Do higher mashing temps override lower mashing temps?

[doug293cz]

I think we need to distinguish between conversion and extraction. The starch can be converted quickly, but the sugars will still be entrained in the matrix of the solids remaining. It takes time, varying with your system, to fully leach the extract out into your wort. Conversion is quick and relatively consistent from system to system. Extraction, the key factor in efficiency, is quite variable. Terminology here is variable, but I'm sure you guys get my point.

I don't think this is quite right. The rate limiting step during mashing is gelatinization (unpacking of the starch chains by surrounding them with water.) Gelatinization is the first step in the chain of reactions, since enzymes cannot act on ungelatinized starch. The enzymes are dissolved in the water/wort, and depend on the liquid for the mobility needed to come into proper contact and orientation with the starch chains, so that they can hydrolyze the alpha 1-4 bonds. As you state, the hydrolysis is fairly rapid once the starch chains are gelatinized. However, the molecules created by hydrolysis (mono and di saccharides [both fermentable], and more complex poly saccharides [non-fermentable]) are in solution when they are created. There is never any solid sugar, nor sugar trapped in a solid matrix, in the mash. There will be concentration gradients, with higher sugar concentration near the gelatinized surface layer of the grits (where the hydrolysis is taking place.) These gradients can easily by homogenized by recirculation or stirring. Homogenization will also occur by diffusion of sugars throughout the wort, but somewhat more slowly than with recirc or stirring.

You cannot get 100% conversion efficiency unless you achieve 100% gelatinization of all of the starch. 100% conversion efficiency means that everything in the malt that could possibly be dissolved in the wort has been dissolved in the wort. It does not guarantee that the wort has reached maximum fermentability, as you may still have soluble starch or large dextrins in the wort, if the enzymes haven't been given enough time to finish, or the enzymes have all been denatured before they could finish.

There is a widespread misconception that alpha amylase does not create fermentable sugars. Alpha amylase hydrolyzes (breaks) bonds at random locations along starch and polysaccharide chains, and will keep acting as long as there are alpha 1-4 bonds that the enzyme can reach (those not too close to an alpha 1-6 branching bond.) So, early in the saccharification process, alpha produces primarily long chain polysaccharides, which are unfermentable. However, as the process proceeds over time, the chains resulting from alpha amylase action keep getting shorter and shorter, until all that is left are fermentable sugars and limit dextrins (a branched polysaccaride with a few glucose units on each branch, which can no longer be acted on by alpha amylase.)

Evidence for the above is brewers adding alpha amylase to stuck fermentations in order to bring the FG lower. This works when the FG is higher than expected due to low wort fermentability. The alpha amylase acts on the unfermentable sugar to create additional fermentable sugar, which then allows the yeast to create more alcohol and lower the FG. The risk with adding alpha amylase to the fermenter, is that the amylase will not denature at fermentation temps, and the action will continue until nothing is left but alcohol and limit dextrins, leading to a lower FG than desired.


Brew on

 

[doug293cz]

Did you only do 136F + 149?

When doing these kind of mashes, for a lager, it's also typical to use a 72C step, to add some body back in form of longer chain sugars. It will sort of end up "dry but full, or "balanced". If you did only 136 + 149 then you've squeezed it pretty hard when it comes to the "thin" mouthfeel and FG, since the 57C step promotes the limit dextrinase activity. An enzyme which is often not mentioned.

If you get any longer chain sugars from adding a higher temp step, it is because your mash was incomplete due to incomplete starch gelatinization. The higher temp step then drives additional gelatinization, and since only alpha amylase is likely to remain at this point, the sugar created from the newly gelatinized starch will be mostly unfermentable, unless the step time is long enough for the alpha amylase to completely finish all of the chain chopping it is capable of.

If you have completely gelatinized all of the starch prior to the high temp step, then the high temp step will not create any additional long chain sugars. Alpha amylase can only make starch and polysaccharide chains shorter. It cannot make them longer.

