I would like you to add some more color to this. When you say conversion is complete is that the same as saying you reached the target pre-boil gravity?
45 min mash
- Thread starter Tony B
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk:
Unfortunately, no. I exceed it most of the time.
There is a certain amount of extractable sugar in the barley kernel and that amount is independent of your target. Also in that kernel is beta and alpha amylase (and others), and they work on any starch in solution at a rate determined by the temperature and the relative amounts of water, starch, and enzyme. With a super fine crush, all the starch and all the enzymes get into the water really fast, so conversion proceeds rapidly to the point where there's (almost) no starch left in converted. With a coarse crush, it takes awhile for the starch to get out into the water where the enzymes can act on them.
Alpha is faster than beta. When you dump very fine crushed malt into 150+ deg water, beta just doesn't get a chance to do much. Fermentability is pretty much fixed. For the fines. Particle size distribution plays a role in that whatever larger grits there are will release their starch not slowly, and since mash temp will stabilize lower than strike temp, beta will get a crack at those.
With a traditional crush, fermentability is controlled primarily by temp. The single infusion mash temp is a good knobs to turn: you can make a dry beer at 148 and a chewy beer at 156.
With a fine crush, a single infusion mash will not reliably make either a dry or a chewy beer based on temperature, because alpha does all the work no matter what, on the finest grits. For a dry beer, a step is needed below the temperature at which alpha is doing much, and even that only works if the strike water is not too hot. If the particle size distribution is consistent, I bet a single infusion will make matches with a very consistent fermentability though. I don't know for sure--I always do at least 2 steps.
In any case: with any grist, in any mash, there's a certain point when more time won't give you any more sugar (or hardly any). That's complete extraction. That point is reached much faster with a fine crush.
Thanks. That was a great reply and what I was looking to be spelled out. A fine crush (often associated with BIAB) kind of limits your options and sets fermentability at a moderate to low level. Something to be noted when folks are new or people are debating which type of mash system to employ. Though one does not need to crush fine with BIAB as I use a Wilserbrewer bag in my Anvil Foundry and crush on the coarse side.
I don't think of it as a limitation. I brew a lot of dry beers using biab with a hlt. You could do the same with a pump and a rims or an electric kettle. I dough in by underletting to avoid activating the alpha amylase in the fines, and rest at 147-149 for 30 minutes (45 with a low-dp grist). At that point, I'm at the "hardly any sugar left to get" point, but I underlet again and rest at 162 for 10 minutes to get everything left. That will produce a wort with comparable fermentability to 90 minutes at 148 for a traditional system. Dry.
No matter what level of detail one wanted to provide as feedback to the OP, there's always a ton of contextual caveats. That's why these discussions can go round and round. Not only that, even people who have been brewing for decades with great success can get tunnel vision. It works so it's the only way that works. I look at it this way; if a brewer is hitting reasonable numbers for extraction and meeting their planned gravity, and they don't have any overt problems with over or under attenuation, it's better to just let it lie there. Now, if the question was something like "why are my beers are too sweet after I cut my mash down to 45 minutes?"
I see your point Bobby and it is always risky to get too into the weeds on this forum. The OP was asking for opinions about making all of their future beers a set 45 min mash duration. I just like to offer info about options that some brewers do not even know or think about. Offering information is not a judgement on what is not offered.
For me, it depends on what I am trying to brew. My usual batch has between 4.2% - 7.0% ABv target. Most batches are about 5-6%.
I usually do a 60 m mash at 153. (Which works out to about 150 as the thermometer reading is near the warmer bottom of the kettle.
Sometimes I do a step mash
1 137 for mash in, wait 10 m
2 - 15 min at 144
3 - 153 for 45 min.
This method gives me higher ferment ability and also dryer .(Less sweet).
But it all depends on what I am making.
If pressed for time, I will do a 45 m mash but that is rare.
I usually do a 60 m mash at 153. (Which works out to about 150 as the thermometer reading is near the warmer bottom of the kettle.
Sometimes I do a step mash
1 137 for mash in, wait 10 m
2 - 15 min at 144
3 - 153 for 45 min.
This method gives me higher ferment ability and also dryer .(Less sweet).
But it all depends on what I am making.
If pressed for time, I will do a 45 m mash but that is rare.
