30 min mash Success!

[Psylocide]

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.

I did see that... however, I have two versions of this wheat (different hops), one mashed overnight and one mashed for 30 mins.

I couldn't tell a difference if you paid me (besides overall flavor variation in hop varieties).

I will state that these are both pretty well-hopped and that could cover up some minor flaws that would otherwise be notable if it were a different style.

I had no pre-conceived notions or bias about one turning out better than the other nor did I want one to be better than the other. I just took an idea and ran with it.

YMMV, but I'm going to continue to pursue the shortest AG brew day that will still yield amazing beer. If the quality starts to suffer, then I will change what I'm doing, but since I'm the one drinking 99% of it, my word is law in my brewery.

 

[botigol]

YMMV, but I'm going to continue to pursue the shortest AG brew day that will still yield amazing beer. If the quality starts to suffer, then I will change what I'm doing, but since I'm the one drinking 99% of it, my word is law in my brewery.

I'm with you on that! Just threw out the brulosopher thing for conversation, in case it could be a draw-back. Pretty much every post that I've come across from RM-MN in the last six months has caught my attention and now with your thread I have been checking my 30min gravities and they don't look bad. I haven't made the jump, because I would have come up short on the OGs for the two batches that I checked...not terribly short, but short enough. I may have to dial down the gap on my mill a bit more...

 

[Psylocide]

I'm with you on that! Just threw out the brulosopher thing for conversation, in case it could be a draw-back. Pretty much every post that I've come across from RM-MN in the last six months has caught my attention and now with your thread I have been checking my 30min gravities and they don't look bad. I haven't made the jump, because I would have come up short on the OGs for the two batches that I checked...not terribly short, but short enough. I may have to dial down the gap on my mill a bit more...

Yeah... if you see the pictures of my "crush" (I use a blender), you'll see that it is very fine. I make a lot of flour, which seems to facilitate faster/better conversion.

I don't have any hard evidence to back that up, other than I'm hitting my targets and have not experienced any tannin extraction, which is the important part to me.

 

[Gavin C]

The other important thing to take away from Brulosopher's great work is that the short mash was for a conventional 3 vessel setup with a conventional crush not BIAB with fine crush as Psylocide is doing.

With a finer milling via a blender, corona mill or conventional mill with narrow gap and/or two passes, one would argue the mash kinetics change for two reasons

• massively increased surface area of the grist
• larger volume of water/thinner mash.

With the thinner mash pH changes may also need to be adjusted. (I'm not sufficiently knowlegeable to comment on that area any further though)

 

[RM-MN]

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

I don't think you will be able to get a negative iodine test with 30 minutes of mashing when you use a crusher. I'm using a Corona style mill to get my grains into smaller pieces than you can by crushing. Perhaps if you double mill you might get closer.

 

[VladOfTrub]

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.

Wob, in your case, the mash jelled up when it was boiled during the decoction. Enzymatic action slows way down when mash jells. So, what you experienced is natural. Maybe, instead of going to 160F, go 155F (Alpha II) for 10 minutes and 162F (Alpha I) for 40 minutes. Try to beat the snot out of beta, after gelatinization. Then, work over the rest of the jell with Alpha.

The other brewers are not using a method that breaks down the hard chunks of starch. The decoction method works the starch over, real well. You should notice far less chunks left in the mash, if the mash is being boiled long enough.

The chunks of starch, as the picture on the previous page shows, are heat resistant and a single infusion saccharification rest does very little to the starch. The hard starch contains the majority of amylopectin. After the lautertun is drained, the chunks will still be in the mash, untouched by enzymes.

Since, nothing in a single saccharification rest does much with the chunks, Iodine won't pick up the starch, because it wasn't really in solution. But, it is still there, so when a brewer employs the mash out procedure, the hard starch bursts, due to the mash temperature being above the temperature at which starch bursts. Enzymes denature due to mash out temperatures and the amylopectin ends up in the bottle, unconverted.
When the hard, heat resistant, starch is ground to powder, enzymes will work at a snails pace on it, converting the starch to amylopectin. During a mash lasting five minutes, very little amylopectin will be formed. Mainly, being formed from amylose.
Mash temperatures in the Alpha II and Alpha I temperature range form non-fermentable sugar, which adds sweetness to the final product. Sweetness isn't the same as body and mouthfeel. Limit dextrin is responsible for body and mouthfeel. Although, limit dextrin is non-fermentable, it is not to be confused, with non-fermentable sugar produced during high mashing temperature.

