10 Minute Mash? Mind Blown...

[pmonti80]

Very interesting post. I was already trying 45min mash but I am still learning and have very little repeatability for the moment. In my next all grain or partial mash I will try fine crushing in my new corona mill, blanket around the pot and a 30 minute mash.

Off Topic: What about shorter boils? Are you using them or only shorter mash?

 

[TexasWine]

Very interesting post. I was already trying 45min mash but I am still learning and have very little repeatability for the moment. In my next all grain or partial mash I will try fine crushing in my new corona mill, blanket around the pot and a 30 minute mash.

Off Topic: What about shorter boils? Are you using them or only shorter mash?

I've done shorter boils (30 min) on my last two batches with no ill effects. I think shortening the boil is a judgement call. If you think you can do it and still get a hop profile you're happy with, then go for it. Just make sure to boil long and hard enough to drive off the DMS.

 

[ayrerperformance]

How does this information transfer to the thread about controlling attenuation via mash times? According to that thread, shorter mashes dry out your beer. Does that only apply to traditional 3v systems? Are you getting high attenuation and drier finishes?

 

[doug293cz]

How does this information transfer to the thread about controlling attenuation via mash times? According to that thread, shorter mashes dry out your beer. Does that only apply to traditional 3v systems? Are you getting high attenuation and drier finishes?

You sure it's not longer mash times favor dryness? More enzyme action means more mono and di-saccharides, and fewer dextrines, which lead to a more fermentable wort.

Fermentability is all about the sugar profile of the wort (mono and di-saccharides vs. poly saccharides/dextrines.). There are a lot of variables and processes going on in a mash. A finer crush speeds up several of the processes, so you can get similar sugar profiles with shorter mash times than with coarser crushes.

Brew on

 

[ayrerperformance]

You sure it's not longer mash times favor dryness? More enzyme action means more mono and di-saccharides, and fewer dextrines, which lead to a more fermentable wort.

Fermentability is all about the sugar profile of the wort (mono and di-saccharides vs. poly saccharides/dextrines.). There are a lot of variables and processes going on in a mash. A finer crush speeds up several of the processes, so you can get similar sugar profiles with shorter mash times than with coarser crushes.

Brew on

Yes sorry, I had that backwards. Been a long day.

 

[Bassman2003]

Pretty cool info. Just for a talking point, would you do the shorter mash for all styles? Or do you think the shorter mash would be better in some styles rather than others?

It would seem a U.K. bitter or an APA would be prime candidates for this approach where a German Pils might not be as good? The continental Euro breweries seem to do much longer mashes than Brittish or US brewers. The Germans have picked every inch apart of the brewing process and they tend to step mash, some long, some short. The Belgians often step mash with long mash times.

So what is being lost or gained, if anything between a 30min mash and a 2 hour and 30min mash?

This is what I want to know definitively before I make the choice either way.

 

[BadWolfBrewing]

On my next brew, I'm just going to sample the mash every 20 minutes for 2 hours. I use HERMS, so temps will be stable. I'll save them all in tasting glasses and do a tasting at the end of the mash (and check gravity and starch too I guess). I'd check PH but I don't have the meter. If there's anything interesting I'll report it here.

 

[Weezy]

Pretty cool info. Just for a talking point, would you do the shorter mash for all styles? Or do you think the shorter mash would be better in some styles rather than others?

It would seem a U.K. bitter or an APA would be prime candidates for this approach where a German Pils might not be as good? The continental Euro breweries seem to do much longer mashes than Brittish or US brewers. The Germans have picked every inch apart of the brewing process and they tend to step mash, some long, some short. The Belgians often step mash with long mash times.

So what is being lost or gained, if anything between a 30min mash and a 2 hour and 30min mash?

This is what I want to know definitively before I make the choice either way.

