Do higher mashing temps override lower mashing temps?

[Bassman2003]

I would make the 135F 5-10 minutes and increase the 168F time to 10 minutes.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

I don't read the brulosophy things anymore, they were interesting at first when I found the site, but after a while I concluded the same as you, take the "no difference" as a huge boulder of salt.

For me those tests are like giving a ten persons a haystack and tell them to find the needle in it. Or to put it in another way. "There's ten needles in this haystack, and zero in the other, and maybe ten or zero in the third, pick out the one which stands out in the amount of needles".

But if you'd give the same persons just a few straws of each of the stacks, they would probably find it the needle, because you've narrowed down the search area.

There's so much going on in a beer that it can be hard to find a difference, maybe some are looking in certain areas, like carbonation, mouthfeel, bitterness, while at the same time overlooking the area of interest. Unless there's an obvious and up front difference, it will often be "no difference". But still some people do notice a difference, so to me, there's at least a "potential" of difference, but it depends on who reported it. If I'd give two sour beers to my GF she'd just say "they're sour", and that's it, possibly not noting the difference in for example if they were hopped with EKG or Mittelfruh.

The person who has brewed the beer knows exactly where to look. Even if there's just a minuscule difference, the brewer him/herself has a much greater chance of noticing it, and probably will.

I've found that many brulosophy experiments tend to use very simple recipes, which sounds like a good idea but, for many tests, can mask the results. One test, I don't remember the details, but it had to do with hop flavor being affected by something, they used a recipe that wasn't very hoppy. Well, affecting the hop flavor of a recipe that's not very hoppy is pretty hard to do. Of course the results were that the change didn't make a difference, but with the experiment design, I felt it really told me nothing.

 

[CodeSection]

I would make the 135F 5-10 minutes and increase the 168F time to 10 minutes.

Thanks for the input!

 

[Robert65]

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with the 135°F rest, but I'll assume you have good reason for it. As for the next one, there is little benefit to attempting a beta rest below the gelatinization temperature of your particular lot of malt; you need to determine what this is. A rough inverse correlation can be made between this and the Hartong VZ @ 45°C index. Then adjust the time of this and the alpha rest to control fermentability of the wort. If you don't have a lot analysis of your malt, you are just taking a shot in the dark designing a mash program, but could maybe dial it in empirically over a few batches. But it will change with the next sack of malt. Beware any prescriptions for universally applicable mash programs. You are not mashing a style, you are mashing a batch of grain. (And beware anything you read in Brülösöphy, BYO, or CB&B...)

 

[CodeSection]

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with the 135°F rest, but I'll assume you have good reason for it. As for the next one, there is little benefit to attempting a beta rest below the gelatinization temperature of your particular lot of malt; you need to determine what this is. A rough inverse correlation can be made between this and the Hartong VZ @ 45°C index. Then adjust the time of this and the alpha rest to control fermentability of the wort. If you don't have a lot analysis of your malt, you are just taking a shot in the dark designing a mash program, but could maybe dial it in empirically over a few batches. But it will change with the next sack of malt. Beware any prescriptions for universally applicable mash programs. You are not mashing a style, you are mashing a batch of grain. (And beware anything you read in Brülösöphy, BYO, or CB&B...)

Before, for my IPA recipe, I was doing a single infusion mash of 152F for 60 minutes. After reading this thread, I thought I would try something different. I've reread this thread and today read different articles on the Hochkurz step mashing. I now understand better the importance of the generalization temp of the particular malt being used.

Perhaps the following steps are more appropriate: 145F 30 minutes; 160F 30 minutes; and 170F 15 minutes.

 

[Robert65]

Before, for my IPA recipe, I was doing a single infusion mash of 152F for 60 minutes. After reading this thread, I thought I would try something different. I've reread this thread and today read different articles on the Hochkurz step mashing. I now understand better the importance of the generalization temp of the particular malt being used.

Perhaps the following steps are more appropriate: 145F 30 minutes; 160F 30 minutes; and 170F 15 minutes.

That exact program has been my standard for quite a while now. But I had a little higher FG than I wanted last batch, and realized I have just switched to a particular European, heirloom malt that, looking at the analysis sheet, probably has a slightly higher gelatinization temperature (which got me back into thinking about this.) So for this weekend I've decided I need to raise the first rest a couple of degrees, and maybe add an intermediate rest at around 150°-153°F for 10-15 minutes before the 160°F rest, to maximize fermentability. If you don't have analyses of your malts available, these kinds of changes could be the next thing to try if the 30/30/10-15 at 145/160/170 still doesn't get you the fermentability you're looking for.

