Do higher mashing temps override lower mashing temps?

[Nubiwan]

Do you do full volume biab by any chance?

Yes - full volume. i also give that bag a few hefty squeezes while the wort is coming to boil, but no sparging, if that is what you meant.

Start with around 8-8.5 gallons and usually enough to take in 13-14 lbs of grain and fill my 10 gallon kettle. Strike temp is 160. Lid carefully goes on, and i just let it sit in the cold garage and dont even monitor the temps.

Im yielding around 7 gallons of wort. What with my rigorous bag squeezing (this terminilogy just makes me laugh), and a gentler rolling boil.

 

[Nubiwan]

Found this interesting as i always use 2-row as my base malt. Would account for the results i am seeing with my quasi reverse step mash process.

While many enzymes are denatured by heat and agitation, American two-row malt contains such an enormous surplus of the two main enzymes that their activity will have an impact prior to their demise in the mash.

The article i got this from also suggests that mash thickness helps stave off enzyme denaturing. Not really sure how mash thickness is calculated other than my bag and grain, once soaked, surely accounts for (at least) 40-50 percent of the volume in my kettle. Does that mean its a thick mash? Dunno? Would most BIAB processes, with 10-15 lbs of grain be considered thick? Cant see how they would not, but i am merely speculating.

https://byo.com/article/understanding-enzymes-homebrew-science/
For anyone interested, my last two batches, i used Nottingham yeast which, i have to add, was super fast, and obviously had decent attenuation results. Prior to that, i usually used US-05, with not dissimilar attenutation results.

 

[Miraculix]

Yes - full volume. i also give that bag a few hefty squeezes while the wort is coming to boil, but no sparging, if that is what you meant.

Start with around 8-8.5 gallons and usually enough to take in 13-14 lbs of grain and fill my 10 gallon kettle. Strike temp is 160. Lid carefully goes on, and i just let it sit in the cold garage and dont even monitor the temps.

Im yielding around 7 gallons of wort. What with my rigorous bag squeezing (this terminilogy just makes me laugh), and a gentler rolling boil.

I also do full volume biab and I think that due to the big amount of liquid and high temperature and probably fine crush, the starches get gelatinised really quickly and the beta can do it's thing in minutes, therefore most of the work is already done, before denaturing kicks in.

That's my assumption of course, but I think it makes sense.

 

[Nubiwan]

I also do full volume biab and I think that due to the big amount of liquid and high temperature and probably fine crush, the starches get gelatinated really quickly and the beta can do it's thing in minutes, therefore most of the work is already done, before denaturing kicks in.

That's my assumption of course, but I think it makes sense.

Think this might be accurate, and there are several on here who advocate short mashes for this exact reason. I have also read an abstract of a case study suggesting the mere presence of maltose in the mash protects beta amylase further from denaturizing, as does the pH of the water.

I dont treat my water at all, and i trust it is relatively soft,with very few muncipal additives, or even natural mineral content. As such, i trust it to be a decent base point if i did choose to play with water chemistry, which i never have. Perhaps my high fermentability is simply a result of several combined factors being just so, as to leave enough beta amylase in solution to do its work.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

The article i got this from also suggests that mash thickness helps stave off enzyme denaturing. Not really sure how mash thickness is calculated other than my bag and grain, once soaked, surely accounts for (at least) 40-50 percent of the volume in my kettle. Does that mean its a thick mash? Dunno? Would most BIAB processes, with 10-15 lbs of grain be considered thick? Cant see how they would not, but i am merely speculating.

Mash thickness is simply the ratio of volume of mash water / weight of grains. Units are qts/lb or l/kg. Typical mash thickness range from as low as 1 qt/lb (very thick) to 2 (thin). 1.25 - 1.75 are probably most typical for single infusion.

I would guess that most BIAB processes result in thin mashes as very often I think they are done full volume (no sparging or almost full volume). If you have a small mashtun/kettle that cannot accommodate full volume, then your mash thickness will need to get thicker and you will be sparging.