You have to ask *why* they do it the way they do. A lot of the traditions are simply that, traditions. Step mashed and long mashes are mostly to deal with under modified malts, which was common in history but not so how. The Germans hacked together acid malt because the German purity laws wouldn't let them use any chemicals to adjust pH. Is it the best way to adjust mash pH? No.
No doubt these extended schemes are doing something to yield different and varied flavor effect and body effects, but can that same effect be made by adding a pinch of melanoidin malt?

You should just try it for yourself to see if matters. Get a recipe that you think an extended or step mash matter and do it. Then do it again with a short, single infusion mash. Then let your taste buds tell you if it matters.

 

[Bassman2003]

Good points. This would be a great experiment for Basic Brewing or anybody else as a side by side would be needed to really know. Sometimes I wonder if outside of a controlled environment like a mega brewery, that some processes or theory might not transferrable. Which kind of means homebrewing sort of has its own parameters like no-chill or BIAB where the process is counter to the brewing industry.

Great to discuss and move forward as a community.

 

[Gavin C]

My last batch was 15 lbs for a 5 gallon batch. I'd consider that to be larger than average. 30 minute mash and 88% efficiency.

Is that your mash efficiency or brewhouse? Just so I can compare to my own figures.

Thanks for all the great info and data. Your posts are always interesting

 

[stpug]

Here's results from a new experiment. I bought a refractometer so I could grab samples on the fly without waiting 10 minutes for them to cool. Mash temperature for this batch was 154F. which seemed like a good temperature for a sweet stout and it's in the range where conversion should happen rapidly. I did not do an iodine test during this mash, I forgot about that until just now.

Time Gravity
5 minutes 1.015
10 minutes 1.017
stirred mash
11 minutes 1.026
stirred mash
15 minutes 1.033
stirred mash
20 minutes 1.040
stirred mash
25 minutes 1.047
stirred mash
30 minutes 1.051
stirred mash
35 minutes 1.048
stirred mash
40 minutes 1.051

Looking through the numbers, it appears that the 30 minute sample was an error and that there was some but minimal increase between 25 and 40 minutes. This needs to be run again to see if the results are consistent but for a preliminary result, 20 to 25 minutes is the sweet spot. Longer is better but not by much. Now for the fermentability, which will have to wait for this batch.

A previous batch of blonde ale using Danstar Windsor yeast had an OG (hydrometer) of 1.040 and at 2 weeks it has come down to 1.008, and 80% attenuation for a yeast that should attenuate 62 to 68%. This batch was mashed at 156F for 20 minutes and hot water was used for sparging to get my volume because the pot I used was too small to go full volume.

A few observations on your experiment:
-Careful of overheating the crystal on your refract. Once the crystal gets overheated then it can produce wonky results for longer than expected (i.e. until the crystal cools back down to within calibration range).

-Careful of overcooling the crystal for the same reason.

-Try to put lightly warm wort on a room temp crystal and rinse with room temp water.

-When we are talking about "complete/full" conversion we are looking for the point at which the gravity no longer continues to rise (right?), and if you think the 30 minute reading is unreliable (i.e. toss it out) then technically you never reached the point at which the gravity was no longer rising. I, on the other hand, suspect the 35 minute reading is wonky which would mean the readings between 30 and 40 remained the same to indicate full conversion. In other words, I would call the "sweet spot" (literally) at 30 minutes, which is within reason for a 154 mash temp using well crushed grain.

-As for attenuation levels from various yeast strains, we gotta call a meeting with those strains because the ranges manufacturers are supplying us with are generally piss poor

 

[TexasWine]

Is that your mash efficiency or brewhouse? Just so I can compare to my own figures.

Thanks for all the great info and data. Your posts are always interesting

All the above. I boil then dump right into the bucket. If my understanding of the efficiency calculations are correct, you don't have any drops in efficiency when you don't lose any volume between the kettle and fermenter.

As far as my posts being interesting, that's probably debatable, but thanks for the compliment! I only spout off what I've heard other folks say, kind of like an annoying parrot.