 

[CodeSection]

That exact program has been my standard for quite a while now. But I had a little higher FG than I wanted last batch, and realized I have just switched to a particular European, heirloom malt that, looking at the analysis sheet, probably has a slightly higher gelatinization temperature (which got me back into thinking about this.) So for this weekend I've decided I need to raise the first rest a couple of degrees, and maybe add an intermediate rest at around 150°-153°F for 10-15 minutes before the 160°F rest, to maximize fermentability. If you don't have analyses of your malts available, these kinds of changes could be the next thing to try if the 30/30/10-15 at 145/160/170 still doesn't get you the fermentability you're looking for.

Something like this: 148F 20 minutes; 154F 10 minutes; 160F 30 minutes; and 170F 15 minutes?

 

[Nubiwan]

That's not far from the truth. But you still need to consider total time in the mash. If you want a full body, then quit mashing altogether at 20-30 minutes, mash out right away. If you want a very dry beer, mash for 90 minutes or more. If you want something in between, mash for a more reasonable 45-60 minutes. Personally I've been mashing for 45 minutes for the past >100 batches. It's a nice middle ground for me and my system.

@dmtaylor In order to calculate bitterness, do you simply adjust for the shorter time with hop additions? Do you use the Brewers Friend IBU Calculator.

I find I dont stick to recipes. and rather shoot for an IBU estimate (perhaps 20-40 range), than anything rigid. I should probably pay more attention to this, but it is still early days for me.

I keep notes, and perhaps alter next time. I have yet to make the same thing twice. Rahter depends what hops/grain I have left sitting around.

 

[Nubiwan]

5 minutes. Remember that.

From BYO article

"Beta amylase is active between 131° and 149° F. But like all enzymes, its activity reaches a peak, declines, and then drops precipitously as temperature increases. The rate is also dependent on the amount of enzyme present. It takes time for all of the enzyme to be destroyed, but what is still intact works very quickly. So as the mash temperature approaches 149° F, beta amylase is operating at its fastest rate but it is also being denatured.

This may seem trivial, but at these higher temperatures the denaturation is so rapid that the enzyme is mostly gone in less than 5 minutes. Also, in a homebrewer’s mash tun, where the grain may be poured into very hot water, the exposure to very high heat for the few seconds before the mixture becomes homogenous may work to destroy the fragile enzymes."

Is this true? Tested? I let my mashes start out at around 160 and let it drop to high 140s. Essentially, let it sit for an hour or more without controlling heat. I get a highly fermentable wort. FG's under 1.010. Would I not expect to get a higher FG from my beers if I had killed off all the Beta enzyme?

 

[VikeMan]

@dmtaylor In order to calculate bitterness, do you simply adjust for the shorter time with hop additions? Do you use the Brewers Friend IBU Calculator.

A shorter mash length will result in a less dry beer, thus more residual sweetness. More residual sweetness means that less bitterness may be perceived. So if you want to adjust your IBU target to account for residual sweetness (or lack thereof), that's fine. But the IBU calculations themselves and the actual IBU levels have nothing to do with mash lengths.

 

[dmtaylor]

@dmtaylor In order to calculate bitterness, do you simply adjust for the shorter time with hop additions? Do you use the Brewers Friend IBU Calculator.

I was talking about mash time, not boil time. I usually still boil for a standard 60-70 minutes, I don't change that too often. I use the Tinseth equation to calculate IBUs. Any good software will have Tinseth as the default and should come up with the same answers based on time in the boil.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Is this true? Tested? I let my mashes start out at around 160 and let it drop to high 140s. Essentially, let it sit for an hour or more without controlling heat. I get a highly fermentable wort. FG's under 1.010. Would I not expect to get a higher FG from my beers if I had killed off all the Beta enzyme?

Yes. Is 160 after dough-in, or is the your strike water temperature?

It is surprising that you are getting highly fermentable wort if your mash temp is starting off at 160. You are doing the opposite of a Hochkurz step mash.

See links below for analysis and data points:

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.ph...ity_and_efficiency_in_single_infusion_mashinghttp://www.woodlandbrew.com/2013/01/measured-mash-temperature-effects.html

 

[Snuffy]

The Germans do have a strange obsession with taking an entire sentence and pretending it's a single noun.

