60 Minute mashing unnecessary....

[RighteousFire]

I've been reading around lately and listening to a lot of brewcasts, as well as talking to some commercial brewers and I've found, personally, a 60 minute mash to be a waste of time.

A lot of commercial breweries, like Flying Dog here in Frederick, MD, only mash for 25 minutes or so. This is due to how malts nowadays are so much more modified than they previously were. I gave it a shot and low and behold I had complete conversion after only 30 minutes this past brew (Ordinary Bitter). I will be testing after 20 minutes on my next brew (Pilsner).

Questions? Comments? Concerns?

 

[ChshreCat]

He's a heretic! Let the stoning begin!

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Do an iodine test. If no starch is present, sparge.

 

[weirdboy]

I would probably be doing shorter mashes if I had some iodine.

 

[Yambor44]

This should be interesting.

 

[Homebrewcrazy]

That would reduce my drinking time by 35 minutes, NO WAY

 

[lamarguy]

I've been reading around ally and listening to a lot of brewcasts, as well as talking to some commercial brewers and I've found, personally, a 60 minute mash to be a waste of time.

Depends on your mash profile (e.g., temperature, pH, enzyme level of malt, etc.). Read theory of mashing as a starting point.

For example, if I'm brewing a saison, I want a highly fermentable wort. To achieve that, I would need to mash in the high 140s (e.g., 149F) for at least an hour, if not 1.5 hours to reach full conversion.

But, yes, some mash profiles only require ~30 minutes to fully convert.

 

[Grimtas]

ROFL and here I am still doing 90 min mashes.

 

[IrregularPulse]

Mash time depends on Grain being used. Only way to tell if your done is Iodine test. 60 Minutes is just a general safety time amount we use instead of testing with iodine.

I think that covers all basis.... But yes, generally 60 minutes probably is a waste if you're in a hurry.

 

[RC0032]

Do an iodine test. If no starch is present, sparge.

Detail instructions on how one does this?

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Detail instructions on how one does this?

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/wiki/index.php/Iodine_test

That should cover it. don;t use the de-colored stuff tho'. It don;t work.

 

[Saccharomyces]

Another factor to consider between commercial and home setups is that most commercial mash systems have a paddle that continuously stirs the mash. This aids in gelatinizing the starches and distributes the enzymes quicker than a still grain bed. In a recirculated mash system like a RIMS or HERMS you get a similar effect which helps to shorten mash times.

 

[the_bird]

Remember, we're not JUST looking for starch conversion. A longer mash will allow some of the longer-chained, unfermentable sugars to be broken down into more-fermentable sugars. That's why for a particularly dry beer, you'll occassionally see a 90-minute mash recommended even though the actual *conversion* is long done by then.

 

[RighteousFire]

Detail instructions on how one does this?

Put a small amount of mash liqour, say a table spoon, on a white plate and put a single drop of iodine in it and swirl it around. If the solution doesn't turn purple or black than you are good.

I know the 60 minute time is a "just in case" method, but really, if breweries doing it have great results, I think I can too. I'll of course let everyone know how my results come out. The first beer is finishing primary right now. The pilsner will gonin next week, or this weekend.

 

[Joos]

Detail instructions on how one does this?

Pour a small amount of the wort on a plate with some iodine.If its black your done.if it's purpleish your not.

+1000 on the modification of the grain.If your using pilsner,most uk 2row,etc. you would need a longer mash.Thats why a lot of german/english brewers still do decoctions.

 

[Grimtas]

Remember, we're not JUST looking for starch conversion. A longer mash will allow some of the longer-chained, unfermentable sugars to be broken down into more-fermentable sugars. That's why for a particularly dry beer, you'll occassionally see a 90-minute mash recommended even though the actual *conversion* is long done by then.

+1 I do 90 min mashes because I like my beers on the dry side. At least my ESB's anyway

 

[the_bird]

Of course, for most recipes people are adding things like Carapils to add body; it's entirely possible that a shorter mash, resulting in a less-fermentable wort, might end up doing the same.

 

[Stratotankard]

Pour a small amount of the wort on a plate with some iodine.If its black your done.if it's purpleish your not.

+1000 on the modification of the grain.If your using pilsner,most uk 2row,etc. you would need a longer mash.Thats why a lot of german/english brewers still do decoctions.

Actually if its black or purple you're not done. no color change (iodine just dilutes into wort) means you have complete conversion.

Terje

 

[Grimtas]

Pour a small amount of the wort on a plate with some iodine.If its black your done.if it's purpleish your not.

+1000 on the modification of the grain.If your using pilsner,most uk 2row,etc. you would need a longer mash.Thats why a lot of german/english brewers still do decoctions.

Wait what? Black/Purple = Not Done.