 

[hio3791]

How does this information transfer to the thread about controlling attenuation via mash times?

I've been curious about that too. I've made 3 recipes doing 30 min mashes using finely crushed grain. I've always used US05 on these recipes and they always ended under 1.010. With 30 min mashes, I hit the OG but the FG has been about 4 pts higher than normal (above 1.010).

While this isn't a scientific study, it has been my observation and after reading that thread, I'm wondering if attenuation might be affected (somewhat) by the shorter mash times.

Having said that, the beers have tasted perfectly fine and I am happy with the outcome. The time savings is a great bonus. The point is that there may be a correlation between shorter mash times and attenuation.

 

[JohnSand]

Thanks for that report Hio. Some of my brews have been over-attenuating. A shorter mash may help, and save time.

 

[rabeb25]

How does this if at all effect mashes with adjunts. I.e. Rice?

 

[pablosbrewing]

The Germans hacked together acid malt

It isn't really a hack, the acid is created it naturally from the lactobaccillus bacteria on the grain.

You can do the same thing with an acid rest (95F), it just increases your mash time by a few hours.

 

[Weezy]

It isn't really a hack, the acid is created it naturally from the lactobaccillus bacteria on the grain.

You can do the same thing with an acid rest (95F), it just increases your mash time by a few hours.

It's called hyperbole.

 

[ballsy]

I've been curious about that too. I've made 3 recipes doing 30 min mashes using finely crushed grain. I've always used US05 on these recipes and they always ended under 1.010. With 30 min mashes, I hit the OG but the FG has been about 4 pts higher than normal (above 1.010).

While this isn't a scientific study, it has been my observation and after reading that thread, I'm wondering if attenuation might be affected (somewhat) by the shorter mash times.

Having said that, the beers have tasted perfectly fine and I am happy with the outcome. The time savings is a great bonus. The point is that there may be a correlation between shorter mash times and attenuation.

I've not yet obtained a corona or any other mill (next purchase but my mashes used to be 45 min w/10 min mashout/dunk sparge and since I went to 60 min mashes w/ same 10 min sparge and FG of same beers was identical with each process/time frame. Will try the 30 min mash once the mill is acquired and post back then.

 

[RM-MN]

I've not yet obtained a corona or any other mill (next purchase but my mashes used to be 45 min w/10 min mashout/dunk sparge and since I went to 60 min mashes w/ same 10 min sparge and FG of same beers was identical with each process/time frame. Will try the 30 min mash once the mill is acquired and post back then.

When you get your results from the 30 minute mash, try one with 20 minutes. It might surprise you.

 

[JKoravos]

Just to add some of my experience here...

I nearly always take refract reading throughout my mash. I do a traditional crush and recirc via HERMS. My experience shows that it takes a minimum of 45 minutes for gravity to stabilize in my system. Typical times to stabilization are 45-70 mins, with as high as 90 mins for low temp mashes (147-148).

I'd love to see someone do a detailed controlled experiment on how crush, time, temp, etc. are affecting the finished beer on a homebrew scale. I might undertake it myself once I actually start brewing again.

 

[Magnus314]

There are 2 things i think people often miss when they hear "10 minute mash"-

1) This with a very fine crush.

2) This is the mash time from finish of mash in until the bag is pulled. The wort is at temp a little longer than this as the bag drains, any sparges are completed, mash out (RM-MN doesn't mash out) and the kettle is heated.

That may be 10 -20 minutes or so more that the wort sits there enzymatically active.

That means if your wort "stabilizes" (I don't know what that means) at 45 minutes, you could mash for 25-35 minutes with a finer crush and get the same result. Maybe less, evenif RM-MN's short mash results hold up for you, too.

The only way to be sure is to test a batch.

 

[RM-MN]

There are 2 things i think people often miss when they hear "10 minute mash"-

1) This with a very fine crush.

