Better efficiency = better flavor?

[xxwxx]

Hi there! First of all, thank you all for providing such an extensive knowledge base.

One question I still have is whether different mash temperatures and times will affect the flavors extracted from the malts, aside from effects on the OG, FG, and tannins.

I'd imagine that mashing grain for 3 hours (dark grain especially) will have different flavors than mashing grain for 3 minutes, or grain that has been soaked at 50 degrees. I know you all have tried much crazier things. Any idea if this is true, or does better efficiency always equal better flavor?

 

[Komocabo]

Hi there. I think you're comparing apples to oranges. First off, mashing is necessary to convert starch to sugar (sugar needed for fermentation). There is a temp chart I have seen, but can't locate at the moment. Generally, you should mash somewhere between 146-160. The wort would be dryer-sweeter respectively. I usually mash for 60 mins as that is generally sufficient time for conversion. I do a single step mash.

I believe efficiency is driven by many things, and there are probably other factors as well. These things are: mash pH, sparge technique (fly or batch- I fly sparge). Mash Temp, mashtun set up, grain bill and freshness of grain... again there are other factors.

Efficiency is basically how well you converted. It affects the gravity readings too. So

 

[Komocabo]

Hi there. I think you're comparing apples to oranges. First off, mashing is necessary to convert starch to sugar (sugar needed for fermentation). There is a temp chart I have seen, but can't locate at the moment. Generally, you should mash somewhere between 146-160. The wort would be dryer-sweeter respectively. I usually mash for 60 mins as that is generally sufficient time for conversion. I do a single step mash.

I believe efficiency is driven by many things, and there are probably other factors as well. These things are: mash pH, sparge technique (fly or batch- I fly sparge). Mash Temp, mashtun set up, grain bill and freshness of grain... again there are other factors.

Efficiency is basically how well you converted. It affects the gravity readings, recipe needs, and results. The higher the efficiency, the more effective your system is at converting and using the ingredients. For thus reason, brewers with higher efficiencies can use less grain and get the same/similar results

 

[causeimthesquid]

Not quite sure what you mean by "better flavor". Efficiency is just (amount of extracted sugars)/(total extractable sugars) X 100.

It is certainly the case that by pushing your efficiency to the extreme, you may sacrifice flavor by extracting tannins and other undesirable compounds. Higher mash temperatures will increase the body of the final beer, leaving more dextrins behind. If you mash with water well outside of the 160F temp, you will have more tannins as well.

I have wondered in the past if colder temperatue mash would lead to less harsh/acrid flavors the same way lower temps can lead to smoother teas or coffee. I found its easier to use some dehusked malt to get around this though.

 

[Xpertskir]

Mashing higher or lower will impact the residual sweetness, not the flavors of the wort. I suppose you could say that sweetness or dryness will indirectly affect the taste.

Better efficiency does not mean better taste. In fact the opposite is kind of true. IE a no sparge brew will actually yield a richer malt flavor

 

[processhead]

Efficiency includes more than just how well your mashing technique converts starches to sugar.

At least as important to overall system efficiency is how well the sugars in the mash can be extracted from the grain during the run off.

Often, poor runoff efficiency can be a bigger challenge than poor conversion efficiency.

 

[xxwxx]

Hmmm, let me rephrase:

My real question is achieving a different flavor profile by soaking my grains in water differently. Obviously I don't want tannins in my beer. I'm asking this with a mind to recipes where the malt profile is the primary concern. I'm wondering if it makes sense to treat roasted barley the same way as 2- row, when starch conversion isn't your main objective for that grain.

For instance: Could you cold brew with dark malts, heat the runnings from that and use them to mash your base malts?

 

[feinbera]

With very dark grains (black patent, roasted barley, etc.), people will sometimes only add them towards the end of their mash or even leave them out until they start sparging, in order to get most of the color contribution with less of harsh burnt flavors.

I think, in general, though, having a successful mash is such a fundamental part of successfully making beer that people are leery to screw around with it, especially when there's a huge spectrum of flavors you can achieve with a relatively small amount of specialty grain thrown into a standard, 145-to-160° hour-long mash.

 

[xxwxx]

Cool, thanks. I'll give the late addition of dark grains a shot, and see if it's worth having to buy the extra base malt to compensate.

 

[hio3791]

Gordon Strong's "Brewing Better Beer" talks about this very topic. If I recall correctly, grains that do not require conversion can be added at any time in your process. He even talks about soaking dark grains (black patent, roasted barley, etc) in cold water 24 hrs in advance of brewing or even adding this "tea" at fermentation time.

 

[Weezy]

Gordon Strong's "Brewing Better Beer" talks about this very topic. If I recall correctly, grains that do not require conversion can be added at any time in your process. He even talks about soaking dark grains (black patent, roasted barley, etc) in cold water 24 hrs in advance of brewing or even adding this "tea" at fermentation time.

I believe the basic idea being that specialty grains provide *mostly* unfermentable sugars, dextrins, proteins. We shouldn't expect much, if any, enzymatic sugar production of the kilned & roasted malts, since the grain has already essentially been cooked. Therefore, cooking them again via a controlled mash may be pointless.

 

[pjj2ba]

I'm tending to believe that efficiency is not real critical - I'm coming at it from the too efficient side.

I like to think of malt providing two distinct things for us. (1) They are the source of the sugars that the yeast eat to make alcohol. This is what efficiency calculations are based on. How well is the starch converted and how good a job you do at collecting the sugars released. (2) Malt is also the source of flavor compounds, are are extracted from the grain, not produced by conversion. I tend to think this extraction is largely independent of conversion and efficiency. This is basically what those who do extract plus specialty grain brews are doing. The grains are steeped in water to extract the flavor compounds. More grain = more flavor.

As my efficiency got higher and higher I was worried that I would lose too much flavor as I backed off on the base malt to keep the ABV where I wanted. So far though it hasn't been a problem. I've kept any of the specialty malts I use at the same levels and I think that has made the difference (or should I say lack of difference)