Pros & Cons of the mashout - Fact or Fiction?

[Snafu]

Been doing a little reading and trying to decide if it's really worth it. I didn't do a mashout on my last brew, had way better efficiency #'s, no issues with a stuck sparge, and didn't drop my mash pH near as bad because my grain/water ratio was much higher. I know it denatures the enzymes and stops starch conversion. I know makes my mash more viscous, but like I said, my sparge ran fine. Perhaps it would be more beneficial to a wheat or other adjunct based mash.

Is this just another example of a crazy rumor, like hot side aeration?

Is it just tradition?

Is it better suited for batch spargers?

I mean come on, I read somewhere on here yesterday that a guy gained 25 points from doing a mashout. I'm already running my brew machine at 85-90% efficiency. Don't get me wrong, I've always been the guy that did a mashout, its always been a PITA to hit the 170, its always robbed me of a couple of valuable gallons of sparge water that I actually stole from my mash by doing it at 1.25 qts/lb. I was nervous with the last brew and not doing the mashout, but the #'s don't lie. I did better without it.

Of course I haven't tasted it yet, might taste like arse.

 

[Sarrsipius]

great question. I've never done mash out (i just run my sparge water at 170). Maybe I should try a mashout and see if my efficiency goes up (or down, or no change).

 

[Snafu]

I typically ran a mash at 152-158 depending on what I was making, did a mash out at 170 then sparged for about an hour at 168. In both cases my final running's came in right at 1.009 to 1.010 Just struggling t see the benefit. I thought the guy that suggested I NOT do a mash out was off his rocker, but it appears not.....

 

[Nyxator]

I've always wondered about this myself. I've often heard that the mash-out is used to end conversion and stabilize the wort, but that doesn't make much sense to me. I can't really think of a reason anyone would WANT to end conversion early.

I refuse to believe anyone saw an INCREASE in efficiency, though. The only way that would happen is if they believed they were mashing out, but ended up just hitting a higher saccharification temp, and subsequently converted more sugars. I would guess a faulty thermometer or something.

I've personally never use a mash-out, either, so maybe someone who does can explain the point. I guess there could be an argument that if your temp starts dipping again before you get your wort back on a burner for the boil, you might reactivate some of the lower temp enzymes and end up with a more fermentable wort than you intended, but that seems pretty unlikely.

 

[LMGK]

I don't mash out because it's a pain on my set up. I read on here though it is important for repeatability, I think somewhere, because once you hit your target numbers it gives you the ability to lock them in with a mash out.

 

[kafkasbug]

Would I get the same benefit of a mash out by batch sparging at 170?

 

[Snafu]

I'm not really sure, I guess you could say I'm old school, I've always done it the same way. Always fly sparged, always mashed out, always used a secondary, always put 3 cuts in the top of a homemade apple pie (cause my mamma did it that way). My last "big change" to my process was to stop doing a protein rest...lol (although I still do them on my heffe's)

 

[Revvy]

I've always wondered about this myself. I've often heard that the mash-out is used to end conversion and stabilize the wort, but that doesn't make much sense to me. I can't really think of a reason anyone would WANT to end conversion early.

That's kinda my thoughts as well. I batch sparge, usually in 2 batches and usually according to beersmith with my water at 168. I let each sparge amount sit in my ton for 10-15 minutes before draining. And I always hit whatever my pre-boil gravity is supposed to be. I figured I was still getting some conversion during the sparges.

I really only know one brew buddy who mashes out....And he fly sparges. Most of the brewers I hang with and brew with, regardless of batch or fly, just go strait to sparging like I do. And most of them batch.

 

[shlap]

Ive found that when I dont mash out, I get a drier beer with a lower FG than expected.

 

[Nyxator]

Ive found that when I dont mash out, I get a drier beer with a lower FG than expected.

Hmm, see this kinda supports the idea that while collecting the various runnings, the wort is cooling and lower temp enzymatic activity is starting up again creating a more fermentable wort.

Good to know.

 

[Yooper]

Hmm, see this kinda supports the idea that while collecting the various runnings, the wort is cooling and lower temp enzymatic activity is starting up again creating a more fermentable wort.

Good to know.

