1 hour mash time

[jalc6927]

Is there anything to gain by leaving a mash in the mash tun for longer than 1 hour?

I've heard some podcasts stating the "1 hour" is just a guideline. But it's pretty much on every recipe and article I read.

Thanks

 

[McKnuckle]

Many pro breweries mash for longer, so they must have their reasons. In England, a 75-90 minute mash is common. And run-off into the copper (boil kettle) can take a long time, up to 2 hours, which means that the grist is swimming in brewing liquor for much longer than homebrewers typically practice.

When you mash at low temperatures within the range, beta amylase is most active at those temps, but it takes longer for it to do its work than its partner, alpha amylase. So you will gain higher extraction efficiency from longer mash times when resting at lower temps.

When mashing at higher temps, alpha takes over, which works much faster. But it's a myth that beta enzymes denature "instantly" at those temps. Hence a longer mash will allow the remaining, smaller population of beta enzymes to keep chewing on the sugars liberated by the alphas. Whether that needs to be greater than one hour is subject to debate. But there may also be flavor development reasons for longer mashes regardless of the enzymatic variables.

I have recently begun mashing English styles for 90 minutes. My efficiency definitely gets a boost from this. Jury is out on the flavor part, but I am optimistic that it will make a difference.

 

[Sadu]

Agree with everything above, plus some adjuncts can take a little longer to convert than malted barley.

I'll usually do a 90 min mash when brewing oatmeal stouts or anything where I'm mashing low. I also don't think it hurts to do a 90 min mash on any recipe if you aren't in a hurry.

 

[Jtk78]

.......
I'll usually do a 90 min mash when brewing oatmeal stouts or anything where I'm mashing low. I also don't think it hurts to do a 90 min mash on any recipe if you aren't in a hurry.

What do you consider "mashing low" out if curiosity? I have an upcoming batch I plan to do a 148-149F mash on, which is the lowest I've gone.

 

[McKnuckle]

Anything under 150°F would qualify from my perspective as "low end of the mashing range."

 

[stz]

We argue all the time over this and unfortunately we have no science other than our gut instinct to back it up. We've read plenty of studies and usually can shoot them down because of 'real world' practice being very different to the methodology of the study. We've studies showing full conversion in 20 minutes. We've an argument that full conversion is not the same as complete de-branching. We've an argument that enzymes work orders of magnitude slower at lower temperatures, but that a mixture of enzymes are present with various levels of denaturing and natural variation alongside various grist compositions.

Define your goals. Pick a sensible starting point and stick to it. If you are not getting the desired results adjust one variable at a time. We stick to 60 minutes because it is a standard and why break it if it isn't broken? We might have to break it sometime, but they'll be easier things to change before that day.

Unfortunately it is very easy (forgiving) to make normal beer, there is a wide margin where things work out. Things only need to get more complicated when you start to step outside of the rules that define normal and touch on extremes. As an example it is very easy to get a beer to finish at 6-7 when it starts at 37. If you want that beer to finish at 16 you are going to have to do something complicated. It is very easy to get a beer to finish at 16 when it starts at 80, if you want it to finish at 6-7 you are going to have to do something complicated (or simple, depending on where you draw lines).

So what do I believe? Altering mash temperatures in the range of a degree or two will help a bit, but unfortunately not as much as we might hope. The difference between a final gravity of 8 and one of 10 is most likely undetectable and more a matter for cost and efficiency. The primary decider for final gravity is grist composition and yeast. We give things a helping hand, like a big beer might get a little longer in the mash tun if we've time and a slightly lower temperature mash if we remember (it is easier with big beers because the liquor to grist ratio often gets low due to capacity and thus you can miss a strike temperature) and a slightly higher temperature towards the end of fermentation and maybe a co2 rouse in the hope of getting it a little drier if this is desired, but this is not because the difference between 9 and 11 is detectable by the drinker this is generally because we need to hit a target abv and we are unable to fit any more grain into the mash tun and we want to use as little dextrose as possible. Dark beers always finish high due to the make up of the grist and are usually a compromise between mashing as high as we dare.

