Crisp Chocolate Malt Potential, correct or incorrect?

I just went to add some Crisp Chocolate malt into my inventory and usually I do it with out much thought but in reviewing the numbers I can't understand why the extract potential of this malt was at 1.035 for the setting. It just seemed odd to me that a malt roasted at this level 425-475 L could have that much extract potential.

I looked at the other roasted malts and many of them had similar SG potentials. Shouldn't the potential of this malt be near or at 1.000? Am I missing something here or not understanding what's going on? Thanks

The only analysis I could find that included potential was Viking. Their dark Chocolate at 300 - 400 SRM  ls listed at min. 67% (fine). That would put in the low 30s as far as points/gallon. Looking at the similar malts in my BS3 database, I see them all coming in around 30PPG.

Waldner said:

I just went to add some Crisp Chocolate malt into my inventory and usually I do it with out much thought but in reviewing the numbers I can't understand why the extract potential of this malt was at 1.035 for the setting. It just seemed odd to me that a malt roasted at this level 425-475 L could have that much extract potential.

I looked at the other roasted malts and many of them had similar SG potentials. Shouldn't the potential of this malt be near or at 1.000? Am I missing something here or not understanding what's going on? Thanks

Click to expand...

I did not take any of the attributes of the given malts supplied with the software to be the manufacturer's specifications and it has served me well.  For any malt that I use, I look up the latest specifications for that malt supplier and type and update the program with the specs.  Since I buy some malts by the bag, it has become a routine to get a specific lot analysis for the lot that the bag came from.

Another thing to be aware of is that maltsters have come a long way since early 2000's when the lists were first cobbled together.  There have been changes in barley varieties, malting methods, and specifications for the same malt that I have been able to track over time.  2-row which I have sourced for 6 or 7 years has a different blend, lower protein content, and higher diastatic content today than when I first purchased it. 

The current spec sheet I have from Crisp Malting is the Chocolate has an extract of 77% minimum FGDB which does correspond with 1.035 extract potential.  I had a figure of 1.034 or 74% FGDB extract from the last lot that I purchased.

As far as the extract potential being zero, I have never seen a specialty malt that did not have some contribution when mashed.  There are usually some starch chains which do make it through the process and contribute to actual fermentable content.

If a malt truly had no extract potential, then you wouldn't even get color from it. The extract potential isn't exclusively sugar. You'll get proteins, tannins, starches, nitrogen (and other nutrients) plus other trace elements from any malt. In the presence of enzymes, the extraction goes up because protien is broken down and residual starch is converted to sugar. Unless it's burnt to carbon, there's still something to extract.