Mash schedule from historical recipe

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

csantoni

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 11, 2021
Messages
265
Reaction score
522
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
I've been tinkering with this historical recipe I found (PETER WALKER & SONS : 7 d BITTER 1926). I love english bitters and it sounded like fun to use a historical recipe as my starting point. My first couple tries were an extract and a partial mash and I thought they were tasty. My next version will be all-grain and I'm curious about the time & temperature of the mash steps:

66C (150.8F) for 120 min with 11.760 L
69C (156.2F) for 60 min with 2.365 L
70C (158.0F) for 35 min with 15.035 L

Is it worthwhile to replicate these times & temps or is this a holdover from when the malts weren't able to convert as well as they can today? If I can cut a couple hours off my brew day here with little or no effect on the end product then I might as well (thinking I'd just do a standard 60 min infusion at around 154F and fly sparge). I might try anyway because it sounds like fun but I curious if there's really any reason to do it.
 
OP
csantoni

csantoni

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 11, 2021
Messages
265
Reaction score
522
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
I've been doing 105 min boils on this since that's what the recipe called for. I have no idea what exact impact that's having but it's been making good beer!
 

BigEd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2004
Messages
2,944
Reaction score
461
I've been doing 105 min boils on this since that's what the recipe called for. I have no idea what exact impact that's having but it's been making good beer!

Sounds good. That boil time of an hour and a half or so seems to be the traditional method for the style. I love bitters too and for years was never fully pleased with the results brewing them even though all the ingredients were as authentic as I could find. After reading about it somewhere and extending my boil time to 90 minutes it all fell into place, it was the missing piece of the puzzle. I don't quite know why but it just works better.
 
OP
csantoni

csantoni

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 11, 2021
Messages
265
Reaction score
522
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
Sounds good. That boil time of an hour and a half or so seems to be the traditional method for the style. I love bitters too and for years was never fully pleased with the results brewing them even though all the ingredients were as authentic as I could find. After reading about it somewhere and extending my boil time to 90 minutes it all fell into place, it was the missing piece of the puzzle. I don't quite know why but it just works better.
Any other tips? I've only made a few of these and I think I basically like anything with lots of Marris Otter. Do you have a favorite grain or yeast that you think works well?
 

BigEd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2004
Messages
2,944
Reaction score
461
Any other tips? I've only made a few of these and I think I basically like anything with lots of Marris Otter. Do you have a favorite grain or yeast that you think works well?

Use a simple hop schedule. These are not complicated beers. Two additions, one for full boil and one with about 20 minutes left is my standard. This is again based on what I've seen in a lot of traditional recipes and it works for me. A ratio of 3:4 for IBUs:OG is a good yardstick. So for a 1.040 OG shoot for 30 IBUs. This is not set in stone but is a good place to start.

Maris-Otter gets a lot of attraction but is not the only choice. Maris-Otter is simply the name of an artisanal variety of barley. There are a number of companies that make malt with M-O. My favorites are Baird and Crisp. Golden Promise is another old time barley that you might come across too. However, any UK pale malt is going to make decent beer. Don't cheap out on malt it's a huge part of these beers.

There are many really good yeasts and everybody has their favorites. I'd stick with whatever you liked before for this brew so there will be continuity with your partial mash beers. After that try a few others. My standby is a standard London Ale, Wyeast 1028 and White Labs 013. They are not quite the same strain but both have a nice balance of malt, hop, mineral, and ester. Generally I don't want the yeast to get in the way of the base ingredients.
 
OP
csantoni

csantoni

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 11, 2021
Messages
265
Reaction score
522
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
I used Nottingham the first time. It was OK. I had to wait what seemed like forever for the diacetyl to go away, at least an extra week. The second time I mistakenly grabbed a pack of Verdant IPA and I am really enjoying it (drinking one now). I will probably do another Verdant for my next batch. I read that it's essentially a London III so it seems appropriate.

I would think a little hoppy for a bitter, especially the packing hops.
I have omitted the packaging hops and I think it could use a bit more somewhere. I might add something at whirlpool in the next batch.
 

DuncB

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2019
Messages
1,628
Reaction score
809
Location
Paremata New Zealand
I used Nottingham the first time. It was OK. I had to wait what seemed like forever for the diacetyl to go away, at least an extra week. The second time I mistakenly grabbed a pack of Verdant IPA and I am really enjoying it (drinking one now). I will probably do another Verdant for my next batch. I read that it's essentially a London III so it seems appropriate.