I cannot agree with this. I mash in a bag (BIAB) and mash times average 45 minutes. Granted, this is with a fine crush AND I always sparge (not just squeeze) the bag, and boiloff rate around 25% with collection of enough wort to accomplish that. But anyway... zero impact on fermentability, which I take to mean attenuation -- the attenuation remains normal with my process.
Bottom line: Crush well enough. Crush more than you think you should... to the limitations of your process (of course nobody loves stuck runoff). If you do that, in my experience, you can get away with shorter mashes, shorter boils, etc.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2013
- Messages
- 8,880
- Reaction score
- 19,443
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 3,992
- Reaction score
- 5,636
- Location
- At home, in the brewery in Maryland.
Hoch-Kurz step mash. 100 minutes, soup to nuts, including dough-in and mash out. Highly fermentable, notable body/mouthfeel. Truly the best of all outcomes.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 3,992
- Reaction score
- 5,636
- Location
- At home, in the brewery in Maryland.
A recirculation mash helps accelerate extraction, and pretty much eliminates the need for lautering. I generally do a quick lauter anyway (6 liters @ 77C) of the spent grains in a separate tun, but I use the additional wort only if needed to correct for low volume or high OG. I save any leftover lauter for my next yeast starter.
I do full-volume mashes and no sparge. I was skeptical at first but wanted to try it because of the time savings and skipping a messy extra step. I'm getting the same efficiency even tho' I am leaving sugars behind in the spent grain. My hypothesis is when you use less water in the mash, both the wort and the spent grain have more concentrated sugar. Then by sparging you try to recover that sugar from the grain but you'll never get all of it. With full-volume mashes, the wort and the grain are a lot more diluted, and squeezing the bag (or just letting it drip for a very long time) recovers enough sugar to hit the same numbers. The only downside is I had to buy a larger kettle, but I'd bought that anyway.
YMMV, of course. I'm using a Corona grain mill and grinding to a coarse flour.
By the calculators, I see about a 5% difference. Low 70's no sparge, mid 70's with sparge. Cheap mill set at about 0.030".
I've moved towards no sparge for most recipes except the occasional Imperial where I want all I can get and already planned to spend a lot of time on anyhow.
I've moved towards no sparge for most recipes except the occasional Imperial where I want all I can get and already planned to spend a lot of time on anyhow.
There are some terminology problems with this post. "Lautering" is separating the wort from the grain. All wort making processes employ lautering. "Sparging" is rinsing spent grains with fresh water, to rinse more sugar from the grits than you would recover without sparging.
Recirculation is not a substitute for sparging. You cannot get more sugar off of the grain grits by "washing" with wort of the same concentration that you just lautered from the mash. That would be equivalent to rinsing the soapy water off of dishes by dunking the dishes back into the soapy water. Recirculation can speed up the conversion process in some cases by speeding up the gelatinization process, which must (partially) occur before any enzyme catalyzed hydrolysis of the starch can occur. Hydrolysis is the process by which starch bonds are broken to convert high molecular weight starch (non-soluble), into lower molecular weight starch (soluble), dextrins (soluble), and fermentable sugars.
Everything that is soluble in the wort contributes to SG, but only the simpler sugars are fermentable. Fermentability is determined by the weight ratio of fermentable sugars, to soluble starch and dextrins. The primary determinant of dextrin content of a mash that has 100% gelatinization and solubilization of starch, where enzymatic action has been exhausted, and there is only sugar and limit dextrins remaining (no remaining soluble starch or higher molecular weight dextrin) is how much limit dextrinase action occurred during the mash. Limit dextrinase is the only enzyme occurring in malted barley that can hydrolyze the branch bonds in amylopectin, and thus reduce the amount of limit dextrins in wort. Limit dextrinase starts denaturing at slightly lower temperatures than does beta amylase, and is actually the enzyme that can create higher fermentability with lower temperature rests, which have long been referred to as "beta" rests - they are actually "limit dextrinase" rests. Beta amylase is not required to create fermentable sugar, as alpha amylase can hydrolyze starch to nothing but fermentable sugars and limit dextrins. Beta amylase just speeds up hydrolysis and increases the ratio of maltose to other fermentable sugar in the wort, compared to alpha amylase alone.