Yes, for fly spargers (continuous sparging) if you don't mash out and don't have a high enough temperature to denature the enzymes, they will keep working and possibly that will be one of the side effects. Since it takes 45 minutes to an hour to sparge a 5 gallon batch, that's a long time for it to sit. A mash out will "preserve" the profile of the mash. For batch spargers, I see no benefit at all to mash out. You can put the first runnings on to boil right away and preserve the mash profile that way.

 

[Bobby_M]

I've always wondered about this myself. I've often heard that the mash-out is used to end conversion and stabilize the wort, but that doesn't make much sense to me. I can't really think of a reason anyone would WANT to end conversion early.

Enzymes don't hit brick walls at certain temperatures. There is a large overlap between active temps and as an enzyme reaches temps of most active reaction, it is also beginning to denature.

We as brewers are trying to engineer a certain sugar profile made up of a mix of Maltose, Amylose and Dextrines. In theory, if you have half your mash sitting at 155 for an additional hour (during a no mash out fly sparge), Alpha and Beta Amylase can continue to hack Amylose apart. In other words, while Beta is beginning to denature at higher rests like 156, it's not "done".


When we broadly claim a mash is converted or done converting, we really mean there are no more long chain carbs present (negative iodine test).

 

[skibb]

I do a mash out step at 170 with every brew. Fly sparge with water at 180. I've found mashing out helps thin my mash (as well has denature the enzymes) and has increased my efficiency slightly. Now I do it every batch just b/c my numbers are dialed in. Do I think its a necessary step? Not really, but it works well for me.

 

[Snafu]

Yes, for fly spargers (continuous sparging) if you don't mash out and don't have a high enough temperature to denature the enzymes, they will keep working and possibly that will be one of the side effects. Since it takes 45 minutes to an hour to sparge a 5 gallon batch, that's a long time for it to sit. A mash out will "preserve" the profile of the mash. For batch spargers, I see no benefit at all to mash out. You can put the first runnings on to boil right away and preserve the mash profile that way.

Wait, what? I'm still converting even after I've drawn the wort off the grain as it sits in the keggle waiting for the volume to come up prior to the boil?

 

[ReverseApacheMaster]

I don't see a benefit when batch sparging. Your first batch of sparge water should stop conversion just like a mash out. I can see why people who fly sparge would mash out to stop conversion.

 

[ipso]

When “mash out” and “efficiency” are mentioned as dependent I always think of this:

A – people who take 170 degree water, run it through a hose, helicopter it onto the half inch of water on top of their grain bed – which results in 150 degree water – only one degree above their 149 mash temp.

To these people a mash out is a WOW efficiency improvement, because getting the grainbed up to 168 very much improves overall viscosity and sugars quite simply come out easier/quicker.

B – people who take 210 degree water, run it through a hose, helicopter it onto the half inch of water on top of their grain bed – which results in 170 degree water sitting on top of their grainbed pushing/squeegeeing down the sugars.

To these people a mash out only front loads the sugar extraction (comes out sooner, but total result (end runnings SG) is about the same using say a BeerSmith recommended sparge water volume – and depending on if you have a recirculation type system or not.)
[insert image of curve graph, and different colored lines overlaid and skewed, where bottom axis is time and left axis is Specific Gravity.]

C – people who batch sparge – no benefit because you use 170 degree water anyway to rinse the grains – you are mashing out.

Ive found that when I dont mash out, I get a drier beer with a lower FG than expected.

I respect this, but I don’t think it should be pejorative. Where did the expectation come from? BeerSmith/ProMash? If you change your mash profile accordingly you’ll always hit your expected FG regardless of mash out process. Right?

I guess “mash out” should simply be a recipe line item. Right along with “direct fire” or not, in regards to subtle caramelization.

So, by extension, if a recipe calls for a 60min mash, that implies a must batch sparge taste. 90min = fly sparge. I fly sparge as a default process unless the recipe explicitly says 60min sach rest.

I don't know anything. Just my thoughts.

 

[Bobby_M]

Wait, what? I'm still converting even after I've drawn the wort off the grain as it sits in the keggle waiting for the volume to come up prior to the boil?

Yes. Enzymes are not imprisoned in the grain. They are floating around in the mash/wort.

 

[passedpawn]

Yooper and Bobby got it.

Look at the mash fermentatability experiments on Kaiser's site. The wort continues becoming more fermentable even after hours of mash. For beers in the 1.050 OG range, finishing 5 points lower can be disastrous.

