A Cold Mashing...Is this true?

Just met a guy at a hardware store. Seemed like a knowledgeable guy and he new enough that I was buying BIAB equipment when I was at the checkout line with 5 gallon paint strainer bags and a new 7.5 gallon kettle.

He mentioned that he "Cold Steeps" his grains in a 5 gallon cylindrical cooler for 24 hours, drains it through a filter then continues the brew the conventional way....Said he had all the equipment needed for "regular" mashing but this was far simpler and the beers he makes come out great.

Is this true?

I did a search and the only thing I found was cold weather mashing and colt mash tuns. Not Cold Mashing.

Mashing and steeping are different processes. Is he doing all grain or extract? Conversion is temp dependant.

IrregularPulse said:

Mashing and steeping are different processes. Is he doing all grain or extract? Conversion is temp dependant.

Click to expand...

All Grain...

I searched "Cold Steep" and found some more info....mostly on darker colored grains.

I am very interested. If you talk to him again I would ask if he sparges or not and also what type of effeciency he gets. If not, you could always do an experiment with just 1 gallon of water and a few pounds of grain and see what type of effeciency and flavor you get out of it. If it works do a whole batch.

amcclai7 said:

I am very interested. If you talk to him again I would ask if he sparges or not and also what type of effeciency he gets. If not, you could always do an experiment with just 1 gallon of water and a few pounds of grain and see what type of effeciency and flavor you get out of it. If it works do a whole batch.

Click to expand...

Im all about experimenting...Ill do some more research then Ill just brew a batch up. It would be worth the 7$ in grains.

SamHain said:

Im all about experimenting...Ill do some more research then Ill just brew a batch up. It would be worth the 7$ in grains.

Click to expand...

Post back on here when you do. I am very interested. This could save a lot of time and frustration if it works.

I am confused how this would work. Common brewing knowledge states that certain temperatures activate different enzymes and the amylase enzymes activate between 140 to 160ish range

Doesn't seem possible unless he lives in Death Valley and covers his mash tun with black plastic.

cold steeping dark grains is a process that is common/catching on. mashing is different and temp dependent. you can't "cold mash".

MrManifesto said:

cold steeping dark grains is a process that is common/catching on. mashing is different and temp dependent. you can't "cold mash".

Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking. You can certainly cold steep grains, although I've never done it. But if you "cold steep" base grains, you'll just get them wet. Conversion is time, temperature, and pH dependent. I don't know how much, if any, conversion you'd get with a cold steep.

Can I ask a biology question? Why do these grains contain enzymes that would never be active at temps experienced in the living plant? Seems like a lot of energy for the grain to synthesize these enzymes if they are only to be used when dead.

MrManifesto said:

cold steeping dark grains is a process that is common/catching on. mashing is different and temp dependent. you can't "cold mash".

Click to expand...

Exactly, stepping dark grains is very similar to cold brewing coffe. Extraction of sugar its impossible without temp. Im always open to new concepts/technics so I try not to be very judgemental about anything but in this case sounds to me like total madness

I see now that Steeping and Mashing are different animals. I know he said Steep, I was thinking Mash. I think I must have daydreamed during part of our conversation.

This is from The Jovial Monk...