 

[mongoose33]

I'll just throw a shortened version of my previous critiques of Brulosophy out here:

Triangle Tests: done properly (and the Brulosophy people don't) they are the gold standard in this type of testing analysis. We have no idea what the sample of testers generalize to, i.e., all beer drinker, just IPA lovers, casual drinkers, hipsters, who knows? We also don't know what they were eating and/or drinking prior to the test, which could damage palates and make people unable to perceive differences they might otherwise be able to perceive.

Done properly, you randomize the order of the samples and hopefully have a balanced design so every order is represented equally. In other words, if you are testing beers A and B, you have six orders: AAB, ABA, BAA, BBA, BAB, ABB. Testers should try them in the order listed, so if there's an ordering effect to the results, it hopefully balances out.

It's hard to do it right, in that it's a pain. You have to hope you can get people to do the tests before they drink or eat anything which can screw up their palates, and then hope they'll actually listen and try the beers in the order you give them.

I've done it. It's hard.

*****************​

And here's the part that gets me--yeah, it may be true that, statistically, more than an expected random number could identify the odd-beer-out. But in most of the Brulosophy experiments, a majority of testers could not tell a difference. And yet they're told to guess and, if they guess right, they then are asked for their opinions on the beers--after, by guessing, they got lucky.

But assume for a moment that the ones who identified the proper odd-beer-out actually could perceive the difference. What we have is two beers the majority of beer drinkers (assuming the testers constitute a reasonable sample of the beer-drinking public) cannot tell apart. After years of thinking about this, I'm still trying to wrap my head around it.

***************
​

I met Marshall at a BYO Brew Boot Camp about 20 months ago. Nice guy. And I think the experiments are, generally, well done. The message to everyone should be to take what you see at Brulosophy and then do your own experiments and see what you think.

 

[VikeMan]

And here's the part that gets me--yeah, it may be true that, statistically, more than an expected random number could identify the odd-beer-out. But in most of the Brulosophy experiments, a majority of testers could not tell a difference.

But don't forget that, in triangle testing, there's nothing special about less than a majority getting it right. Without knowing all the numbers (specific total number of tasters and how many of them got it right), the fact that less than a majority got it right doesn't imply anything. There is something special about more than a third getting it right. And for a given total number of tasters, the more that get it right, the less chance that it was due to random chance. The "guessers" don't skew the data. They are essential to the analysis.

 

[VikeMan]

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.

Ah, $hit. Too late to edit, but the above should have read...

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% 13.4% 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.

 

[dmtaylor]

Ah, $hit. Too late to edit, but the above should have read...

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% 13.4% 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 like to think of this as an 86.6% chance that there MIGHT be a difference between the two beers. Brulosophy ARBITRARILY chooses to aim for 95% chance (p<0.05); however if you look at the results in this different light, that maybe there's an 86% chance of there being a difference, the results become FAR more interesting, and, dare I say, useful, in knowing where followup experiments may be warranted.

 

[mongoose33]

But don't forget that, in triangle testing, there's nothing special about less than a majority getting it right. Without knowing all the numbers (specific total number of tasters and how many of them got it right), the fact that less than a majority got it right doesn't imply anything. There is something special about more than a third getting it right. And for a given total number of tasters, the more that get it right, the less chance that it was due to random chance. The "guessers" don't skew the data. They are essential to the analysis.

I have a graduate minor in statistics, so none of this is foreign to me. The concern I have is that there is valuable information in the fact that MOST can't tell a difference, and there's no concern whatsoever about power. Further, to include those who guess right--who by their own admission cannot tell a difference and just guess--in the evaluation of which beer is better, well, I can't figure out in what world that makes sense.

Further yet, and nobody points this out, suppose the number who would have gotten it right just by guessing is 9 and the number who actually got it right is, say, 13. That suggests the distinct possibility that perhaps 9 of the 13 simply guessed!

Further even more, given that measurement is one of my areas of supposed expertise, I think I'd like to have the members of the panels demonstrate, over some period of time, that they could repeatedly, i.e., reliably, pick the odd-beer-out. It's a one-shot deal, which is why I'm less impressed by it.

Finally (finally!), there's no concern in these triangle tests regarding Type II error. This relates to what testers were eating and drinking prior, but could come from something else. In other words (not directed at you, I'm sure you know this but others may not), a "not significant" result is not the same as a "no difference" result. It just means no evidence that they're different, not that they're not different. And they might well be.