2) This is the mash time from finish of mash in until the bag is pulled. The wort is at temp a little longer than this as the bag drains, any sparges are completed, mash out (RM-MN doesn't mash out) and the kettle is heated.

That may be 10 -20 minutes or so more that the wort sits there enzymatically active.

That means if your wort "stabilizes" (I don't know what that means) at 45 minutes, you could mash for 25-35 minutes with a finer crush and get the same result. Maybe less, evenif RM-MN's short mash results hold up for you, too.

The only way to be sure is to test a batch.

I've made a few changes to this. The mash time is now 5 minutes with the heat turned on 15 seconds before the mash period ends. The bag is pulled, allowed to drain for perhaps a minute and this is returned to the pot. Then I sparge with boiling water to bring the bag of grains up past the mash out temperature. The collected sparge is returned to the pot as the temperature of the pot is approaching the 170 mark by now too. The total time from dough in to boil is probably about 20 minutes. I'm still getting the same efficiency and the FG is still lower than predicted by the software that is expecting a 60 minute mash. I need a lab assistant to keep track of the time better. It's hard to keep one eye on the thermometer, one eye on the time, an both eyes on the boiling water as I sparge. :rockin:

 

[JKoravos]

That means if your wort "stabilizes" (I don't know what that means) at 45 minutes, you could mash for 25-35 minutes with a finer crush and get the same result. Maybe less, evenif RM-MN's short mash results hold up for you, too.

The only way to be sure is to test a batch.

Gravity stabilization. When the gravity is no longer changing from reading to reading.


I'm more interested in what is different between mashing for 20 minutes and 60 minutes, not if I can convert all the starches faster. Clearly crush size affects accessibility and rate of conversion, but I don't know to what extent. As long as the mash is in the proper temp range and the enzymes haven't been denatured then the wort is changing character even after you're converted. I want to know if 30 minutes gives me the wort I want for a given beer or if I need to mash 60 or 90 minutes to get the wort I want.

 

[doug293cz]

I'm more interested in what is different between mashing for 20 minutes and 60 minutes, not if I can convert all the starches faster. Clearly crush size affects accessibility and rate of conversion, but I don't know to what extent. As long as the mash is in the proper temp range and the enzymes haven't been denatured then the wort is changing character even after you're converted. I want to know if 30 minutes gives me the wort I want for a given beer or if I need to mash 60 or 90 minutes to get the wort I want.

This is where attenuation measurements come in. If your FG's are coming out higher than your target, it may be because the saccharification did not proceed long enough, and therefore you have more dextrines, and less maltose than desired. Of course, high FG's could also be due to fermentation issues. If your FG's are coming out lower than your target, then saccharification may have proceeded too long, giving more maltose and less dextrines than desired.

@RM-MN has found that for his grind and mash conditions, even short (30 minute) mash times can give lower than his desired FG. So, he is looking for the sweet spot for mash time that will not end up over attenuating. What works for him, may not work for everyone, as grain crush and other factors are different.

Brew on

 

[JKoravos]

This is where attenuation measurements come in. If your FG's are coming out higher than your target, it may be because the saccharification did not proceed long enough, and therefore you have more dextrines, and less maltose than desired. Of course, high FG's could also be due to fermentation issues. If your FG's are coming out lower than your target, then saccharification may have proceeded too long, giving more maltose and less dextrines than desired.

@RM-MN has found that for his grind and mash conditions, even short (30 minute) mash times can give lower than his desired FG. So, he is looking for the sweet spot for mash time that will not end up over attenuating. What works for him, may not work for everyone, as grain crush and other factors are different.

Brew on

Saccharification is pretty straight forward, it's dependent on temp and concentration of enzymes and their accessibility to starches/sugars. You can make it go pretty damn fast if you give it ideal conditions, which RM-MN seems to be doing.