If alpha amylase alone could not create fermentable sugar, then adding alpha amylase to a low fermentability wort in the fermenter would not be able to provide a reduced FG. A great deal of empirical evidence shows that alpha amylase in the fermenter can increase the fermentability of low fermentability worts.
Brew on
Last edited:
Halfakneecap
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2019
- Messages
- 142
- Reaction score
- 247
Yeah, i made plenty of highly attenuated saison, and rice lagers with BIAB. Im not a fan of full bodied beers in general so pretty much all the beers i made when doing BIAB were highly attenuated.
Actually, the beers ive made from the old school cooler mash tuns, homemade 2V, BIAB and now Robobrew, have all turned out basically the same. Ive never switched brewing equipment and noticed any major changes.
I feel like someone just asked Albert Einstein what time it is on Alpha Centauri... I'm glad I heard the reply, but I'm not yet sure I know what it means.There are some terminology problems with this post. "Lautering" is separating the wort from the grain. All wort making processes employ lautering. "Sparging" is rinsing spent grains with fresh water, to rinse more sugar from the grits than you would recover without sparging.
Recirculation is not a substitute for sparging. You cannot get more sugar off of the grain grits by "washing" with wort of the same concentration that you just lautered from the mash. That would be equivalent to rinsing the soapy water off of dishes by dunking the dishes back into the soapy water. Recirculation can speed up the conversion process in some cases by speeding up the gelatinization process, which must (partially) occur before any enzyme catalyzed hydrolysis of the starch can occur. Hydrolysis is the process by which starch bonds are broken to convert high molecular weight starch (non-soluble), into lower molecular weight starch (soluble), dextrins (soluble), and fermentable sugars.
Everything that is soluble in the wort contributes to SG, but only the simpler sugars are fermentable. Fermentability is determined by the weight ratio of fermentable sugars, to soluble starch and dextrins. The primary determinant of dextrin content of a mash that has 100% gelatinization and solubilization of starch, where enzymatic action has been exhausted, and there is only sugar and limit dextrins remaining (no remaining soluble starch or higher molecular weight dextrin) is how much limit dextrinase action occurred during the mash. Limit dextrinase is the only enzyme occurring in malted barley that can hydrolyze the branch bonds in amylopectin, and thus reduce the amount of limit dextrins in wort. Limit dextrinase starts denaturing at slightly lower temperatures than does beta amylase, and is actually the enzyme that can create higher fermentability with lower temperature rests, which have long been referred to as "beta" rests - they are actually "limit dextrinase" rests. Beta amylase is not required to create fermentable sugar, as alpha amylase can hydrolyze starch to nothing but fermentable sugars and limit dextrins. Beta amylase just speeds up hydrolysis and increases the ratio of maltose to other fermentable sugar in the wort, compared to alpha amylase alone.
If alpha amylase alone could not create fermentable sugar, then adding alpha amylase to a low fermentability wort in the fermenter would not be able to provide a reduced FG. A great deal of empirical evidence shows that alpha amylase in the fermenter can increase the fermentability of low fermentability worts.
Brew on
I'm pretty sure it's beer thirty in the cluster.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 3,992
- Reaction score
- 5,636
- Location
- At home, in the brewery in Maryland.
True. Even without the acknowledgment or application of Einstein’s theory of time dilation, this universal truth must be valid: it’s always 5 o’clock somewhere.
Alpha Centaurians drink in the morning and stop by five o'clock.
I do not disagree. I should have typed my response better but it was kind of in reply to the others' saying the fine crush BIAB happened so fast that you can hardly measure it. If it happen so fast there is little room for strategy between beta and alpha (and low alpha, limit dextrinase). Meaning if you want a lot of beta influence, it would happen so fast that you would not get much if any alpha etc... But mashing is still kind of a black box to me and will continue to study it.
I should preface that what I aim for with fermentability/attenuation is always beyond what the yeast companies state. For lagers I am looking for 80-82%. Belgians same or more. The mash playing a part to help the yeast get there easily.
In my opinion, mashing strategy should always depend on the goals and ingredients of the mash. Every mash regimen and duration has a purpose. If I'm doing a malty English style beer infusing at 154 using pale malts with high diastatic power, I know that I will probably be done in the 45 minutes OP states. Alpha-amylase activity is higher, and kinetically, alpha amylase works far faster than beta-amylase. I'm not necessarily going for a bone-dry beer, so I'm fine leaving some short chains hanging around.