 

[VikeMan]

and there's no concern whatsoever about power.

I'd like to see them with 40-50 participants. That's probably very hard to arrange, but it would probably reduce the number of quite possibly positive results that otherwise get dismissed.

Further yet, and nobody points this out, suppose the number who would have gotten it right just by guessing is 9 and the number who actually got it right is, say, 13. That suggests the distinct possibility that perhaps 9 of the 13 simply guessed!

This is why the fact that there's 13 correct instead of 9 is important. The p-values tell you exactly how likely it was that at least "X" people would have got it right (assuming no difference). Is your main concern that "most people couldn't tell the difference?" That's fair enough, but as a brewer, I want to control things that are detectable, even if it's by only relatively few people. For example, I wouldn't want diacetyl levels that are barely under the average flavor threshold, because there will be people who can taste it at that level.

Further even more, given that measurement is one of my areas of supposed expertise, I think I'd like to have the members of the panels demonstrate, over some period of time, that they could repeatedly, i.e., reliably, pick the odd-beer-out. It's a one-shot deal, which is why I'm less impressed by it.

I wholeheartedly agree that the exbeeriments should be replicated. With a single run, you can give a statistical probability. With more runs, you can be surer that the result wasn't (or was) anomalous.

 

[dmtaylor]

I'd like to see them with 40-50 participants. That's probably very hard to arrange, but it would probably reduce the number of quite possibly positive results that otherwise get dismissed.

After long deliberate study of the ASTM for triangle testing (yes it's out there someplace), I reached the same conclusion. We really need at least 40 participants for an even remotely accurate and possibly repeatable result. The Bru crew rarely gets that many. Heh... these days, they only have 1 taster!! Yeesh, don't get me started....

 

[mongoose33]

This is why the fact that there's 13 correct instead of 9 is important. The p-values tell you exactly how likely it was that at least "X" people would have got it right (assuming no difference). Is your main concern that "most people couldn't tell the difference?" That's fair enough, but as a brewer, I want to control things that are detectable, even if it's by only relatively few people. For example, I wouldn't want diacetyl levels that are barely under the average flavor threshold, because there will be people who can taste it at that level.

Believe me, I understand what a p-value indicates. I taught statistics for 35 years, both graduate and undergraduate levels.

You say that " the fact that there's 13 correct instead of 9 is important." Well, maybe. What if only 4 people could really tell the difference, the other 9 simply guessed right?

What the p-value indicates is that it's unlikely that we would have gotten this result purely by chance; or more accurately, such a conclusion, coming purely from random chance, would only happen "X" percent of the time. That isn't the same as saying all 13 people could pick it out; some, almost certainly, guessed.

So when we say 13 people got it right, it's almost certain that some of those, perhaps most of those, simply guessed. And got lucky. And so, it's quite reasonable to conclude that the results might end up overestimating how many can tell the difference. We simply don't know.

That's all I'm saying.

And yeah, about the other part, I'm just noting that almost always with these exbeeriment results (based on what I remember), a majority of testers can't tell the difference. That's an interesting finding that we tend to ignore, because we're focused on finding differences, not on what a large proportion not identifying the difference means to us.

 

[VikeMan]

You say that " the fact that there's 13 correct instead of 9 is important." Well, maybe. What if only 4 people could really tell the difference, the other 9 simply guessed right?

In that case, I'd say that 4 people could tell the difference, which means there's a difference. Of course we, as you said, we can't really know. I forget who said it originally, but one of my favorite sayings goes something like... "Probability not only allows coincidences - it compels them."

 

[ba-brewer]

I recall hearing something interesting in this can you brew it episode. They say they mash in at 160 but even though it is not ideal for the beta enzymes they still do their job and get it done quickly.
laganitas IPA can you brew it

The comments regarding mash temp start at about 25.5mins

 

[mongoose33]

In that case, I'd say that 4 people could tell the difference, which means there's a difference. Of course we, as you said, we can't really know. I forget who said it originally, but one of my favorite sayings goes something like... "Probability not only allows coincidences - it compels them."

