*Ss Brewing Technologies Giveaway - Enter Now!*

Home Brew Forums > Home Brewing Beer > All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing > How to repeat a desired maltose/dextring ration in your mash
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-18-2006, 04:45 AM   #1
Kaiser
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Kaiser's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pepperell, MA
Posts: 3,904
Liked 114 Times on 71 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default How to repeat a desired maltose/dextring ration in your mash

Guys,

Which mashing schedule do you think is more reliable in repeating a desired ratio of fermentable vs. non-fermentable sugars? The two schemes I have in mind are a step mash with 2 saccrification rests and a single infusion mash. The rests for the step mash are a maltose rest at ~62C, that is held for a determined amount of time, and a saccrification rest at ~72C, that is held until the iodine test is negative. The single infusion mash is done at a temperature between 63C and 70C and held until the iodine test is negative.

My current understanding of the mashing processes (and what I was told on a German home brewing board) tells me, that it should be easier with the step mash, as the amount of maltose being produced can be adjusted by the time spent at the maltose rest, and what is left, is converted to dextrines during the saccrification rest. This mashing schedule is commonly found in German All Grain (Maische) recipes.

For the single infusion mash, the amount of maltose being generated is determined by the rest temperature. Since it is harder to maintain this temperature, as precisely as necessary to produce a desired maltose contents, than it is to control the duration of a maltose rest, I believe that the step mash should be better in getting a repeatable maltose/dextrines ratio.

What do you think?

Kai

Kaiser is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-18-2006, 02:31 PM   #2
casebrew
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 847
Liked 6 Times on 6 Posts

Default

Now you are getting into the high tech aspect of brewing. If you want to make a very specific beer, you need to be critical of each detail. If you liked the way you did the last batch, you need to do every thing EXACTLY the same way.

Anheiser/Bush wants every bottle of Bud to taste exactly like every other bottle of Bud. I don't have that criterium. I guess I'm a beer slob.

That said, I doubt if method is as important as is how accuratly you accomplish the duplication- same water, same recipe, same temp, same time.

__________________

So far, I've had more experience thinking than I've had brewing....you don't think they are mutually exclusive, do you?

72 batches so far,
48 wine, mostly Loquat, peach, plum, prickly pear
23 beers and ciders
1 sauerkraut
1 Tequila, from a prickly pear wine experiment that didn't work. I call it "Prickly Heat"

casebrew is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-18-2006, 03:07 PM   #3
Kaiser
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Kaiser's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pepperell, MA
Posts: 3,904
Liked 114 Times on 71 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by casebrew
Now you are getting into the high tech aspect of brewing. If you want to make a very specific beer, you need to be critical of each detail. If you liked the way you did the last batch, you need to do every thing EXACTLY the same way.
And that's what I'm looking for. The challenge to repeat a batch as good as I can and even target a particular FG. This seems important to me since most of my beers will be brew, put more emphasis on malt character than hops.

Looking at the mash procedures available, there seems to be differences in the sensitivity to the process parameters. Two of the major parameters are temperature, time and malt/water ratio. Malt/water ratio is easily controlled for both mash procedures. Temperature needs to exact within about 1F for the single step infusion. But this is difficult to achieve in the cooler set-up that I have. Time, which is controlled much more easily, is the important process parameter for the step mash.

I was looking to find a diagram that shows attenuation levels based on the mash temperature of a single infusion mash. The only thing I found so far is: http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cs...statistics.php which does not show a predictable pattern for SG/FG based on the mash temperature.

Could I get this table from this forum? You would have to post SG, FG, yeast, and mash temperature. Ideally this experiment would have to be done with using the same yeast, pitching rate and fermentation temperatures.

Kai
Kaiser is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-18-2006, 05:51 PM   #4
casebrew
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 847
Liked 6 Times on 6 Posts

Default

I'd interpret Swingley's data a lot differently than he did. I'd say that 154 deg averages 78%, while all others avg 71%. Perhaps a bell-like curve would show him more than the 'trend' line? I suppose the 7% would be pretty significant in 'maltiness' or body of beer.

Bit isn't attenuation the measure of how much available carbs is turned into alcohol? So lower attenuation would mean more maltiness? Higher temps supposed to make more un-fermentables,....so mash at 158 for max malt?

I said I'm a slob... my 'body' has certainly varied. I guess holding mash at +/- 2 degrees could be important....but it has all been good beer!

__________________

So far, I've had more experience thinking than I've had brewing....you don't think they are mutually exclusive, do you?

72 batches so far,
48 wine, mostly Loquat, peach, plum, prickly pear
23 beers and ciders
1 sauerkraut
1 Tequila, from a prickly pear wine experiment that didn't work. I call it "Prickly Heat"

casebrew is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-18-2006, 07:13 PM   #5
Kaiser
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Kaiser's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pepperell, MA
Posts: 3,904
Liked 114 Times on 71 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by casebrew
Bit isn't attenuation the measure of how much available carbs is turned into alcohol? So lower attenuation would mean more maltiness? Higher temps supposed to make more un-fermentables,....so mash at 158 for max malt?
That's how I understand it as well. The goal is not juts repeating the presence of body, but the "amount" of body.