I have omitted the packaging hops and I think it could use a bit more somewhere. I might add something at whirlpool in the next batch.
They might have used a hop back I'm not sure when they were invented and came into use.
 

schmurf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
400
Reaction score
208
I've been tinkering with this historical recipe I found (PETER WALKER & SONS : 7 d BITTER 1926). I love english bitters and it sounded like fun to use a historical recipe as my starting point. My first couple tries were an extract and a partial mash and I thought they were tasty. My next version will be all-grain and I'm curious about the time & temperature of the mash steps:

66C (150.8F) for 120 min with 11.760 L
69C (156.2F) for 60 min with 2.365 L
70C (158.0F) for 35 min with 15.035 L

Is it worthwhile to replicate these times & temps or is this a holdover from when the malts weren't able to convert as well as they can today? If I can cut a couple hours off my brew day here with little or no effect on the end product then I might as well (thinking I'd just do a standard 60 min infusion at around 154F and fly sparge). I might try anyway because it sounds like fun but I curious if there's really any reason to do it.
I think I've seen the author of that blog here on HBT sometimes... can't remember his nickname though. I'm sure he could give you some more hints about the recipe.
 

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,760
Reaction score
3,101
Location
Two Rivers, WI
I would suggest just a single infusion at 154 F, but then hold it overnight. Get it started before you go to bed at night, then get up in the morning and brew. Or start it before work, then finish when you get home from work. Whichever. I find that the total mash TIME is far more critical than the actual temperature, as long as you're in that range of the 150s anyway. The enzymes will continue to work slowly for several hours, but eventually hit some limit to where if you hold the mash temperature for more than 3 or 4 hours or whatever, it doesn't hurt anything and you can just forget about it for a while then come back and finish it later, or the next day. The key with this recipe is apparently to achieve maximum efficiency AND attenuation (i.e., very fermentable and high ABV)... which will happen whether you mash for 2 hours or 10 hours or anything in between because the enzymes work so slowly after a while.
 

jerrylotto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
353
Reaction score
241
Location
North Chelmsford
In 1926 they didn't exercise the control and optimization (modification) of malts that is done today. Enzyme concentration and accessibility were lower and more time was needed for them to do their work. I'm surprised that there wasn't a lower temp acid rest (~105F) or a protein rest (~125F) up front but phytase, beta-glucanase, and peptidase all do their things below 140F. Phytase is the most sensitive to heat and is less important (if you properly acidify and buffer) than beta-glucanase which is what breaks down the grain gum and makes your amylases accessible. With today's highly modified malts you can go right to saccharification (starch conversion).
 

Beermeister32

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2013
Messages
793
Reaction score
1,130
Location
Southern California
Mash time does seem a bit long for today’s standards.... however... you are doing a “historical” batch.

So, if you just want the modern equivalent beer, you could probably do an hour at 150F and be done with it.

If you are doing a historic re-creation, then do it the way it was done originally, match up the times, the boil time exactly.

Tell us how it turns out!
 

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,760
Reaction score
3,101
Location
Two Rivers, WI
Shoot... I forgot to consider YEAST in detail...

I'm skeptical that the malt was so undermodified in the 1920s that they would NEED to mash for 8.5 hours to get good beer out. Maltsters and brewers weren't THAT much more primitive than in 2021. They were masters of their craft. Something else was probably going on here... Yeast???

Recipe says the final gravity was 1.007, which would put the apparent attenuation at 83%, which really kind of makes sense for a beer mashed for 8.5 hours.... but is probably not possible for a beer mashed for just 1-2 hours like we do today, even with a highly attenuative yeast.

I have to wonder whether the yeast that they actually used (maybe not WLP023) had a lower ability to ferment complex sugars such as maltotriose. Low attenuation is typical of a lot of English yeasts. In which case, they would NEED to mash for a very long time to maximize attenuation. So now I'm thinking....