I have a theory about brewing good beer that relies on the idea that a lot of best practices produce differences that are not perceptible to the average person. But, taken together, the cumulative effect is perceptible.

(This is theoretical). Imagine (imagine!) a metric where 1.0 is the threshold of perceptibility. Suppose I do a best practice that produces an improvement that only reaches 0.8, i.e., for the vast majority of people, not perceptible. But then I do another best practice that produces a 0.6 improvement, then another that's 0.9, and so on. The three of those together are 2.3, or above the threshold of perceptibility for most people.

Now, at one level that's whacky. But it's the idea that small improvements, taken together, DO produce a demonstrably better beer. It's nothing more than how I view this, and I don't know that it could be found in any authoritative publication. And it might be why so many of the Brulosophy exbeeriments don't tend to show great differences between the two beers.

It's the sort of mental theoretical model I've used as I have advanced as a brewer. When I read or figure out something that makes sense, i.e., it should help the beer be better, I tend to adopt it. Over time, I've added lots of those little "edges" to my brewing, to the point where I think it's pretty good. Friends want to buy it, a local bar wants to sell it--of course, I can't do that, but it's at least some evidence of the quality.

It's led me to a belief that if one wants to improve as a brewer, one should strive to do something better every time one brews. Over time, I believe, that adds up. Continuous quality improvement, as it were.

Evidence for this? Why, none of course, just my belief. My beer is pretty good, and I got there by following the "do it better each time" approach. But no particular evidence.

 

[VikeMan]

I have a theory about brewing good beer that relies on the idea that a lot of best practices produce differences that are not perceptible to the average person. But, taken together, the cumulative effect is perceptible.

I agree. I call it "stacked tolerances," putting an engineering spin on it.

 

[Dland]

At this point, might as well factor in the improbability drive.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

Going back to back to #162

Found this interesting as i always use 2-row as my base malt. Would account for the results i am seeing with my quasi reverse step mash process.

While many enzymes are denatured by heat and agitation, American two-row malt contains such an enormous surplus of the two main enzymes that their activity will have an impact prior to their demise in the mash.

Do you have an initial publication date for the BYO article that the quote came out of?

 

[Nubiwan]

I made valiant attempt to put this thread back on track, and discuss mash temp results, but folk seem to be obsessing over brulosphy.

From my point of view, we have a guy (Brulosphy) who goes to pretty extreme lengths to compare the same beer made with, what many exponents would consider, siginficant brewing changes. Its fun to read, its interesting. For me, and I suggest some others, it can be quite eye opening. In many instances the expected differences in the same beer are not all that clear cut. In others they are. For some, its not his brewing process that's in question rather, how he does his triangle testing with tasters. The explantion of which is frankly rather boring by comparison.

Until someone actually goes to the lengths Brulosphy does to compare similar grain bills, then its just one source for any sort of evidence (anecdotal as it may well be) for and against some of the long held truths about the hobby.

Can those who argue his method provide any evidence against his experimental resutls from personal experience? I am honestly intrigued to find out. For example, do beers mashed at different temps ( say 2 degrees or even 8-10 degrees) really taste different?

Getting back to the thread theme, my anecdotal evidence suggests that by mashing in reverse, from 158 degrees, back down to around 145-148, i am getting a highly fermentable wort. Popular belief would maintain i have long denatured my beta amylase, and get a less fermentable wort. This does not happen. I should add, that i do my mash like this because I am simply lazy, and dont want to attend to it in order to maintain steady temps.

Point is, until someone actually goes and tests a longheld brewing tradition, or theory, like Brulosphy guy does, then they might be just that.

 

[Nubiwan]

Going back to back to #162

Do you have an initial publication date for the BYO article that the quote came out of?

Sorry, i do not. You'd have to reach out to that web site. I did look for a date and source, but sadly none was listed.

 

[VikeMan]

Going back to back to #162

Do you have an initial publication date for the BYO article that the quote came out of?