Confusing at times it can be that verbs to the end of a sentence they are placing.

 

[balrog]

And clauses also, when subject from remainder have in the present perfect been ge-separated.

 

[Nubiwan]

A shorter mash length will result in a less dry beer, thus more residual sweetness. More residual sweetness means that less bitterness may be perceived. So if you want to adjust your IBU target to account for residual sweetness (or lack thereof), that's fine. But the IBU calculations themselves and the actual IBU levels have nothing to do with mash lengths.

Crud, yes! I confused mash with boil. Getting ahead of myself.......

 

[Nubiwan]

Yes. Is 160 after dough-in, or is the your strike water temperature?

It is surprising that you are getting highly fermentable wort if your mash temp is starting off at 160. You are doing the opposite of a Hochkurz step mash.

See links below for analysis and data points:

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.ph...ity_and_efficiency_in_single_infusion_mashinghttp://www.woodlandbrew.com/2013/01/measured-mash-temperature-effects.html

Well, my last two batches I started out close to 158-160, and just let the ambient temp (which is now 4-10 degrees in my garage) take it down to high 140s in a little over an hour, sometimes longer. I left my last mash for over 4 hours, as I got it started Sunday morning and could not boil till later in the afternoon. Something I have done before.

Dont really have much to compare my process with, as each beer I make is generally a little different than the last, but along the same amber / red ale / IPA theme. I guess I am doing a reverse process. I do get very decent fermentation and low FG, when I do long mashes. Beers taste fine, but cannot say if they are dry or sweet to taste. They taste .....well good.

 

[cmac62]

I have found that mash temps from 147 to 154 actually have very little (noticeable) affect on overall flavor to me. The lower mash temps may lead to more fermentable wort, and thus a drier finish, but I'm not sure my taster is capable of noticing a difference other than mouth feel. Also, I have not done the same beer at 147 and 154 and tasted them side by side. I guess that would be the only real way to know if I can taste the difference. When I want a drier finish I will use enzymes (either Amylase or Glucoamylase) in the fermenter or mashtun. I know this works because the last time I used Gluco for a Brut IPA I pitched it into the fermenter and got the FG down to .995.

 

[Nubiwan]

I have found that mash temps from 147 to 154 actually have very little (noticeable) affect on overall flavor to me. The lower mash temps may lead to more fermentable wort, and thus a drier finish, but I'm not sure my taster is capable of noticing a difference other than mouth feel. Also, I have not done the same beer at 147 and 154 and tasted them side by side. I guess that would be the only real way to know if I can taste the difference. When I want a drier finish I will use enzymes (either Amylase or Glucoamylase) in the fermenter or mashtun. I know this works because the last time I used Gluco for a Brut IPA I pitched it into the fermenter and got the FG down to .995.

I realize it might not be a creditable source, nor respected by many on different brewing forums, but brulosphy did a side by side of the same beer recipe, at different extreme mash temps, and less than half the tasters (20) noticed any difference. None could see an appreciable change in mouthfeel for either sample. Most couldnt even tell them apart. So what does that tell us? Is it all bunk? Seems the only thing you can really control with mash temp is the eventual fermantability.

http://brulosophy.com/2015/10/12/the-mash-high-vs-low-temperature-exbeeriment-results/
I personally like the Brulosophy experiments, as they have more or less let me do away with much of the hocus pocus of beer making. Things like mash temp stability, transferring brake to the fermenter, dry yeast versus making a starter etc. Making beer can be rather simple if you want it to be.

My neighbours still rave over my beer, despite my ignoring some strongly promoted brewing techniques. They might just be being nice.

 

[VikeMan]

I realize it might not be a creditable source, nor respected by many on different brewing forums, but brulosphy did a side by side of the same beer recipe, at different extreme mash temps, and less than half the tasters (20) noticed any difference.

9 out of 20 made the correct choice in the triangle test. By random chance, you'd expect 6 or 7 (i.e. one out of three). The p-value was 0.134. That means that if there were no difference between the beers, there was only an 86.6% chance that at least 9 would get it right. But they did. So either there was a difference detected or they randomly beat the odds.

I personally like the Brulosophy experiments, as they have more or less let me do away with much of the hocus pocus of beer making.