Edit: Oops Stratos beat me to it.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Of course, for most recipes people are adding things like Carapils to add body; it's entirely possible that a shorter mash, resulting in a less-fermentable wort, might end up doing the same.

+1 Knowing what is going on in the mash at different levels is more important than getting it done in record time.

 

[jgln]

I learned here that it can be done sooner, just that at 60 minutes you can be fairly sure it will be. Otherwise it is check it, check it, check it, check it, check it..........

 

[RighteousFire]

The way I see it is that once you hit conversion at say the 25 minutes, its still going to take you some time to do a vorlauf, drain the 1st runnings, sparge (batch or fly will take some time either way), so by the end of it all it has sat in the mash tun for longer and you have gotten all of the fermentable and dextrinous sugars possible.

I will be mashing my pilsner this way in a week or so.

I'm not worried. The Ordinary Bitter (Cheeky Bastard is what I call it) has attenuated from 1.043 to 1.011 and tastes fine as of yet. I'll konw more once its bottled and conditioned.

 

[Chester]

Remember, we're not JUST looking for starch conversion. A longer mash will allow some of the longer-chained, unfermentable sugars to be broken down into more-fermentable sugars. That's why for a particularly dry beer, you'll occassionally see a 90-minute mash recommended even though the actual *conversion* is long done by then.

bingo. My iodine tests are negative for starch at 20 to 25 minutes but I continue to mash at least an hour if not 90 minutes.

 

[Yooper]

bingo. My iodine tests are negative for starch at 20 to 25 minutes but I continue to mash at least an hour if not 90 minutes.

It depends on what you're making. If I'm making a "thicker" beer, with a higher mash temp, I could mash at as little as 20 minutes and get conversion. If I want to make a more fermentable wort, a beer with a lighter body, then I'm going to mash longer.

There isn't any reason to rush through it, just for the sake of rushing through it. I'm a big believer in knowing WHY you're doing something. If you're mashing for 25 minutes- why? If you're mashing for 90 minutes- again, why?

I'm with the_Bird- if you want to make a certain beer, your mash times will vary.

I also either mash out to stop conversion, or get those first runnings on to boil as soon as I'm done mashing. I don't mash for 25 minutes to get a less fermentable wort, and then let it sit around for half an hour allowing the enzymes to work on it. Again, it goes back to knowing why you're doing what you're doing.

 

[Kaiser]

Depends on your mash profile (e.g., temperature, pH, enzyme level of malt, etc.). Read theory of mashing as a starting point.

I'm not sure how much this changed since I initially wrote it, but here is an updated version:http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=The_Science_of_Mashing

to join the chorus, the lower your fermentability expectations, the shorter you can mash. This is because you can mash higher and at higher temps the mash will convert faster. Don't get fooled by the 10-15 min conversion times that are reported for malts. They are not obtained with a realistic mash schedule.

Kai

 

[RighteousFire]

It depends on what you're making. If I'm making a "thicker" beer, with a higher mash temp, I could mash at as little as 20 minutes and get conversion. If I want to make a more fermentable wort, a beer with a lighter body, then I'm going to mash longer.

There isn't any reason to rush through it, just for the sake of rushing through it. I'm a big believer in knowing WHY you're doing something. If you're mashing for 25 minutes- why? If you're mashing for 90 minutes- again, why?

I'm with the_Bird- if you want to make a certain beer, your mash times will vary.

I also either mash out to stop conversion, or get those first runnings on to boil as soon as I'm done mashing. I don't mash for 25 minutes to get a less fermentable wort, and then let it sit around for half an hour allowing the enzymes to work on it. Again, it goes back to knowing why you're doing what you're doing.

This is a very good point, but I still think it might be, with the way the grains are modified these days, unnecessary to mash for 60+ minutes before starting to vorlauf and run off.

It may be sort of "against the grain" as it were, but personally I don't think I see anything fundamentally wrong with it.

I will be performing an experiment with 2- 1 gallon batches using the exact same amount of ingredients and schedules and etc, and see what happens.

As I said before, If a lot of big time breweries are mashing this way, and not just a few beers, but all their beers i.e. Flying Dog, why can't we?

Its hard to change something that has been ingrained (no pun intended?) in everyone from day 1 of homebrewing, but I just am thinking outside our box.

Isn't that what homebrewing is about anyway? Every brewer doing what works for them?

(I apologize if any of my statements seem odd in anyway. I have been drinking a bit this evening)

 

[RighteousFire]

I'm not sure how much this changed since I initially wrote it, but here is an updated version:http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=The_Science_of_Mashing

to join the chorus, the lower your fermentability expectations, the shorter you can mash. This is because you can mash higher and at higher temps the mash will convert faster. Don't get fooled by the 10-15 min conversion times that are reported for malts. They are not obtained with a realistic mash schedule.