Cold steeping
Cold steeping is necessary with dark, roasted grains such as chocolate malt, black patent malt and roasted barley, and roasted rye and wheat malt.The German Carafa Special version of chocolate and black patent can, as we havCarafa version of roast barley so this must always be cold steeped.
Cold steeping, using water at room temperature, presents some challenges. Cold water cannot dissolve the sugars etc out the grain as quickly as hot water nor can it hold as much in solution. So we use more water and leave the grains steeping for longer.
For cold steeping we use five times as much water by weight as the grain, 2.5L cold water for 500g of grain.The water is just room temperature water, water out the cold water tap if using tap water—cold steeping does not mean using chilled water! We still add the grain slowly to the measured amount of water, stirring really well to ensure every grain is wet.
The water–grain mix is left to stand several hours—at least 6 hours or overnight. If doing this in warm weather you can cover the container holding the grain–water mix and placing it in the fridge if you are worried about bacteria grwoing in the mix. However, not even this is enough.
With cold steeping we do sparge the grain in the sieve.We need 100-150ml of 80°C water to sprinkle evenly over the grains in the sieve over the pan of other wort, washing out more sugars etc.The hot water is in the grain dissolving the sugars not dissolved during the period of the steep, then it is straight out the sieve so not in the grain long enough to extract astringency.
It is preferable to have a graduated measuring jug and thermometer but in an emergency a teacup of water 10 minutes off the boil can be used.
To make up for the ineficiency of a cold steep you can increase the amount of grain specified by a recipe by 10–15%.
Use five times as much water as grain Let mixture steep at least six hours Carefully sparge the dark grains to wash out more sugars and flavors etc
Note to mash brewers
Mash brewers normally would not hot steep grains, crystal malts being added directly to the mashtun. However, when brewing a really big beer by hot steeping specialty grains outside the mash tun space is made available for more base malt in the mash tun.
Mash brewers would cold steep chocolate etc malt.When nearly all the sparge water has been used up the dark grain is put into the mash tun and the last of the sparge water poured over the dark grain.
Even mash brewers can benefit from using the steeping methods discussed here.

FlyDoctor said:

Can I ask a biology question? Why do these grains contain enzymes that would never be active at temps experienced in the living plant? Seems like a lot of energy for the grain to synthesize these enzymes if they are only to be used when dead.

Click to expand...

Well, malted barley isn't present in the living plant! The barley is malted first, and then it can be mashed for starch conversion. That's where the enzymes come from- the malting process.

Yooper said:

Well, malted barley isn't present in the living plant! The barley is malted first, and then it can be mashed for starch conversion. That's where the enzymes come from- the malting process.

Click to expand...

Well those enzymes actually do work at normal living temperatures for the grain. Malting just makes them available.

There's a very simple idea in biology called Q10.... basically, it's the quantified amount of metabolic increase for every 10*C increase in temperature.

The biggest thing to get out of this? The warmer the temperature the faster biochemical process happen (to a certain point, of course.) They work at lower temperatures, just not fast enough for humans to benefit from (i.e. mash with them)

Well the reactions are time/temperature dependent...higher temp equals shorter time...enzymatic reactions approx. double for every 10C rise in temp. The question is whether adequate gelatinization can occur at low temps since this is what makes the starch "edible" for the enzymes. The enzymes are always there they just need enough kinetic energy to drive the reaction.

This guy says he let it sit for 24 hours so even at very low energy levels that amount of time just might provide for adequate reaction to convert. Put it in an 80F room for 24 hours and I think it's totally plausable.

helibrewer said:

Well the reactions are time/temperature dependent...higher temp equals shorter time...enzymatic reactions approx. double for every 10C rise in temp. The question is whether adequate gelatinization can occur at low temps since this is what makes the starch "edible" for the enzymes. The enzymes are always there they just need enough kinetic energy to drive the reaction.

This guy says he let it sit for 24 hours so even at very low energy levels that amount of time just might provide for adequate reaction to convert. Put it in an 80F room for 24 hours and I think it's totally plausable.

Click to expand...

This here is the correct answer. The enzymes work fine at room temp, just very slowly.

I suspect that gelatinization would be a problem, but even more lethal would be spoilage. Grain is silly with lacto. Give the bugs 24h in a warm wet place with plenty o' food and I can't imagine how the beer would be drinkable. I haven't tried it though.

FlyDoctor said:

Can I ask a biology question? Why do these grains contain enzymes that would never be active at temps experienced in the living plant? Seems like a lot of energy for the grain to synthesize these enzymes if they are only to be used when dead.

Click to expand...

Ah...malting is nothing more than a controlled germination that is stopped at a precise time.

