Cold steep dark grains?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

robertjohnson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
94
Reaction score
3
Location
Walla Walla
So, after an astringent brew or three I realized that precision with temperature and volume when steeping specialty grains is not to be totally overlooked, especially with the darker ones. I've since fixed my brewing process, but stumbled across this link with an interesting idea... http://www.jovialmonk.com.au/brewManual/Steeping_grains.pdf

how many people, if any, cold steep dark specialty grains? what have the results been?
 
Seems like an interesting technique although I'm not sure cold steeping chocolate would be profoundly different than just using carafa, for example.
 
The guy also mentions to squeeze the grains in the hop steeping method. I thought this was discouraged because it releases tannins and other unwanted flavors to the beer. Maybe specialty grains are the exception to this rule?

Either way I may have to give this a go if I ever use a large amount of dark, roasted malts.
 
Cold steeping grains will provide some flavor and color but you won't get any fermentables from it. So, to me, this is a waste of barley.

The guy also mentions to squeeze the grains in the hop steeping method. I thought this was discouraged because it releases tannins and other unwanted flavors to the beer. Maybe specialty grains are the exception to this rule?

Myth. This has been discussed a thousand times - squeezing the bag does NOT result in tannin extraction. Sparging above 170F results in tannin extraction.
 
Cold steeping grains will provide some flavor and color but you won't get any fermentables from it. So, to me, this is a waste of barley.

if they are dark roasted grains, what sugar are you gonna get?

yesterday i brewed a irish stout kit my sister got me for xmas. i steeped in 35* water, and brought the temp to 140, then tossed em in the trash.

first time ever trying that (cold steep), and i dont PM brew really, unless somone buys me the kit :)
 
if they are dark roasted grains, what sugar are you gonna get?

You get lots of unfermentables and some fermentables. If you just cold steep the grains, my understanding is you get none of the above because there is no enzymatic activity at room temperature.
 
i add cold-brewed coffee whenever i am using coffee in a recipe. no harshness or bitterness at all, just smooth coffee flavor. i would imagine doing dark grains this way would be beneficial.
 
You get lots of unfermentables and some fermentables. If you just cold steep the grains, my understanding is you get none of the above because there is no enzymatic activity at room temperature.

The amount of fermentables is negligable with mashing dark grains like roasted barley or chocolate malts.

Cold-steeping darker grains does work and adds a nice smooth flavor without the astringencies you typically get with mashing and boiling. To be effective, you need at least twice the grain bill for the dark grains and you need to steep 18-24 hours. Add the dark grains at flame knockout.

However, using Carafa is just about the same thing and is a bit easier.
 
Well, considering the extra time and grain (cost) it requires and also realizing that dehusked malts do the same thing, it makes sense that I'd never heard of it before. I don't have access to dehusked grain types though, so I suppose I'll try cold steeping chocolate as a carafa substitute, for example. I might even make a cold steeped porter or stout for very special occasions, especially when I'm going for flavorings that might be more noticeable and meld well with a smoother finish, perhaps flavors like vanilla or licorice. Thanks for the input.
 
The amount of fermentables is negligable with mashing dark grains like roasted barley or chocolate malts.

Yes, I agree. The quantity of fermentables is low. My point is - you lose the unfermentables as well which contribute to body/mouthfeel. Cold steeping only extracts color/flavor and doesn't extract the unfermentable (complex) sugars.

For example, 1# of chocolate malt contributes approximately 25 gravity points to 1 gallon of water at 75% efficiency. In a 5 gallon batch, that's 5 gravity points. Most of the contribution is in the form of complex sugars, but I don't consider that to be "negligible". ;)

Cold-steeping darker grains does work and adds a nice smooth flavor without the astringencies you typically get with mashing and boiling.

That sounds like an good idea for brewing something like a red ale where the main color contribution is from a minuscule quantity of darker malt. I'm assuming 2 - 4 oz in a typical 5 gallon batch, though. Sounds like something I need to try next time. :)
 
Yes, I agree. The quantity of fermentables is low. My point is - you lose the unfermentables as well which contribute to body/mouthfeel. Cold steeping only extracts color/flavor and doesn't extract the unfermentable (complex) sugars.

Sure it does. The color and flavor comes from somewhere ... those are unfermentable sugars that are extracted that contribute to the body and mouthfeel.

For example, 1# of chocolate malt contributes approximately 25 gravity points to 1 gallon of water at 75% efficiency. In a 5 gallon batch, that's 5 gravity points. Most of the contribution is in the form of complex sugars, but I don't consider that to be "negligible". ;)

And, have you taken the gravity readings for a cold-steeped liquid? You'll see that you'll have a gravity above 1.000.

That sounds like an good idea for brewing something like a red ale where the main color contribution is from a minuscule quantity of darker malt. I'm assuming 2 - 4 oz in a typical 5 gallon batch, though. Sounds like something I need to try next time. :)

You should try it before you decide and/or argue against it. Put a batch of cold-steep stout next to a normal mashed stout and you'll see that the cold-steeped stout is smooth with plenty of roasted flavors and none of the bitterness you get from heating dark grains. You'll also notice no difference in mouthfeel.
 
what is this about carafa and chocolate?

carafa and chocolate are two completely different malts. chocolate malt will impart a chocolatey flavor while carafa will impart very little flavor (roasted if used in large quantities) and a lot of color.

i don't see how they could possibly be substitutes for each other.
 
Sure it does. The color and flavor comes from somewhere ... those are unfermentable sugars that are extracted that contribute to the body and mouthfeel.

And, have you taken the gravity readings for a cold-steeped liquid? You'll see that you'll have a gravity above 1.000.

Show me on this chart where starch is converted to sugar (simple or complex) using cold (70F?) water. If you can do that, I will agree that cold steeping actually contributes gravity points.

f79.gif


Allow me to restate my original point - Cold steeping only extracts color/flavor and doesn't contribute gravity points (dissolved sugars) to the wort.

So, there is a tradeoff - Cold steeping may result in a less acrid taste but it comes at the expense of efficiency. Choose your poison? :eek:
 
um...how much chocolate malt do you really use in a 5 gallon batch? i can't imagine you would lose more than a point in most recipes.

That's not the point. Chocolate malt was just an example of a "darker specialty grain". You could throw in 80L+ Caramel, Special B, etc.
 
i thought we were discussing doing this for roasted grains so that we wouldn't get that bitterness and astringency from them. that would not include crystal malts.

and even so it would normally be a very small portion of your grist.

yes, you will lose a small amount of extract potential, but if you want a cleaner, smoother flavor than the option is there.

as this is a hobby, and most of us do not own a company that has to watch it's bottom line, i'll vote for flavor any day of the week, especially when the cost is so low.
 
as this is a hobby, and most of us do not own a company that has to watch it's bottom line, i'll vote for flavor any day of the week, especially when the cost is so low.

Agreed. I'm all for experimentation but, at the same time, one should be aware there is a tradeoff. Nothing is free, not even beer. :cross:
 
Show me on this chart where starch is converted to sugar (simple or complex) using cold (70F?) water. If you can do that, I will agree that cold steeping actually contributes gravity points.

f79.gif

I'm only going to comment on the chart and peoples interpretation of it. What is shown is the range for OPTIMAL activity. This does not mean that these enzymes don't work at lower temperatures. In fact it is a happy coincidence for us that they even work at these temperatures. The enzymes are produced by the germinating barley seed. When was the last time you saw barley growing in a field at 140F? :drunk: In fact these enzymes all work perfectly well (albeit slower) at 50 F. Many varieties are fall planted with soil temps of 50F or lower yet all of the enzymes in the chart function just fine allowing the seed to break down the stored starch and proteins to allow the seed to germinate and grow. Granted, it probably takes 3-7 days for the embryo to totally convert all of the starch etc. compared to 30 min at 150F. Actually barley likes to grow in cooler climates, that's probably part of why Italy is a wine culture, vs the beer culture of Germany.
 
what is this about carafa and chocolate?

carafa and chocolate are two completely different malts. chocolate malt will impart a chocolatey flavor while carafa will impart very little flavor (roasted if used in large quantities) and a lot of color.

i don't see how they could possibly be substitutes for each other.