Kai

Not trying to be an ass even though I am one, BUT, is this statement backed by your own experience?

I found that my Ordinary Bitter fermented to my expected FG right on the dot with only a 30 minute mash @ 150F.

This thread is mainly just me playing devil's advocate as I normally do with everything.

I just wonder if any of the stuff people have been saying (not that I don't trust anybody's experience) is just repeated, or has actually been tested by them.

 

[the_bird]

Not trying to be an ass even though I am one, BUT, is this statement backed by your own experience?

LOL!

Dude, that's Kaiser you're talking to... YES, it's back by his experience! Look through the braukaiser site, that's Kai's own work. I don't think I've ever met someone more meticulous than him; I'm thoroughly convinced that when it comes time for The Next Great Homebrewing Bible to be written, it'll be by Kai.

 

[DNW]

Don't get fooled by the 10-15 min conversion times that are reported for malts.

...is this statement backed by your own experience?

I found that my Ordinary Bitter fermented to my expected FG right on the dot with only a 30 minute mash @ 150F.

30 minutes is quite a bit more than 10-15...???

 

[IrregularPulse]

LOL!

Dude, that's Kaiser you're talking to... YES, it's back by his experience! Look through the braukaiser site, that's Kai's own work. I don't think I've ever met someone more meticulous than him; I'm thoroughly convinced that when it comes time for The Next Great Homebrewing Bible to be written, it'll be by Kai.

Ditto, He has the experience, along with the charts, graphs, software simulations, test tube samplings, ...........

It's safe to take what he says as truth.

 

[Kaiser]

I just wonder if any of the stuff people have been saying (not that I don't trust anybody's experience) is just repeated, or has actually been tested by them.

don't worry. This is the criticism we need to keep us onest and myths from spreading.

The statement I made is backed by experiments I did. But I never gave exact numbers an getting to the right attenuation with a 30 min mash is not impossible.

Attenuation, and to some point efficiency is a function if both temp and time. If you start playing around with time in addition to rest temp you'll have 2 variables to worry about. Hence my general advice to keep the time constand and control wort fermentability through mash temp. But the choosen time doesn't have to be 60 min. It's just what others do.

Kai

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

I tried shorter mashes but not 15-minute mashes. I think the shortest was 30 minutes and I did it several times. What I found was that my efficiency wasn't nearly as 'stable' as usual (I had lower efficiency a couple of times) and my fermentability was harder to get on target. So I lengthened it but I still tend to mash on the short side regarding time.

Maybe a better/more specific question would be: Using todays widely-available highly-modified malts (not some under-modified malt)...is it EVER necessary to mash for 90 minutes or more? EDIT: and let's assume you have good water/mash pH.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

....I'm thoroughly convinced that when it comes time for The Next Great Homebrewing Bible to be written, it'll be by Kai.

I thought that is what the Braukaiser wiki's are.

 

[RighteousFire]

I tried shorter mashes but not 15-minute mashes. I think the shortest was 30 minutes and I did it several times. What I found was that my efficiency wasn't nearly as 'stable' as usual (I had lower efficiency a couple of times) and my fermentability was harder to get on target. So I lengthened it but I still tend to mash on the short side regarding time.

Maybe a better/more specific question would be: Using todays widely-available highly-modified malts (not some under-modified malt)...is it EVER necessary to mash for 90 minutes or more? EDIT: and let's assume you have good water/mash pH.

I actually got 86% this time whereas I've usually been getting ~74%.

Most of the brews I plan on doing in the immediate future will all be 150F mashes so the variable will only be time.

 

[Kaiser]

I like this subject, b/c it is a gread topic that illustrates how mashes and their enzymes behave.

I tried shorter mashes but not 15-minute mashes. I think the shortest was 30 minutes and I did it several times. What I found was that my efficiency wasn't nearly as 'stable' as usual (I had lower efficiency a couple of times) and my fermentability was harder to get on target. So I lengthened it but I still tend to mash on the short side regarding time.

If plotted over time, extract and attenuation will reach some level of saturation. That means heir change over time declines. Here is some great data from Windisch that I found in Brigg's book. I have similar plots, but they are not as nice:

extract (solid lines) and fermentable extract (dashed lines) achieved with isothermal mashes at 3 different temperatures. (Data by Windisch, Kolbach and Schild via [Briggs, 2004](http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Starch_Conversion#Temperature_and_Time)

As you can see, the hotter the mash the earlier will that saturation be reached but the fermentability (dashed line) may stall below your target. That's where you have to mash at a lower temp. In this example, if you mash at 65C (149F) you'll still see the fermentability rise as you mash longer and the shoter your mash, the more does the length of the mash matter. Note that mashing is not done when you drain the mash. As long as the wort temp is below 160F you'll have more or less active b-amylase which can make more fermentable sugars. And a-amylase, which doesn't denature completely until 180F, can do that too, but much less effectively.

