Brewing in a Bag 1st Timer

[soccerdad]

Tighten up the mill if you can. That seems to be the limiting factor in the speed of conversion. If you have iodine handy grab a sample with grain particles in it and check for conversion.

Thanks, but no interest in doing so. Brewing is therapy for me. A 60 to 90 minute mash is no prob at all. I'm generally done in 3.5 to 5 hrs and that time is blissful.

 

[McKnuckle]

...initial conversion will happen very quickly with finely milled grains, aren't some or most of the enzymes still active while mash cools and conversion continues, the larger chains are further broken as the mash cools making the wort more fermentable?

I'm glad you posted this, because I always have the same thought when reading RM's posts about short mash times. Alpha amylase acts more quickly than beta. So in theory you could mash for a really short time, even at a moderate temperature, and end up with a wort full of dextrins. We keep the mash going because we want beta to snip those up into fermentable simple sugars. And if you mash low, it's most beta acting in the first place.

And beta clearly does not denature that quickly. If it did, one couldn't mash at 160F like Lagunitas does when brewing their IPA (their head brewer discusses it on a Can You Brew It episode).

So I think it's a little misleading to espouse these short mash times without issuing appropriate caveats about fermentability.

Unfortunately I bought a Schmidling MaltMill with a fixed gap. So I can't crush finer, and milling twice doesn't get me much extra goodness so I often don't bother. I definitely see efficiency improvements with 75 or 90 minute mashes, so I am sticking with that as standard practice regardless of how quickly the starches theoretically convert. I'm convinced that there is more to mashing than just strict conversion.

 

[RM-MN]

I'm glad you posted this, because I always have the same thought when reading RM's posts about short mash times. Alpha amylase acts more quickly than beta. So in theory you could mash for a really short time, even at a moderate temperature, and end up with a wort full of dextrins. We keep the mash going because we want beta to snip those up into fermentable simple sugars. And if you mash low, it's most beta acting in the first place.

And beta clearly does not denature that quickly. If it did, one couldn't mash at 160F like Lagunitas does when brewing their IPA (their head brewer discusses it on a Can You Brew It episode).

So I think it's a little misleading to espouse these short mash times without issuing appropriate caveats about fermentability.

Unfortunately I bought a Schmidling MaltMill with a fixed gap. So I can't crush finer, and milling twice doesn't get me much extra goodness so I often don't bother. I definitely see efficiency improvements with 75 or 90 minute mashes, so I am sticking with that as standard practice regardless of how quickly the starches theoretically convert. I'm convinced that there is more to mashing than just strict conversion.

If this is the case, then why do my short mash brews attenuate so fully. If they were mostly dextrines I would end up with a high final gravity...but I don't. Something seems amiss.

 

[Morrey]

This concept confuses me a bit. While I agree, initial conversion will happen very quickly with finely milled grains, aren't some or most of the enzymes still active while mash cools and conversion continues, the larger chains are further broken as the mash cools making the wort more fermentable?

154-152 is a small delta, and won't make much difference if any. Say a mash cools 155 - 145, would it still be accurate to say you mashed at 155 if using finely milled grains?

Well, here is a question that I have pondered as we have all discussed the various stages and timing of mashing. What would I end up with finely milled grains for BIAB, mashed for 5 minutes which we are debating will be most of the conversion, then chilled wort and fermented? I would hate a waste a batch of beer like this, but what would I get from this 5 min mash?

 

[RM-MN]

Well, here is a question that I have pondered as we have all discussed the various stages and timing of mashing. What would I end up with finely milled grains for BIAB, mashed for 5 minutes which we are debating will be most of the conversion, then chilled wort and fermented? I would hate a waste a batch of beer like this, but what would I get from this 5 min mash?

I think you would get a beer with alcohol and no flavor. That's what I got with a 10 minute mash. At 20 minutes there was pretty good flavor. I don't intend on trying a 5 minute mash as I discovered I like my beer to have flavor and drinking a flavorless batch doesn't appeal to me anymore.

 

[McKnuckle]

I guess I just don't see the point of shortening what is one of the most important phases in brewing. Or at least, I don't see the point in aiming to shorten it. It's definitely interesting academically to know that "conversion happens quickly," and just how quickly, through experimentation... But that might be like saying that one's homemade tomato sauce is "ready to eat" after 10 minutes of cooking, whereas we all know it will taste worlds better if it simmers for an hour.

 

[RM-MN]

I guess I just don't see the point of shortening what is one of the most important phases in brewing. Or at least, I don't see the point in aiming to shorten it. It's definitely interesting academically to know that "conversion happens quickly," and just how quickly, through experimentation... But that might be like saying that one's homemade tomato sauce is "ready to eat" after 10 minutes of cooking, whereas we all know it will taste worlds better if it simmers for an hour.