All the starch in the endosperm is nothing but stored energy to grow a plant...the plant can't use that, it needs simpler sugars. During germination these enzymes are formed and exist on the inside surface of the husk, there to provide the conversion for the plant as it grows...the plant grows slow enough that the reactions don't have to be fast. That's why the endosperm is "consumed" during the seedlings growth, it's being converted to sugar!!

SamHain said:

This is from The Jovial Monk...

Cold steeping.....

Click to expand...

Very interesting. I'll have to give this a try! I agree that it sounds very plausable.

helibrewer said:

Ah...malting is nothing more than a controlled germination that is stopped at a precise time.

All the starch in the endosperm is nothing but stored energy to grow a plant...the plant can't use that, it needs simpler sugars. During germination these enzymes are formed and exist on the inside surface of the husk, there to provide the conversion for the plant as it grows...the plant grows slow enough that the reactions don't have to be fast. That's why the endosperm is "consumed" during the seedlings growth, it's being converted to sugar!!

Click to expand...

Well put. I was writing almost this exact post in my mind when I saw yours. Glad I didn't have to type it out.

FlyDoctor said:

Can I ask a biology question? Why do these grains contain enzymes that would never be active at temps experienced in the living plant? Seems like a lot of energy for the grain to synthesize these enzymes if they are only to be used when dead.

Click to expand...

I was wondering the same thing. I'm guessing that these enzymes work at a much slower rate during germination. Quick conversion of starches probably wouldn't be ideal.

I had always wondered how the first mashes could have been done to make the early, accidental beers that spurred the entire practice. After all, there would have been no reason to keep the malted grain in a mash environment- there would have to be a simpler method that could happen by coincidence.

I've been reading a ton of beer history for a class this semester and it's generally accepted nowadays that mashing wasn't discovered accidentally as previously theorized.

Fermentation was likely first encountered in fruits, probably as far back as before apes and humans began to branch off. When humans started gathering various grains, they likely realized there were sugars present, and slowly figured out the mashing process to optimize those sugars over time, likely a few thousand years.

The REAL history of beer is amazing. Once you start reading books outside of the Brewer's Association publishing realm, you quickly realize that brewers themselves tend to perptuate the myths and falsehoods more than anyone else. My professor is a bonafide beer historian and has given me access to journals and books I never would have imagined existed.

Airborneguy said:

Fermentation was likely first encountered in fruits, probably as far back as before apes and humans began to branch off. When humans started gathering various grains, they likely realized there were sugars present, and slowly figured out the mashing process to optimize those sugars over time, likely a few thousand years.

Click to expand...

Except grains don't have sugars in them, they have starches and enzymes to convert them. No one knew there was a connection until after the conversion happened.
So why would anyone waste the time unless there was a process simple enough to take off, even inefficiently?

Nope, I don't buy a thousand years of refinement of a theoretical when people could starve to death if they wasted time and food on something that wouldn't pay off in their own lifetime.

If they did encounter sweet grain, that rather necessitates a belief that at some point, it happened to some degree accidentally.

ok

EDIT: Just "Ok" looks too snarky to me. I shouldn't have left it at that. What I posted is a summary of literally hundreds of pages of peer-reviewed journals I've read regarding this subject since the start of my Beer History class this semester. I see you disagree, which is fine, but the evidence is against you. The "accidental discovery" theory has largely been abandoned by scientists and historians, but apparently not by mainstream brewing publications.

One of the progression theories I read about holds that baking a beer bread - bappir - as the Egyptians called it (this part is very well documented), with coursely ground grains, then soaking it in warm water created conditions similar to mashing, which over time led to the realization that the bread was not necessary and the grains could be directly mashed. The archealogical record seems to support this theory, as later Egyptian period finds show that Egyptian breweries - two of which have been positively identified - no longer had bread baking equipment on site as earlier breweries did.