 

[wobdee]

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.

Wob, in your case, the mash jelled up when it was boiled during the decoction. Enzymatic action slows way down when mash jells. So, what you experienced is natural. Maybe, instead of going to 160F, go 155F (Alpha II) for 10 minutes and 162F (Alpha I) for 40 minutes. Try to beat the snot out of beta, after gelatinization. Then, work over the rest of the jell with Alpha.

The other brewers are not using a method that breaks down the hard chunks of starch. The decoction method works the starch over, real well. You should notice far less chunks left in the mash, if the mash is being boiled long enough.

The chunks of starch, as the picture on the previous page shows, are heat resistant and a single infusion saccharification rest does very little to the starch. The hard starch contains the majority of amylopectin. After the lautertun is drained, the chunks will still be in the mash, untouched by enzymes.

Since, nothing in a single saccharification rest does much with the chunks, Iodine won't pick up the starch, because it wasn't really in solution. But, it is still there, so when a brewer employs the mash out procedure, the hard starch bursts, due to the mash temperature being above the temperature at which starch bursts. Enzymes denature due to mash out temperatures and the amylopectin ends up in the bottle, unconverted.
When the hard, heat resistant, starch is ground to powder, enzymes will work at a snails pace on it, converting the starch to amylopectin. During a mash lasting five minutes, very little amylopectin will be formed. Mainly, being formed from amylose.
Mash temperatures in the Alpha II and Alpha I temperature range form non-fermentable sugar, which adds sweetness to the final product. Sweetness isn't the same as body and mouthfeel. Limit dextrin is responsible for body and mouthfeel. Although, limit dextrin is non-fermentable, it is not to be confused, with non-fermentable sugar produced during high mashing temperature.

Vlad,
No decoction with this batch, it was a direct heat step mash, 133 for 15 min, 145 for 30, and 160 for 45. I brewed the same recipe with the Schmitz process last month and I want to compare the two and see if I can tell any difference.

 

[Gavin C]

I think this type of mash would be at the other end of the spectrum than what the OP is doing with his grain milled fine in a blender, BIAB, single temperature sacc rest for 30 mins.

Your mash as described is a 90 minute mash at various temperatures to act on differing enzymes it would seem. Is this then followed by a batch/fly sparge of sorts. Very interesting to read about the process and it's chemistry.

Decoction mashing is an area where I have no experience short of watching it done on BrewTV. Looks like a fun and wonderfully smelling process. I'm not sure how I could incorporate one into my BIAB setup. My next brew is a lager but the recipe calls for a single step mash. (A Munich Helles)

 

[wobdee]

I think this type of mash would be at the other end of the spectrum than what the OP is doing with his grain milled fine in a blender, BIAB, single temperature sacc rest for 30 mins.

Your mash as described is a 90 minute mash at various temperatures to act on differing enzymes it would seem. Is this then followed by a batch/fly sparge of sorts. Very interesting to read about the process and it's chemistry.

Decoction mashing is an area where I have no experience short of watching it done on BrewTV. Looks like a fun and wonderfully smelling process. I'm not sure how I could incorporate one into my BIAB setup. My next brew is a lager but the recipe calls for a single step mash. (A Munich Helles)

No sparge, BIAB direct heat with a 3500w induction burner. Yes, I'm trying to hit all the different enzyme rests but not yet convinced that it makes a big difference. I know the Hochkurz step mash is very popular in Germany so there must me a reason for it. I just wonder if a shorter step mash would work well with today's more modified malts like 145, 155, 162 at 10 min each or even a slow steady climb over 30 min?

Vlad has helped me out on a decoction called the Schmitz Process so I think he assumed that's what I was doing. This method works well with BIAB if you want to try a shorter variation of the decoction process.