I can't answer the question about the publication date of the article @Nubiwan quoted, but the bit about "American two-row malt contains such an enormous surplus of the two main enzymes that their activity will have an impact prior to their demise in the mash" is pretty much a spot on description of diastatic power (DP). (Briess 2-Row has a DP of about 140 Lintner, which is pretty high.) The higher the power (i.e. the more enzymes), the more work gets done before the enzymes are denatured. I always find it helpful to think about the process as a race between conversion and denaturing, because that's effectively what it is.

 

[Miraculix]

Another one (thread) bytes the dust (brulosophy discussion).

 

[Miraculix]

I can't answer the question about the publication date of the article @Nubiwan quoted, but the bit about "American two-row malt contains such an enormous surplus of the two main enzymes that their activity will have an impact prior to their demise in the mash" is pretty much a spot on description of diastatic power (DP). (Briess 2-Row has a DP of about 140 Lintner, which is pretty high.) The higher the power (i.e. the more enzymes), the more work gets done before the enzymes are denatured. I always find it helpful to think about the process as a race between conversion and denaturing, because that's effectively what it is.

Don't forget gelatinisation, no conversion without prior gelatinisation! And that actually can make a big difference over time.

 

[Nubiwan]

Mash thickness is simply the ratio of volume of mash water / weight of grains. Units are qts/lb or l/kg. Typical mash thickness range from as low as 1 qt/lb (very thick) to 2 (thin). 1.25 - 1.75 are probably most typical for single infusion.

I would guess that most BIAB processes result in thin mashes as very often I think they are done full volume (no sparging or almost full volume). If you have a small mashtun/kettle that cannot accommodate full volume, then your mash thickness will need to get thicker and you will be sparging.

Yes, you are correct. I too read up more on this and it appears that mash thickness is not the answer in my recent results.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

Sorry, i do not. You'd have to reach out to that web site. I did look for a date and source, but sadly none was listed.

Thanks.

I had some follow on questions / thoughts for discussion based on the age of the article. Without the publication date, it's hard to have a discussion.

 

[mongoose33]

I made valiant attempt to put this thread back on track, and discuss mash temp results, but folk seem to be obsessing over brulosphy.

From my point of view, we have a guy (Brulosphy) who goes to pretty extreme lengths to compare the same beer made with, what many exponents would consider, siginficant brewing changes. Its fun to read, its interesting. For me, and I suggest some others, it can be quite eye opening. In many instances the expected differences in the same beer are not all that clear cut. In others they are. For some, its not his brewing process that's in question rather, how he does his triangle testing with tasters. The explantion of which is frankly rather boring by comparison.

Until someone actually goes to the lengths Brulosphy does to compare similar grain bills, then its just one source for any sort of evidence (anecdotal as it may well be) for and against some of the long held truths about the hobby.

Can those who argue his method provide any evidence against his experimental resutls from personal experience? I am honestly intrigued to find out. For example, do beers mashed at different temps ( say 2 degrees or even 8-10 degrees) really taste different?

Getting back to the thread theme, my anecdotal evidence suggests that by mashing in reverse, from 158 degrees, back down to around 145-148, i am getting a highly fermentable wort. Popular belief would maintain i have long denatured my beta amylase, and get a less fermentable wort. This does not happen. I should add, that i do my mash like this because I am simply lazy, and dont want to attend to it in order to maintain steady temps.

Point is, until someone actually goes and tests a longheld brewing tradition, or theory, like Brulosphy guy does, then they might be just that.

I've always argued that the experiments themselves are pretty well done, in my opinion.

The problem has never been the willingness to do the experiments, nor their quality; the problem has always been the resulting tests.

And I do, to some extent, believe this, attributed to Teddy Roosevelt:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

It's just really sad that all the effort in the arena is negated by the lack of a legitimate way to evaluate the results.

 

[Nubiwan]

Thanks.

I had some follow on questions / thoughts for discussion based on the age of the article. Without the publication date, it's hard to have a discussion.

@BrewnWKopperKat - I checked the page's source file, and found this information nested in there:

The author credit is Steve Parkes.

"headline": "Understanding Enzymes",
	"image": "https://byo.com/wp-content/uploads/Page_93_Mashing_Grains.png",
	"datePublished": "2001-08-30",
	"dateModified": "2019-12-19",

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

I checked the page's source file

Found the original based on that. Thank you.

