked in Beersmith (20 EBC predicted by beersmith).

I know that there will be some variance betwen maltsters but nearly double seems a bit much.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

Thanks

Dave

Top Cat
Steady Drinker
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:59 pm

Re: Crisp Crystal malts

Post by Top Cat » Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:04 pm

:)
dave_h wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:20 pm
I wanted some medium crystal malt so ordered some of Crisps Crystal malt, ( called crystal 240). When I put it into Beersmith it told me this was an extra dark crystal!

Looking at Crisps data sheet it says their medium crystal is 250-290 EBC 95-110 °L.

Looking at other maltsters their medium crystal seems to come in around 140-160 EBC.

I ended up throwing 150g of this and 200g of Crisps (so called) light crystal (160-180 EBC 60-70 °L) into an ESB, it did come out much darker than it looked in Beersmith (20 EBC predicted by beersmith).

I know that there will be some variance betwen maltsters but nearly double seems a bit much.
Dave
I have had the same trouble with Crisp.
I was supplied medium roast by my local supplier and it was Crisp medium 300 EBC, much too dark for my needs, the last couple of batches being 150 EBC, though I’m not sure of the origin.
I asked my supplier ( who is a knowledgeable home brewer) what he thought of the great difference, he seemed to think there was little standard and the maltsters have their own standards, which I felt odd.

Meanwhile I’ve purchased two more batches of ‘medium’roast crystal malt, one from the Maltmiller which was 150 EBC, and one from Brew UK (Warminster malting) that was 135 EBC,

It seems that the odd maltster have their own ideas of what ‘medium should be!
It would be reassuring to know if there is a standard colour range for various roasts.

User avatar
Kev888
So far gone I'm on the way back again!
Posts: 7545
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:22 pm
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Crisp Crystal malts

Post by Kev888 » Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:43 pm

There is no real standard for things like 'medium' and 'light', they are just relative statements; it is down to the manufacturer how they apportion their own range and can especially vary between countries and traditions. So you should go by the specified values if small differences are important to you. However that can be a minefield as colour of grain is an awful subject, with different measurement methods, conversions and predictions, few of which agree.

To me, the data sheets/pages suggest that Crisps medium crystal has colour using the EBC method 250-290, and by the IOB method is 95 to 110. By random comparison, Fawcetts doesn't give the EBC method but the IOB colour is 120-140 degrees - i.e. a little darker than crisps.

Now, one source of almost inevitable confusion when making that comparison might be that (for historical reasons) results from the IOB method can be expressed using degrees EBC as 'units', and so the Fawcetts sheet says IOB (degrees EBC). But this does not mean the numbers relate to the EBC 'method' of assessment, they are IOB. If you were to wrongly take them as the EBC method, Crisps would indeed seem to be darker by about double the value (it isn't).

No idea what beersmith does or how good its predictions are, the details of this are likely to be even more confusing than the above if it translates between methods after using the US approach.
Kev

alfie09
Steady Drinker
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:41 am

Re: Crisp Crystal malts

Post by alfie09 » Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:07 pm

What’s crisp pale ale malt like. Seen Worcester hop shop have it for £25 per 25kg sack. That’s a good price

User avatar
Kev888
So far gone I'm on the way back again!
Posts: 7545
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:22 pm
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Crisp Crystal malts

Post by Kev888 » Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:13 pm

alfie09 wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:07 pm
What’s crisp pale ale malt like. Seen Worcester hop shop have it for £25 per 25kg sack. That’s a good price
It is pretty good stuff for a generic pale malt; IIRC the variety is/was Flagon. Last I ordered, the malt miller also did it at a good price.
Kev

dave_h
Tippler
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:21 pm

Re: Crisp Crystal malts

Post by dave_h » Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:38 am

Thanks for all the replies.

I think I need to look into IOB a little, I have not heard of that.

In future I will have to go by the EBC/L values stated. Luckily I had some of Crisps light crystal on hand too.

Crisp is the only crystal I can easily get hold of (live in sweden and buy from Humle.se) so I think i will just have to learn what I like about the malts and adjust their ratios as needed :)

User avatar
Kev888
So far gone I'm on the way back again!
Posts: 7545
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:22 pm
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Crisp Crystal malts

Post by Kev888 » Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:28 am

Crisps seems to be quite helpful, in that they give you values from a few different methods (and omit to mention confusing units). But you may find that most British maltsters offer only IOB values whilst European use only EBC and so on; all a bit messy.