You might want to decide whether to either: mash for a much shorter time but then use a highly attenuative yeast such as Notty or S-04, which would get you into the ballpark but not exactly historically accurate,

OR

keep playing with the super long mash time BUT THEN ALSO select a suitable yeast that typically has very poor attenuation, like S-33, or Lallemand London or Windsor, and see if you can still hit the FG mark at 1.007 even with one of those yeasts based on the really long mash time, after which some of those complex sugars have been broken down even further and thus can be fermented by the yeast that normally has low attenuation.

Make sense?!
 

Beermeister32

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2013
Messages
793
Reaction score
1,130
Location
Southern California
On one recent thread, somebody mentioned that Windsor, Nottingham and two other strains were all isolated from the same yeast sample from a British brewery.

Maybe you could research that and do a 4-yeast mix. Early brewers likely had mixed yeast pitches. This for a historic batch!
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
11
Reaction score
3
Shoot... I forgot to consider YEAST in detail...

I'm skeptical that the malt was so undermodified in the 1920s that they would NEED to mash for 8.5 hours to get good beer out. Maltsters and brewers weren't THAT much more primitive than in 2021. They were masters of their craft. Something else was probably going on here... Yeast???

Recipe says the final gravity was 1.007, which would put the apparent attenuation at 83%, which really kind of makes sense for a beer mashed for 8.5 hours.... but is probably not possible for a beer mashed for just 1-2 hours like we do today, even with a highly attenuative yeast.

I have to wonder whether the yeast that they actually used (maybe not WLP023) had a lower ability to ferment complex sugars such as maltotriose. Low attenuation is typical of a lot of English yeasts. In which case, they would NEED to mash for a very long time to maximize attenuation. So now I'm thinking....

You might want to decide whether to either: mash for a much shorter time but then use a highly attenuative yeast such as Notty or S-04, which would get you into the ballpark but not exactly historically accurate,

OR

keep playing with the super long mash time BUT THEN ALSO select a suitable yeast that typically has very poor attenuation, like S-33, or Lallemand London or Windsor, and see if you can still hit the FG mark at 1.007 even with one of those yeasts based on the really long mash time, after which some of those complex sugars have been broken down even further and thus can be fermented by the yeast that normally has low attenuation.

Make sense?!
Hi ,
I`m a bit mystified as to the 8 Hour Mash ; That`s simply NOT TRUE , the recipe calls for a 3 Hour rest ON GOODS / or MASH ; Then a Clearing of the worts before casting to the Copper ,Then the sparge ratio AFTER clear wort is cast to the Copper and then COLLECTION and LIQUOR BACK PORTION to the required volume & gravity after CONDENSING to the 1 St Gravity .
Best Regards
Edd
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
11
Reaction score
3
In 1926 they didn't exercise the control and optimization (modification) of malts that is done today. Enzyme concentration and accessibility were lower and more time was needed for them to do their work. I'm surprised that there wasn't a lower temp acid rest (~105F) or a protein rest (~125F) up front but phytase, beta-glucanase, and peptidase all do their things below 140F. Phytase is the most sensitive to heat and is less important (if you properly acidify and buffer) than beta-glucanase which is what breaks down the grain gum and makes your amylases accessible. With today's highly modified malts you can go right to saccharification (starch conversion).
Jerrylotto ,
This recipe is from a UK Ale brewer ; Peter Walker & Sons of Warrington ; Their Lager plant was at a group brewery in Burton on Trent , that of Sir A B Walker & Sons on Shobnall Rd ( Installed Ca 1905 or so ) , so the temperatures you expected to see wouldn`t occur in a Mash at the Dallam Lane brewery ( Warrington ) .
FYI : The Dallam Lane brewery were obtaining an average of 91.5 - 92.3 Lbs per Quarter in the early 1890`s .
Best Regards
Edd
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
11
Reaction score
3
I've been tinkering with this historical recipe I found (PETER WALKER & SONS : 7 d BITTER 1926). I love english bitters and it sounded like fun to use a historical recipe as my starting point. My first couple tries were an extract and a partial mash and I thought they were tasty. My next version will be all-grain and I'm curious about the time & temperature of the mash steps:

66C (150.8F) for 120 min with 11.760 L
69C (156.2F) for 60 min with 2.365 L
70C (158.0F) for 35 min with 15.035 L

Is it worthwhile to replicate these times & temps or is this a holdover from when the malts weren't able to convert as well as they can today? If I can cut a couple hours off my brew day here with little or no effect on the end product then I might as well (thinking I'd just do a standard 60 min infusion at around 154F and fly sparge). I might try anyway because it sounds like fun but I curious if there's really any reason to do it.
Hi csantoni ,
I`d be happy to help out if you`re stuck ,
Cheers
Edd
( The recipe author )
 
OP
csantoni

csantoni

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 11, 2021
Messages
265
Reaction score
522
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
Thanks for all the feedback everyone! This is still in the planning stage so I have a few weeks before I’m actually going to brew. I’m definitely not trying to be absolutely accurate, I used this recipe as a sort of jumping off point for my own creation, and I doubt I. have the skills to be super accurate anyway.

