When I brewed at Rogue earlier this week I took a good look at the crush they use. Very fine, not an intact husk in 1200 lb. of grain. Lautered perfectly.
When I brewed at Rogue earlier this week I took a good look at the crush they use. Very fine, not an intact husk in 1200 lb. of grain. Lautered perfectly.
I've been mulling this subject over in my head. Yes, I can see how the crush is not important for conversion. However that is only part of the process. On the other hand, I can see where are fine crush can lead to greater reproducibility as the particle sizes will be more uniform. With a more coarse crush, you are more likely to get batch to batch differences which can make it more difficult to exactly reproduce a brew.
For the record, I use a fine crush. I do step mashes, so the times at the different temperatures are important and a fine crush ensures that what I expect to happen in the time interval does happen.
With a finer crush, you are going to have better exposure of more of the enzymes and more of the starch all at once. Basically all of the component for conversion will be available quickly
With a coarse crush, there will be enzymes and starches tied up in that chunks that will not be solubilized and available for conversion until the already soluble enzymes have an chance to dissolve into and break down the chunks. Basically some of the enzymes are temporarily trapped. Since the crush size is so variable from crush to crush, it is harder to predict how fast the mash will proceed. Now if you are doing single infusion mashes and are not in a hurry, this makes no difference.
By analogy, a course crush is like a Dogfish head 60 min IPA. A little bit of enzyme and starch is continually added (solubilized) over a longer period of time as opposed to dumping it all in at once.
Does this make sense?
Sure, and I have no doubt that a finer crush will lead to quicker conversion. As you said, this probably doesn't matter much for a simple infusion mash, since we tend to mash longer than is strictly necessary in any case.
But why would a coarser mash lead to inconsistent results? It seems like you're comparing a highly variable coarse crush to a consistent fine crush, which obviously will make the fine crush look more consistent. Wouldn't a consistently coarse crush produce consistent results, even if slightly different consistent results than a fine crush?
The article originally cited would suggest that from the standpoint of conversion the consistency of the crush matters not, so long as gelatinization temps are reached and given a sufficient (60 min) sach rest. PJJ2ba, are you suggesting a difference not in conversion but in lautering efficiency?
I'm not talking major differences (trying to balance what the pros want out of a mash versus the hobbyist). I guess it boils down to, do you get the same distribution of particles every time you crush? I suspect for the most part this is probably true, but is probably a little "more true" in the case of the finer crush
That sounds plausible, and god only knows I've spent scads of time and energy chasing down variability less significant than crush size.
But, I think it's interesting crush seems to be impacting some people significantly and other people almost not at all. It makes me think there's something else going on. The punchline, I think, is that any attempt to troubleshoot efficiency needs to start by separating conversion from lautering efficiency. When people are noticing big spikes from changes in milling, I wonder which half is getting the boost.
i would love to hear everyone else's thoughts on my logic and cheaply designed experiment
solid points.
i designed this experiment with the assumption that surface area was the main variable affecting the starch to sugar conversion rate. while i understand that there's more going on in a mash (pH, temperature, dynamic equilibria) that contribute to efficiency, i thought surface area and mash time were the most influential efficiency factors.
perhaps i have more researching to do
And if you recirculate the melting water onto the uncrushed chunk of ice, it will melt faster than the partially crushed chunk of ice. So, will a recirculating mash with a coarser crush be as (or more) efficienct than a static mash with a finer crush?
Enter your email address to join: