60 Minute mashing unnecessary....

[Kaiser]

I just wonder if any of the stuff people have been saying (not that I don't trust anybody's experience) is just repeated, or has actually been tested by them.

don't worry. This is the criticism we need to keep us onest and myths from spreading.

The statement I made is backed by experiments I did. But I never gave exact numbers an getting to the right attenuation with a 30 min mash is not impossible.

Attenuation, and to some point efficiency is a function if both temp and time. If you start playing around with time in addition to rest temp you'll have 2 variables to worry about. Hence my general advice to keep the time constand and control wort fermentability through mash temp. But the choosen time doesn't have to be 60 min. It's just what others do.

Kai

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

I tried shorter mashes but not 15-minute mashes. I think the shortest was 30 minutes and I did it several times. What I found was that my efficiency wasn't nearly as 'stable' as usual (I had lower efficiency a couple of times) and my fermentability was harder to get on target. So I lengthened it but I still tend to mash on the short side regarding time.

Maybe a better/more specific question would be: Using todays widely-available highly-modified malts (not some under-modified malt)...is it EVER necessary to mash for 90 minutes or more? EDIT: and let's assume you have good water/mash pH.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

....I'm thoroughly convinced that when it comes time for The Next Great Homebrewing Bible to be written, it'll be by Kai.

I thought that is what the Braukaiser wiki's are.

 

[RighteousFire]

I tried shorter mashes but not 15-minute mashes. I think the shortest was 30 minutes and I did it several times. What I found was that my efficiency wasn't nearly as 'stable' as usual (I had lower efficiency a couple of times) and my fermentability was harder to get on target. So I lengthened it but I still tend to mash on the short side regarding time.

Maybe a better/more specific question would be: Using todays widely-available highly-modified malts (not some under-modified malt)...is it EVER necessary to mash for 90 minutes or more? EDIT: and let's assume you have good water/mash pH.

I actually got 86% this time whereas I've usually been getting ~74%.

Most of the brews I plan on doing in the immediate future will all be 150F mashes so the variable will only be time.

 

[Kaiser]

I like this subject, b/c it is a gread topic that illustrates how mashes and their enzymes behave.

I tried shorter mashes but not 15-minute mashes. I think the shortest was 30 minutes and I did it several times. What I found was that my efficiency wasn't nearly as 'stable' as usual (I had lower efficiency a couple of times) and my fermentability was harder to get on target. So I lengthened it but I still tend to mash on the short side regarding time.

If plotted over time, extract and attenuation will reach some level of saturation. That means heir change over time declines. Here is some great data from Windisch that I found in Brigg's book. I have similar plots, but they are not as nice:

extract (solid lines) and fermentable extract (dashed lines) achieved with isothermal mashes at 3 different temperatures. (Data by Windisch, Kolbach and Schild via [Briggs, 2004](http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Starch_Conversion#Temperature_and_Time)

As you can see, the hotter the mash the earlier will that saturation be reached but the fermentability (dashed line) may stall below your target. That's where you have to mash at a lower temp. In this example, if you mash at 65C (149F) you'll still see the fermentability rise as you mash longer and the shoter your mash, the more does the length of the mash matter. Note that mashing is not done when you drain the mash. As long as the wort temp is below 160F you'll have more or less active b-amylase which can make more fermentable sugars. And a-amylase, which doesn't denature completely until 180F, can do that too, but much less effectively.

That's why Spanisch Ale saw this unprecictability in efficiency and attenuation. He was still on the part of the slope where it changes with time.

Granted, this data is from the middle of last century and malts have improved. While the numbers from this chart cannot be applied to today's malts, the qualitative form of these curves can.

If I were a commercial brewer and would brew the same beer every day, I would have the time and control to find the least amount of time that I need to mash to hit my targets. But I'm not, that's why I like to keep mashing longer so my results are more predictable and not as easily affected by changes in the time it takes to drain the mash or heat the wort.

Kai

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

Granted, this data is from the middle of last century and malts have improved

So, would curves of todays malts likely flatten out earlier regarding time? Do you think there is a reasonable 'max' mash time even when mashing as low as 140 F (60 C)?

And am I reading it correctly that, just based on that graph, there would never be a reason to mash at 140 F (60 C)? Regarding sugars that is. Seems the 149 F (65 C) mash accomplishes the same thing, just faster.

If there is a mimimum 'effective' mash temp then it seems there would be a corresponding maximum mash time, although based on that graph it may be so long (anything over 90 minutes seems long) as to be a non-issue.

 

[remilard]

As I said before, If a lot of big time breweries are mashing this way, and not just a few beers, but all their beers i.e. Flying Dog, why can't we?

Ask Flying Dog how much time elapses between mash in and the first runnings hitting the kettle. I bet you it is over an hour.

We can't mimic Flying Dog's sacch rest time and get the same result if the rest of our process is different.

 

[Kaiser]

So, would curves of todays malts likely flatten out earlier regarding time? Do you think there is a reasonable 'max' mash time even when mashing as low as 140 F (60 C)?