If I'm doing a Hefeweizen, I have no choice but to do a very long beta rest. I have never brewed a single wheat beer, infusion or step mashed, where I was able to get even close to my anticipated gravity within 45 minutes of mashing. It's not uncommon on the average day that I brew a 60% wheat 30-35% pils Hefeweizen to only see 1.020 after 30 minutes at any temperature between ~144 and 147. And these are malts with extremely high diastatic power on paper. I wait in beta for 60-75 minutes until I see around 1.040, then work my way up to alpha and pick up the remainder. I have not found any other way to get a properly dry Hefe that finishes at 1.008. In theory this would be a prime candidate for a descending temperature mash to save time, just haven't tried that yet.
Saccharification temperature sets the fermentability of the mash. I don't know where this idea that crush has anything to do with it came from. Smaller crush size can increase your extract in some cases (see below), but the ratio of alpha to beta activity is still the most reliable lever you can pull in terms of fermentability.
https://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.p..._single_infusion_mashing#Mill_gap_experiments
I think the most important thing any home brewer can do is grab a $15 refractometer and CHECK their extract before they mash out or lauter. Dough balls, stuck mashes, and other issues happen to all of us. I have had multiple brew days where I had to double my mash times because I had to fix a mashing issue. It's better than collecting 1.028 wort after chilling and asking yourself what went wrong.
If I'm doing a Hefeweizen, I have no choice but to do a very long beta rest. I have never brewed a single wheat beer, infusion or step mashed, where I was able to get even close to my anticipated gravity within 45 minutes of mashing. It's not uncommon on the average day that I brew a 60% wheat 30-35% pils Hefeweizen to only see 1.020 after 30 minutes at any temperature between ~144 and 147. And these are malts with extremely high diastatic power on paper. I wait in beta for 60-75 minutes until I see around 1.040, then work my way up to alpha and pick up the remainder. I have not found any other way to get a properly dry Hefe that finishes at 1.008. In theory this would be a prime candidate for a descending temperature mash to save time, just haven't tried that yet.
Saccharification temperature sets the fermentability of the mash. I don't know where this idea that crush has anything to do with it came from. Smaller crush size can increase your extract in some cases (see below), but the ratio of alpha to beta activity is still the most reliable lever you can pull in terms of fermentability.
https://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.p..._single_infusion_mashing#Mill_gap_experiments
I think the most important thing any home brewer can do is grab a $15 refractometer and CHECK their extract before they mash out or lauter. Dough balls, stuck mashes, and other issues happen to all of us. I have had multiple brew days where I had to double my mash times because I had to fix a mashing issue. It's better than collecting 1.028 wort after chilling and asking yourself what went wrong.
Last edited:
The difference you observe for mashes with significant amounts of wheat in the grain bill is most likely due to the higher gelatinization temperature of wheat starch compared to barley starch.
ref
Starch cannot be hydrolyzed until it is gelatinized. You need to be careful with the gelatinization temps shown in the table, as they are determined with conditions very different from those that exist in a typical mash (very fine grind, constant rate of temp rise.) If gelatinization and enzyme action did not occur near room temperature at a significant rate, seeds would not germinate and grow. What the chart does tell you is that at any given temperature, wheat starch will gelatinize more slowly than barley starch.
The time required for complete gelatinization, which is required before you can achieve complete saccharification, will depend on the crush size, temperature, and nature of the starch itself. Larger grits will take longer to gelatinize than smaller grits, as gelatinization starts at the outer surface of grits/granules, and proceeds towards the center.
Beta amylase activity has very little effect on fermentability, but the belief that it does is widespread. If you only had alpha amylase acting on the mash, you would end up with roughly twice as much maltose as glucose in the wort*. With beta amylase action you increase the amount of maltose relative to glucose created in the mash, but the maltose to glucose ratio has no effect on fermentability, as both are 100% fermentable.