Brew on

 

[doug293cz]

...
That Kai article linked above has an interesting section on Mash Out saying that a Mash Out can increase efficiency, but since at that temp range Beta Amylase is denatured it will produce mostly longer chain sugars and can lead to a higher FG (which should mean more body...if that is what you want).

If a mash out does in fact increase your efficiency, it is because you have not completely gelatinized all of the starch, and the higher temp and additional time allow for additional gelatinization and saccharification.

Brew on

 

[Smellyglove]

If you get any longer chain sugars from adding a higher temp step, it is because your mash was incomplete due to incomplete starch gelatinization. The higher temp step then drives additional gelatinization, and since only alpha amylase is likely to remain at this point, the sugar created from the newly gelatinized starch will be mostly unfermentable, unless the step time is long enough for the alpha amylase to completely finish all of the chain chopping it is capable of.

If you have completely gelatinized all of the starch prior to the high temp step, then the high temp step will not create any additional long chain sugars. Alpha amylase can only make starch and polysaccharide chains shorter. It cannot make them longer.

Brew on

That's the point of that step, I don't crush extremely fine and don't mash at lower sacharification temp "for ages"
I gain about 3 points when I start ramp from 65C until mashout for a 1.050ish beer.

There's also a % of the starch granules which doesn't gelatinize until you reach about 72C afaik.

 

[One Eye Ross]

Thanks.



I for myself cerntainly think that the Reinheitsgebot ist purely dogmatic and unnecessary, but that is for another topic....

Was? Wiederholen sie, bitte? Das ist nicht richtig!

 

[Dog House Brew]

Man what a great read, props!! I need to get my ramp speed up

 

[Bassman2003]

If a mash out does in fact increase your efficiency, it is because you have not completely gelatinized all of the starch, and the higher temp and additional time allow for additional gelatinization and saccharification.

Brew on

Doug,

Thanks for the great posts. Could you tell us what your normal mash schedule is and when/if you might alter it for certain beers or flavors?

It seems one could run the alpha rest (including mashout) pretty long but how long enough all the way to too long?

Thanks.

 

[Smellyglove]

Doug,

Thanks for the great posts. Could you tell us what your normal mash schedule is and when/if you might alter it for certain beers or flavors?

It seems one could run the alpha rest (including mashout) pretty long but how long enough all the way to too long?

Thanks.

I'm not the one you quoted, but here's my experiences. If you look above, I said that I get about 3 more SG points running from sacc to mashout for a 1.050-ish beer. When I'm at mashout I can hold it there for ages (tried it), and I gain no more points. For me it happens during the temp-raise.

 

[Bassman2003]

Interesting. So a 15 minute ramp from 160f to 172f might accomplish all that one needs? What about the head retention component of the 172f rest?

 

[Smellyglove]

Interesting. So a 15 minute ramp from 160f to 172f might accomplish all that one needs? What about the head retention component of the 172f rest?

You're omitting the temp rise from sacc to 72C (160-ish). I ramp with almost 1C/min since I do no-sparge, so slower ramps at my place. Maybe 0.75C/min

But yeah, If i go from 65 to 78, I'm done. I know I can't get any more from my grist with the crush I'm using. I use a refractometer and have been monitoring this until I realized I don't need to monitor it any more. I take a sample when I start the ramp from 65 (if that's the regime I'm deploying for that beer) and If I'm 3-4 points low at that point I know I'm good. For a lager/hefe I should be about 5 points low since the sample is taken when ramping from 63.

 

[bracconiere]

Hello HBT,

I've been wondering about this for a while.

If I mashed 60 minutes at 145f for a high fermentable wort and after 60 minutes I decide to step up the temperature to 158f because I want a bigger body and leave that for 60 minutes.

Does the higher temp cancel out the lower temp? Do they balance out?
Do I get the same wort as mashing from the start with 158f?