Equally an average beer might get a helping hand to make it a little more attractive to those who are particularly price conscious, but generally weaker beers need enough malt and don't want to finish too dry unless that is the intent.

Talking of british breweries these are the companies that developed modern macro brewing and are currently dying off due to decades of pushing watered down products driven by cost, efficiency and process upon increasingly reluctant consumers. They'll brew at high gravity and liquor back (dilute) to produce more beer or a range of beers using less plant. They'll grind almost to flour using wet rollers to get the highest efficiency and they'll mash as low as possible for as long as possible and sparge to death with a mash filter to wring every penny from the grain. They'll use hop extracts and oils to prevent losses to absorption. They'll centrifuge and filter then compress and reclaim the moisture from the yeast to blend it back into the beer to prevent losses to the yeast cake. Honestly, some of these practices are admirable and enviable and have allowed beer to be produced at a price to suit, but not all of them are for the benefit of the beer or should be sought to be reproduced. I would say that a 90 minute mash is an efficiency thing.

 

[RM-MN]

The length of the mash is determined mostly by the crush of the grain. For conversion to occur the starches in the grain must be gelatinized (wet through) and this takes more time with larger particles. Once the starch is gelatinized the conversion happens very quickly, much faster than most people realize. With a Corona mill set as tight a possible I have seen full conversion as confirmed with iodine showing no starch left in the grist in as little as **gasp** 2 minutes. Yes, that fast. That one sample was left in the mash for 10 minutes and was fermented and had a FG nearly identical to a matching brew that had 30 minutes, showing that both alpha and beta amylase had completed their conversion. The difference in the two beers was flavor. It took longer than 10 minutes to extract flavor so the short mashed beer was pretty flavorless.

As the grain particle size becomes larger it takes more time to gelatinize the starch. This has 3 effects. First is that it will take longer for the mash as you need to wait for the conversion. Second is that with the longer time in the mash, some of the beta amylase will denature, giving you more control over the fermentability. Third is extraction. If you have larger particles it may take longer to extract the sugars and flavors from the grains. With very small particles it is very hard to control the fermentabitlity as the enzymes act so quickly that the beta amylase won't be denatured during the mash before all conversion is complete even with mash temps up to 158 (I haven't tried higher yet).

 

[jalc6927]

So like everything else, as a beginning brewer I should stick to the "established guidelines" until I get them done, then experiment.

There's just so much info out there, one could get lost

Thanks all

 

[McKnuckle]

The nice thing is that you can stick to established guidelines, but if you don't - within reason of course - you will also be fine. I know, it's overwhelming.

What I try to keep in mind is that homebrewing itself, while historically based on pro brewing, really has developed a "hive mind" of its own. Some of the things preached are due to differences in scale and product handling vs. what pros require, so they make sense. But some of the other edicts within homebrewing group-think would make a pro brewer go "huh?"

 

[applescrap]

We argue all the time over this and unfortunately we have no science other than our gut instinct to back it up. We've read plenty of studies and usually can shoot them down because of 'real world' practice being very different to the methodology of the study. We've studies showing full conversion in 20 minutes. We've an argument that full conversion is not the same as complete de-branching. We've an argument that enzymes work orders of magnitude slower at lower temperatures, but that a mixture of enzymes are present with various levels of denaturing and natural variation alongside various grist compositions.

Define your goals. Pick a sensible starting point and stick to it. If you are not getting the desired results adjust one variable at a time. We stick to 60 minutes because it is a standard and why break it if it isn't broken? We might have to break it sometime, but they'll be easier things to change before that day.

Unfortunately it is very easy (forgiving) to make normal beer, there is a wide margin where things work out. Things only need to get more complicated when you start to step outside of the rules that define normal and touch on extremes. As an example it is very easy to get a beer to finish at 6-7 when it starts at 37. If you want that beer to finish at 16 you are going to have to do something complicated. It is very easy to get a beer to finish at 16 when it starts at 80, if you want it to finish at 6-7 you are going to have to do something complicated (or simple, depending on where you draw lines).