Anyway, really only useful for fly-spargers. I batch sparge and never do a mashout.

 

[Snafu]

Yes. Enzymes are not imprisoned in the grain. They are floating around in the mash/wort.

Ok, I can see that. I've just always envisioned the "process" complete once it left the MLT. So how does the 170 mash out benefit me as a fly sparger if I'm sparging at 168? Is it because of the slow process of the water working its way down the grain (up to 30 mins I guess), to raise the mash temp from say 154 to 168 compared to doing a mash out where the entire grist goes from 154 to 170 in 2 mins?

And if thats the case I'm still confused as to why that would be a "bad" thing, wouldn't it just equate to a longer mash at 154?

 

[Yooper]

Ok, I can see that. I've just always envisioned the "process" complete once it left the MLT. So how does the 170 mash out benefit me as a fly sparger if I'm sparging at 168? Is it because of the slow process of the water working its way down the grain (up to 30 mins I guess), to raise the mash temp from say 154 to 168 compared to doing a mash out where the entire grist goes from 154 to 170 in 2 mins?

And if thats the case I'm still confused as to why that would be a "bad" thing, wouldn't it just equate to a longer mash at 154?

Mashing longer changes the sugar profile, as described by Bobby_M above. Not that keeping it at 154 would change it much, but often the temperature drops during a long long mash. Bringing the entire grainbed and wort up to 170 and keeping it there denatures the enzymes that still work to "debranch" the longer chained sugars. Does that make sense?

 

[TyTanium]

...I've just always envisioned the "process" complete once it left the MLT...

I did too until I realized that enzymes have no way of knowing that they're no longer in the MLT...haha. Poor, clueless little guys. They'll just keep going until you denature with heat.

Another +1 for Kaiser's site and decoction video...even if you never plan on doing a deco, it's still very informative for how the mash works.

Great thread...tons of good info here.

 

[Snafu]

Mashing longer changes the sugar profile, as described by Bobby_M above. Not that keeping it at 154 would change it much, but often the temperature drops during a long long mash. Bringing the entire grainbed and wort up to 170 and keeping it there denatures the enzymes that still work to "debranch" the longer chained sugars. Does that make sense?

Yeah, it does. I can see where it would give you more consistent results by stopping the process. I really, I mean really, liked the fact that I was able to utilize more water by not doing a mash out, but if I continue to fly sparge I guess I can see a HERMS in my future. That way I can raise the temp without the added infusion.

I need a new project anyway. [shrug]

 

[LMGK]

Why would a more ferment able mash be a bad thing?

 

[MalFet]

Why would a more ferment able mash be a bad thing?

It's not...necessarily. It's just a different thing. If you want a less fermentable mash and you get a more fermentable mash, that's a bad thing though.

I suspect that the people who are getting huge efficiency bumps from mashouts actually have serious problems with their mash. For some reason, they're not getting proper conversion in a standard sixty minutes and the application of heat is pushing forward a process that should have already been finished on it's own.

I do a mash out because I like the consistency. I usually brew on days when I'm home watching my kid, and once in a while I get pulled away from the thing unexpectedly. If I've done a mashout, I don't need to worry that I'll get something significantly different than what I got last time I made the same recipe.

But, mashouts are quite easy to do on my system, so it's not really a big deal. If it were a significant pain, I probably wouldn't do it. Even now sometimes I forget to do it and I notice no difference to speak of, certainly not in my efficiency numbers.

 

[LMGK]

It's not, necessarily. It's just a different thing. If you want a less fermentable mash and you get a more fermentable mash, that's a bad thing though.

I suspect that the people who are getting huge efficiency bumps from mashouts actually have serious problems with their mash. For some reason, they're not getting proper conversion in a standard sixty minutes and the application of heat is pushing forward a process that should have already been finished on it's own.

I do a mash out because I like the consistency. I usually brew on days when I'm home watching my kid, and once in a while I get pulled away from the thing unexpectedly. If I've done a mashout, I don't need to worry that I'll get something significantly different than what I got last time I made the same recipe.

But, mashouts are quite easy to do on my system, so it's not really a big deal. If it were a significant pain, I probably wouldn't do it. Even now sometimes I forget to do it and I notice no difference to speak of, certainly not in my efficiency numbers.

Thanks

 

[Snafu]

It's not...necessarily. It's just a different thing. If you want a less fermentable mash and you get a more fermentable mash, that's a bad thing though.