IMO they didn't do away with any hocus pocus with this experiment.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

I personally like the Brulosophy experiments, as they have more or less let me do away with much of the hocus pocus of beer making. Things like mash temp stability, transferring brake to the fermenter, dry yeast versus making a starter etc. Making beer can be rather simple if you want it to be.

Agree, I look forward every week to their next exbeeriment. There are so many brewing beliefs that have never been proven scientifically to really make a difference, and inquiring minds want to know rather than just following gospel. Brulospohy has done the work for us. Kudos to them.

In my opinion, they explain their process well, do the best they can to isolate the test variable, and provide all the numbers around the statistical analysis. They never draw absolute conclusions and let the readers decide for themselves on how to interpret the data and outcomes. Are their methods perfect, no, but most of the time they are good enough. Do their stats prove or disprove the hypotheses - only within a certain confidence level, which they provide. Bottom line, their site is fun, interesting, and it lets me sleep at night when I sometimes take easier paths to brewing great beer.

 

[VikeMan]

They never draw absolute conclusions and let the readers decide for themselves on how to interpret the data and outcomes.

But they do take a result that most rational people (if triangle test statistics were fully explained to them), would interpret as likely that a difference was detected and say things like "implying a general inability for people to reliably distinguish," when the numbers implied no such thing. Brulosophy could add probably less than 25 additional words to each writeup and make it clear as day.

 

[cmac62]

Okay, mast temps of 147 and 161 are way different that say 148 and 154. The brewlosophy crew said the #s showed no statistical significance at 9 out of 20. Anyway, back to the original question, Bassman if you want to do step mashes and hope the beta will do its thing the best bet is to either start low around 145 for 30 or so, then take it up to the sac rest at around 150 something, but it you want a brut dry beer use extra sugar or gulcoamylase. Again I have used it in the fermenter at ale temps and got the finished beer below 1.000. I love HBT. We get so worked up about beer. Merika, and all the other places around the world

 

[cmac62]

Sorry bassman I just looked at the top of the page. LOL The last message was to beerviod.

 

[madscientist451]

If you're interested, good mash program to get a balance of good fermentability combined with good mouthfeel and foam qualities is 30 minutes in the 145-147F range (beta amylase,) 30 minutes at 160-163F (alpha amylase,) and 10-15 minutes at 170-172F (glycoprotein synthesis.) (In German this is called Hochkurzmaischverfahren, meaning "high [temperature,] short mash program," and is the commercial standard.) There's more than you wanted to know.

Thanks for posting, I'm going to try it on a Korbinian clone I've been wanting to try.

 

[Nubiwan]

9 out of 20 made the correct choice in the triangle test. By random chance, you'd expect 6 or 7 (i.e. one out of three). The p-value was 0.134. That means that if there were no difference between the beers, there was only an 86.6% chance that at least 9 would get it right. But they did. So either there was a difference detected or they randomly beat the odds.

IMO they didn't do away with any hocus pocus with this experiment.

Then it needs to be explained to me what is wrong with their process and conclusions.

In layman terms, more than half the people can't tell the difference. It happens in many of their experiments, which are generally pretty well developed. That's compelling for me. I also want to believe it, as it makes life a whole lot simpler when brewing.

I make decent beer, and avoid several of the highest held principals of brewing. Could I make better beer? Well, unless I actually go to the lengths Brulosphy does, I'll never really know. Most of my friends like my beer.

 

[VikeMan]

In layman terms, more than half the people can't tell the difference.

In a triangle test, there are three samples, of which one is different from the other two. The taster has to try to choose the one that is different. If there is no difference, i.e. if the taster has to guess, they have a 1 in 3 chance of getting it right, not a 50/50 chance.

 

[Nubiwan]

In a triangle test, there are three samples, of which one is different from the other two. The taster has to try to choose the one that is different. If there is no difference, i.e. if the taster has to guess, they have a 1 in 3 chance of getting it right, not a 50/50 chance.

Hmm, is that their process? I don't honestly know. Is each tester told to pick any beer? I doubt that. If the tasters cannot tell the difference, don't they just say so? Not pick one and hope for the "best".

For me at least, it rather reinforces many of their experiments, even if people are having lucky guesses. In many of their experiments, few people can pick out the different beer.

 

[VikeMan]

Hmm, is that their process? I don't honestly know. Is each tester told to pick any beer? I doubt that.

Yes, that is their process.