The fermentability is primarily controlled by the amount of limit dextrin remaining at the end of the mash. Limit dextrins are branched fragments of amylopectin that cannot be hydrolyzed further because the chain lengths of all of the three branches are too short for either alpha or beta amylase to interact with. Dextrin is not fermentable. Limit dextrinase is the enzyme in barley malt that can hydrolyze the branching bonds in branched dextrins, thus making the resulting linear chains susceptible to action by alpha and beta amylase to convert the linear chains to fermentable sugars. See .pdf below.
Brew on
* This is a SWAG. I'm going to look for something more definitive.
Last edited:
Mashing is complex. Technically, the optimal temperature for Limit Dextrinase is in the "low" beta rest range. A popular mash profile for fermentability is a low + high beta rest then up to alpha then mashout. If the limit Dextrinase is the most important part and beta does not matter for fermentability, then the test would be to compare the above mash profile to a 140F 1st step with a jump to 160F then mashout. If true, then everybody needs to skip the traditional "beta" temps (148F) and start at 140F then go to whatever temp next.
Regarding hefe - this is where a decoction really helps for the style.
Regarding hefe - this is where a decoction really helps for the style.
The difficulty with this experiment is that beta is still going to be active at 140F as you know. The only way to really dissect the roles of limit dextrinase and beta amylase is to denature everything and then add the enzymes back separately. @doug293cz has talked about doing this experiment in a few threads, but it's pretty much impossible to buy limit dextrinase and difficult to get beta amylase without breaking the bank.
True, but the outcome would be more important than the exact input mechanisms right? If we only stop at 140F and move up to 152F or 160F it does not matter if beta is involved or not as long as the resulting wort is different than stopping at 148F.
In other words, I don't care if pure limit dextrinase is solely responsible for better attenuation. In this situation, my only options are to rest at 140F or not. Better beer is the focus, not chemical processes from my point of view.
In other words, I don't care if pure limit dextrinase is solely responsible for better attenuation. In this situation, my only options are to rest at 140F or not. Better beer is the focus, not chemical processes from my point of view.
Of course there's nothing wrong with using empirical data to modify our mashing regimes (or any other part of the process). Humans made lots of good beer before anyone knew anything about yeast or enzymes. OTOH there are also good reasons to want to understand mechanisms too.
I agree. It would be nice to be able to put a couple of drops if Limit Dextrinase into a short mash and have all of the benefits!
No need to rest at 140F (60C.) According to the paper I attached up-thread:
Even at 65°C (149°F) 60% of the limit dextrinase activity remains after 1 hour. Gelatinization will be occurring faster at 149°F (65°C) than at 140°F (60°C), so that more starch will be accessible to the limit dextrinase sooner in the higher temperature mash.
Remember, the goal of a mash is to get the desired saccharification done in a minimum (or at least a reasonable) amount of time, and everything happens faster at higher temps - gelatinization, hydrolysis, and enzyme denaturing being the processes of most interest in mashing. The temps we chose for mashing are a compromise that allows us to get (hopefully full) gelatinization and the desired level of hydrolysis complete before the enzymes are denatured. All of the enzymes are somewhat active at room temp, as they could not perform their biological purpose if they were not. You could mash for days at room temp, but then you would probably have a sour or moldy mash by the time things were adequately gelatinized and hydrolyzed. You could mash at boiling temps for ultra fast gelatinization, but the enzymes would be denatured before they could do their work. The temp ranges we mash at allow complete gelatinization in 15 - 120 minutes, depending on temperature and crush size. And depending on the specific temperature(s) one or more enzyme types can be active for the entire mash time.
For example, if you only got 50% gelatinization before the limit dextrinase was completely denatured, then at most 50% of the branching bonds in the total amylopectin could possibly be hydrolyzed. If you then continue the mash to complete hydrolysis by alpha amylase alone, you would be left with at least 50% of the total possible limit dextrin. If on the other hand you got close to 100% gelatinization before the limit dextrinase was denatured, then you might get close to 0 limit dextrin in the wort (and might have a brut.)
Brew on
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 3,992
- Reaction score
- 5,636
- Location
- At home, in the brewery in Maryland.
Perfect explanation, Doug.No need to rest at 140F (60C.) According to the paper I attached up-thread:
View attachment 863226
Even at 65°C (149°F) 60% of the limit dextrinase activity remains after 1 hour. Gelatinization will be occurring faster at 149°F (65°C) than at 140°F (60°C), so that more starch will be accessible to the limit dextrinase sooner in the higher temperature mash.