 

[Gavin C]

No sparge, BIAB direct heat with a 3500w induction burner. Yes, I'm trying to hit all the different enzyme rests but not yet convinced that it makes a big difference. I know the Hochkurz step mash is very popular in Germany so there must me a reason for it. I just wonder if a shorter step mash would work well with today's more modified malts like 145, 155, 162 at 10 min each or even a slow steady climb over 30 min?

Vlad has helped me out on a decoction called the Schmitz Process so I think he assumed that's what I was doing. This method works well with BIAB if you want to try a shorter variation of the decoction process.

I would love to try that out. I will need to do my homework. What styles is it used in. Lagers?

 

[wobdee]

I would love to try that out. I will need to do my homework. What styles is it used in. Lagers?

Yeah, pretty much lagers but I would think Alt's or wheat beers could benefit as well.

 

[roblanderson]

This thread is very interesting to me. I've been brewing BIAB style for a couple years now, and usually have under attenuated beers. I've actually extended our mash times beyond 60 minutes and get better attenuation when doing so.

Lots of factors at play of course that affect attenuation. Just recently switched to an electric setup with a recirculating mash with the temp controlled by a PID, so we're still trying to dial in the new system.

For those of you that have seen over attenuation with BIAB I'm curious about your water. Do you do anything with salts/acid to target a certain PH? I use Bru'n Water and usually target a mash PH of 5.4, which usually means adding lactic acid unless it is a really dark brew.

I'd love to be able to shorten my brew day and mash for less than 60-90 minutes!

 

[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.

Today I brewed a Munich Helles derived from The Brulosopher with some minor tweaks to account for anticipated 80% efficiency.

Target OG of 1.047 and 5.5 gallons to the FV.

The mash was as follows
Sacc Rest for 30 mins at 150F
Mash-out Rest for 5 mins at 168F

My usual methods were employed

Water additions as per Bru'n Water (Calcium Chloride)
Lactic acid added to adjust pH targeting 5.4

Actual mash pH 5.33

Insulated Mash

The result
Mash efficiency at 93%
Brewhouse efficiency 82%

5.6 gallons into the FV at 1.048 Edit: Measured FG 1.010

Measured OG 1.048

Following a stir of the mash, I carried out a starch conversion test at 11 mins into the 150F rest. There was slight dark hint visible. The 30 minute test showed complete conversion however. The wort was also looking clear at this stage.



The mash after 30 minute Sacc. rest

Tincture of Iodine

Conversion test at 30 mins


In Summary a 30 minute mash seems to have performed well
Edit: Just to update. FG came in at 1.010 Right on target for middle of the style range as planned.

 

[soccerdad]

Innovative!

Oh $hit. I'll prob be sued for that

 

[Gavin C]

Innovative!

Oh $hit. I'll prob be sued for that

I fear a cease and desist order is currently winging its way to you as I type.

I believe you have flagrantly and aggregiously infringed multiple, entirely vague, unspecified trademarks there. The use of the exclamation point does nothing other than to magnify your crime. Sleep well Soccerdad.

 

[TheCADJockey]

I fear a cease and desist order is currently winging its way to you as I type.

Says the guy whose kettle looks like R2D2 :cross:

 

[Psylocide]

Thanks for adding that Gavin C , good stuff!

I did a 30 min mash on a MO/Amarillo SMaSH yesterday, hit pre-boil OG bang on, 1.049.

Temp corrected OG came in @ 1.061... .002 points lower than target. I mashed this one @ 154° to see how it affects attenuation, since they have been ending lower than expected.

 

[azazel1024]

The very little I've messed with it, I seem to get complete conversion by around 15-18 minutes if I am mashing in the 152+F range. Maybe closer to 20 minutes if 150F and closer to half an hour if mashing in the 144-148F range. Even with the later, most of it seems to be done in 15 minutes or so.

Almost all of those I still let ride out to an hour (because tradition?). The only two times I did shorter half hour mashes, I did find that my brew house efficiency dropped a couple of points. That said, considering that my efficiency, even with similar grain bills and gravities varies 2-3 points from batch to batch, it may mean nothing. My biggest guess is that I tend to get a lot more stirring in with longer mashes (because I tend to stir for a minute every 15 minutes).

