Do higher mashing temps override lower mashing temps?

[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?

 

[Erik the Anglophile]

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

No, it's the mash he recommends to do a bit longer

 

[VikeMan]

No, it's the mash he recommends to do a bit longer

Well, a longer mash results in a drier beer, but why would you want to dry out a beer style that's not supposed to be dry? Does he give specific recipes? Perhaps he's using base malts with fairly low diastatic power (which also has to be stretched across specialty malts). Or maybe he's packing ungodly amounts of crystal malts into the recipes for caramel/toffee/raisin-like flavors and wants to try to keep them from being cloying. But as a general rule, "mash long for sweet/malty styles" doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Erik the Anglophile]

Well, a longer mash results in a drier beer, but why would you want to dry out a beer style that's not supposed to be dry? Does he give specific recipes? Perhaps he's using base malts with fairly low diastatic power (which also has to be stretched across specialty malts). Or maybe he's packing ungodly amounts of crystal malts into the recipes for caramel/toffee/raisin-like flavors and wants to try to keep them from being cloying. But as a general rule, "mash long for sweet/malty styles" doesn't make sense to me.

Ok, then i will probably just do 60 minute mashes for most ales and keep the 90 min mashes for imperial stouts and recipes like strong ale/scotch ale with a lot of caramel malts.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

They are swedish homebrewing books, written by a guy called Peter Eronsson

When were the books written? What about the types/brands/quality of the malt that he was brewing with?

 

[Erik the Anglophile]

When were the books written? What about the types/brands/quality of the malt that he was brewing with?

Max a decade ago, he mostly brews with weyermann and crisp malts i think and is fond of using caramel malts over sugars and extracts for flavoring.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

... and is fond of using caramel malts over sugars and extracts for flavoring.

Personally, I'd give his approach a try and see how the beer tastes.

Pay close attention to the specific brands of caramel malts that are in his recipes - with crystal/caramel malts of roughly the same Lovibond, the results can vary a lot between maltsters.

 

[Andre3000]

This is a great thread so I'm resurrecting it. Thanks to everyone who has contributed. I've been really focusing on pilsners lately and I'm pretty convinced these beers are make or break in the mash.

I think the simplest way to ask it is:

Given equal attenuation, is there a difference in wort quality and ultimately beer taste between a mash that really focuses on maximum beta amylase activity for a shorter amount of time, say 145 for 45 minutes, vs a multistep mash focusing on fermentability that takes 90 minutes to complete? You could ask the same question of worts relating to Kai's temp vs time vs fermentability chart that another user posted a few pages back.

In my head the 45 minute mash would have thinner body and less malt character, but is that functionally true?

 

[3 Dawg Night]

This is a great thread so I'm resurrecting it. Thanks to everyone who has contributed. I've been really focusing on pilsners lately and I'm pretty convinced these beers are make or break in the mash.

I think the simplest way to ask it is:

Given equal attenuation, is there a difference in wort quality and ultimately beer taste between a mash that really focuses on maximum beta amylase activity for a shorter amount of time, say 145 for 45 minutes, vs a multistep mash focusing on fermentability that takes 90 minutes to complete? You could ask the same question of worts relating to Kai's temp vs time vs fermentability chart that another user posted a few pages back.

In my head the 45 minute mash would have thinner body and less malt character, but is that functionally true?

Sounds like a good experiment for you to run and report back to us.

 

[cmac62]

say 145 for 45 minutes, vs a multistep mash focusing on fermentability that takes 90 minutes to complete?

In my head the 45 minute mash would have thinner body and less malt character, but is that functionally true?

At 153 for 60 both Beta and Alpha enzymes are working, not at their optimum, but both are chewing through the higher carbs and making fermentable sugar. I'm not sure how much mouth feel (ie thinner) and body character you would notice between the two mashes. Brulosophy (I know this word alone can cause significant debate) has several exbeeriments that test this and it appears most are not statistically significantly, but some were able to tell the different beers apart and some weren't. At 153 the Beta is denaturing faster than at 145, but as I understand it it is also working faster, so if you leave it at 153 for 60 how many of the Betas are still alive and kicking those longer sugars into something the Alphas can work on? To answer your last question, I know my pallet well enough to say I would not likely notice a difference between a 45 min mash at 145* or a 60 min mash at 153*. Prost

Edit: Just reread your questions above and realized my response does not relate to a stepped mash. I'm still not convinced a step mash makes any difference with the highly modified malt most of us are currently using. I've also heard most of the conversion is complete within the first 20-30 minutes, so who knows.