Right now I’m leaning toward following the mash schedule as written, mostly to see how it compares to the extract and PM versions I already did. I used Notty and Verdant in previous batches so I’m inclined to stick with those because I liked the end product. I’ll be sure to report back when I brew this.

Cheers!
 

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,760
Reaction score
3,101
Location
Two Rivers, WI
Hi ,
I`m a bit mystified as to the 8 Hour Mash ; That`s simply NOT TRUE , the recipe calls for a 3 Hour rest ON GOODS / or MASH ; Then a Clearing of the worts before casting to the Copper ,Then the sparge ratio AFTER clear wort is cast to the Copper and then COLLECTION and LIQUOR BACK PORTION to the required volume & gravity after CONDENSING to the 1 St Gravity .
Sorry, I misinterpreted the recipe. You are correct.

But it's still a long mash, by modern standards, such that the remainder of my discussion is fully applicable (at least in my own mind!).

Cheers.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
11
Reaction score
3
Sorry, I misinterpreted the recipe. You are correct.

But it's still a long mash, by modern standards, such that the remainder of my discussion is fully applicable (at least in my own mind!).

Cheers.
Hi Dave ,
Indeed that`s a long mash , probably the longest time in a post 1900 UK Mashing Programme I`ve seen in historic brewing records .

Cheers
Edd
 

jerrylotto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
353
Reaction score
241
Location
North Chelmsford
Jerrylotto ,
This recipe is from a UK Ale brewer ; Peter Walker & Sons of Warrington ; Their Lager plant was at a group brewery in Burton on Trent , that of Sir A B Walker & Sons on Shobnall Rd ( Installed Ca 1905 or so ) , so the temperatures you expected to see wouldn`t occur in a Mash at the Dallam Lane brewery ( Warrington ) .
FYI : The Dallam Lane brewery were obtaining an average of 91.5 - 92.3 Lbs per Quarter in the early 1890`s .
Best Regards
Edd
Lovely, but my point was that the biochemistry hasn't changed even if the processing has.
 

kevin58

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
664
Edd, I wish you would write the recipes so that they make sense to modern homebrewers. I was very excited to find your site several years ago but I unsubscribed because the recipes are so damned tedious. I guess you are trying to show how it was done originally but can't that be accomplished in the write up and then offer a modern interpretation recipe for today's audience?
 

cire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
393
Reaction score
210
Location
UK
A quote from the link....

Malt has been made forever, by hand, on floors, a perfectly natural, albeit labour intensive method. But by the mid 20th century, advanced technology brought about the industrialisation of both malting as well as brewing.

But in 1971, with the advent of CAMRA, then, in 2002, with the introduction of Progressive Beer Duty, the market opened up to small independent brewers. The ensuing demand for ‘Real Ale’ has brought about a renaissance in brewing. With this, understandably, a demand for ‘Real Malt’(traditional malt) has followed.


There is the world of difference too between brews of the same ingredients from a mash and boil each of 60 minute and whirlpool all in the same vessel and another with a two hour mash and underlet followed by fly sparging for the same time of more, fed by taps into an underback before being boiled at above atmospheric pressure for 90 minutes, then into a hop back before chilling.

Many brewers of 100 years ago were masters of their craft, using the best materials they could afford, not necessarily the most modified malt done in the least time and in accordance with their chosen software.
 