Well, the logic was guided by two (possibly wrong) assumptions. 1) Cold steeping roasted grains results in a smoother and less astringent taste. 2) Carafa is dehusked or whatever to add more color without adding much flavor. The conclusion I drew was that, since I don't have access to carafa at my LHBS and don't feel inclined to order it online, I could cold brew dark grains like a chocolate malt to better reflect the color addition of carafa while minimizing certain flavor contributions, namely the astringency, for a more appropriately substitution. I'm not saying it's spot on by any means, just that it's better than what I'd settled for in the past, especially since I normally use carafa in such small amounts. In any case, I only brought this up in relation to my main point about being interested in cold brewing and was just thinking about when I could use this technique. I'm not advising anyone to do this. Thanks for the clarification though DeathBrewer.
 
i see. i think it would still have plenty of chocolately flavor, it would just be smoother.

i think the cold steep is definitely worth a shot. may try it myself...hmm...maybe i'll brew a breakfast stout with my dad this week :D

I'm only going to comment on the chart and peoples interpretation of it. What is shown is the range for OPTIMAL activity. This does not mean that these enzymes don't work at lower temperatures. In fact it is a happy coincidence for us that they even work at these temperatures. The enzymes are produced by the germinating barley seed. When was the last time you saw barley growing in a field at 140F? :drunk: In fact these enzymes all work perfectly well (albeit slower) at 50 F. Many varieties are fall planted with soil temps of 50F or lower yet all of the enzymes in the chart function just fine allowing the seed to break down the stored starch and proteins to allow the seed to germinate and grow. Granted, it probably takes 3-7 days for the embryo to totally convert all of the starch etc. compared to 30 min at 150F. Actually barley likes to grow in cooler climates, that's probably part of why Italy is a wine culture, vs the beer culture of Germany.

especially since you could do the cold steep during your entire mash, or even before you get your water up to temp for the mash, i think it will let out a small amount of sugar. crystal malts contribute small amounts of sugar when steeped WITHOUT mashing, too.
 
Show me on this chart where starch is converted to sugar (simple or complex) using cold (70F?) water. If you can do that, I will agree that cold steeping actually contributes gravity points.

f79.gif


Allow me to restate my original point - Cold steeping only extracts color/flavor and doesn't contribute gravity points (dissolved sugars) to the wort.

Are you saying that if I take a gravity reading of 3lbs. of cold-steeped chocolate malt and roasted barley for my stout that it would be 1.000? If so, you would be wrong, because I have and it clearly wasn't the same gravity of water. It doesn't add much dissolved fermentable sugars, however, it does add unfermentable sugar and proteins, which is what adds the color, flavor and mouthfeel you were speaking of. Besides that, you're not going to get much, if any, fermentables from chocolate or roasted barley in the first place ... hence the argument in efficiency is negligable.

So, there is a tradeoff - Cold steeping may result in a less acrid taste but it comes at the expense of efficiency. Choose your poison? :eek:

Umm, yeah, of course, no one said there wasn't a bit of a trade off. There's a bit of a trade off with all of homebrewing. We trade our time, money and energy for flavor and quality of product ... that's the whole point of homebrewing.


That's not the point. Chocolate malt was just an example of a "darker specialty grain". You could throw in 80L+ Caramel, Special B, etc.

Ummm, no you really don't understand the point, do you? Cold-steeping is only used for the darkest of malts such as roasted barley, chocolate malt, etc. where you're deriving very little in the way of "fermentables" from them in the first place. Hence the point everyone is making that you loose very little in terms of efficiency regardless.

i thought we were discussing doing this for roasted grains so that we wouldn't get that bitterness and astringency from them. that would not include crystal malts.

and even so it would normally be a very small portion of your grist.

yes, you will lose a small amount of extract potential, but if you want a cleaner, smoother flavor than the option is there.

as this is a hobby, and most of us do not own a company that has to watch it's bottom line, i'll vote for flavor any day of the week, especially when the cost is so low.

YES, exactly. I think our friend is confusing this as something you would do with any specialty grain, which isn't the case. It's typically only used for the darkest of malts.

Agreed. I'm all for experimentation but, at the same time, one should be aware there is a tradeoff. Nothing is free, not even beer. :cross:

Like I said above, there is a trade off, but that is what everyone here is doing. I can go buy a 30-pack of natty light cheaper and easier than I can brew, factoring in my time and energy, my cheapest recipe, but it's not as good and as satisfying.
 
especially since you could do the cold steep during your entire mash, or even before you get your water up to temp for the mash, i think it will let out a small amount of sugar. crystal malts contribute small amounts of sugar when steeped WITHOUT mashing, too.

