Bad efficiency from not enough Diastatic Power?

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.

user 141939

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
642
Reaction score
61
I brewed a brown ale a while back and got pretty low efficiency of 60% when I am usually up around 70-75%.

The only thing I really did differently was that I mashed thick at 1 quart per pound so I was blaming that but that doesn't really make sense.

Now I have been reading this article.http://morebeer.com/brewingtechniques/bmg/noonan.html

and he says this of british malts
while the British malts have enough only to convert their own weight under normal infusion mash conditions.

So maybe this is why I had poor efficiency? I guess I could test it out next time I brew by adding in some 6-row or something. Here was my grainbill, and most of the malts were Thomas Faucett, the brown malt wasn't...

Fawcett Pale Malt: 71%
Crystal 75: 10%
Malted Oats: 4%
Torrefied Wheat: 4%
Black Malt: 9.5%
Brown Malt: 1.5%
 
I brewed a brown ale a while back and got pretty low efficiency of 60% when I am usually up around 70-75%.

The only thing I really did differently was that I mashed thick at 1 quart per pound so I was blaming that but that doesn't really make sense.

Now I have been reading this article.http://morebeer.com/brewingtechniques/bmg/noonan.html

and he says this of british malts

So maybe this is why I had poor efficiency? I guess I could test it out next time I brew by adding in some 6-row or something. Here was my grainbill, and most of the malts were Thomas Faucett, the brown malt wasn't...

Fawcett Pale Malt: 71%
Crystal 75: 10%
Malted Oats: 4%
Torrefied Wheat: 4%
Black Malt: 9.5%
Brown Malt: 1.5%

I would look for other causes. Modern UK malt has enough enzyme content to comfortably convert another 25% of its weight and the recipe only has 5.5%. Look into the milling (insufficiently crushed grain) first. Also make sure your thermometer is accurate and that you have mixed the mash thoroughly.
 
Thanks. It's not the milling since I have my own mill and it's set the same for every brew, I can check my thermometer, it's been a few brews since I last did that. It could have been a mixing thing or a bad sparge. I do think I need to mix more than I do now.
 
"The only thing I really did differently was that I mashed thick at 1 quart per pound so I was blaming that but that doesn't really make sense."

What did you use as the determining factor that lead you to believe that it "doesn't really makes sense?"

It does make sense, you changed the process, without knowing what will take place. Either, you didn't follow through with the process that makes the ratio work or you didn't understand it. Then, somehow, you came up with diastatic power of British malt is low and that was the problem, so next time you'll toss in some six row. You have an easy fix, don't add more to the equation. The sounding board gained from experience is short, now you have something to add to it and that ain't bad.

Using 1qt/lb mash gets loaded with extract and mash viscosity increases. It becomes harder to get the extract out of a thick mash. A thick mash has to be handled differently.

The 1 qt/lb ratio is used in processes that are thinned down or where infusions are used to reach various conversion rests, ie., step and decoction methods. Thick mash preserves enzymes and in certain brewing processes the brewer wants the enzymes to hang around a little longer. If your method is such that you dump hot water at one temperature on malt and then you stand around waiting for something majical to happen, there is no sense in using part of a process that is used to control enzymatic action.
If you want to start mashing at 1qt/lb. Start out in the beta temperature range. After the rest, thin the mash with hot water to raise the mash temperature into the alpha range and test for conversion in 20 minutes.
 
Agree with VladofTrub, really thick mash will have problems sparging, using really hot sparge water and doing a mash out is key (like a gallon or so 190F strike sparge water to lower viscosity) before you want to start sparging. Otherwise you will get channelling and low eff.

Also, adding to what VladofTrub said, it is kind of a special process why you would want to use a thick mash. For instance Scottish Brewer's used a thick mash to make scottish ale, but they had reasons for doing that. They also mashed on the high side of the infusion scale, around 156-158, so they didn't have as many problems dissolving starches in a thick mash that someone who decided to mash the same thickness at say 149F.
 
When a brewer is creating a beer such as RIS, Wee Heavy, Scottish ale, doppelbock or for that matter any style of beer. He really has to know about enzymatic action and how it works. To create beer, mash thickness, pH and temperature are controlled. The brewmaster knows that enzymes thermally denature with time and temperature, so he has to adjust the process to slow down the denaturing part. A thick mash preserves enzymes, enzymatic action changes in a thick mash. Another thing happens, mash gelatinizes at 149F when pH is below 5.5. When mash jells, enzymes change gears, conversion slows down. When mash jells, it is caused by amylopectin. But, now, we have a problem Houston. Temperatures at 156F denatures beta real quick, even in a thick mash. So, action from beta is limited, formation of fermentable sugar and B-Limit dextrin are limited. The longer beta is active, the stronger the beer becomes. After beta denatures, alpha is left and alpha produces non-fermentable sugar and A-Limit dextrin. Limit dextrin and protein are what creates mouthfeel and body.
If a brewmaster produces world class beer and puts food on his table by selling that world class beer. I will gaurantee that he will never tell anyone how he produces the beer. When some random guy walks into his brewery and says. Hey, Mr. Brewmaster, how about telling me your recipe, your water chemistry and the process you use to make your beer. Because after I leave your brewery, I'm getting on the computer or Im going to write a book and broadcast your secret all over the place. Do you think for one minute he is going to tell the guy how he does it? If you believe that he will, there's beach front property on the Planet Zyclor that is being given away, that you might be interested in. Charlie Papasian believed it. There's a lot more to it. But that's it in a nutshell.