 

[Dland]

Don't forget gelatinisation, no conversion without prior gelatinisation! And that actually can make a big difference over time.

You seem pretty sure of that my friend.

If so, gelitanization must take place at lower temps then most of the experts say.

I get great conversion on mashes that don't make it up past 140-145F until sparge.

During fly sparge mash temp sometimes gets as high as 165F or so. But that is usually after initial mash liquor is already in BK.

 

[doug293cz]

You seem pretty sure of that my friend.

If so, gelitanization must take place at lower temps then most of the experts say.

I get great conversion on mashes that don't make it up past 140-145F until sparge.

During fly sparge mash temp sometimes gets as high as 165F or so. But that is usually after initial mash liquor is already in BK.

Like many things, gelatinization takes place over a wide range of temperatures - including at room temp and below. Things just go much slower at lower temperatures. Same for the action of amylase (and other) enzymes. Remember that biologically, these reactions need to take place around room temp for seeds to grow. Barley doesn't grow at 150°F.

The way gelatinization temperatures are determined (scanning differential calorimetry) tells us at what temperatures gelatinization occurs in seconds or at most a few minutes. For a mash, gelatinization needs to complete in a few 10's of minutes in order to get 100% conversion.

Brew on

 

[Dland]

I don't know about that Doug, I once read right here somewhere on HBT it absolutely had to be at least 150F to geliteinize. ;} It must be true,...

Seriously though, if this was in the "brew science" forum, I'd not dare kid around,... but got to say, I bet some of us less scientific, high production, results oriented brewers might have a decent grasp on making constantly good beer. Regardless of what some "brew academic" has written.

Ok, I'll admit I'm board, had a few pints,...

whatever bubbles yer airlock, heh heh...

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

I made valiant attempt to put this thread back on track, and discuss mash temp results

I read the original BYO article and then was reminded of this (#23 above):

the more current literature indicates that enzymes reach peak activity at the top of and above what used to be considered their useful range, and that it takes hours, not minutes, to fully denature enzymes at temperatures above their optimum but still within normal mashing conditions.

Looks like there may be some tasty brewing experiments in my future

 

[z-bob]

Isn't the starch in well- or fully-modified malt already gelled? I thought it just had to be hydrated. Unmalted starch usually has to be cooked to make it available because it is unmodified. (perhaps modified malt gels at so low a temperature it's a distinction without a difference)

 

[doug293cz]

Isn't the starch in well- or fully-modified malt already gelled? I thought it just had to be hydrated. Unmalted starch usually has to be cooked to make it available because it is unmodified. (perhaps modified malt gels at so low a temperature it's a distinction without a difference)

No, malted barley is not pre-gelatinized. If anything the kilning after malting raises the gelatinization temp range over that of unmalted barley (see chart below.) It is the flaked adjuncts that have been pre-gelatinized, so that they don't require a cereal mash. Cereal mashes are required for grains and other adjuncts that don't fully gelatinize at normal mash temperatures and normal mash times. Gelatinization temperature ranges vary widely for different starch sources.

source​

​

Brew on

 

[Dland]

Very informative graph, thanks.

 

[Erik the Anglophile]

A question related to this since you guys were talking about mash times and its importance. In the books i have read, they recommend mashing up to 90 minutes when making porters, scotch ales and malt heavy sweeter ales in general, is this to balance out the sweetnes from the high amounts of caramel malts and higher fermentation temps usually used in those?

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

In the books i have read, they recommend

Which books?

 

[Erik the Anglophile]

They are swedish homebrewing books, written by a guy called Peter Eronsson. Anyway he recommends longer mash times for malty ales that are on the sweeter side. Although it is mostly on the higher gravity ales i can imagine it's also to ensure you really convert all the starch that can be converted.

 

[VikeMan]

A question related to this since you guys were talking about mash times and its importance. In the books i have read, they recommend mashing up to 90 minutes when making porters, scotch ales and malt heavy sweeter ales in general, is this to balance out the sweetnes from the high amounts of caramel malts and higher fermentation temps usually used in those?

Are you sure those books weren't recommending 90 minute boils, to increase the "malty" flavors from maillard reactions?