I suspect that the people who are getting huge efficiency bumps from mashouts actually have serious problems with their mash. For some reason, they're not getting proper conversion in a standard sixty minutes and the application of heat is pushing forward a process that should have already been finished on it's own.

I do a mash out because I like the consistency. I usually brew on days when I'm home watching my kid, and once in a while I get pulled away from the thing unexpectedly. If I've done a mashout, I don't need to worry that I'll get something significantly different than what I got last time I made the same recipe.

But, mashouts are quite easy to do on my system, so it's not really a big deal. If it were a significant pain, I probably wouldn't do it. Even now sometimes I forget to do it and I notice no difference to speak of, certainly not in my efficiency numbers.

This is more in line with what i was saying from the start. My #'s went up 1 or 2 points from the last couple of batches. Not a huge diference. In my system, where i get pretty consistent #'s, am i really gaining anything? I dont think so, my final runoff was off with a 009 instead of 010 like normal, which i assume was from the added water. The biggest difference was the ability to keep my pH from dropping out with a thinner mash. The added volume help me maintain the pH where i needes it. Granted, this was for a DIPA and may be completly wrong for say a porter. Sorry for the typos, on da phone.

 

[MalFet]

This is more in line with what i was saying from the start. My #'s went up 1 or 2 points from the last couple of batches. Not a huge diference. In my system, where i get pretty consistent #'s, am i really gaining anything? I dont think so, my final runoff was off with a 009 instead of 010 like normal, which i assume was from the added water. The biggest difference was the ability to keep my pH from dropping out with a thinner mash. The added volume help me maintain the pH where i needes it. Granted, this was for a DIPA and may be completly wrong for say a porter. Sorry for the typos, on da phone.

That sounds about right to me. The slight differences in efficiency you're seeing are, like you say, probably a result of shifting the volume ratios between your first and second runnings. I like doing my mashouts for the reasons I mentioned above (and because it requires no effort on my direct fire system), but I wouldn't hesitate to skip it if it made things inconvenient at all. If you're relatively consistent in how much time you allow to pass between the end of your mash and your boil, you can largely eliminate variability in any case.

 

[bullinachinashop]

This has me thinking of commercial brewing systems.
When we read or hear a recipe from them and they call for a mashout, I wonder how long it takes them to achieve that temp rise.
On a 5 gal batch, it can happen pretty quickly, but their mash tuns are huge.
Lately I've been BIAB brewing and sparging through with 175 degree water. I haven't noticed any "thinness".

Thoughts?

Bull

 

[RM-MN]

What about the opposite? I BIAB and turn the heat on the wort when I pull the bag but then use cold (about 45 F.) water to sparge. Does that cold water chilling the grain also stop the conversion? If I can get the grain down to less than 100 in a couple minutes have I preserved the long chain sugars? What happens when I add that wort to the heating wort? Do I need to wait until the wort in the pot is over 180 so that the enzymes are fully denatured before I add the colder wort to it?

 

[MalFet]

What about the opposite? I BIAB and turn the heat on the wort when I pull the bag but then use cold (about 45 F.) water to sparge. Does that cold water chilling the grain also stop the conversion? If I can get the grain down to less than 100 in a couple minutes have I preserved the long chain sugars? What happens when I add that wort to the heating wort? Do I need to wait until the wort in the pot is over 180 so that the enzymes are fully denatured before I add the colder wort to it?

Cold temps could definitely function in a similar way to a mash out. The mechanism would be different but the results would be the same. With heat, you're denaturing the enzymes so there's nothing left to act on the long chain sugars. With cold, you're slowing down the reaction by dropping the energy of the system. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, every 10ºC drop in temps cuts your reaction rate in half. A drop to 100ºF probably wouldn't stop the reaction completely, but you'd get enough of a slowdown that it would be functionally the same as a stop.

That said, I'm not sure I really see the benefits of a mashout with brew in a bag. Presumably, there's not a lot of time between the end of the mash and the start of the boil. What are you trying to accomplish?

 

[Bobby_M]

A rapid chilling of the mash will slow any additional conversion to nearly nothing, but it doesn't denature. Once you near 150, beta amylase will go back to work until you get into the upper 160F area.

Edit: malfet is fast on the keys.