If it helps at all, the late, great and sadly missed Graham Wheeler posted this in 2009:
There is a certain complexity when one tries to convert between different colour standards, particularly between ASBC and IoB, but as Steve said earlier, using a factor of two for USA to British is fairly close.

Malt colour and beer colour are treated differently, though. A sometimes confusing aspect of colour determination is that at least three analytical methods are commonly employed:
IoB, Institute of Brewing (British).
ASBC, American Society of Brewing Chemists.
EBC (that other lot across the channel).

All three give different values, particularly with malt colour. Confusion abounds around the EBC issue because British maltsters and brewers (and Beer Engine) use the IoB methods unless otherwise stated, not EBC as is commonly supposed. IoB colour is specified as EBC because the EBC colour-glasses are used in the colour comparator - they were originally IoB colour-glasses anyway until the Europeans hi-jacked them. EBC methods and IoB methods are different for malt colour, except for the colour glasses, and give different results.

To elaborate on colour comparators and colour glasses: The original method of determining beer colour and malt colour was a visual method whereby north-light is shone through a sample of beer and compared side-by-side with coloured glass standards, which were a bit like photographic slides viewed through a stereo slide viewer, and the colour-glasses are changed or added to until the colour of the glasses and the colour of the beer match each other. The glasses are numbered according to their density which provides a Lovibond number. The gadget is known as a tintometer or colorimeter, and a modern version is still widely used (see Lovibond Tintometer 2000 or 3000).

The original colour-glasses are known as Series 52. The Series 52 (brown-scale) glasses were devised in 1885 and are based on a somewhat arbitrary scale. Because of their various limitations, in 1950 the British IoB abandoned the series 52 glasses in favour of what has now become the EBC glasses. Regretfully the Americans didn't - they still use Series 52. One of the problems with Series 52 is that they do not follow modern photometric optical laws. This means that American Lovibond (visual) does not correlate with SRM (an electronic photometric method). Therefore Lovibond and SRM are two entirely different scales. Although American home brewers claim that Lovibond and SRM are equivalent, they are not, except at very low (lager type) colours where they are close enough to not make much difference. The EBC glasses, on the other hand, more closely follow photometric laws, which was one of the several reasons for their introduction.

Although electronic, single-frequency photometric methods work for beer colour (sort of), they do not work too well for malt colour because the simple mini-mashed wort used for colour determination is unboiled and is therefore rich in protein. The protein absorbs and scatters the 430nm light source, making the readings erroneous. Electronic methods need a clear beer or wort with minimal suspended solids or proteins that would either scatter or absorb the light. Thus maltsters, even American ones, still use the visual, optical comparator for malt colour determination. This is why Americans use the term Lovibond (optical) for malt to distinguish it from SRM (electroinic) for beer; they are two different scales so a distinction is necessary for them. Regretfully the Europeans make no such distinction, although the EBC colour scale does follow optical density laws more closely.

One gotcha is path length. Obviously, if you are going to shine a light through a sample of beer or wort, the width of that sample is going to make a difference to the amount of light that passes through and comes out the other side. A sample jar that is twice as "big" will absorb twice as much light and will appear twice as dark. Therefore colour has to be referenced to a path length. The Europeans, including the British, reference to a 25mm path length (was an inch before Europeanisation), but the American ASBC use a half-inch path length.

There is yet another gotcha, which is the density of mash employed to produce the wort used for colour determination. IoB standardise on 50 grammes of malt made up to 515 millilitres with water. This is a 10% w/v grain/water solution. The extra 15ml is meant to compensate for absorption in the husk of the grain and the filter paper used, but it doesn't quite manage it because things have changed since the days when the method was devised. However, with fermentable extract determination (which uses the same mash) the results are mathematically normalised to exactly a 10% solution, but with colour they don't bother, presumably because there is only 1.3% error which they deem to be insignificant. The Americans and mainland Europeans use a 450 grammes mash, being 50 grammes of malt made up to 450 grammes with water which is a denser mash, producing a slightly higher colour.