So what do I believe? Altering mash temperatures in the range of a degree or two will help a bit, but unfortunately not as much as we might hope. The difference between a final gravity of 8 and one of 10 is most likely undetectable and more a matter for cost and efficiency. The primary decider for final gravity is grist composition and yeast. We give things a helping hand, like a big beer might get a little longer in the mash tun if we've time and a slightly lower temperature mash if we remember (it is easier with big beers because the liquor to grist ratio often gets low due to capacity and thus you can miss a strike temperature) and a slightly higher temperature towards the end of fermentation and maybe a co2 rouse in the hope of getting it a little drier if this is desired, but this is not because the difference between 9 and 11 is detectable by the drinker this is generally because we need to hit a target abv and we are unable to fit any more grain into the mash tun and we want to use as little dextrose as possible. Dark beers always finish high due to the make up of the grist and are usually a compromise between mashing as high as we dare.

Equally an average beer might get a helping hand to make it a little more attractive to those who are particularly price conscious, but generally weaker beers need enough malt and don't want to finish too dry unless that is the intent.

Talking of british breweries these are the companies that developed modern macro brewing and are currently dying off due to decades of pushing watered down products driven by cost, efficiency and process upon increasingly reluctant consumers. They'll brew at high gravity and liquor back (dilute) to produce more beer or a range of beers using less plant. They'll grind almost to flour using wet rollers to get the highest efficiency and they'll mash as low as possible for as long as possible and sparge to death with a mash filter to wring every penny from the grain. They'll use hop extracts and oils to prevent losses to absorption. They'll centrifuge and filter then compress and reclaim the moisture from the yeast to blend it back into the beer to prevent losses to the yeast cake. Honestly, some of these practices are admirable and enviable and have allowed beer to be produced at a price to suit, but not all of them are for the benefit of the beer or should be sought to be reproduced. I would say that a 90 minute mash is an efficiency thing.

Woah, and some of us thought we we were cheap. What a cool post. I agree some of those practices are very admirable. I like how you worded, define your goals. I chose 45 min as my goal. A decent mash time yet quick enough to move me along.

 

[stz]

Woah, and some of us thought we we were cheap.

Currently it seems high fashion amongst craft breweries around here to perform a 'hop sparge'. While it is sold as some craft secret to hoppier beer to my mind this is just a nicer and more craft friendly way to describe the practice of liquoring back which is a more customer friendly way to describe topping off with water to ensure maximum fermenter volume or to correct a missed gravity which really should have been correct coming out of the sparge. Understandably nobody wants to outright admit to putting water in the beer!

It can be avoided entirely by having a copper with a sufficient capacity and building your volumes correctly into recipes, but if you haven't got the luxury of that copper and can't fit any more in then that is the solution aside from accepting lower yields and so completely acceptable to me. I draw the line at trying to convince myself that by putting the water through the copper I'm somehow doing something other than topping off with water though.

One brewer was telling me that they noticed a big difference and by performing a hop sparge they were ensuring they get maximum 'goodness' from the spent hops at the end of the boil. The theory behind hop sparging is the same as fly sparging. That you gradually wash good, strong wort off the bed of spent hops. It does have merit I guess as breweries will often push wort or beer with water to avoid losses to the pipework and the idea could just be considered an extension of that though with that you stop the transfer before you get the water. De-oxygenated water ideally to minimise oxygen pick up during transfers post fermentation.

I will liquor back quite significantly when home brewing because I might produce three different beers from one brew day, but that is a choice due to limitations of the system and a desire for different starting gravities.

 

[Addiktion]

My mash schedule runs 1:50:00 not one second longer haha. I do a temp step mash, with a mashout. This is what beer smith told me to do so I did it. got a nice dry IPA.

 

[dmtaylor]

Is there anything to gain by leaving a mash in the mash tun for longer than 1 hour?

Not much. I've done many dozens of batches at varying mash times, and my conclusion is that most of the important work of the mash is done in about 40-45 minutes. A longer mash will result in a more fermentable wort, but the effect isn't as significant as many would think.

More interesting to me is playing with shorter and shorter mash times. This can become useful when you want to use a highly attenuative yeast but don't want it fermenting too dry, like especially for session strength beers where the original gravity is low but you want the final gravity to remain high and not way down around 1.005 or something like that.