Hopalong

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
79
Reaction score
21
I've been tinkering with this historical recipe I found (PETER WALKER & SONS : 7 d BITTER 1926). I love english bitters and it sounded like fun to use a historical recipe as my starting point. My first couple tries were an extract and a partial mash and I thought they were tasty. My next version will be all-grain and I'm curious about the time & temperature of the mash steps:

66C (150.8F) for 120 min with 11.760 L
69C (156.2F) for 60 min with 2.365 L
70C (158.0F) for 35 min with 15.035 L

Is it worthwhile to replicate these times & temps or is this a holdover from when the malts weren't able to convert as well as they can today? If I can cut a couple hours off my brew day here with little or no effect on the end product then I might as well (thinking I'd just do a standard 60 min infusion at around 154F and fly sparge). I might try anyway because it sounds like fun but I curious if there's really any reason to do it.
What is the era/time frame when malts weren't able to convert as they do today? The story about modern, high modified, malt being much higher in quality is only a story, brewmasters use the finest malt. Homebrew malt is usually, high modified, to over modified, high protein, malt. In brewing ale and lager, under modified, low protein, malt is used because the malt is richer in enzyme content, and contains more sugar than high modified, high protein, malt. To take advantage of the more expensive, rich, malt, the triple decoction and the Hochkurz brewing methods are used, which produces authentic, ale and lager.
To determine when malt is under modified, or high modified, a malt spec sheet comes with every bag of malt, which can be found online from every malthouse. Modification, and protein content are listed on a malt spec sheet, at least they're supposed to be listed, if they aren't, chances are the malt is distillers malt. A malt spec sheet is used in brewing to determine the quality of malt, before a brewer buys malt, it provides E Caveat Emptor. Basically, a brewer uses the chemical acronyms, and numbers listed on a malt spec sheet to determine if the malt is better for making whiskey, or more suitable for producing ale and lager because the higher the modification, and protein content, the less suitable the malt is for producing ale and lager. Learning about the info on a malt spec sheet is part of ground zero training, when learning how to make ale and lager. A malt spec sheet is more valuable than a recipe, besides, recipes are a "given." When the malthouse that produced the base malt isn't listed on a recipe, the recipe is inaccurate.
Step mashing produces pseudo, ale and lager, but not at the temperatures recommended in the recipe. After 120 minutes, Alpha, is long gone, so nothing more will occur at the higher temperatures. A rest temperature at 65, 66C is used in grain distillation because at the temperature, Alpha, releases the highest amount of glucose, as possible, within one hour. The more glucose, the more alcohol. Liquefaction occurs, conversion doesn't take place.
At 66C, Beta, the enzyme responsible for conversion, rapidly denatures. During conversion, which occurs at 60 to 63C, Beta, turns simple sugar, glucose, released by Alpha, into fermentable, complex types of sugar, maltose and maltotriose. Maltose and maltotriose are the types of sugar that produces ale and lager. Glucose is responsible for primary fermentation, and ABV. When conversion occurs, secondary fermentation takes place, and beer naturally carbonates during conditioning. Priming sugar and CO2 injection aren't needed for carbonatation.
Using under modified, low protein, malt, step mash at 60C for 40 minutes, conversion occurs. The next higher temperatures, and rest period, can vary according to your taste buds. The higher the temperature, sweeter tasting, and lower ABV is produced. The higher the temperature, the quicker, Alpha denatures.
In the infusion method, heat resistant, complex starch called amylopectin, is thrown away with the spent mash because the temperatures aren't high enough to burst the heat resistant, starch, where it enters into the mash liquid, before Alpha denatures. Amylopectin makes up the tips of malt, and it is the richest starch in malt. Contained in amylopectin are A and B limit dextrin, which are tasteless, nonfermenting types of sugar, and pectin. Limit dextrin, and pectin provides body and mouthfeel in beer. When the starch is thrown away, beer, overly dries, and thins during fermentation, and conditioning. The only time dextrinization occurs in the infusion method happens when simple starch, amylose contains a 1-6 link in the starch chain, which is extremely, rare, otherwise, a grain distiller would go insane. Mash is boiled to take advantage of amylopectin. When Alpha liquefies amylopectin, dextrinization, and gelatinization occur.
 

Hopalong

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
79
Reaction score
21
A quote from the link....

Malt has been made forever, by hand, on floors, a perfectly natural, albeit labour intensive method. But by the mid 20th century, advanced technology brought about the industrialisation of both malting as well as brewing.
But in 1971, with the advent of CAMRA, then, in 2002, with the introduction of Progressive Beer Duty, the market opened up to small independent brewers. The ensuing demand for ‘Real Ale’ has brought about a renaissance in brewing. With this, understandably, a demand for ‘Real Malt’(traditional malt) has followed.


