30 min mash Success!

[Gavin C]

I'm unsure of your math there, so... I'll just recount it.

1. A few days before, I crushed grain: 20 mins
2. Washed my equipment: 10 mins
3. Water heated to mash/sparge temp: ~30 mins
4. (Concurrently with #3) Measure out hops, etc.
5. Mash in, ~5mins
6. Mash: 30 mins
7. Sparge: 15 mins, I think it took 10, but I'll fluff it.
8. Heating to boiling + 60 min boil: 90 mins
9. Hop Stand: 30 mins

So, looking at it that way, in total it took 3.5 hours. But! The 20 mins for crushing grain actually happened on a different day. Cleaned everything out while I waited for the boil, did no-chill, and transferred later that night.

I really only had to dedicate ~3 hours in one shot before I could go about my day and come back to move wort to the fermenter hours later and pitch yeast. I could do this faster if I had tried to push it.

Had a crack at a shorter mash for todays brew. I went with 40 mins sacc rest and a mash out for 5 mins. Not as short as yours but a reduction from 60-90 mins sacc rest and a 10 minute mash-out.

The result: 92% mash efficiency. (Tinkering with my pH also). So far so good. I'll be interested to see if the beer attenuates as planned. I expect it will.

 

[RM-MN]

Had a crack at a shorter mash for todays brew. I went with 40 mins sacc rest and a mash out for 5 mins. Not as short as yours but a reduction from 60-90 mins sacc rest and a 10 minute mash-out.

The result: 92% mash efficiency. (Tinkering with my pH also). So far so good. I'll be interested to see if the beer attenuates as planned. I expect it will.

Congratulations on being so adventurous as to try a 40 minute mash. Most people won't even stray that far from their 60 to 90 minute mash. Coupled with the shorter mash you had great efficiency so I would suspect that you have good milling. Are you ready to experiment with anything shorter? I suspect that you could easily have the same efficiency with a 30 minute mash.

 

[wobdee]

Have you guys tried these short mashes with Continental Pilsner malt?

 

[Gavin C]

Congratulations on being so adventurous as to try a 40 minute mash. Most people won't even stray that far from their 60 to 90 minute mash. Coupled with the shorter mash you had great efficiency so I would suspect that you have good milling. Are you ready to experiment with anything shorter? I suspect that you could easily have the same efficiency with a 30 minute mash.

I think you are completely right. 30 mins I opened the lid for a stir. Everything looked clear. Let it sit another 10 mins to satisfy my inner intransigence. I did a conversion test at 40 mins but could in all likelihood have done it sooner. Figured small steps was better than none at all. Next brew I will do a 30 minute mash for sure.

My crush is solid. Two passes gives me an extremely homogenous grist. This really is the key to the whole time efficiency debate IMHO

 

[RM-MN]

I think you are completely right. 30 mins I opened the lid for a stir. Everything looked clear. Let it sit another 10 mins to satisfy my inner intransigence. I did a conversion test at 40 mins but could in all likelihood have done it sooner. Figured small steps was better than none at all. Next brew I will do a 30 minute mash for sure.

My crush is solid. Two passes gives me an extremely homogenous grist. This really is the key to the whole time efficiency debate IMHO

Would you please do a conversion test at 10, 20, and 30 minutes? Your crush doesn't look as fine as mine and your mash may not be done as quickly as mine. I'd like to see what you get.:rockin:

 

[Gavin C]

Would you please do a conversion test at 10, 20, and 30 minutes? Your crush doesn't look as fine as mine and your mash may not be done as quickly as mine. I'd like to see what you get.:rockin:

Will do. Read your post on the short mashes with much interest. My crush is as fine as I need with regard to efficiency and consistency. Recent pH adjustments seem to be bringing the former up even more.

More and more it seems that the more established arbitrary 60 minute mash lengths are extra to requirements with the systematic adjustments for BIAB factored in.

Regarding chemistry in the mash. A few questions which I have not done my homework to answer.

Is there much going on in the way of more snipping of the already converted sugars into smaller simpler sugars by the beta amylase that is not picked up by a conversion test?

With more complex malts where a higher FG is expected does additional time become more important?

Do these slower reactions play a significant role with a finer milling of the grains? Presumably they happen more rapidly also.

 

[pricelessbrewing]

Don't think we have enough info in regards to shorter vs longer sugar chains, which would be directly related to the attenuation. We've seen a number of posts regarding conversion in x minutes, but very few posting attenuation besides rm-mn saying he hasn't had any attenuation issues.

I would think that less modified malts might need more time, but probably still done within 40 minutes.

 

[TexasWine]

Don't think we have enough info in regards to shorter vs longer sugar chains, which would be directly related to the attenuation. We've seen a number of posts regarding conversion in x minutes, but very few posting attenuation besides rm-mn saying he hasn't had any attenuation issues.