I was told by a British maltster that all maltsters worldwide use a 10% mash, or mathematically normalise to a 10% mash, for malt colour determination as a standard. The Handbook of Brewing by W. Harwick also implies this, stating 50g of malt per 450g of water is used for colour determination, but I now have my doubts as to the truth of this. It is possibly an error or bad wording. As I do not have access to EBC Analytica or the ASBC documents (the ASBC book is $900 and the EBC book is similarly extortionately priced) I cannot easily determine whether or not that is true, so I assume that it is not the case and that the results are unadjusted. Incidentally the British IoB methods also permit a 450 gramme mash as an option, but that is mathematically adjusted to represent the 515 ml mash or 10% w/v solution. All IoB figures, no matter what density of test mash is used, are always expressed as if it was the standard 515ml mash.

Anyway, the upshot of all this is that to convert ASBC Lovibond malt colours to IoB malt colours we have to compensate for the difference between Series 52 and EBC colour glasses; compensate for the difference in path lengths employed; and compensate for the differing mash densities.

The formula given above: colour EBC = Lov x 2.65 -1.2 is fair enough, but working the other way would logically be: Lov = (EBC + 1.2)/2.65, not the other formula given in the quotation above. It does not make sense to use one formula to convert in one direction and an unrelated formula to convert in the opposite direction, even though the difference is small. It is another of those absurdities that often surface in brewing.

The Lov = (EBC + 1.2)/2.65 compensates for the difference between series 52 and EBC colour glasses and also for path length, but not for mash density. To convert between ASBC and IoB malt colours we need to compensate for mash density as well.

Without going too deeply into how the figures were derived, the following give conversion factors that I have derived (for malt colour).

ASBC to IoB = Lov *2.218-1.2 (compensates for colour glasses, mash density and path length)
IoB to ASBC = (IoB +1.2)/2.218 (ditto)

EBC to IoB = EBC*0.8368 (compensates for mash density only)
IoB to EBC = IoB/0.8368 (ditto)

ASBC to EBC = Lov * 2.65 -1.2 (compensates for colour glasses and path length)
EBC to ASBC = (EBC +1.2)/2.65 (ditto)

The above formula use the IoB method of converting between a 450g mash and a 515ml mash, and assumes that the 450g mash produces a 8.6°Plato (1.035) wort. It is a bit simplistic, but making it more complicated does not make enough difference to worry about, and only then with very dark malts. If you produce a table in a spreadsheet or something, you will observe that using EBC = 2xLovibond, as Steve has already pointed out, is close enough over normal ranges. Malt colour is hard to control at manufacture and has wide uncertainty spreads anyway, particularly with dark malts.

The above is formula is only true for malt colour. Beer colour is different yet again. Converting between EBC and IoB beer colour is not a problem; they are the same. Converting between ASBC and the others can present a problem though, because the Americans use an 1885 scale of colour glasses which bears little relation to the modern world. Americans generally specify beer colour in SRM. It would be fine if SRM really meant SRM. American 430nm photometric methods differ from European/British 430nm photometric methods only in path length. That is half-inch versus 25mm = 12.7/25 = 1.97. Simply dividing or multiplying by 2 as appropriate will perform the conversion. It can also be assumed that EBC colour glasses track photometric density well enough, so the 1.97 (or 2) multiplier is good too, no matter whether EBC is determined visually or photometrically.

However, if SRM is adjusted SRM there is a problem. By adjusted SRM I mean a beer that has been measured photometrically, but then adjusted mathematically to match the Series 52 glasses or Lovibond. Or a beer that has been measured visually but expressed as SRM. As mentioned before, the problem with the S-52 glasses is that they are irregularly spaced, do not accurately follow the optical laws, and are the wrong colour. This was of little consequence in the early days when American beers were typically very pale lager-coloured, but now that British and Belgian style beers are popular and widely brewed, they are in a bit of a dilemma because neither the Series 52 glasses or the 430nm photometric methods are really up to the job. Nevertheless, if we have to convert from Lovibond or pseudo Lovibond, we are forced to jump through the EBC = Lov * 2.65 -1.2 hoops.

There is a limitation with 430nm electronic photometric measurement inasmuch as it can only measure optical density, not colour. A beer with a proportion of crystal malt in its grist will have a red hue. Another beer that has a small quantity of black malt will have a brown hue. Both can have an identical optical density as far as the machine is concerned, but will be a different colour to a human observer. A visual comparator combines elements of both colour and optical density. A human observer peering through the viewfinder of a visual comparator will notice if either the colour or density does not match, but the electronic machine does not detect the colour difference.