The curves for today’s pale malts are likely a bit steeper and will flatten out earlier. BTW, crush affects this as well. The finer you crush the faster the curves will flatten out.

To find the mash mash time, you could take gravity samples from the mash. If they don’t change anymore, your efficiency is not going up anymore. Testing attenuation is a little different. You would need to take samples, boil them and perform fast ferment tests. Certainly a bit more work.

And am I reading it correctly that, just based on that graph, there would never be a reason to mash at 140 F (60 C)? Regarding sugars that is. Seems the 149 F (65 C) mash accomplishes the same thing, just faster.

Note that the attenuation curve for 60C still rises and will be surpassing the 65C curve if the mash continues past 180 min. But if you want that high of a fermentability you would be looking at step mashes to accomplish this in a shorter time.

If there is a mimimum 'effective' mash temp then it seems there would be a corresponding maximum mash time, although based on that graph it may be so long (anything over 90 minutes seems long) as to be a non-issue.

[/quote]

Theoretically speaking, there is no minimum mash temp or maximum mash time. But one you add practical considerations the minimum mash temp is around the gelatinization temp of barley starch (60-63 C) and the maximum mash time is likely a few hours.

You notice that I stay away from giving concrete numbers. I don’t have them and they also depend on a lot of factors. I’m just trying to give some pointers in case one wants to play around with mash time to find a process that better fits given constraints.

Kai

 

[pjj2ba]

No one yet has mentioned the grain crush. This has a significant affect on mash time. In my wife's botany class, she now does a malt starch conversion lab (I set it up for her). I can get full conversion of the starches in under 15 min. - in a mini-mash in a test tube. BUT, this is using basically a flour made from the endosperm (husks removed after crushing, prior to converting into flour). With a std. crush, only the starches on the outside of the chunks are accessible to the enzymes. It is like a melting ice cube, slowly getting smaller. With the fine powder, much more of the starch is available for conversion. So the finer your crush, the faster the conversion.

I'll make some new flour soon for this Fall's lab, where we'll also test some now 2 yr old crushed malt flour (leftovers) to see if the enzymes are still active

 

[RighteousFire]

Ask Flying Dog how much time elapses between mash in and the first runnings hitting the kettle. I bet you it is over an hour.

We can't mimic Flying Dog's sacch rest time and get the same result if the rest of our process is different.

That's what I had said before:*

The way I see it is that once you hit conversion at say the 25 minutes, its still going to take you some time to do a vorlauf, drain the 1st runnings, sparge (batch or fly will take some time either way), so by the end of it all it has sat in the mash tun for longer and you have gotten all of the fermentable and dextrinous sugars possible.*

I'm not implying that we can mimic exactly what big breweries do, but just merely suggesting that I think it is possible to achieve the same results we always have without the need to mash for a full hour or longer.

Not trying to change minds, just questionig "authority".

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

but just merely suggesting that I think it is possible to achieve the same results we always have without the need to mash for a full hour or longer.

Well, I think we've been shown that if you have a good crush and are mashing high then letting it sit for an hour or more is often just wasting time. The question seems to be how quickly can we mash when we are mashing at a lower temp or with a coarse crush. But mashing a little too long is better than mashing too short. FWIW, I never plan my sacc rest for longer than 45 minutes anymore but the time from dough-in to wort-in-kettle is much longer than that between heating it up to mash-out temp, vorlauf, sparge, etc.

 

[RighteousFire]

Ask Flying Dog how much time elapses between mash in and the first runnings hitting the kettle. I bet you it is over an hour.

We can't mimic Flying Dog's sacch rest time and get the same result if the rest of our process is different.

That's what I had said before:*

The way I see it is that once you hit conversion at say the 25 minutes, its still going to take you some time to do a vorlauf, drain the 1st runnings, sparge (batch or fly will take some time either way), so by the end of it all it has sat in the mash tun for longer and you have gotten all of the fermentable and dextrinous sugars possible.*

I'm not implying that we can mimic exactly what big breweries do, but just merely suggesting that I think it is possible to achieve the same results we always have without the need to mash for a full hour or longer.

Not trying to change minds, just questionig "authority".

 

[earlytimes]

This may be slightly off topic, but I'm planning on brewing an oatmeal stout from Brewing Classic Styles tomorrow. In the book, Jamil says you may need to lengthen the mash time to 90 minutes to fully convert the flaked oats. Hmmm... Might 90 minutes actaully be necessary in this situation where you have grains with little to no diastatic power?

I was also wondering if instead of the iodine test if you could take samples periodically and measure the gravity. Once the gravity levels out, it would seem to me that conversion is now complete. I think Kai may mentioned this in a previous post. I may try that this weekend.

 

[Denny]

Remember, we're not JUST looking for starch conversion. A longer mash will allow some of the longer-chained, unfermentable sugars to be broken down into more-fermentable sugars. That's why for a particularly dry beer, you'll occassionally see a 90-minute mash recommended even though the actual *conversion* is long done by then.