I still tend to let it ride an hour.

 

[Gavin C]

.

I still tend to let it ride an hour.

This is what I was also doing. Traditional 60-90 minute mashes. But what I have realized with the help of others here, is that these times are largely arbitary and reflective of a more typical crushing of the grains for a MLT.

The fine crush with BIAB (I dont mill as fine as some do) and the greatly reduced mash thickness completely changes the dynamics of the mash, compared to a coarser cush, it would seem.

It has taken me quite a while to pluck up the courage to shorten the mash. I was thinking, "why save 30 minutes if it takes a few weeks anyway to go from grain to glass?"

I've done a shorter mash twice now and mash efficiency has not suffered. 90+% the last two brews. I'm planning on entering some competitions soon. I really would like to get the feedback on my methods. Do they produce quantifiable results, are there off flavors I'm unaware of? I like the beer I make. 99.9% of folks say that though.

There are always ways to improve. I don't believe shortening a mash is going to cause problems if the desired reactions are occuring faster. Perhaps I'm way off base with this supposition.

 

[azazel1024]

This is what I was also doing. Traditional 60-90 minute mashes. But what I have realized with the help of others here, is that these times are largely arbitary and reflective of a more typical crushing of the grains for a MLT.

The fine crush with BIAB (I dont mill as fine as some do) and the greatly reduced mash thickness completely changes the dynamics of the mash, compared to a coarser cush, it would seem.

It has taken me quite a while to pluck up the courage to shorten the mash. I was thinking, "why save 30 minutes if it takes a few weeks anyway to go from grain to glass?"

I've done a shorter mash twice now and mash efficiency has not suffered. 90+% the last two brews. I'm planning on entering some competitions soon. I really would like to get the feedback on my methods. Do they produce quantifiable results, are there off flavors I'm unaware of? I like the beer I make. 99.9% of folks say that though.

There are always ways to improve. I don't believe shortening a mash is going to cause problems if the desired reactions are occuring faster. Perhaps I'm way off base with this supposition.

You are probably quite right.

I use rather thick mashes though, as I do a two step batch sparge, especially on larger batches. I only have 6 gallon and 5 gallon pots. I can do a full volume mash for my 2.75G batches, but for a 5-5.5 Gallon batch, I have to do a 2-step batch sparge...and a 2-step batch sparge has deffinitely helped my efficiency, by about 2-3 points on lighter beers and 5-6 points on higher gravity beers.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with the mill I just got (corona mill, setting the gap pretty tight). If that jumps my efficiency a bunch, I'll probably stick with full volume mashes with the exception of the bigger brews (I normally do about 1.25-1.5qt per # in my 6-gallon for the initial mash and then steep in my 5-gallon pot with the remainder of the volume for ~10min at 170F).

 

[Psylocide]

You are probably quite right.

I use rather thick mashes though, as I do a two step batch sparge, especially on larger batches. I only have 6 gallon and 5 gallon pots. I can do a full volume mash for my 2.75G batches, but for a 5-5.5 Gallon batch, I have to do a 2-step batch sparge...and a 2-step batch sparge has deffinitely helped my efficiency, by about 2-3 points on lighter beers and 5-6 points on higher gravity beers.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with the mill I just got (corona mill, setting the gap pretty tight). If that jumps my efficiency a bunch, I'll probably stick with full volume mashes with the exception of the bigger brews (I normally do about 1.25-1.5qt per # in my 6-gallon for the initial mash and then steep in my 5-gallon pot with the remainder of the volume for ~10min at 170F).

I mash with 4 gallons and sparge with 4 gals, usually around 1.33 thickness.

I pour the sparge water over the grains and stir like crazy for a couple of minutes, dunk a few times, then set it on the "colander" to drain.

My efficiency has been hovering around 75% with a very fine crush. If I had a larger kettle to do a full volume mash, or a much smaller sparge, I have a feeling my efficiency might improve.

 

[Gavin C]

I mash with 4 gallons and sparge with 4 gals, usually around 1.33 thickness.

I pour the sparge water over the grains and stir like crazy for a couple of minutes, dunk a few times, then set it on the "colander" to drain.