I would think that less modified malts might need more time, but probably still done within 40 minutes.

Here are my attenuation numbers from my past few batches, all with a 30 minute mash except for a blonde which was 45 minutes because I was making breakfast.

I can provide more data later on things like grain bill, yeast and attenuation. I'm on my tablet not and don't feel like fighting auto correct.

The last two batches I started manually manipulating the default attenuation values provided by Brewer's Friend.

APA, expected 1.021, actual 1.012
IPA, expected 1.017, actual 1.010
IPA, expected, 1.017, actual 1.013
IIPA, expected 1.015, actual 1.014
Blonde, expected 1.010, actual 1.009

 

[pricelessbrewing]

That's interesting, as they're all lower than expected. I would've suspected the shorter mash time would provide longer chains, not shorter ones.

When you get the chance please provide mash temp, and yeasts used. I wonder if the shorter temp gives greater prevalence to the beta/alpha balance in the mash temp. So a lower temp provides even lower fg and a higher temp provides even higher fg.

 

[FatDragon]

My 45 minute Caramel Amber Ale went from 1.051 to 1.008. That's 84% attenuation with slightly underpitched S-04 slurry. That was helped along by the pound of homemade candi syrup at the end of the boil, but it's perfectly in line with previous 60 minute mashes of the same recipe.

 

[RM-MN]

Will do. Read your post on the short mashes with much interest. My crush is as fine as I need with regard to efficiency and consistency. Recent pH adjustments seem to be bringing the former up even more.

More and more it seems that the more established arbitrary 60 minute mash lengths are extra to requirements with the systematic adjustments for BIAB factored in.

Regarding chemistry in the mash. A few questions which I have not done my homework to answer.

Is there much going on in the way of more snipping of the already converted sugars into smaller simpler sugars by the beta amylase that is not picked up by a conversion test?

With more complex malts where a higher FG is expected does additional time become more important?

Do these slower reactions play a significant role with a finer milling of the grains? Presumably they happen more rapidly also.

Using iodine for testing conversion is mostly a negative for starch. If it turns blue there is starch left. Supposedly the iodine will get a more reddish hue if there is more fermentable sugar in the sample but I wasn't able to see it, perhaps because the conversion happened so fast that I missed the intermediate reading. From my perspective the sure way to see if you got the simple sugars is to let the beer ferment and compare the predicted FG with the actual. My beers that I've done BIAB seem to always ferment to a lower FG than predicted which I interpret as having plenty of simple sugars.

I haven't seen any real difference with beers containing caramel malts or even darker malts in respect to time. I need more brews to be sure of this. The imperial stout (OG 1.094) had plenty of darker malts and has an FG of 1.020, 4 point below predicted.

 

[RM-MN]

That's interesting, as they're all lower than expected. I would've suspected the shorter mash time would provide longer chains, not shorter ones.

When you get the chance please provide mash temp, and yeasts used. I wonder if the shorter temp gives greater prevalence to the beta/alpha balance in the mash temp. So a lower temp provides even lower fg and a higher temp provides even higher fg.

I've just brewed a Fat Tire clone again since the previous batch attenuated more than I wanted. The mash temp this time was 159 as opposed to the 153 of the previous batch which had a FG of 1.010 when it was predicted to end at 1.019. I'll have more data when this latest batch has a chance to ferment out.

 

[JohnSand]

Thanks RM, I was just thinking the same. There was a BYO article indicating that homebrew mashes do not denature enzymes quickly. So I think that is why many of us end up with lower FG.

 

[TexasWine]

Here are my attenuation numbers from my past few batches, all with a 30 minute mash except for a blonde which was 45 minutes because I was making breakfast.

I can provide more data later on things like grain bill, yeast and attenuation. I'm on my tablet not and don't feel like fighting auto correct.

The last two batches I started manually manipulating the default attenuation values provided by Brewer's Friend.

APA, expected 1.021, actual 1.012
IPA, expected 1.017, actual 1.010
IPA, expected, 1.017, actual 1.013
IIPA, expected 1.015, actual 1.014
Blonde, expected 1.010, actual 1.009

A little more data. All fermentation temps were in the middle range for the yeast. No starters. Smack packs were simply smacked. Dry yeast was pitched right on top of the wort.

APA, expected 1.021, actual 1.012, yeast Wyeast 1968, mash temp 151F
IPA, expected 1.017, actual 1.010, yeast Wyeast 1056, mash temp 152F
IPA, expected, 1.017, actual 1.013, yeast US-05, mash temp 152F
IIPA, expected 1.015, actual 1.014, yeast US-05, mash temp 152F
Blonde, expected 1.010, actual 1.009, yeast Wyeast 1968, mash temp 148F

 

[pricelessbrewing]

Very interesting info. Would love to have a large data set to produce a new attenuation formula.