Quote:
I said I'm a slob... my 'body' has certainly varied. I guess holding mash at +/- 2 degrees could be important....but it has all been good beer!
There is no doubt that good beers will be made by being more relaxed about mashing. I'm also not freaking out about the possibility that I could be off by several gravity points. I just thinking about this to become more familiar with the mashing process

Kai
__________________
BrauKaiser.com - brewing science blog - Twitter - water and mash chemistry calculator
Kaiser is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-20-2006, 12:05 AM   #6
Nate
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Nate's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 623
Liked 5 Times on 4 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

I just repeated a recipe using two different mash processes and the difference in these two beers is incredible. First batch was a single step, high temp mash and the second batch was a multi-step that was purposely held lower longer. Body, attentuation, clarity, %alcohol, etc are all completely different. As far as getting consistency in your mash, my guess is to use whatever mash method is the most most simple... fewer steps, fewer variables, fewer opportunities for errors. One more comment on attenuation... don't forget to adjust your attentuation calculations for any unfermentables that you may add (i.e. crystal malts).

__________________
http://www.jackieboybrewing.com
Nate is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-21-2006, 10:06 PM   #7
Lost
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 606
Liked 7 Times on 6 Posts

Default

I'll just throw this out there...
decoction mashes also lend a maltier taste to the brew (or so I've been told). If you're gonna do step mashes why not go all the way and do a decoction mash? Of course, I I doubt that decocotion mashing actually results in more unfermentables.. but the flavor is definitely supposed to be different and some would say better. The next batch I do (this weekend hopefully) will include a couple decoctions. I'll let you know how it goes and what effect, if any, it actually has on the finished product.

As for temp.. yes it has a very noticeable effect in infusion mashing. Change it just a few degrees and the beer will be very different. I planned a cream ale as an easy drinker for friends and neighbors (light on the hops). It turned out great but I had a much higher mash temp then I planned for 158F.. the beer is noticeably thick and almost bittersweet (possibly a result of the corn but I think it also has a lot to do with the mash temp). Good news is I still hit a abv of 6.1% even with a FG of 1.015!

I do agree with you that it's probably easier to exactly replicate a receipe using steps rather than infusion. I've had mixed results hitting the temp I was shooting for using infusion mashes. Of course, if you're bad with math and do a poor job measuring the amount of grain and water you have in the tun and how much your adding then going with a step mash just complicates things further and gives you some additional opportunities to screw up (or at least do things differently than you did last time).

__________________
Lost is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-22-2006, 12:37 AM   #8
boo boo
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hearts's Delight, Newfoundland
Posts: 4,171
Liked 30 Times on 26 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

I'm confused here. If you can't hold the temps steady on an infusion mash, then how do you hold the temps steady on a step mash? Seems to me that you have a couple more steps in which to vary your temps in.

__________________
boo boo is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-22-2006, 12:59 AM   #9
Brewpastor
Beer, not rocket science
HBT_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Brewpastor's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Corrales, New Mexico
Posts: 4,580
Liked 30 Times on 26 Posts

Default

I am a control freak. My whole system is set up for control. I like to have control of as many variables as possible, not that I always use them, but it is nice to have the option. I like to do step mashes in my kettle and find I can really get the temps I want this way. Most of the time I do simple single step infusions, but there again I like control. I want to know my strike temps, the grain temp, the pounds to volume ratios. I love my Promash for this. Control Baby!

__________________
Before I learned to brew I was poor, sober and lonely. Now I am just poor.
Brewpastor is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-22-2006, 01:19 AM   #10
Kaiser
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Kaiser's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pepperell, MA
Posts: 3,904
Liked 114 Times on 71 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost
decoction mashes also lend a maltier taste to the brew (or so I've been told). If you're gonna do step mashes why not go all the way and do a decoction mash? Of course, I I doubt that decocotion mashing actually results in more unfermentables.. but the flavor is definitely supposed to be different and some would say better. The next batch I do (this weekend hopefully) will include a couple decoctions. I'll let you know how it goes and what effect, if any, it actually has on the finished product.
I have only used decoction for my AG batches so far. But none of them are ready for consumption yet. So I don't have anyting for comparison to my extract batches. But yes, decoction mashes do not result in more unferentables unless you burn the decoction pretty badly.

[qoute]
I do agree with you that it's probably easier to exactly replicate a receipe using steps rather than infusion. I've had mixed results hitting the temp I was shooting for using infusion mashes. Of course, if you're bad with math and do a poor job measuring the amount of grain and water you have in the tun and how much your adding then going with a step mash just complicates things further and gives you some additional opportunities to screw up (or at least do things differently than you did last time).[/quote]

I argue that it is not as important to hit the temps exactly with the alternate step mash that I explained earlier. But that's just theory so far.

Kai
__________________
BrauKaiser.com - brewing science blog - Twitter - water and mash chemistry calculator
Kaiser is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply



Quick Reply
Message:
Options
Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
repeat mistakes to repeat beer taste? Elfmaze Extract Brewing 2 09-15-2009 07:46 PM
Possible Repeat Carbonation Issue brewerdad Bottling/Kegging 4 09-07-2009 06:38 PM
Hops/maltose utilization lordbeermestrength All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing 20 03-05-2009 11:38 PM
Open House 12-5pm Maltose in Monroe, CT 3/7/09 Joe C Connecticut HomeBrew Forum 0 03-05-2009 05:16 PM
Rice Maltose solidghost Extract Brewing 12 02-26-2008 04:16 PM