Cheers!

just so i'm back on topic ^^^^^....

i use gluco in all my beers so don't know, but i do a 150ish step then another step at 162f, it gets me a few extra points, could be because of more complete gel'ing of the starch...which would make a less fermentable wort...being that at that temp, alpha would be the only thing working on it

beta denatures pretty quick (as far as i know), and alpha won't rebuild starch, but if my increased effec. with the 162 step is more gel'd starch....i'd say an experiment is in order! try it...

 

[doug293cz]

Doug,

Thanks for the great posts. Could you tell us what your normal mash schedule is and when/if you might alter it for certain beers or flavors?

It seems one could run the alpha rest (including mashout) pretty long but how long enough all the way to too long?

Thanks.

I do brew in a bag with single infusion mashing. I typically have an initial mash temp of 150° - 154°F, and don't sweat a few degrees of temp loss during the mash. I depend on the recipe for determining body and flavors, not mash temp.

Alpha is active from the time the starch starts to gelatinize until such time as all of the alpha has denatured, or until there is nothing left for the alpha to work on, regardless of the temp. Alpha does work faster at higher temps, but also denatures faster. The longer the alpha works on the dissolved starches, the more fermentable the wort becomes, but since alpha cannot work on limit dextrins, there will always be some unfermentable complex sugars left (unless you add something like amyloglucosidase which will break down the dextrins.)

There are no hard and fast times that apply for all of these things to happen, because there are just too many variables that can affect how long things take (grit size, mash thickness, recirculation or agitation, type of grain, where the grain was grown, the weather during the growing season, etc.) Most of these variables primarily affect gelatinization rate, but mash thickness has a larger effect on the rate at which enzymes work and how fast they denature.)

The starch in the endosperm of the grain kernels is made up of roughly spherical granules (not the same as grits). The granules have a range of sizes, with larger granules having more amylopectin (branched starch), and smaller granules having more amylose (linear chain starch.) Amylose tends to pack tighter in the granules, which makes the granules more difficult to gelatinize. Thus small granules gelatinize more slowly than large granules. It is primarily additional gelatinization of the small granules that is going on when heating to mash out. Luckily, most of the starch in the grain is in the larger granules, that gelatinize more easily at lower temps.

Brew on

 

[doug293cz]

I'm not the one you quoted, but here's my experiences. If you look above, I said that I get about 3 more SG points running from sacc to mashout for a 1.050-ish beer. When I'm at mashout I can hold it there for ages (tried it), and I gain no more points. For me it happens during the temp-raise.

You're omitting the temp rise from sacc to 72C (160-ish). I ramp with almost 1C/min since I do no-sparge, so slower ramps at my place. Maybe 0.75C/min

But yeah, If i go from 65 to 78, I'm done. I know I can't get any more from my grist with the crush I'm using. I use a refractometer and have been monitoring this until I realized I don't need to monitor it any more. I take a sample when I start the ramp from 65 (if that's the regime I'm deploying for that beer) and If I'm 3-4 points low at that point I know I'm good. For a lager/hefe I should be about 5 points low since the sample is taken when ramping from 63.

The gravity increase occurs when the starch chains become short enough, and dissolve into the wort. Once all of the starch is dissolved in the wort, SG stops increasing. These dissolved starch chains can still be fairly long, and are not fermentable. Once the starch is dissolved, the enzymes continue to act on it, creating shorter and shorter chains, until all you have is fermentable sugars and limit dextrins (if you mash long enough, and not all enzymes are denatured.) The chopping up of the dissolved starch has very little effect on the SG of the wort, but it does increase the fermentability.

Brew on

 

[Smellyglove]

The gravity increase occurs when the starch chains become short enough, and dissolve into the wort. Once all of the starch is dissolved in the wort, SG stops increasing. These dissolved starch chains can still be fairly long, and are not fermentable. Once the starch is dissolved, the enzymes continue to act on it, creating shorter and shorter chains, until all you have is fermentable sugars and limit dextrins (if you mash long enough, and not all enzymes are denatured.) The chopping up of the dissolved starch has very little effect on the SG of the wort, but it does increase the fermentability.