The malting process likely was discovered accidentally. It makes perfect sense that tasting grains that had begun to sprout would have yielded a sweeter, and therefore more desireable, flavor. But the process of mashing was almost certainly not discovered when someone "accidentally" left sprouted grains outside in a rain storm, as has been pushed in brewing "history" books for some time now. The real historians do not support this theory anymore because there is absolutely no evidence to back it up, while evidence does exist as to a progression of discoveries which eventually led to a very recognizeable (to us) brewing process being carried out by the Egyptians and Mesopotamians/Babylonians around 3000-4000 BC. If you were teleported to an Egyptian or Mesopotamian brewery 5000 years ago, you would no doubt realize what was going on. The technology was different obviously, but the process was very similar by this time.

Furthermore, while we would love to believe the opposite, beer was certainly not the first fermented beverage that man enjoyed. Other more readily fermented sugars were widely available to ancient man in the fertile crescent: figs, dates, grapes, etc. As these will all naturally ferment without human intervention, they were mostly certainly ingested before grains were "discovered" and cultivated.

Post Deleted by User. Didn't realize the question was already answered lol

Airborneguy said:

ok

EDIT: Just "Ok" looks too snarky to me. I shouldn't have left it at that. What I posted is a summary of literally hundreds of pages of peer-reviewed journals I've read regarding this subject since the start of my Beer History class this semester. I see you disagree, which is fine, but the evidence is against you. The "accidental discovery" theory has largely been abandoned by scientists and historians, but apparently not by mainstream brewing publications.

Click to expand...

i recognize that you have a well-reasoned argument, based on some popular theories among some very bright people, but I still don't believe it's wholly true. After all, evidence is often collected to support the hypothesis, rather than in isolation of it.
I'm also pretty leery of string theory and dark matter, too. They all share one thing in common- they don't pass Occam's Razor.
I find it much easier to believe that humans accidentally created a beverage that shared basic similarities with beer by sheer accident, and duplicated it, and then attempted to refine the process. Otherwise, they are creating a new recipe out of whole cloth because grain might contain something that would ferment, despite knowing nothing about either sugar, starch or even the existence of yeast.

If you're saying that it was bread baking that lead to the first beer, then it really just modifies the original "accidental discovery" theory- someone left some old bread in water by mistake. There would be little reason for them to do it on purpose.


And since none of our back and forth addresses the original post: can the enzymes found in malt function at room temperature over a longer period of time, at anything approaching the efficiency of a warm mash?

I'm not trying to argue with you, but in post #22, you started this line of discussion...

Even scientists and historians do not have consensus on this issue, so I fully understand you not agreeing with what I'm saying. I was merely trying to point out that the majority do not ascribe to that belief any longer.

I'm a new brewer, but a seasoned enzymologist, so I feel I can chime in.

It makes sense that early brewers would have known to use warm water to rehydrate and begin germination of their seeds before planting crops for better viability. This is essentially malting.

If you measure the specific activity of any enzyme vs. temperature, it will generally fall in a normal distribution with a peak at highest activity. The width of the peaks vary widely with the specific enzyme. It makes sense that amylases would have a wide range of activity, and a slow rate of conversion at the lower bounds of germination temperatures.

I'm certain that early brewers noticed the sweetness and fermentability caused by malting, and experimented with a range of warm water to maximize this sweetness, resulting in mashing techniques. We don't give enough credit to our ancestors for empirical discovery.

I'm just thinking out loud about the history discussion, but I do know that we use many conditions in the lab that accelerate the turnover rate of enzymes to much higher levels than found in the body (in this case a seed). You can imagine how it would not be ideal for a seed to rapidly convert it's energy stores in the cool spring, yet still works at a low rate as germination begins.

So, sorry for the double post, but who here is going to do the experiment and see if malted barley converts over time when hydrated in water in a warm room, say 90-120 F.

ScoRas said:

So, sorry for the double post, but who here is going to do the experiment and see if malted barley converts over time when hydrated in water in a warm room, say 90-120 F.

Click to expand...