There is the world of difference too between brews of the same ingredients from a mash and boil each of 60 minute and whirlpool all in the same vessel and another with a two hour mash and underlet followed by fly sparging for the same time of more, fed by taps into an underback before being boiled at above atmospheric pressure for 90 minutes, then into a hop back before chilling.

Many brewers of 100 years ago were masters of their craft, using the best materials they could afford, not necessarily the most modified malt done in the least time and in accordance with their chosen software.
A hundred years ago breweries were shut down in America, with the exception of the breweries moonshiners owned, and in grain distillation, especially in moonshining, the method that produces the most glucose, the quickest, is used.
To increase profit margin, in 1960, the Hochkurz brewing method replaced the triple decoction method in breweries producing ale and lager. In homebrewing, Dr. George Fix invented step mashing, which is based on the three temperatures malt is tested at. Single temperature infusion, and high modified, malt, are used in grain distillation, chemically and enzymatically, the brewing method cannot produce ale and lager.
Marketers invented CAMRA to increase profit margin for Dave Line. CAMRA, renamed low quality, distillers beer, and Prohibition beer, Real Ale, wrote stories, and came up with recipes, medals, and ribbons, and it worked.
 

cire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
393
Reaction score
210
Location
UK
Dave Line was a home brewer in Britain, who wrote articles and a couple of books that got home brewers out of the grips of wine makers who thought they knew how to brew. His recipes and methods taught us how to brew beer vastly better than the winemaker's methods. Dave died only 37 years of age leaving a widow and young son.

CAMRA was started by people like me, who couldn't drink the gassed-up alcoholic flavored beverages that the major brewing companies produced.and called beer.

Why is most British beer history American invention?

...But not all.
 
Last edited:
OP
csantoni

csantoni

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 11, 2021
Messages
265
Reaction score
522
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
What is the era/time frame when malts weren't able to convert as they do today? The story about modern, high modified, malt being much higher in quality is only a story, brewmasters use the finest malt. Homebrew malt is usually, high modified, to over modified, high protein, malt. In brewing ale and lager, under modified, low protein, malt is used because the malt is richer in enzyme content, and contains more sugar than high modified, high protein, malt. To take advantage of the more expensive, rich, malt, the triple decoction and the Hochkurz brewing methods are used, which produces authentic, ale and lager.
To determine when malt is under modified, or high modified, a malt spec sheet comes with every bag of malt, which can be found online from every malthouse. Modification, and protein content are listed on a malt spec sheet, at least they're supposed to be listed, if they aren't, chances are the malt is distillers malt. A malt spec sheet is used in brewing to determine the quality of malt, before a brewer buys malt, it provides E Caveat Emptor. Basically, a brewer uses the chemical acronyms, and numbers listed on a malt spec sheet to determine if the malt is better for making whiskey, or more suitable for producing ale and lager because the higher the modification, and protein content, the less suitable the malt is for producing ale and lager. Learning about the info on a malt spec sheet is part of ground zero training, when learning how to make ale and lager. A malt spec sheet is more valuable than a recipe, besides, recipes are a "given." When the malthouse that produced the base malt isn't listed on a recipe, the recipe is inaccurate.
Step mashing produces pseudo, ale and lager, but not at the temperatures recommended in the recipe. After 120 minutes, Alpha, is long gone, so nothing more will occur at the higher temperatures. A rest temperature at 65, 66C is used in grain distillation because at the temperature, Alpha, releases the highest amount of glucose, as possible, within one hour. The more glucose, the more alcohol. Liquefaction occurs, conversion doesn't take place.
At 66C, Beta, the enzyme responsible for conversion, rapidly denatures. During conversion, which occurs at 60 to 63C, Beta, turns simple sugar, glucose, released by Alpha, into fermentable, complex types of sugar, maltose and maltotriose. Maltose and maltotriose are the types of sugar that produces ale and lager. Glucose is responsible for primary fermentation, and ABV. When conversion occurs, secondary fermentation takes place, and beer naturally carbonates during conditioning. Priming sugar and CO2 injection aren't needed for carbonatation.
Using under modified, low protein, malt, step mash at 60C for 40 minutes, conversion occurs. The next higher temperatures, and rest period, can vary according to your taste buds. The higher the temperature, sweeter tasting, and lower ABV is produced. The higher the temperature, the quicker, Alpha denatures.
In the infusion method, heat resistant, complex starch called amylopectin, is thrown away with the spent mash because the temperatures aren't high enough to burst the heat resistant, starch, where it enters into the mash liquid, before Alpha denatures. Amylopectin makes up the tips of malt, and it is the richest starch in malt. Contained in amylopectin are A and B limit dextrin, which are tasteless, nonfermenting types of sugar, and pectin. Limit dextrin, and pectin provides body and mouthfeel in beer. When the starch is thrown away, beer, overly dries, and thins during fermentation, and conditioning. The only time dextrinization occurs in the infusion method happens when simple starch, amylose contains a 1-6 link in the starch chain, which is extremely, rare, otherwise, a grain distiller would go insane. Mash is boiled to take advantage of amylopectin. When Alpha liquefies amylopectin, dextrinization, and gelatinization occur.
A hundred years ago breweries were shut down in America, with the exception of the breweries moonshiners owned, and in grain distillation, especially in moonshining, the method that produces the most glucose, the quickest, is used.
To increase profit margin, in 1960, the Hochkurz brewing method replaced the triple decoction method in breweries producing ale and lager. In homebrewing, Dr. George Fix invented step mashing, which is based on the three temperatures malt is tested at. Single temperature infusion, and high modified, malt, are used in grain distillation, chemically and enzymatically, the brewing method cannot produce ale and lager.
Marketers invented CAMRA to increase profit margin for Dave Line. CAMRA, renamed low quality, distillers beer, and Prohibition beer, Real Ale, wrote stories, and came up with recipes, medals, and ribbons, and it worked.
If either of your posts are supposed to be answer to my original question, I'm afraid you've lost me. I do understand the basic chemical reactions that occur during mashing and I don't believe I ever claimed that today's malts are higher quality than what was used in the past. Other than that I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
 