As the whole purpose of controlling beer colour is so as not to surprise or offend the drinker, the old-fashioned visual method is far better at colour determination than the electronic machine, or at least the type of machine that they have chosen for the job. Although there are technical objections to the visual method, mostly because it relies on human perception, and because errors can occur if the colour of the glasses (which have fixed gradients) do not exactly match colour of the beer (different colours give different perceptions of density), it is still much better at the job than the electronic method. Measuring the colour of the same beer using the visual method and the electronic method will often come up with different numbers because the perceived density is different to true density due to the colour, but the colour-glasses still reign king and always have the final say, because they best represent what the customer actually sees.

Single-frequency (430nm) electronic photometric method is fine for brewery internal quality control checks, so that the brewer can quickly check if things are deviating from the norm, but it isn't any good at absolute colour. Internal quality control checks are what it is all about after all. Outside of the brewery, it is only twits like us that are interested in the colour rating of a beer, or even know what it means. It is quite common for British brewers to devise frig factors for each of their beers so that the measured photometric numbers tally with the visually derived numbers.

It seems that Americans do the same thing as well. On the net earlier (HERE) I found this:
"Large commercial breweries continue to use spectrophotometry for color determination even for the amber and dark beers they started brewing in recent years. Their approach has typically been to develop new in-house correction factors for each of their brews which allows them to match up absorbance with the Lovibond scale within the range of variations seen in production."

So the complexity or simplicity of the matter is determined by whether the brewery concerned quotes real SRM or adjusted SRM. This is probably brewery specific and we have no way of knowing what they really specify, so as they state SRM we must assume that they really mean SRM, and therefore simple path-length compensation is the best approach for beer colour - meaning multiply or divide by 1.97 (or 2 if you want to save finger fatigue).
Kev

User avatar
PeeBee
Lost in an Alcoholic Haze
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: Crisp Crystal malts

Post by PeeBee » Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:09 pm

Thanks Kev for that reminder of just how BIG some of GW's posts could be! But always informative.

Medium (bog-standard) crystal is about 130-170EBC ("light" if you're Crisp's), dark about 200-240EBC and Extra Dark about 360-400EBC. Confusing, don't even start on the popular "cara" malts - they are so confusing a lot of folk haven't even clicked that they are crystal malt (though they do range down to positively "anaemic").

f00b4r
Lost in an Alcoholic Haze
Posts: 706
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 10:54 pm
Location: Berlin

Crisp Crystal malts

Post by f00b4r » Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:41 pm

It's confusing enough that it seems the Malt Miller has redesignated the Crisp Crystal malts to avoid confusion with buyers eg the light one is designated a standard crystal on the site. I noticed this a couple of months ago when imputing recipes in the Brewfather software, it was only when I looked at the colour values that I realised what was going on.

Robwalkeragain
Hollow Legs
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:19 am

Re: Crisp Crystal malts

Post by Robwalkeragain » Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:03 pm

Crisp crystal = crystal 150ebc
High colour = 300ebc i think?
Caramalt = 30ebc

Always check the maltsers specs and just adjust as necessary!

sandimas
Steady Drinker
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:29 am
Location: Near Malvern

Re: Crisp Crystal malts

Post by sandimas » Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:18 pm

I've been caught out by this too recently: I usually order medium crystal malt from a selection of suppliers and it comes around 140EBC. I was buying some stuff from another regular suppliers and added some medium crystal, when it arrived it was only 80 EBC. I should have checked more when I ordered but it can be confusing when in a rush.

User avatar
Jocky
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2172
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:50 pm
Location: Epsom, Surrey, UK

Re: Crisp Crystal malts

Post by Jocky » Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:36 am

This goes across all malts.

For example, Amber from Thomas Fawcett is nothing like the Amber from Crisp, it's closer to the Brown malt from Crisp.

Ultimately there's no standard for any particular malt. So when using a new malt or substituting malts, check the specs! Also get to know your malt and preferred maltster's range.
Ingredients: Water, Barley, Hops, Yeast, Seaweed, Blood, Sweat, The swim bladder of a sturgeon, My enemies tears, Scenes of mild peril, An otter's handbag and Riboflavin.

Post Reply