A better question is, who has a room in the house that is 90-120F? If the experiment is to be done, I would do it at normal room temp (around 70F).

ScoRas said:

So, sorry for the double post, but who here is going to do the experiment and see if malted barley converts over time when hydrated in water in a warm room, say 90-120 F.

Click to expand...

Anyone with spare time and a sauna at home?

Heh Heh, I was thinking of my back room in the summer. I'm no historian, but I do work on co-evolution of enzymes in microbes. We usually just have thought experiments like this to think of conditions that are plausible, and see if we can recreate them in the lab.

We'll never be able to know exactly what conditions organisms experienced in the past, but we can try our best using historical models, and test them.

Anyway, I think this is an interesting discussion. I'm not arguing with anyone's ideas.

I'm kind of curious about it myself now. Lots of people do extended mashes where they start the mash the night before and then kick off brew day with the lauter. However, the mash usally doesnt drop much below 140 with the proper insulation. I'm with Malfet, I would be worried about spoilage just letting it rest at room temp for 24 hours. Might be better suited for a sour mash.

Airborneguy said:

I'm not trying to argue with you, but in post #22, you started this line of discussion...

Even scientists and historians do not have consensus on this issue, so I fully understand you not agreeing with what I'm saying. I was merely trying to point out that the majority do not ascribe to that belief any longer.

Click to expand...

As I said, with OUR back and forth
I appreciate a good discussion, and most of the time, posters around here have valid points, even in disagreement. It's one of the reasons I started posting here.


On topic: I guess the real trick would be to do a series to determine what temperature range was most efficient overall, and how long the process takes.
Perhaps also do a minor modification with the first infusion being hotter water to kill surface bacteria, and then topping up with room temp water of reasonable cleanliness. I would presume a very thin mash would be appropriate- I would contend the earliest brewers would be unlikely to intentionally dilute later in the process (post mash or post boil)

As the wort will later be boiled (unless you really want to go ancient), I wouldn't worry overmuch about bacterial growth, except in whatever initial sourness might be created.

Cool, sometimes its tough to 'get' the intentions of someone the first time conversing online.

It would be interesting to come up with a set of experiments that could shed light on what process would be 'easier' to discover, and/or how it was discovered, either accidentally or through experimentation. In reality, it was probably a mixture of both. We tend to not give proper credit to ancient man, but at the same time, they did operate with far less knowledge and technology than we do.

Being that malting actually has a visual and taste component that is readily apparent, i tend to agree that this part of the process was discovered accidentally, which lend to 'experimentation' with various processes similar to mashing to extract the sugars.

Uh, moonshiners have been converting starches to sugar without mash temps for a long time.

Basic recipe: take a bunch of corn, and bury it in manure. Leave for 10 days, then come back and wash the manure from the corn (its now malted). Dump that with some horse feed (which contains barley) and put it in a big container. Top the container off with water, and dump some bakers yeast in it or a partially baked loaf of bread. return in 1-3 weeks and distill. The yeast will eat up any sugars immediately after they're converted from the starch, and preserve the mash from most infections. ... Supposedly its really inefficient, and to get the full conversion, you have to take the back-set (the stillage after the whiskey is distilled) and dump it back on the mash. Corn and barley, 80%/20%, takes about 3 times before it's fully converted, or so the old lore goes.

I'm actually going to try a sour mash using this method once it warms up here (Pac NW). EDIT: for a beer, minus the manure...

Manure can get really hot inside specially in summer. Composite material has insulation properties and if the pile is big enough retains the heat of the biological reactions in it. Mash temps are reached or almost reached by different means. There is no magic

Obliviousbrew said:

Manure can get really hot inside specially in summer. Composite material has insulation properties and if the pile is big enough retains the heat of the biological reactions in it. Mash temps are reached or almost reached by different means. There is no magic

Click to expand...

He said they use the manure for malting, not for mashing. Anyway you look at, sounds like a Shi**y way to brew.

Maybe this is what they mean when they say that Coors is "frost brewed"?