Hot water doesn't liquify starch, alpha amalase does. Starch will begin to burst at 168F. When it bursts, amylopectin is rapidly released. That's where trouble begins when a brewer that uses the English method uses a mash out procedure. Mash out came from the tri-decoction method. In the method mash is boiled, hard starch bursts. When the mash boils it jells up. The boiling, jelled decoction is added back into the main mash to reach beta temperature. Beta will reduce the amylopectin. The 2nd decoction is boiled and the same thing occurs, amylopectin is released. The decoction is added back into the main mash to reach alpha temps. When beta and alpha cannot reduce the amylopectin any farther than Mother Nature allows, A and B-Limit dextrin is left. That's part of the reason why the tri-decoction and Schmitz methods produce higher yields and higher efficiency than any other brewing method.

When the OP brewed the brown beer at 1qt/lb, he failed to mention conversion time and conversion temperature. No mention was made about the method that was used to determine if conversion took place. The mash might not have converted during the time period. The brewer applied the rules that he read about and that works in one process, to another process that uses a different rule book.
Marris Otter is the only British malt available to a homebrewer that has low diastatic power. The malt converts easily, modification and protein level are standard. British malt is easy to work with. Try using under-modified, low protein malt.
 
Wow thanks for all the great info. Like I said I did suspect the thick mash at first as it was the obvious thing that I had changed. But I have not read yet that thick mash can cause efficiency issues. I did the thick mash because I read in another post that this made someones english beers taste maltier. Now, most people on that thread didn't believe that, but I thought I'd try it out anyways.

I mashed starting at 154 and finished at 152 and I mashed for an hour. I did a starch conversion test with iodine and it confirmed the conversion had finished. I sort of do a mash out, I don't think I get the temps quite all the way up to 168 but I try to at least raise it a bit so I don't thin out my beer too much from lower temps during sparging. I then do a single batch sparge typically,

So because the iodine test was good I guess it was maybe an issue with the sparge not being as effective, which is somehow a result of the thick mash?
 
You are beginning to develope a learning curve and that is great! It's good that you kept the mash at a lower temp during mash out. Mash out is used for accomplishing two things. It halts enzymatic action and thins the mash. It also, releases amylopectin. The amylopectin won't convert because enzymes become denatured and the starch ends up in the bottle, reducing the stability and shelf life of the final product. During the decoction method, jelled mash is converted. When it is time to mash out, there is very little starch left in the mash to burst and be carried over.
A thick mash will create a dextrinous wort, but the mash has to be handled the right way.
When you read the one line that said that a thick mash produces certain things. Realize, that the line was taken from what occurs during the decoction process.
Something else to consider. You are using what is called modern malt. When malt became modern, the English method was born. Malt became modern at the end of the 19th century. The rotary kiln was invented during that time period. It was also, the time when brewers became unionized. The brewery owner was paying union wages, the cost of brewing increased. The owner, to keep cost down went to the English method. The process produces beer cheaply, not necessarily a better quality beer. Beer produced before the time when malt became modern had to be produced by the decoction method. England had her mits on India years before malt became modern. When you read the story that IPA survived the long journey and aging that took place going from England to India, because it was loaded with hops and alcohol, isn't the complete truth. The beer was decoction brewed. The process creates the nutrients that yeast need and produces a clean, stable wort, that can withstand lagering/aging, without reducing the quality of beer or having to load it up with hops and alcohol.
Batch sparge process was conceived a long time ago. However, someone, claims to have invented it just a few years ago. It came from a process that two brothers conceived during the 17th century. They were the Duffer brothers. They were thrown out of Germany and ended up in England. Their process entailed using spent malt from breweries. The only way that the small amount of extract left in the spent grain could be washed out, was by stirring the snot out of it while sparging water through it. Duffer became a derogatory word/term in England. The hard work that you put into producing clean wort is erased. All the goop that the grain bed normally filters out gets flushed down the line and into the bottle.
Maybe, invest in a dedicated lautertun with a decent false bottom. Blichmann and other manufacturers are producing some pretty nice ones. Fly sparge and efficiency will be the same as batch sparging. The thing is you will be applying what the term lautering means and produce a cleaner product.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top