A couple of things about cold-steeping:

1. Like Lamar likes to point out, it's not terribly efficient, so you should double or even triple your dark grains.

2. You should use water below the 80° mark and preferrably round 50-60°

3. You should steep it for at least 18 hours and 24hrs+ is optimal.

4. Add the final product to the kettle at knockout or even a bit thereafter. If you feel the need, the last 2 min of the boil at the earliest.
 
srm775, this is going to be my last post on this 'cause you're clearly taking my statements out of context and responding with vague generalities about homebrewing. I feel like I'm watching a bad Daily Show interview... :drunk:

If you scroll back up to my original post (below), I made it clear that, IMHO, it's a waste of barley because you're not getting any extract efficiency from cold steeping. I brew a lot of porters so dark grain efficiency is important to me. Again, this is my belief. I don't expect you to share it.

Cold steeping grains will provide some flavor and color but you won't get any fermentables from it. So, to me, this is a waste of barley.

Then you responded that you do get extract efficiency from cold steeping and I showed you the enzyme activity chart which clearly shows you don't. The bottom line is you get < 1% efficiency from cold steeping malted barley. This is the tradeoff of which I spoke; not some vague generality about homebrewing.

Moving on... :cool:
 
Okay, this reminds me of two related questions I've had about cold steeping. How likely is it that a sanitation problem arises when doing a post-boil grain addition before the yeast has taken? Hypothetically, if you do cold steep and do the addition earlier in the boil for the sake of sanitation, do you undo most of what you initially hoped to achieve? I was thinking of doing what you suggested and adding in at the end of the boil, but wasn't sure when to do it. I assume this is why srm775 suggests 2 minutes at the earliest. Probably another trade-off question, but I'm just curious.
 
srm775, this is going to be my last post on this 'cause you're clearly taking my statements out of context and responding with vague generalities about homebrewing. I feel like I'm watching a bad Daily Show interview... :drunk:

If you scroll back up to my original post (below), I made it clear that, IMHO, it's a waste of barley because you're not getting any extract efficiency from cold steeping. I brew a lot of porters so dark grain efficiency is important to me. Again, this is my belief. I don't expect you to share it.



Then you responded that you do get extract efficiency from cold steeping and I showed you the enzyme activity chart which clearly shows you don't. The bottom line is you get < 1% efficiency from cold steeping malted barley. This is the tradeoff of which I spoke; not some vague generality about homebrewing.

Moving on... :cool:

let's say my recipe takes:

1 lbs chocolate malt
1 lbs black malt

very rarely do ANY of my beers use that much roasted malts, but here goes.

my LHBS charges $1.50 for specialty grains. so right up front i would spend $3.00 extra if i was doubling the specialty malts.

let's say i add an extra 1 lbs of 2-row to get the gravity i was previously shooting for. we'll call that an extra $1.00.

so, yes, to get the same gravity it would cost an extra $4.00 for a 5 gallon batch. if the taste is significantly different, than i would say it is worth it, but if you are fine with the flavor, don't care for experimentation and you want to go cheap, then obviously the other route would be better.

honestly, it would probably cost me an extra $1.00/batch with my discounts and the amount of grains i use, but for the sake of your argument i pushed everything to the max.

now let's discuss another matter. yes...the roasted specialty grains are adding gravity, so your OG would be higher. ARE THEY ADDING FERMENTABLE SUGARS? if they don't, then they do not add potential alcohol and this argument is pretty meaningless.
 
srm775, this is going to be my last post on this 'cause you're clearly taking my statements out of context and responding with vague generalities about homebrewing. I feel like I'm watching a bad Daily Show interview... :drunk:

If you scroll back up to my original post (below), I made it clear that, IMHO, it's a waste of barley because you're not getting any extract efficiency from cold steeping. I brew a lot of porters so dark grain efficiency is important to me. Again, this is my belief. I don't expect you to share it.



Then you responded that you do get extract efficiency from cold steeping and I showed you the enzyme activity chart which clearly shows you don't. The bottom line is you get < 1% efficiency from cold steeping malted barley. This is the tradeoff of which I spoke; not some vague generality about homebrewing.

Moving on... :cool:

I love that first paragraph.

The discussion was about steeping, so by definition, there are no enzymes involved. No, you won't get enzyme activity with a cold steep, but you won't get any with a steep at mashing temperatures either because steeping grains don't contain enzymes.

-a.
 
i think he knows that. he's talking about cold steeping as appose to adding to the mash. i don't see anywhere in that quote that he says he would otherwise steep the grains.
 
Then you responded that you do get extract efficiency from cold steeping and I showed you the enzyme activity chart which clearly shows you don't. The bottom line is you get < 1% efficiency from cold steeping malted barley.