That's why Spanisch Ale saw this unprecictability in efficiency and attenuation. He was still on the part of the slope where it changes with time.

Granted, this data is from the middle of last century and malts have improved. While the numbers from this chart cannot be applied to today's malts, the qualitative form of these curves can.

If I were a commercial brewer and would brew the same beer every day, I would have the time and control to find the least amount of time that I need to mash to hit my targets. But I'm not, that's why I like to keep mashing longer so my results are more predictable and not as easily affected by changes in the time it takes to drain the mash or heat the wort.

Kai

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

Granted, this data is from the middle of last century and malts have improved

So, would curves of todays malts likely flatten out earlier regarding time? Do you think there is a reasonable 'max' mash time even when mashing as low as 140 F (60 C)?

And am I reading it correctly that, just based on that graph, there would never be a reason to mash at 140 F (60 C)? Regarding sugars that is. Seems the 149 F (65 C) mash accomplishes the same thing, just faster.

If there is a mimimum 'effective' mash temp then it seems there would be a corresponding maximum mash time, although based on that graph it may be so long (anything over 90 minutes seems long) as to be a non-issue.

 

[remilard]

As I said before, If a lot of big time breweries are mashing this way, and not just a few beers, but all their beers i.e. Flying Dog, why can't we?

Ask Flying Dog how much time elapses between mash in and the first runnings hitting the kettle. I bet you it is over an hour.

We can't mimic Flying Dog's sacch rest time and get the same result if the rest of our process is different.

 

[Kaiser]

So, would curves of todays malts likely flatten out earlier regarding time? Do you think there is a reasonable 'max' mash time even when mashing as low as 140 F (60 C)?

The curves for today’s pale malts are likely a bit steeper and will flatten out earlier. BTW, crush affects this as well. The finer you crush the faster the curves will flatten out.

To find the mash mash time, you could take gravity samples from the mash. If they don’t change anymore, your efficiency is not going up anymore. Testing attenuation is a little different. You would need to take samples, boil them and perform fast ferment tests. Certainly a bit more work.

And am I reading it correctly that, just based on that graph, there would never be a reason to mash at 140 F (60 C)? Regarding sugars that is. Seems the 149 F (65 C) mash accomplishes the same thing, just faster.

Note that the attenuation curve for 60C still rises and will be surpassing the 65C curve if the mash continues past 180 min. But if you want that high of a fermentability you would be looking at step mashes to accomplish this in a shorter time.

If there is a mimimum 'effective' mash temp then it seems there would be a corresponding maximum mash time, although based on that graph it may be so long (anything over 90 minutes seems long) as to be a non-issue.

[/quote]

Theoretically speaking, there is no minimum mash temp or maximum mash time. But one you add practical considerations the minimum mash temp is around the gelatinization temp of barley starch (60-63 C) and the maximum mash time is likely a few hours.

You notice that I stay away from giving concrete numbers. I don’t have them and they also depend on a lot of factors. I’m just trying to give some pointers in case one wants to play around with mash time to find a process that better fits given constraints.

Kai

 

[pjj2ba]

No one yet has mentioned the grain crush. This has a significant affect on mash time. In my wife's botany class, she now does a malt starch conversion lab (I set it up for her). I can get full conversion of the starches in under 15 min. - in a mini-mash in a test tube. BUT, this is using basically a flour made from the endosperm (husks removed after crushing, prior to converting into flour). With a std. crush, only the starches on the outside of the chunks are accessible to the enzymes. It is like a melting ice cube, slowly getting smaller. With the fine powder, much more of the starch is available for conversion. So the finer your crush, the faster the conversion.

I'll make some new flour soon for this Fall's lab, where we'll also test some now 2 yr old crushed malt flour (leftovers) to see if the enzymes are still active

 

[RighteousFire]

Ask Flying Dog how much time elapses between mash in and the first runnings hitting the kettle. I bet you it is over an hour.

We can't mimic Flying Dog's sacch rest time and get the same result if the rest of our process is different.

That's what I had said before:*

The way I see it is that once you hit conversion at say the 25 minutes, its still going to take you some time to do a vorlauf, drain the 1st runnings, sparge (batch or fly will take some time either way), so by the end of it all it has sat in the mash tun for longer and you have gotten all of the fermentable and dextrinous sugars possible.*

I'm not implying that we can mimic exactly what big breweries do, but just merely suggesting that I think it is possible to achieve the same results we always have without the need to mash for a full hour or longer.

Not trying to change minds, just questionig "authority".