Perhaps you don't have limited time to brew. If so, good for you. I usually run out of day before I get done all I want so saving an hour or more on brew day and still getting decent beer to drink is important to me. If I got substantially better beer by taking longer I might do that.

 

[McKnuckle]

Ok, fair enough then. I'm a middle aged married guy with 3 kids, a job, and other interests. OF COURSE I have limited time to brew!

 

[Morrey]

I think you would get a beer with alcohol and no flavor. That's what I got with a 10 minute mash. At 20 minutes there was pretty good flavor. I don't intend on trying a 5 minute mash as I discovered I like my beer to have flavor and drinking a flavorless batch doesn't appeal to me anymore.

Yeah, I figured the longer we mash, the more flavor extraction we get from the grains. I didn't know you actually had done a 10 minute mash before so this is darn valuable information!

 

[Morrey]

I guess I just don't see the point of shortening what is one of the most important phases in brewing. Or at least, I don't see the point in aiming to shorten it. It's definitely interesting academically to know that "conversion happens quickly," and just how quickly, through experimentation... But that might be like saying that one's homemade tomato sauce is "ready to eat" after 10 minutes of cooking, whereas we all know it will taste worlds better if it simmers for an hour.

I totally understand your position and agree. Like RM-MN and I have discussed on a separate occasion, knowing that a good percentage of the conversion takes place in the first couple of minutes is very valuable information indeed. Now I don't suppose I'll strike out to do a 2 minute mash, but this can be critical in other regards. If I test my ph at 20 minutes and adjust on the fly (I read this on HBT recently) we would be shutting the barn door after the horses are out. So in that regard, and a host of other factors, knowing conversion speed is helpful for sure. I was just called out by a guy who wanted to correct me for always adjusting (ph and salts) my strike water before I dough-in. My thinking, as RM-MN has confirmed, is if I wait until the mash has begun, the show is darn near over by the time I test mid-mash.

 

[wilserbrewer]

If this is the case, then why do my short mash brews attenuate so fully. If they were mostly dextrines I would end up with a high final gravity...but I don't. Something seems amiss.

Perhaps mashing at a higher temperature, and not like 2 degrees higher, say 10?

 

[McKnuckle]

I was just called out by a guy who wanted to correct me for always adjusting (ph and salts) my strike water before I dough-in.

I'm pretty sure I saw that exchange, and of course I do the same as you - I prep the water completely and then dough in. Makes total sense to me and I'm not convinced that another way is better. Granted, I don't measure actual pH, either. I just use 3 or 4 of the water calculators and settle on something they all find reasonable.

 

[RM-MN]

I sometimes wonder if doing a short mash but steeping the flavor grains separate for a longer time and then adding that "tea" to the wort would get decent beer but I don't wonder enough to do it myself. I've already drunk enough sub-par beer in my experimentation.

 

[Morrey]

I'm pretty sure I saw that exchange, and of course I do the same as you - I prep the water completely and then dough in. Makes total sense to me and I'm not convinced that another way is better. Granted, I don't measure actual pH, either. I just use 3 or 4 of the water calculators and settle on something they all find reasonable.

Of course we all see the posts that indicate "I don't do it this way because..." If thousands of brewers have found unquestioned success with a particular technique, there is always that one who questions the proven technique and goes out on an experiment. And I'll admit, innovative techniques are discovered this way.

I am working with my brother in law teaching him the fundamental aspects of brewing including water management. For the reliability of a well known procedure, I am showing him to always treat his BIAB full volume strike water with chemistry prior to mash in. Why he asks, which is the same thing we are discussing here.....that so much of the important phase of a conversion happens quickly especially with the fine grind I am showing him to use. There may be exceptions to the rule such as a coarser grind, a very thick mash, or 1.111 barley wines, but would I teach him the exceptions, or teach him the basics? I choose to show him the standard process and tell him that other situations may eventually come up.

I tracked my last ten brews ranging from 1.048 to 1.065. My BH efficiency is 81.05% average almost like clockwork. This is the proof in the pudding to my way of thinking. Why would I possibly want to change, but if anyone can show me that adding chemistry later in the mash would increase my BH% or improve my beers, I'd be all ears. I don't expect that adjusting or adding chemistry on the fly will revolutionize brewing, but anything can happen.

 

[malt81]

Here is my statistic of my brews, maybe you can find some useful information and adjust these numbers for your setup -
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18wCRjoqqIPCoodrgFEtp9ecQ9_rz7iEA0aXwD796kB8/pub?output=pdf
(a pdf document will be downloaded after clicking on the link)

 

[AngryAndy]

Malt81. I love it thank you. It sheds light on the numbers in this process.

Appreciate it!