 

[Snafu]

Well, I for one can say I learned something new from this thread. Why it never dawned on me, I'm not sure. Like I said before, I just assumed once the wort left the grain it was done. Bobby, I've seen your videos on alpha and beta enzymes and how they work, thought it was awesome! They really brought the subject home for me, but I guess I missed the part where those chains continue on after the mash. Heck, I always run off into a kettle and it just sits there until its full. I take a measurement of pre-boil gravity, then fire it up. I need to change that to get a head start on the boil. I guess once the first gallon or two is in there fire it up? Will it mess with my pre-boil gravity?

And here I thought I was going to learn about mash-out...lol

 

[Bobby_M]

Ultimately if you're happy with how the beers are turning out, there's no reason to change but the other benefit of firing up with a gallon collected is to save time.

 

[RM-MN]

Cold temps could definitely function in a similar way to a mash out. The mechanism would be different but the results would be the same. With heat, you're denaturing the enzymes so there's nothing left to act on the long chain sugars. With cold, you're slowing down the reaction by dropping the energy of the system. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, every 10ºC drop in temps cuts your reaction rate in half. A drop to 100ºF probably wouldn't stop the reaction completely, but you'd get enough of a slowdown that it would be functionally the same as a stop.

That said, I'm not sure I really see the benefits of a mashout with brew in a bag. Presumably, there's not a lot of time between the end of the mash and the start of the boil. What are you trying to accomplish?

Due to dropping a dial thermometer, I have mashed too low in the past and didn't care for what it did to a recipe I had repeated as it really changed the character of the beer. I don't want to have the beer changing profile while I squeeze out that hot bag of grains so if I cool it fast it will stop the enzymes while cooling the bag enough that I can squeeze out most of the wort without burning my hands. While I am doing that cold sparge, the rest of the wort is on the burner getting hotter. Then I add the colder sparge to it and bring it all to a boil, hopefully without more enzymatic action.

 

[bullinachinashop]

That said, I'm not sure I really see the benefits of a mashout with brew in a bag. Presumably, there's not a lot of time between the end of the mash and the start of the boil. What are you trying to accomplish?[/QUOTE]

I'm only thinking that during their temp rise to mashout, there would have to be a significant amount of time, so during that time, conversion is still happening. That being said, to replicate their recipies or anyone else's, you would have to know the time it takes to raise to mashout. Otherwise the end result would be more or less fermentable and end with a different FG.

Almost a timed mash step.

 

[usfmikeb]

I do BIAB, and have tested with and without a mashout, with better efficiency when doing a mashout

 

[wailingguitar]

In around a thousand brews on commercial systems I have never once done a mash out, nor have I heard many of my colleagues mention doing so. My SOP is to replicate commercial processes that I am familiar with when brewing at home, so I don't mash out at home either. Like so many other things it is just one variable... mash out and make beer, don't mash out and make beer. Either way, you have made beer. All that matters is what hits the glass!

 

[Snafu]

In around a thousand brews on commercial systems I have never once done a mash out, nor have I heard many of my colleagues mention doing so. My SOP is to replicate commercial processes that I am familiar with when brewing at home, so I don't mash out at home either. Like so many other things it is just one variable... mash out and make beer, don't mash out and make beer. Either way, you have made beer. All that matters is what hits the glass!

I assume then, that the process is so streamlined that your boiling very quickly after the sparge to be consistent.

 

[MalFet]

I assume then, that the process is so streamlined that your boiling very quickly after the sparge to be consistent.

Keep in mind though that the rate of enzymatic activity in wort decays quite substantially as time goes on. The difference between, say, 90 minutes at mash temps and 120 minutes at mash temps isn't going to be dramatic. It's something, and thus perhaps worth doing if you're really trying to rein in your process, but it's not as though you'll be looking at completely different beers.

 

[wailingguitar]

Keep in mind though that the rate of enzymatic activity in wort decays quite substantially as time goes on. The difference between, say, 90 minutes at mash temps and 120 minutes at mash temps isn't going to be dramatic. It's something, and thus perhaps worth doing if you're really trying to rein in your process, but it's not as though you'll be looking at completely different beers.

Good point.

As to Snafu's question- how quickly I get to a boil after runoff; typically about 15-20 minutes, which is in the range of what I was seeing on most of the commercial systems I have worked on. When I have to brew on the stove top it might take a little longer, but I don't see any difference.