Remember, the goal of a mash is to get the desired saccharification done in a minimum (or at least a reasonable) amount of time, and everything happens faster at higher temps - gelatinization, hydrolysis, and enzyme denaturing being the processes of most interest in mashing. The temps we chose for mashing are a compromise that allows us to get (hopefully full) gelatinization and the desired level of hydrolysis complete before the enzymes are denatured. All of the enzymes are somewhat active at room temp, as they could not perform their biological purpose if they were not. You could mash for days at room temp, but then you would probably have a sour or moldy mash by the time things were adequately gelatinized and hydrolyzed. You could mash at boiling temps for ultra fast gelatinization, but the enzymes would be denatured before they could do their work. The temp ranges we mash at allow complete gelatinization in 15 - 120 minutes, depending on temperature and crush size. And depending on the specific temperature(s) one or more enzyme types can be active for the entire mash time.
For example, if you only got 50% gelatinization before the limit dextrinase was completely denatured, then at most 50% of the branching bonds in the total amylopectin could possibly be hydrolyzed. If you then continue the mash to complete hydrolysis by alpha amylase alone, you would be left with at least 50% of the total possible limit dextrin. If on the other hand you got close to 100% gelatinization before the limit dextrinase was denatured, then you might get close to 0 limit dextrin in the wort (and might have a brut.)
Brew on
I think the time for gelatinization may be much shorter than the 15 minutes, depending on the size of the grain particles. I have seen, based on iodine test and readings from my refractometer, full conversion in less than 5 minutes. Time for more testing by someone else who can mill their grain very fine.
Note: Full conversion does not mean full extraction of color and flavor. Do not expect a very short mashed beer to taste good. Mash of at least 30 minutes is my recommendation.
Thanks. I had read a paper that said limit dextrinase denatured very quickly closer to gel temps and 140F was the optimal temp. I will try to dig it up. If your paper is correct then beta & limit dextrinase can be interchangeable in practice as they are at the same temps for mashing right?No need to rest at 140F (60C.) According to the paper I attached up-thread:
View attachment 863226
Even at 65°C (149°F) 60% of the limit dextrinase activity remains after 1 hour. Gelatinization will be occurring faster at 149°F (65°C) than at 140°F (60°C), so that more starch will be accessible to the limit dextrinase sooner in the higher temperature mash.
Remember, the goal of a mash is to get the desired saccharification done in a minimum (or at least a reasonable) amount of time, and everything happens faster at higher temps - gelatinization, hydrolysis, and enzyme denaturing being the processes of most interest in mashing. The temps we chose for mashing are a compromise that allows us to get (hopefully full) gelatinization and the desired level of hydrolysis complete before the enzymes are denatured. All of the enzymes are somewhat active at room temp, as they could not perform their biological purpose if they were not. You could mash for days at room temp, but then you would probably have a sour or moldy mash by the time things were adequately gelatinized and hydrolyzed. You could mash at boiling temps for ultra fast gelatinization, but the enzymes would be denatured before they could do their work. The temp ranges we mash at allow complete gelatinization in 15 - 120 minutes, depending on temperature and crush size. And depending on the specific temperature(s) one or more enzyme types can be active for the entire mash time.
For example, if you only got 50% gelatinization before the limit dextrinase was completely denatured, then at most 50% of the branching bonds in the total amylopectin could possibly be hydrolyzed. If you then continue the mash to complete hydrolysis by alpha amylase alone, you would be left with at least 50% of the total possible limit dextrin. If on the other hand you got close to 100% gelatinization before the limit dextrinase was denatured, then you might get close to 0 limit dextrin in the wort (and might have a brut.)
Brew on
I have been unhappy with some of my beers since I have been mashing longer in beta. They are crushing the numbers but tasting thin. So this is an area that is system dependent and I am working on for myself. I might have to go back to single infusion!
One of these days I'm going to try an alpha only wort - mash in with boiling water to denature all the enzymes, let it cool to about 150, and then add a healthy dose of exogenous alpha amylase a give it an hour or so to work. Can't do the right controls without easy access to the other enzymes, but can compare it to single infusion and step mashes at least.