Brew on

I must ask, why do you quote me and reply to this? This is all basic knowledge.

 

[doug293cz]

just so i'm back on topic ^^^^^....

i use gluco in all my beers so don't know, but i do a 150ish step then another step at 162f, it gets me a few extra points, could be because of more complete gel'ing of the starch...which would make a less fermentable wort...being that at that temp, alpha would be the only thing working on it

beta denatures pretty quick (as far as i know), and alpha won't rebuild starch, but if my increased effec. with the 162 step is more gel'd starch....i'd say an experiment is in order! try it...

The experiment I'd like to see is to do a cereal mash (boiling the grains until completely gelatinized), cooling to about 150, and then adding pure alpha amylase enzyme and mashing for at least an hour. I would expect a fairly fermentable wort out of this, but not as fermentable as if you had some limit dextrinase available (as would be the case for a low temp saccharification step.) The second experiment would be to repeat the first experiment, but at the end of the alpha only mash, add some pure beta amylase (is this even available?) and rest for another 30 min or so.

 

[doug293cz]

I must ask, why do you quote me and reply to this? This is all basic knowledge.

Just because you understand it, that doesn't mean everyone does. And, in my experience it isn't common knowledge. The fact that I am quoting you, doesn't necessarily mean that I am addressing you.

Brew on

 

[Smellyglove]

Just because you understand it, that doesn't mean everyone does. And, in my experience it isn't common knowledge. The fact that I am quoting you, doesn't necessarily mean that I am addressing you.

Brew on

Aight. I'm with you. I just felt it was targeted to "me" since you didn't say to "to whom it might concern" or such But just quoted me.

 

[bracconiere]

The experiment I'd like to see is to do a cereal mash (boiling the grains until completely gelatinized), cooling to about 150, and then adding pure alpha amylase enzyme and mashing for at least an hour. I would expect a fairly fermentable wort out of this, but not as fermentable as if you had some limit dextrinase available (as would be the case for a low temp saccharification step.) The second experiment would be to repeat the first experiment, but at the end of the alpha only mash, add some pure beta amylase (is this even available?) and rest for another 30 min or so.

from my rice beer learning curve, using just alpha will get you about a FG of ~1.035-1.040, from a OG of 1.060+...and if you drink like i do, a serious case of the squirts...i learned that before i knew i had to add gluco to the fermenter after mashing....

edit: the way i made rice beer was putting 20lb's white rice in my boil kettle, with 7-8 gals water. putting it in the oven at 212f over night, then adding alpha to it to liquefy it (after cooling of course), after much mixing...then add a bucketful of rice hulls, and sparge it, with hot tap water..

 

[Bassman2003]

I do brew in a bag with single infusion mashing. I typically have an initial mash temp of 150° - 154°F, and don't sweat a few degrees of temp loss during the mash. I depend on the recipe for determining body and flavors, not mash temp.

Alpha is active from the time the starch starts to gelatinize until such time as all of the alpha has denatured, or until there is nothing left for the alpha to work on, regardless of the temp. Alpha does work faster at higher temps, but also denatures faster. The longer the alpha works on the dissolved starches, the more fermentable the wort becomes, but since alpha cannot work on limit dextrins, there will always be some unfermentable complex sugars left (unless you add something like amyloglucosidase which will break down the dextrins.)

There are no hard and fast times that apply for all of these things to happen, because there are just too many variables that can affect how long things take (grit size, mash thickness, recirculation or agitation, type of grain, where the grain was grown, the weather during the growing season, etc.) Most of these variables primarily affect gelatinization rate, but mash thickness has a larger effect on the rate at which enzymes work and how fast they denature.)