Enzyme activity is irrelevant when dealing with roasted barley or chocolate malt, because there are no enzymes in these malts in the first place. They provide a range of substances that are soluble in wort, mostly various forms of caramelized sugar, but the starch to sugar conversion happened long ago during the malting process, so there is nothing left for enzymes to do in the mash (not to mention no enzymes to do it).

Regardless of whether you mash or steep such grains, this is simply a matter of getting their sugars into solution. Sugars dissolve more easily at higher temperatures, therefore efficiency will certainly be affected, but it is absolutely possible to dissolve a significant amount of sugar into room temperature water.

Things would be entirely different if we were talking about anything other than crystal or roasted malts, where there were still starches in need of enzyme conversion.
 
THERE we go. now, is it actually contributing fermentable sugars or is it simply adding gravity?

Both.

Contrary to popular opinion, crystal malts actually contribute a significant amount of fermentables. They just contain a higher proportion of unfermentable sugars compared to most other malts, so people tend to focus on the impact of that (sweetness, body, etc) and forget that they are also getting plenty of fermentables at the same time.

Roasted grains provide way less fermentables than crystal, but still greater than zero.
 
yes, but in percentage of gravity how much is actually fermentable? i can't imagine there is much after the process it goes through.

i've been searching on my breaks and couldn't really find the correct information on how much FERMENTABLE sugar specific roasted malts add.
 
According to BeerSmith:

Black malt = 74% fermentable
Chocolate = 71% fermentable
Crystal 40 = 73% fermentable
Crystal 120 = 72% fermentable

I'm not sure how much I really believe that though. It does a pretty good job with the calculations for mashing base grains, but who knows where they got the data for these steeping malts from?

It seems particularly suspicious that when I set up a recipe containing nothing but 5 pounds of crystal, I get radically different OG and FG estimates depending on whether I set it to extract + steeping grains or all grain mode. The OG to FG ratio remains the same, but both estimates are way lower in extract mode. I'd expect this to be a little lower, but for nothing but crystal the difference should be maybe 10%, not 80% like BeerSmith gives me. Which makes me think it doesn't really understand about steeping grains.
 
what is this about carafa and chocolate?

carafa and chocolate are two completely different malts. chocolate malt will impart a chocolatey flavor while carafa will impart very little flavor (roasted if used in large quantities) and a lot of color.

i don't see how they could possibly be substitutes for each other.

I'm talking about weyermann carafa special, which is made in a very similar fashion to chocolate malt, with partially dehusked grain. Regular carafa is weyermann's chocolate malt, they consider it comparable. If you don't then I guess you ad weyermann have a difference of opinion.

What is your belief about the difference in production between carafa or carafa special (other than polishing) and chocolate malt from other malsters?
 
I read through this thread with interest. I haven't tried this myself, but I like the idea of getting the flavor without the astringency. If the concern is that you might leave behind some possibly soluble sugars by steeping cold, what would happen if you used a temperature somewhere in the middle - say 90 to 100 degrees?
 
I read through this thread with interest. I haven't tried this myself, but I like the idea of getting the flavor without the astringency. If the concern is that you might leave behind some possibly soluble sugars by steeping cold, what would happen if you used a temperature somewhere in the middle - say 90 to 100 degrees?

Get three ounces of grain and try all three. Cold for a while, warm for a shorter period of time and hot as per usual. You should be able to compare extraction and flavor pretty easily.

The problem with 100 degrees is that you probably need several hours at that temp which is like bacteria wonderland.
 
According to BeerSmith:

Black malt = 74% fermentable
Chocolate = 71% fermentable
Crystal 40 = 73% fermentable
Crystal 120 = 72% fermentable

I'm not sure how much I really believe that though. It does a pretty good job with the calculations for mashing base grains, but who knows where they got the data for these steeping malts from?

It seems particularly suspicious that when I set up a recipe containing nothing but 5 pounds of crystal, I get radically different OG and FG estimates depending on whether I set it to extract + steeping grains or all grain mode. The OG to FG ratio remains the same, but both estimates are way lower in extract mode. I'd expect this to be a little lower, but for nothing but crystal the difference should be maybe 10%, not 80% like BeerSmith gives me. Which makes me think it doesn't really understand about steeping grains.

where are you getting your numbers? i'm looking through my beersmith grains list and it does not give me fermentability.
 
Back
Top