This is one half of the experiment I have proposed. The issue with this experiment is that it does not allow you to gain any insight into the importance of beta amylase vs. limit dextrinase w.r.t. wort fermentability. This is why my experiment would contain an alpha only mash and an alpha plus beta mash. The hold-up is a source for affordable beta amylase.
Brew on
Half an experiment is better than no experiment? Probably not. But I kinda half suspect that alpha by itself, given enough time to act under conditions where it is more stable than at typical apha rest temps, will produce a surprisingly fermentable wort.
That's probably the same paper that I attached up-thread. It found that at 140°F (60°C) that limit dextrinase maintained 100% of its activity after 60 minutes. But, unless you grind exceedingly fine, you will not get much gelatinization at 140°F. Raising the temp of the rest to 149°F will give you faster gelatinization, while still maintaining high limit dextrinase activity after 60 minutes.Thanks. I had read a paper that said limit dextrinase denatured very quickly closer to gel temps and 140F was the optimal temp. I will try to dig it up. If your paper is correct then beta & limit dextrinase can be interchangeable in practice as they are at the same temps for mashing right?
I have been unhappy with some of my beers since I have been mashing longer in beta. They are crushing the numbers but tasting thin. So this is an area that is system dependent and I am working on for myself. I might have to go back to single infusion!
Yes, the temp range for a beta rest and a limit dextrinase rest are pretty much the same.
If your beers are too thin for your tastes, then you are probably hydrolyzing too many of the limit dextrins, and you don't have enough dextrins in the final wort to give you the body you are looking for. Also, if you are doing a protein rest, that might contribute to thinness. I'd recommend cutting back on the time spent at lower temp rests.
Brew on
Yeah, there are no absolutes. You're a bit of an outlier with your extremely fine crush, so you will almost always win the race to complete gelatinization. Once you are there, it takes very little additional time to reach max SG, even though hydrolysis has not reached its limit (not reached maximum fermentability.) Soluble starch and dextrin have pretty much the same effect on SG as maltose and glucose.
Brew on
I'm trying to follow along and have read everything a couple times, but to little avail. Is there a cheat-sheet? Not because I'm lazy, I promise!
My "don't care about body" mash is an hour at 152. My "less body" beer mash is 30 minutes each at 143 then 153 and lastly 158. My "more body" mash is 158 for an hour.
Am I on the right track? I'm guessing I'm not the only one slightly lost and hoping for an easy to follow suggestion on temps. If you guys don't mind.
My "don't care about body" mash is an hour at 152. My "less body" beer mash is 30 minutes each at 143 then 153 and lastly 158. My "more body" mash is 158 for an hour.
Am I on the right track? I'm guessing I'm not the only one slightly lost and hoping for an easy to follow suggestion on temps. If you guys don't mind.
The "standard" recommendations for mash temps are fine to use, as they give the results predicted, more or less. The geeky discussions are more about exactly why the temp ranges work the way they do, and whether or not the widespread notions about them are correct or not. You don't actually have to know how the engine works to drive the car.
Looks pretty reasonable. If it works for you, it's what you should do. Personally, I'm not sure I would go as low as 143°F - probably more like 147° - 149°F.
Brew on
bobtheUKbrewer2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2008
- Messages
- 493
- Reaction score
- 108
I mash in at 70 C - usually the temperature drops to 64 C - I then heat and re-circulate until mash is at 68 C. I then insulate and after 60 minutes the mash is at 67 +- 0.5 C
I then draw off 2 litres, raise to boiling point, add 2 litres and so on - always skimming off any brown scum - I cool for an hour, then water cool down to 22 C, and pitch hydrated SO4 yeast. I like my beer and in 58 years have only had one bad batch. I ferment in SS pans with lids for a week then bottle and start drinking 7 days later. My beer is better than most pub beer , but some pub beer is better than mine. I am happy with my lot...........
I then draw off 2 litres, raise to boiling point, add 2 litres and so on - always skimming off any brown scum - I cool for an hour, then water cool down to 22 C, and pitch hydrated SO4 yeast. I like my beer and in 58 years have only had one bad batch. I ferment in SS pans with lids for a week then bottle and start drinking 7 days later. My beer is better than most pub beer , but some pub beer is better than mine. I am happy with my lot...........
Similar threads