 

[wilserbrewer]

This is intriguing. I think I need to raise my mash temps....I don't have any data...I think you guys are onto something here, subbed and thx.

 

[RM-MN]

One more data point for you. I brewed a Fat Tire clone on March 11, 2015 with a mash temperature of 158 for an OG of 1.050. Today's (March 21, 2015) gravity reading is 1.020 whereas Brewtarget predicted 1.017. It might drop the other 3 points in the next couple days yet.

Oh yeah, the mash time was 10 minutes.

Another data point. I brewed that same Fat Tire clone on March 18, 2015 with a mash temperature of 159 for the same OG of 1.050. Today's gravity sits at 1.022, the fourth day after brewing. This one was mashed for, gasp!, 5 minutes.

 

[pricelessbrewing]

Maybe you should call them fast tire instead!

 

[Psylocide]

One more data point for you. I brewed a Fat Tire clone on March 11, 2015 with a mash temperature of 158 for an OG of 1.050. Today's (March 21, 2015) gravity reading is 1.020 whereas Brewtarget predicted 1.017. It might drop the other 3 points in the next couple days yet.

Oh yeah, the mash time was 10 minutes.

Another data point. I brewed that same Fat Tire clone on March 18, 2015 with a mash temperature of 159 for the same OG of 1.050. Today's gravity sits at 1.022, the fourth day after brewing. This one was mashed for, gasp!, 5 minutes.

This is crazy.

What was your efficiency on the 5 min mash? I'm assuming it's in line with your "standard" efficiency.

The bigger question I have now is, what are we missing out on by mashing so quickly?

I'm tempted to do two brews with the same recipe, one with a "traditional" 60 min mash, and one with a short mash, say... 15 mins, and do a side-by-side comparison.

Also, I've noticed that both of my BIAB brews, the overnight mash and the 30 min mash, both finished 4-5 points lower than expected. First was rehydrated Notty, second was rehydrated US-05.

My initial thought on the overnight mash was that the falling temps overnight (~20°) led to a more fermentable wort, but now I'm not so sure. I mashed the next iteration for 30 mins at the same temp, and still ended 4 points lower than expected.

I'd be interested to learn if the finer crush is to blame/thank for this.

 

[RM-MN]

The bigger question I have now is, what are we missing out on by mashing so quickly?

That's one of the things I'm trying to find out. One thing I noticed missing is the long wait for the mash to complete. Since I wanted to make sure the mash was stopped as quickly as possible I used boiling water to sparge so it would emulate a mash out. I hardly had time to heat the water on the last few attempts! I do have to wait a bit for the taste tests as the beer carbonates in the bottles.

 

[FatDragon]

Changed my original brew plans because my DuPont yeast is still coming along, so I did my first APA in a while today, decided it would be a great opportunity for a 30 minute mash. Exceeded my numbers and got a negative iodine test, so the next step is to see how low it goes.

And the caramel amber ale from last week dropped another few points before bottling last night. Ended up at 1 Plato, thanks largely to the half kilo of simple sugars, but clearly not negatively impacted by the 45 minute mash.

 

[Gavin C]

Congratulations on being so adventurous as to try a 40 minute mash. Most people won't even stray that far from their 60 to 90 minute mash. Coupled with the shorter mash you had great efficiency so I would suspect that you have good milling. Are you ready to experiment with anything shorter? I suspect that you could easily have the same efficiency with a 30 minute mash.

Just an update on my own shorter mash (45minute rest 5 minute mash-out rest). Sorry to Psy if I am hijacking your great thread here.

I brewed Biermuncher's Centenial blonde with S-05
Higher efficiency than anticipated with this light grain bill so the OG was a little higher than expected.

OG 1.045 FG 1.010 after 9 days of a gradually ramped temeprature profile (62-68F). Beersmith was predicting 1.008 but I don't anticipate any further reduction based on past experiences. The calculated ABV at 4.6% is somewhat higher than I wanted. The sample tasted very good.

I went ahead and cold crashed with simulataneous gelatin addition as an experiment to compare with my usual crash then gelatin. Will share a pic when it's done.

This level of attenuation is fine by me. I was hoping for a little dryer but am not displeased given the higher than planned OG. Recipe was for OG and FG of 1.039 and 1.008 respectively

Next brew I will for sure be trying a 30 minute mash with 5 minute mash-out. My first lager. Thanks Psy for sharing your process and encouraging me to step out of my comfort zone. I need to experiment more.

 

[Psylocide]

Just an update on my own shorter mash (45minute rest 5 minute mash-out rest). Sorry to Psy if I am hijacking your great thread here.

