Oats-rolled vs. malted?

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.

Grizwold1

Grizwold Brewing
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2020
Messages
136
Reaction score
134
Location
NW Washington
When making oat stout I have always used quaker oats from the grocery. I am thinking about using malted oats next time. Should I expect any qualitative difference in the end result? Oat malt costs slightly more, but not enough to make a difference if there is an improvement in the end product.
 
I covered my bases and used both. Just keep an eye an proportions if you do as you might not have enough diastatic power and efficiency may drop. Check your base malt. You could add in a step to the mash to account for it.
 
fwiw, malted oats do have diastatic power, typically guaranteed 25 minimum, not quite self-converting, while rolled/flaked/steamed oats have zero diastatic power. I use one, the other, and sometimes both, depending on the recipe and what I have on hand. Other than Golden Naked Oats, which has a distinctly different character, I've not found a practical difference between malted vs flaked oats in the finished beers.

The one thing to keep in mind is it takes a skinny mill gap to crush oat malt. While I typically run my barley mill at .032" gap for barley malt, my oat/wheat/rye mill is set for .020"...

Cheers!
 
I've read there are minor texture differences but can't say for certain as the only two styles I use them in I use both.

Oatmeal stouts have a lot of speciality grains usually. It's the one time I was really off on OG that seemed to point to a diastatic power issue. I varied the recipe several times but every time the flaked oats were in higher proportions. I know also that the malted oats weren't sufficiently milled as it I wasn't aware of the potential gap changes needed until more recently. Good to point that out.
 
Malted oats will be at least somewhat modified: starches, beta-glucans, and proteins will all be broken down from the unmalted state ... and, as mentioned, there will be diastatic enzymes. There could be differences in mouthfeel due to modification, as well as taste differences due to kilning.

All of this is theoretical, though. In practice, I haven't noticed a big difference between malted and unmalted oats.
 
I've done a direct side by side once, 20% flaked oats Vs 20% Fawcett malted oats. The malt had better head retention, drier and less smooth mouthfeel and tasted more like generic beer. It was also quite a bit darker than the flaked version. In contrast the flaked version had worse head, much smoother and creamier mouthfeel and seemed a bit fuller. I didn't compare them to a purely barley malt beer though. Clarity was better in the malt version as well, although that could've been negligible with time (I didn't test that). I would go for flaked if you're looking for creaminess, but you could sub out a part with malt or wheat if you want to increase head retention.
 
Thanks all. Sounds like for what I want, regular rolled oats are the way to go. At the proportions I use, (c. 10-12%) should not be any conversion problems. Have never used Golden Naked Oats. What is the different in character?
 
Last edited:
Well...if one was bound to brew a 100% oat malt beer one would have to have a death wish to skip the beta glucan rest for sure :D The beta amylase rest along with the alpha amylase rest are to make the most out of the modest Lintner values for typical malted oats and squeeze out every bit of conversion power available...

Cheers!
 
Back
Top