I'm wondering what else you are changing by only mashing for 10 or 20 or 30 minutes instead of 60 or 90. Surely there are other processes going on in the mash besides saccharification, do you short change any of those by reducing mash time? I have no clue, but that's what I'm curious about.

 

[Psylocide]

Saccharification is pretty straight forward, it's dependent on temp and concentration of enzymes and their accessibility to starches/sugars. You can make it go pretty damn fast if you give it ideal conditions, which RM-MN seems to be doing.

I'm wondering what else you are changing by only mashing for 10 or 20 or 30 minutes instead of 60 or 90. Surely there are other processes going on in the mash besides saccharification, do you short change any of those by reducing mash time? I have no clue, but that's what I'm curious about.

I think that's the question on everyone's mind. Having done a 30 minute mash myself, I found no differences in flavor (besides the different hop schedules) from an overnight mash to a 30 minute mash. Of course, these are two extremes, so... doesn't really give a true test.

That being said, both beers had a very similar grain bill, I actually got higher efficiency from the 30 min mash due to a better crush, and both attenuated at around 80%.

Head is the same, taste is the same (same being no off flavors/etc.), beer is great.

So, what are we missing out on by going shorter than 60 min? No one seems to know or, the right people haven't seen these threads.

But at the end of the day, I'm making great beer, in less time. For me, that's all that matters. I don't really care that some process may not be "finished" by the time I pull my bag, but what are the cons of this method if they are imperceptible (to me, at least)?

I'm going to keep experimenting with it, but I need to do a side-by-side and have my wife/a friend serve them to me blind for my own satisfaction at some point.

 

[JKoravos]

I think that's the question on everyone's mind. Having done a 30 minute mash myself, I found no differences in flavor (besides the different hop schedules) from an overnight mash to a 30 minute mash. Of course, these are two extremes, so... doesn't really give a true test.

That being said, both beers had a very similar grain bill, I actually got higher efficiency from the 30 min mash due to a better crush, and both attenuated at around 80%.

Head is the same, taste is the same (same being no off flavors/etc.), beer is great.

So, what are we missing out on by going shorter than 60 min? No one seems to know or, the right people haven't seen these threads.

But at the end of the day, I'm making great beer, in less time. For me, that's all that matters. I don't really care that some process may not be "finished" by the time I pull my bag, but what are the cons of this method if they are imperceptible (to me, at least)?

I'm going to keep experimenting with it, but I need to do a side-by-side and have my wife/a friend serve them to me blind for my own satisfaction at some point.

There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence out there, but not a lot in the way of controlled studies (the brulosophy link was one example). For any individual brewer it makes sense to do your own experimenting with your own system to determine what works for you. If you can do 30 minute mashes and everything comes out the same (or better) than a 60 minute mash, it would be silly to keep doing 60 minute mashes. Even if they are different, it doesn't mean one is better than the other. Do what works for you.

I'm interested in the gory details of the process, WHY is it different or the same. What are the factors that affect the outcome? How do you optimize those factors? Etc. etc.

 

[Psylocide]

There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence out there, but not a lot in the way of controlled studies (the brulosophy link was one example). For any individual brewer it makes sense to do your own experimenting with your own system to determine what works for you. If you can do 30 minute mashes and everything comes out the same (or better) than a 60 minute mash, it would be silly to keep doing 60 minute mashes. Even if they are different, it doesn't mean one is better than the other. Do what works for you.

I'm interested in the gory details of the process, WHY is it different or the same. What are the factors that affect the outcome? How do you optimize those factors? Etc. etc.

Exactly.

Let me know when you find someone that does know, because all I've seen so far is, "it works great." And that's all I can say myself.

 

[Magnus314]

I can't remember which episode, but there's one episode where the brewer is making a stout and they do a 30 minute mash at 160*.

He says something like, "We're doing this one fast and hot".

So there's precedent for short mashes in commercial beers, though I wonder how fine they are able to mill.