I brewed Biermuncher's Centenial blonde with S-05
Higher efficiency than anticipated with this light grain bill so the OG was a little higher than expected.

OG 1.045 FG 1.010 after 9 days of a gradually ramped temeprature profile (62-68F). Beersmith was predicting 1.008 but I don't anticipate any further reduction based on past experiences. The calculated ABV at 4.6% is somewhat higher than I wanted. The sample tasted very good.

I went ahead and cold crashed with simulataneous gelatin addition as an experiment to compare with my usual crash then gelatin. Will share a pic when it's done.

This level of attenuation is fine by me. I was hoping for a little dryer but am not displeased given the higher than planned OG. Recipe was for OG and FG of 1.039 and 1.008 respectively

Next brew I will for sure be trying a 30 minute mash with 5 minute mash-out. My first lager. Thanks Psy for sharing your process and encouraging me to step out of my comfort zone. I need to experiment more.

Awesome to hear... I'm a little surprised that it ended a little higher than expected, especially since mine attenuated at a higher rate than I expected. What temp did you mash at?

Anyway, this thread is here for anyone to comment on, I'm interested in hearing anything related to this, so... post away!

Also, big credit for this still goes to @RM-MN for putting the idea in my head.

 

[TheCADJockey]

I mashed potatoes once. It only took like 10 minutes, so... ya know. Just add a little sour cream and chives.

 

[Gavin C]

Awesome to hear... I'm a little surprised that it ended a little higher than expected, especially since mine attenuated at a higher rate than I expected. What temp did you mash at?

Anyway, this thread is here for anyone to comment on, I'm interested in hearing anything related to this, so... post away!

Also, big credit for this still goes to @RM-MN for putting the idea in my head.

Mashed at 150 verified with my shiny new green Thermapen.

I have been coming up a couple of points higher in some brews of late. I was think about this today and was wondering with the fine crush if I am doughing in too slowly.

With the hotter strike water and what appears to be rapid conversion with a fine grind am I exposing the starches and enzymes to the slightly warmer temps for too long? It takes a couple of minutes to dough in. Could this acount for this. Just a thought and possibly way off track.

But with @RM-MN's recent 5 minute mash it makes me wonder if some adjustment to my process is in order. More rapid dough in and stir with the paddle after to eliminate dough balls.

The other possibility is my hydrometer may not be accurate although it reads 1.000 in distilled water it does read 2 points higher than my refractometer at OG readings. I've largely stopped using the refractometer though prefering to keep my readings to one measuring device for any given brew. My last hydrometer always agreed with the refractometer (which also reads 1.000 in distilled water) for OG readings however.

Edit: Differing calibration temps may account for this discrepancy; my last hydrometer and refractometer were both at 60F, my newer hydrometer is 68F.

I agree @RM-MN is posting some great thought provoking stuff.

 

[wobdee]

I did an Ofest last weekend with 50/50 Best Pils/Munich and a touch of Caramunich. I did a Hochkurz mash with a 30 min rest at 145 and a 45 minute rest at 160. While in the 145 range I did two iodine tests at 15 then 30 min, both were positive. It could be that the lower temp won't convert as fast as a range where both Beta/Alpha enzymes are working together better but I thought I'd share. Next time I may try a single rest around 153 and see what happens.

 

[Gavin C]

@wobdee Are you milling the grain finely?

 

[wobdee]

@wobdee Are you milling the grain finely?

Yes, my mill is set to .030 or the width of a credit card.

 

[Gavin C]

I mashed potatoes once. It only took like 10 minutes, so... ya know. Just add a little sour cream and chives.

Did you mash-out with a spoon or a fork?
What was your serving temperature?
What type of chives?

Without more info or recipe link it's hard to know if this worked.

 

[botigol]

The bigger question I have now is, what are we missing out on by mashing so quickly?

I'm tempted to do two brews with the same recipe, one with a "traditional" 60 min mash, and one with a short mash, say... 15 mins, and do a side-by-side comparison.

Brulosopher did a side-by-side, just not quite as short as RM-MN has been going:

http://brulosophy.com/2014/09/01/does-mash-length-matter-exbeeriment-results/

The most pertinent excerpt:

"My Impressions: I’ve had these beers on tap now for a couple weeks and have done my best to compare them as objectively as possible. While I really wanted the short-mash beer (Carl) to come out ahead or at least taste the same as the long-mash beer (Fritz), my honest opinion is that I perceived Fritz as having more of the characteristics I expect in a good Oktoberfest– it had more toasty/Munich malt charcter, slightly more body, and I just enjoyed it more than the other beer. After this exBEERiment, I have no plans to change my normal mashing routine, though I do think it would be good to redo this on lighter and darker beers."

It's a single, subjective point of conversation, but at least something to be examined.