If the tasters cannot tell the difference, don't they just say so? Not pick one and hope for the "best".

Yes, they must pick one. They don't get to say "I dunno."

I think the "Less than half got it right, so there must not be a difference" perception is pretty common among Brulosophy readers.

 

[Nubiwan]

Yes, that is their process.



Yes, they must pick one. They don't get to say "I dunno."

I think the "Less than half got it right, so there must not be a difference" perception is pretty common among Brulosophy readers.

And you think that is an incorrect conclusion?

How would you interpret the results he got on the experiment posted?

The fact they have to pick one is just wrong. Are you 100% sure that is how they do it? Is that the nature of triangle testing? I have no idea.

 

[VikeMan]

And you think that is an incorrect conclusion?

Yes, in a triangle test, it's incorrect to conclude anything based solely on tasters getting less than half correct. I'm not saying that Brulosophy bases anything on a 50% metric (they don't), but I think a lot of readers seem to.

How would you interpret the results he got on the experiment posted?

I thought I already did that. Here:

9 out of 20 made the correct choice in the triangle test. By random chance, you'd expect 6 or 7 (i.e. one out of three). The p-value was 0.134. That means that if there were no difference between the beers, there was only an 86.6% chance that at least 9 would get it right. But they did. So either there was a difference detected or they randomly beat the odds.

The fact they have to pick one is just wrong. Are you 100% sure that is how they do it? Is that the nature of triangle testing? I have no idea.

Yes, that is exactly how triangle testing is done. 100% sure. If they didn't have to pick one, the result wouldn't be statistically valid.

 

[hottpeper13]

What thread is this?????????????

 

[dmtaylor]

What thread is this?????????????

This tangential discussion is what happens when the majority misunderstand and misinterpret Brulosophy exbeeriments and yet report them as supporting evidence or truth which actually is in many (most?) cases is quite untrue or extremely weak anecdotal evidence at the very best.

 

[Miraculix]

Confusing at times it can be that verbs to the end of a sentence they are placing.

I think with Yoda, us confusing you are!

Us, the guys known for beer, blitzkrieg and lederhosen, Yoda, little green guy from somewhere else.

 

[Nubiwan]

Made tangential by those who would refute a litte supporting anecdotal evidence.

My own anecdotal evidence is that i rarely try to maintain a steady mash temp. Indeed, let it drift over 10 degrees from 160-148. Yes, a bit like step mashing in reverse.

It has been suggested - either in this thread, or elsewhere - that my high strike temps would burn off the beta amylase (denature is the term i gather), and that i would not get the benefit of that breakdown. Regardless, I am still getting a highly fermentable wort. Can i conclude both beta and alpha amylase are indeed at work here? I Dunno! My last two batches gone from 1.052 and 1.056 to 1.008 and 1.006 respectively.

I simply posted this so others could be a little less concerned with the rigidity of maintaining a steady mash temp. Not commence Brulosophy WW III.

 

[Miraculix]

Made tangential by those who would refute a litte supporting anecdotal evidence.

My own anecdotal evidence is that i rarely try to maintain a steady mash temp. Indeed, let it drift over 10 degrees from 160-148. Yes, a bit like step mashing in reverse.

It has been suggested - either in this thread, or elsewhere - that my high strike temps would burn off the beta amylase (denature is the term i gather), and that i would not get the benefit of that breakdown. Regardless, I am still getting a highly fermentable wort. Can i conclude both beta and alpha amylase are indeed at work here? I Dunno! My last two batches gone from 1.052 and 1.056 to 1.008 and 1.006 respectively.

I simply posted this so others could be a little less concerned with the rigidity of maintaining a steady mash temp. Not commence Brulosophy WW III.

Do you do full volume biab by any chance?

 

[dmtaylor]

Made tangential by those who would refute a litte supporting anecdotal evidence.

My own anecdotal evidence is that i rarely try to maintain a steady mash temp. Indeed, let it drift over 10 degrees from 160-148. Yes, a bit like step mashing in reverse.

It has been suggested - either in this thread, or elsewhere - that my high strike temps would burn off the beta amylase (denature is the term i gather), and that i would not get the benefit of that breakdown. Regardless, I am still getting a highly fermentable wort. Can i conclude both beta and alpha amylase are indeed at work here? I Dunno! My last two batches gone from 1.052 and 1.056 to 1.008 and 1.006 respectively.

