Let's debate/discuss mash times

[johnodon]

I have been re-reading a lot of info on BIAB now that I am brewing again. In my research, I can easily see HBT member RM-MN (https://www.homebrewtalk.com/members/rm-mn) is a big proponent of short mash times...as short as 10 minutes.

I'll admit...I'm old school. Everything I have ever read has said 60 - 90 minute mash times and I have never challenged that. But to be honest, if I can effectively mash in 15 minutes and make my brew day that much shorter, I am all about it.

So, let's discuss/debate. Please, no flaming. Do you agree or disagree with RM-MN? Why or why not? Has anyone other than RM-MN done comparisons with identical recipes?

John

 

[helibrewer]

In some malt analysis reports they will give you their conversion time. Highly modified malt can convert in a very short time, less than 30 minutes. I use a refractometer to monitor conversion and stop mashing at that point. I usually don't need to go the full 60 minutes unless I am mashing at low temps (high 148-152).

EDIT, this is conventional mashing, not BIAB.

 

[rmyurick]

I think he was talking about a very finely ground grist there. So there's a risk of a stuck sparge-it's a tradeoff. Coors mills everything down to flour, I believe, then pumps the mash through a filter press. I think you get some astringency that way.

 

[johnodon]

So there's a risk of a stuck sparge-it's a tradeoff.

Not an issue for BIAB however.

John

 

[zwiller]

Batch sparging got me brewing again after a long hiatus so any technique that can save time gets a shot. I am an old school 60 minute masher (not BIAB) but the last few batches have been 30 minutes. Absolutely no difference with my house IPA (80% efficiency). Seems like I lost a few points on a hefe but I am still 75%+.

In addition to the 30 minute mash I immediately get runoffs into the kettle on low, saving an hour total. 4 hour brewday to 3. Game changer for me!

 

[RM-MN]

Batch sparging got me brewing again after a long hiatus so any technique that can save time gets a shot. I am an old school 60 minute masher (not BIAB) but the last few batches have been 30 minutes. Absolutely no difference with my house IPA (80% efficiency). Seems like I lost a few points on a hefe but I am still 75%+.

In addition to the 30 minute mash I immediately get runoffs into the kettle on low, saving an hour total. 4 hour brewday to 3. Game changer for me!

You gotta work on that process so you can get your brew day down to something more reasonable. Last brew day for me was a 10 minute mash BIAB, pour through sparge as the wort was heating up. 45 minute boil, then no chill right into the fermenter bucket to let it cool there while I did other work. From recipe printed to equipment cleaned and put away was 2 hours 10 minutes. It sat out on my deck where the 20 degree wind cooled it to pitching temp in about 4 hours. 3 1/2 weeks later the gravity reading was 1.010 with a mash temp of 153 so it seems like I got the attenuation I wanted from an OG (estimated, based on the recipe and typical efficiency I have been getting including the previous 10 minute mash) of about 1.058.

Unfortunately I probably won't have time for another attempt this spring as farm work is catching up with me. I may not get to try again until October.

 

[Beernik]

I think it also depends on the diastic power of your mash. If it's a lot of 2 row, pilsner, or MO, the mash time should be shorter. I don't think I'd try it with a lot of Vienna malt.

 

[zwiller]

You gotta work on that process so you can get your brew day down to something more reasonable. Last brew day for me was a 10 minute mash BIAB, pour through sparge as the wort was heating up. 45 minute boil, then no chill right into the fermenter bucket to let it cool there while I did other work. From recipe printed to equipment cleaned and put away was 2 hours 10 minutes. It sat out on my deck where the 20 degree wind cooled it to pitching temp in about 4 hours. 3 1/2 weeks later the gravity reading was 1.010 with a mash temp of 153 so it seems like I got the attenuation I wanted from an OG (estimated, based on the recipe and typical efficiency I have been getting including the previous 10 minute mash) of about 1.058.

Unfortunately I probably won't have time for another attempt this spring as farm work is catching up with me. I may not get to try again until October.

Pretty progressive technique! Hope you get a chance to brew before fall.

 

[haeffnkr]

Hello,

I have used 45 minute mashes for a long time and made good beers and had very consistent numbers/results and won a few medals in local comps.

I have recently looked into step mashes and actually mashing longer to help my beer get to that next level.
Discussed down towards the bottom here - http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Infusion_Mashing

I made a lite lager beer on Tuesday that was mashed at 145 for 45, then ramp up to 158 for 15 then ramped up to 165 then pulled the bag.
I wont know for another month if that helped my beer quality.

To summarize my points/questions -
What benenfits are there to mashing longer?
What is missed by mashing shorter?
If the germans do a step mash and mash a lot longer than 45 mintues what do they gain/add to there beers that would be lost if a simple short infusion mash would be done?

thoughts?

thanks Kevin

 

[RM-MN]

Conversion of the starch to sugars is pretty quick. Much of the time involved in mashing is waiting for the grain particles to wet through to the enzymes are activated and then again as the sugars work their way back out. The hour long mash comes in when there is a compromise between milling so fine that you get quick conversion and milling coarse enough that your husks and grain particles will form a filter bed allowing you to lauter and drain the mash tun. That is also involved in efficiency. If your grain particles are too large, they won't wet through or you can't get the sugars out in the mash period. That is part of the reason people use a 60 or even a 90 minute mash.

The grains we have available in the US are highly modified. That helps with conversion. Some European grains may not be so well modified and will require different techniques. Couples with that is tradition. If you read these forums enough you will find that changing people's minds is a major chore and may take years to accomplish regardless of how much time or money it might save them to get the same result. When in Rome, do as the Romans and all that too. When in Germany, you usually won't ask at the bar for a Bud Lite.

 

[sikkingj]

If grain conversion is a function of how finely the grains are milled, that should provide another BIAB bonus - as we can mill the grain to dust in comparison with the three tier folks.

I guess the only way to be sure us using the iodine test - I'm asking?


Sent from my iPad using Home Brelm?l ohm ,uo klo. on, 9? Pegou k Kym. N.ugvknb libbmj ff 47&&-- Jugehuh

 

[RM-MN]

I use the iodine test, clarity of the wort before I pull the bag and stir up the grain dust, the OG, FG, and the taste of the beer. If the beer doesn't taste good, none of the rest matter. When you add the grains to the water the starch makes it cloudy. When conversion is over the wort will have color but not the muddy mess that you would see earlier.

One thing to note, if there is starch in your beer, it will be cloudy....always. Look at a bunch of recipes for hefeweizen. Many of them suggest adding a tablespoon of flour to the boil. That adds the starch for cloudiness and the beer won't clear into a kristalweizen.

 

[zwiller]

To me, longer mash times and/or step mashing is more for clarity and or improved efficiency and is not really "the next level". If by next level you mean brewing a beer that indistinguishable to a commercial one, then I would say proper pH and water chemistry is the next level. Download and learn Bru'n water to learn more.

 

[haeffnkr]

To me, longer mash times and/or step mashing is more for clarity and or improved efficiency and is not really "the next level". If by next level you mean brewing a beer that indistinguishable to a commercial one, then I would say proper pH and water chemistry is the next level. Download and learn Bru'n water to learn more.

Hi,
By the next level I am talking about consitently making award winning beers.
I already use straight RO water adjust my PH level as needed, thanks for the tip though and I prefer EZ_calculator.

If you feel that longer mash time and step mashing leads to better clarity and improved efficiency, those are 2 positives for longer mash times. Clarity obviously more important than efficiency IMHO.

I dont disagree with anyone that we all can make good beers with short mash times, especially with fine grinds and BIAB makes that easier, RM-MN makes some good points that I agree with.
The OP wanted to debate mash times, so I asking what we miss out on by doing a short single mash over a longer mash.

Some who favor longer,step mashes feel the beer has better mouthfeel and taste, especially in lighter lagers over a single mash.
I will find out in a month when my latest batch is done.

thanks for reading
Kevin

 

[tooblue02]

I will be brewing two batches this weekend, the first is an imperial stout so it may not be the best to try a shorter mash time, but the second is going to be a basic west coast IPA so I may try to get the mash time down a little and see how it comes out. I usually mash for 60-90 minutes depending on the day, would like to try 30 and see what happens.

 

[paperairplane]

Doing a simple grain bill with 90% MO or 2 Row, I would have nor worries about a 15 minute mash converting.

I know when stirring after adding my bag to the water, very quickly you can taste and smell the sugar present in the wort.