My efficiency has been hovering around 75% with a very fine crush. If I had a larger kettle to do a full volume mash, or a much smaller sparge, I have a feeling my efficiency might improve.

I have an 11 gallon pot allowing a no sparge method. Not sure it makes much difference at the end of the day.

 

[Psylocide]

I have an 11 gallon pot allowing a no sparge method. Not sure it makes much difference at the end of the day.

I just feel like a bit thinner mash might facilitate better wetting of the grain/less doughballs when mashing in. Not sure if it makes a huge difference or not.

Obviously what I'm doing now is working, but it's an added step to a process I am trying to shave time off of. That would save at least 10 min, or allow me to do something else during that time.

 

[Gavin C]

I just feel like a bit thinner mash might facilitate better wetting of the grain/less doughballs when mashing in. Not sure if it makes a huge difference or not.

Obviously what I'm doing now is working, but it's an added step to a process I am trying to shave time off of. That would save at least 10 min, or allow me to do something else during that time.

I didn't want to suggest getting a bigger kettle. Could have led to some consequences for me. I've been following your other posts. Upgrade is a dirty word.:cross:

 

[Psylocide]

I didn't want to suggest getting a bigger kettle. Could have led to some consequences for me. I've been following your other posts. Upgrade is a dirty word.:cross:

Lol.

Yeah, I'm just a cheap dude with a young kid and bigger fish to fry at the moment.

I will upgrade my system here and there as I see fit... the ultimate goal to be doing 10 gal BIAB batches. So, I basically just need a corona mill, a 15-20 gal pot and a bigger bag. Oh, and a mash paddle. The wooden spoon and whisk combo is getting old.

I could just go out and buy everything I need right now, but I'd rather do it at a more opportune time, i.e. bonus tossed my way, birthday, etc.

Keeps the wife happy. I already have some spendy hobbies, so I'm keeping this low impact for the time being.

 

[wilserbrewer]

Just a point on time saving....eliminating the sparge step doesn't really save any time IME. The extra 10 -15 minutes it takes to heat full volume mash is about the same time it takes to sparge.

 

[Psylocide]

Just a point on time saving....eliminating the sparge step doesn't really save any time IME. The extra 10 -15 minutes it takes to heat full volume mash is about the same time it takes to sparge.

Agreed... kind of why I added that second part, where I said I could be doing something else.

Also I do have to clean my "sparge bucket," so there is an extra step there.

Really just looking to eliminate some of the more tedious aspects that are taking up at least some time, however small.

I'd much rather pull the grains and let them drip over the kettle as I start to heat to boiling. But I'm with you, not a whole lot to be gained there.

 

[wilserbrewer]

Agreed, dunk sparging is a hassle with larger batches IMO . I have found the easiest BIAB method for me is mashing in a gallon or so short of full volume, then doing a small pour over sparge to reach post boil volume while the bag is hanging and draining over the kettle.

Makes managing water volumes very easy and straightforward, just measure what's in the kettle and sparge till your happy.

 

[Supertrapped]

Agreed, dunk sparging is a hassle. I have found the easiest BIAB method for me is mashing in a gallon or so short of full volume, then doing a small pour over sparge to reach post boil volume while the bag is hanging and draining over the kettle.

Makes managing water volumes very easy and straightforward, just measure what's in the kettle and sparge till your happy.

How is your efficiency doing it that way?

Also, do you recommend a finer grind?

 

[wilserbrewer]

How is your efficiency doing it that way?

Also, do you recommend a finer grind?

My efficiency is good, 80-85% estimated, with a little embarrassment, I'll admit I don't track the numbers hard but get reasonable consistent gravities from my grain bills. Last time I tried to hard check my efficiency, I realized my wort volume was plus minus a quart on a 7.5 gallon batch, so that's around 3-4% right there, and I lost interest pinpointing.
I have a couple hundred pounds of grain in the pantry, so consistency and reasonable efficiency works for me.

I guess I brew for fun not to crunch numbers....and I'm an engineer as well haha....

I crush till I have very near zero whole grains remaining, coarse corn meal would describe my grist, well crushed but not crazy fine. Works great for BIAB and also batch sparging with a braid.