I simply posted this so others could be a little less concerned with the rigidity of maintaining a steady mash temp. Not commence Brulosophy WW III.

Heh. For whatever it's worth, I kind of do the same thing with mash temperatures, but at a lower range. Often start closer to about 156 F and let it fall into the mid 140s. Jury is still out as to how quickly the beta denatures, but I typically don't see any significant problems from this..... except on my last batch with Lutra kveik yeast, I'm seeing experiences not just from my self but from many others that this particular yeast strain has difficulties and tends to attenuate low, sort of like Windsor. I could not get the FG lower than about 1.022. And I had a friend try Lutra in several ciders and they quit fermenting at like 1.035, really poor. But that's not a mash temperature thing of course, it's just kind of a nutrient-hungry yeast methinks.

How's that for a nice new tangential discussion!

Cheers all.

 

[VikeMan]

Made tangential by those who would refute a litte supporting anecdotal evidence.

I would never refute anecdotal evidence unless there is science that clearly demonstrates that the thing being supported by the anecdotal evidence is impossible. I would give it the weight it deserves, essentially "n = 1."

The "tangent" was not to refute anecdotal evidence. The tangent explained how triangle testing works, and was directly in response to what was very close to a claim that something had been debunked, even though the numbers told a different story. And if people read and understood it, they are now in a better position to interpret what they read in these exbeeriments, draw a better informed conclusion (or determine there's no conclusion to be drawn), and apply (or not) that knowledge to their own brewing. Surely that's a good thing.

 

[beervoid]

I always felt yeast has a bigger influence in terms of body character. Many factors are at play here.
Glycol production, residual unfermentables that might not be adding to the gravity etc.
Saison strains with low fg having higher body.
That is where the black magic of brewing kicks in.

 

[dmtaylor]

I always felt yeast has a bigger influence in terms of body character. Many factors are at play here.
Glycol production, residual unfermentables that might not be adding to the gravity etc.
Saison strains with low fg having higher body.
That is where the black magic of brewing kicks in.

You're not wrong here. Yeast selection is probably even more important than mash temperatures. You can mash hot or cool or whatever but if you've selected a yeast that doesn't help achieve your goal, you're not doing it right.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

It has been suggested - either in this thread, or elsewhere - that my high strike temps would burn off the beta amylase (denature is the term i gather), and that i would not get the benefit of that breakdown. Regardless, I am still getting a highly fermentable wort. Can i conclude both beta and alpha amylase are indeed at work here? I Dunno! My last two batches gone from 1.052 and 1.056 to 1.008 and 1.006 respectively.

Fermentability studies on the impact of temperature typically keep the mash time constant to isolate the temperature test variable. From the studies I have read, that time is typically 60 mins. That being said, most of the advice provided on mash temp and fermentability is usually provided with respect to mash times around the 60 min time frame. I subconscious assumption.

I left my last mash for over 4 hours

Bruakaiser did test mash time vs fermentability. Below are the results. What is interesting is that the starting mash temperature he used for the various test was the same as yours - 160. Although his temperature only dropped to around 152.

He found that fermentability does continue to increase even though the high initial mash temp should have denatured the Beta Amylase very quickly. He concluded...

"The question now is was it beta or alpha amylase that caused the further reduction of the starches. According to the literature, beta amylase should have been deactivated after the first 10 min at 70 *C (158 *C). If this is true, continued alpha amylase activity was the reason for the continued production of fermentable sugars. Though the drop in mash temperature was unplanned it better emulates the conditions in a real mash, where the temperature starts to drop after a long time. Because of this the brewer should also log the mash time along with the mash temperature profile. "

Can i conclude both beta and alpha amylase are indeed at work here? I Dunno! My last two batches gone from 1.052 and 1.056 to 1.008 and 1.006 respectively.

I think what you can conclude, with a grain of salt, is:

1. A longer mash time will increase the fermentability of your wort
2. Longer mash times can produce highly fermentable worts despite high starting mash temp as long as the mash temps are brought down within ~15 mins to ordinary single infusion mash temps (say 150 and below)
3. The higher fermentability could be due to Alpha and/or residual Beta activity

I simply posted this so others could be a little less concerned with the rigidity of maintaining a steady mash temp. Not commence Brulosophy WW III.

Thanks for doing so, as going forward I will rest easier if I drastically overshoot my initial mash temp - just perform a HochLange mash.