BINGO! I know for a fact that when I do a 90 min. mash I get a more fermentable wort than when I do a shorter mash. You mainly hear the virtues of a short mash extolled by commercial brewers. But even though they may do a short mash, by the time they finish sparging and lautering, the grain has been at mash temps for at least an hour or more. So, it's not truly a short mash.

 

[Denny]

T Not trying to change minds, just questionig "authority".

Nothing wrong with questioning authority, but let your own experience make your mind up. That's what I did, and I'll stick with 60+ min. mashes.

 

[RighteousFire]

I'm just down for trying new things, or making things that are usually accepted work even when people say it can't be done.

I love a good challenge.

 

[bob1852]

Remember, we're not JUST looking for starch conversion. A longer mash will allow some of the longer-chained, unfermentable sugars to be broken down into more-fermentable sugars. That's why for a particularly dry beer, you'll occassionally see a 90-minute mash recommended even though the actual *conversion* is long done by then.

and, those longer-chained sugars (oligosacchrides) are what causes farts from homebrew....

your stomach can't digest them, so the bacteria in your lower GI tract do the job.

my theory: shorter mash = more farts

(okay, not as scientific as Kai's work, but it's my theory)

 

[lamarguy]

my theory: shorter mash = more farts

Ha, you should perform an experiment to test your hypothesis. Seriously.

You'll need a few volunteers that are willing to maintain a consistent diet for a few days and track their flatulence "events" after drinking a control (60 minute mash beer) and a variable (30 minute mash beer).

 

[bob1852]

Ha, you should perform an experiment to test your hypothesis. Seriously.

You'll need a few volunteers that are willing to maintain a consistent diet for a few days and track their flatulence "events" after drinking a control (60 minute mash beer) and a variable (30 minute mash beer).

Well I'm already convinced that a short primary fermentation leads to the same thing.....gotta give those oligosacchrides time!

are you volunteering?

 

[lamarguy]

are you volunteering?

I would, but I'm a poor candidate since us folks in South Texas eat a lot of TexMex. Which, of course, is full of oligosaccharides. Yum!

 

[malkore]

My two cents: I've had full conversion at 45 minutes with Briess domestic 2-row, and good attenuation.

My efficiency is in the low 70's but I am pretty certain that's my crush. my beers don't turn out too malty or too dry.


I think one could define their 'house beers' by playing with the temp and times like Kaiser speaks of...kind of like how your water profile also characterizes the final product and makes it 'unique' to your brewery (assuming you're not using RO water and creating a specific profile per the recipe)

 

[RighteousFire]

Since my water smells like a swimming pool out of the tap and I don't have a filter I usually use RO or distiller water and add salts. I'm thinking of creating a water profile that I will use the same ppm for every brew. Unless I do a pilsner than I would make it very soft.

 

[Noleafclover]

I think this question really depends on the particular setup/practices that the particular homebrewer goes through.

It sounds like a shorter mash doesn't hurt. We KNOW a 60 minute mash doesn't for most beers. I usually use the 60 minute mash time to prepare sparge water, ensure everything I need to sanitize is in process, and acknowledge the wife's existence.
So the first two things could be done prior to the 30 minute mash time purposed... but I don't think I can fit all three in.

 

[RighteousFire]

Wait, you actually find time to hang out with the SWMBO while brewing?

Kidding, if I'm doing it while the baby is asleep she usually just hangs out and drinks with me. She wants to get started on it herself but really would like to learn it on her own.

 

[chefmike]

Fascinating thread.

Thanks for everyone sharing experience (and flatulence!)

I really appreciate the experience and insight that I have access to on this site in threads like this!

 

[rico567]

I think I can understand the main motive for wanting to do a shorter mash- less time spent brewing! However, I've yet to see in this thread any kind of data with different kinds of grain at various temperatures, etc., showing consistent, repeatable times for full conversion. Guess I'll order out some iodine and start doing test at various times during a mash, then keep the records in my "notes" section of the software. Maybe in a couple of years, I'll have something to report. Until then it's 60 minutes....unless it's 90.

 

[chefmike]

showing consistent, repeatable times for full conversion. Guess I'll order out some iodine and start doing test at various times during a mash, .

I am not sure if I was reading between the lines of what Denny, Kai and AZ wrote, but what I took away from the thread was that an iodine test can indicate conversion from starch to sigar, but does not take into account the nuances of fermentability of several types of sugars (olgiosaccarides were mentioned).

So, if I understood it correctly, there is no concrete data that can be collected from an iodine test. It would need to be paired with mash temperature, attenuation, and perception of the final product.

Perhaps taking gravity readins at various points during the mash would be more conclusive?

 

[Saccharomyces]

I think I see a mash time vs attenuation experiment coming...

 

[chefmike]

1

2

3

Not It....

 

[Kaiser]

Chefmike, to say it in other words, a negative iodine test is necessary for good beer but not sufficient.

Kai