The starch in the endosperm of the grain kernels is made up of roughly spherical granules (not the same as grits). The granules have a range of sizes, with larger granules having more amylopectin (branched starch), and smaller granules having more amylose (linear chain starch.) Amylose tends to pack tighter in the granules, which makes the granules more difficult to gelatinize. Thus small granules gelatinize more slowly than large granules. It is primarily additional gelatinization of the small granules that is going on when heating to mash out. Luckily, most of the starch in the grain is in the larger granules, that gelatinize more easily at lower temps.

Brew on

Thanks for your reply Doug. Great stuff.

 

[doug293cz]

from my rice beer learning curve, using just alpha will get you about a FG of ~1.035-1.040, from a OG of 1.060+...and if you drink like i do, a serious case of the squirts...i learned that before i knew i had to add gluco to the fermenter after mashing....

edit: the way i made rice beer was putting 20lb's white rice in my boil kettle, with 7-8 gals water. putting it in the oven at 212f over night, then adding alpha to it to liquefy it (after cooling of course), after much mixing...then add a bucketful of rice hulls, and sparge it, with hot tap water..

I don't have any experience or much knowledge of rice, and how it behaves w.r.t. enzymes. I have heard that different varieties have wide variations in the starch to protein ratio, which would have a big effect on FG, since proteins in solution add to the OG but don't ferment at all. Most brewing barley varieties are selected because they are lower protein.

Brew on

 

[Bassman2003]

I must ask, why do you quote me and reply to this? This is all basic knowledge.

I think you were quoted because your reply to me made it sound like you did not do the mashout rest because it did not increase the SG. Not that it matters if you do it or not! Doug was pointing out the other things that come along with the rest.

 

[Dustin_J]

Limit Dextrinase is another enzyme that I have seen getting more attention lately (though maybe I just heard John Palmer talking about it some). Limit Dextrinase breaks up chains at the branch points (where the other enzymes cannot) to produce more fermentable sugars. The active range in the mash appears to be below 153.5F (67.5C). I got that info from a quick look at this paper that looks interesting: http://www.********************/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Limit-Dextrinase.pdf

I think they cover similar territory, but I was reading a Bamforth paper the other day discussing starch degradation "myths"/dogma that focuses on limit dextrinase in some detail. Bamforth notes that low limit dextrinase activity isn't so much an issue of temperature-related degradation as it is an issue of "free" limit dextrinase that isn't bound up with other compounds in the malt. He suggests both hammer milling (not likely for us homebrewers) and lowering mash pH (5.0 optimum, but maybe ~5.2-5.2 range is better for balancing limit dextrinase and Beta-Amlayse activity?) as viable options for better accessing/leveraging limit dextrinase activity. He also makes some statements regarding the stability of limit dextrinase and it's influence on wort fermentability that are quite counter to conventional homebrewing wisdom:
- "...there was a much greater correlation between free limit dextrinase activity and fermentability than there was with total limit dextrinase. In turn, fermentability correlated rather less well with Beta- and Alpha-amylase" (pg. 96)
- "...if crude extracts of malt are heated so as to mimic mashing, then in fact, some 60% of the [limit dextrinase] activity is still present after an hour at conversion temperatures. In this respect, it may even be more inherently stable in mashing than is Beta-amylase" (pg. 95).

Here's the article: https://www.acervapetropolis.com.br/download/Barley_and_malt_Starch_in_brewing__a_review_0515-01.pdf

 

[bracconiere]

I don't have any experience or much knowledge of rice, and how it behaves w.r.t. enzymes. I have heard that different varieties have wide variations in the starch to protein ratio, which would have a big effect on FG, since proteins in solution add to the OG but don't ferment at all. Most brewing barley varieties are selected because they are lower protein.

Brew on

wasn't protein, gluco got me a 1.000 FG....just taught me how important beta is to the mash, or with industrial enzymes, gluco....

 

[doug293cz]

wasn't protein, gluco got me a 1.000 FG....just taught me how important beta is to the mash, or with industrial enzymes, gluco....

Gluco and beta do not do the same thing. Beta cannot convert dextrins to fermentable sugar, whereas gluco can.

Brew on

 

[Vale71]

Gluco and beta do not do the same thing. Beta cannot convert dextrins to fermentable sugar, whereas gluco can.

Brew on

I beg your pardon?? Since when are maltose and maltotriose non-fermentable?

 

[beervoid]

Happy reading through this thread with the elaborate responses. Many thanks to the contributors.

How does mash thickness fit in with all the information?
I've read thicker mashes help for more body. So does that mean that thicker mashes create less fermentable wort? If so I wonder how mash thickness ties in with alpha and beta amalyse activity.

 

[Smellyglove]

Happy reading through this thread with the elaborate responses. Many thanks to the contributors.

How does mash thickness fit in with all the information?
I've read thicker mashes help for more body. So does that mean that thicker mashes create less fermentable wort? If so I wonder how mash thickness ties in with alpha and beta amalyse activity.

I don't feel myself that mash thickness has that much to say. More in theory than in practical application. I went from 3:1 to 6:1 mash thickness and honestly I've never noticed a difference I'd pinpoint to mash thickness.

Edit: But I also went from 3V to 2V no sparge, so another factor right there..

 

[Vale71]

In properly controlled conditions, where you're really only changing one variable at a time, increased mash thickness will slow everything down. Saccharification time (as measured by the iodine test) will increase and fermentability will decrease.
It will be however very hard to clearly single out the effects of a mash thickness change when you are also consequently changing other parameters such as ramp and sparge times.

 

[beervoid]

In properly controlled conditions, where you're really only changing one variable at a time, increased mash thickness will slow everything down. Saccharification time (as measured by the iodine test) will increase and fermentability will decrease.
It will be however very hard to clearly single out the effects of a mash thickness change when you are also consequently changing other parameters such as ramp and sparge times.

Ok so in my case I brew almost exactly the same recipe everytime and the variables I changed as mentioned where grain crush and mash time.
My mash thickness is about 3kg per liter. Pretty thick.
Reading your comment makes me think that since I have a thick mash I have to stick to longer mash times.

 

[dmtaylor]

How does mash thickness fit in with all the information?

Mash thickness doesn't come into play unless you are at the extremes. Throw your grains into a vast ocean and they won't mash. Deprive the grains of moisture and they won't mash. Make a porridge of them like a normal average homebrewer and they will mash just fine.

 

[Bassman2003]

I think an over arching theme in this thread is that mash time is a huge variable and it needs to be adjusted to your system and style of beer. So often, other factors are focused on to fit within a set mash time like 60 minutes. Thanks for this perspective.

 

[Bassman2003]

Since we are picking apart mashing - how about this question:

Do mashing routines affect flavors?

I am thinking about this from a mile high perspective. Learning how to brew, I always respected German brewing which is most often associated with step mashing. So I often connected step mashing with "better". But what are really aiming for when we pick a mash profile?

If famously step mashed beers were brewed with single infusion, would their flavor be any different? I realize some fermentability might be different. Maybe some mouthfeel but in the end is mashing just to squeeze some sugar out or does it make any other contributions like flavors. (Acid rest in a hefe etc...)

At times I think I over emphasize mash profiles, step mashes and trying to engineer the beer. "Just put the grain in the hot water and make some wort"! Thoughts?

 

[brewbama]

I think an over arching theme in this thread is that mash time is a huge variable and it needs to be adjusted to your system and style of beer. So often, other factors are focused on to fit within a set mash time like 60 minutes. Thanks for this perspective.

I agree that all too often brewers read a recipe that instructs them to mash for 60 min and that’s exactly what they do. I began checking SG throughout the mash and decided to keep mashing until I no longer measured an increase. On my system, using my processes, over the last 8 (and counting) mashes, each an every time it took 90 min until I no longer measured an increase in SG. The pattern was very predictable. Had I lautered at 60 min I would not have reached the full potential of the mash.

I believe each system, the setup, processes, etc, all are individual to each brewery.

 

[Vale71]

Thicker mash will also mean lower mash PH if you don't do any acid additions, so you will also have the effects of a lower mash PH in addition to the increased thickness. In practice it's really very difficult to just change mash thickness without changing all the other mash parameters at the same time.

 

[beervoid]

I agree that all too often brewers read a recipe that instructs them to mash for 60 min and that’s exactly what they do. I began checking SG throughout the mash and decided to keep mashing until I no longer measured an increase. On my system, using my processes, over the last 8 (and counting) mashes, each an every time it took 90 min until I no longer measured an increase in SG. The pattern was very predictable. Had I lautered at 60 min I would not have reached the full potential of the mash.

I believe each system, the setup, processes, etc, all are individual to each brewery.

I have to conclude the same for my system. 90mins is preferable.
What is your avarage mash thickness?

 

[beervoid]

Thicker mash will also mean lower mash PH if you don't do any acid additions, so you will also have the effects of a lower mash PH in addition to the increased thickness. In practice it's really very difficult to just change mash thickness without changing all the other mash parameters at the same time.

I make quiet an effort to control ph. I have a proper ph meter and meassure at multiple points.
The mash ph in this particular case was the same as my previous brews. In the 5.2 - 5.4 range.
As long as one is in the right range I wouldnt expect huge efficiency differences, like the 10 points I experienced.

 

[brewbama]

I have to conclude the same for my system. 90mins is preferable.
What is your avarage mash thickness?

1.75 qts/lb

 

[doug293cz]

Gluco and beta do not do the same thing. Beta cannot convert dextrins to fermentable sugar, whereas gluco can.

Brew on

I beg your pardon?? Since when are maltose and maltotriose non-fermentable?

OK, I should have said beta cannot convert limit dextrins to fermentable sugar, whereas gluco can. In the context of the post to which I was replying (a mash with only alpha) the alpha can eventually reduce the starch to fermentable sugars and limit dextrins. Adding beta to the mash won't provide any increase in fermentability, whereas adding either amyloglucosidase or limit dextrinase will hydrolyze the α(1-6) bonds, allowing conversion of limit dextrins into fermentable sugars, thus increasing fermentability.

Also, in the absence of other enzymes, beta cannot convert anything past an α(1-6) branch bond when biting off the ends of chains. Since even amylose has a few branches, beta will be stopped when it gets to the first branch.

Brew on

 

[Miraculix]

OK, I should have said beta cannot convert limit dextrins to fermentable sugar, whereas gluco can. In the context of the post to which I was replying (a mash with only alpha) the alpha can eventually reduce the starch to fermentable sugars and limit dextrins. Adding beta to the mash won't provide any increase in fermentability, whereas adding either amyloglucosidase or limit dextrinase will hydrolyze the α(1-6) bonds, allowing conversion of limit dextrins into fermentable sugars, thus increasing fermentability.

Also, in the absence of other enzymes, beta cannot convert anything past an α(1-6) branch bond when biting off the ends of chains. Since even amylose has a few branches, beta will be stopped when it gets to the first branch.

Brew on

That thing with the beta was new to me! I thought it would just continue munching threough the starch till only glucose is left. Thanks for the knowledge!

 

[CodeSection]

Great information. Thank you. I have been reading on this thread and at https://byo.com/article/the-science-of-step-mashing/. I will be brewing an IPA soon (was supposed be tonight but that won't happen) and I thought I would try a step temp process rather than a single infusion.

I combined others processes with the BYO article information. What are your thoughts with: 135F 20 minutes; 145F 25 minutes; 154F 25 minutes; and 168F 5 minutes?