Hopalong

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
79
Reaction score
21
Use a simple hop schedule. These are not complicated beers. Two additions, one for full boil and one with about 20 minutes left is my standard. This is again based on what I've seen in a lot of traditional recipes and it works for me. A ratio of 3:4 for IBUs:OG is a good yardstick. So for a 1.040 OG shoot for 30 IBUs. This is not set in stone but is a good place to start.

Maris-Otter gets a lot of attraction but is not the only choice. Maris-Otter is simply the name of an artisanal variety of barley. There are a number of companies that make malt with M-O. My favorites are Baird and Crisp. Golden Promise is another old time barley that you might come across too. However, any UK pale malt is going to make decent beer. Don't cheap out on malt it's a huge part of these beers.

There are many really good yeasts and everybody has their favorites. I'd stick with whatever you liked before for this brew so there will be continuity with your partial mash beers. After that try a few others. My standby is a standard London Ale, Wyeast 1028 and White Labs 013. They are not quite the same strain but both have a nice balance of malt, hop, mineral, and ester. Generally I don't want the yeast to get in the way of the base ingredients.
Marris Otter is high modified, to over modified, distillers malt, same with Halcyon, and Golden Promise. However, there is a malthouse producing Marris malt with less than 10 percent protein, which is the malt to use for producing single temperature, home made style,
Hi ,
I`m a bit mystified as to the 8 Hour Mash ; That`s simply NOT TRUE , the recipe calls for a 3 Hour rest ON GOODS / or MASH ; Then a Clearing of the worts before casting to the Copper ,Then the sparge ratio AFTER clear wort is cast to the Copper and then COLLECTION and LIQUOR BACK PORTION to the required volume & gravity after CONDENSING to the 1 St Gravity .
Best Regards
Edd

In 1926 they didn't exercise the control and optimization (modification) of malts that is done today. Enzyme concentration and accessibility were lower and more time was needed for them to do their work. I'm surprised that there wasn't a lower temp acid rest (~105F) or a protein rest (~125F) up front but phytase, beta-glucanase, and peptidase all do their things below 140F. Phytase is the most sensitive to heat and is less important (if you properly acidify and buffer) than beta-glucanase which is what breaks down the grain gum and makes your amylases accessible. With today's highly modified malts you can go right to saccharification (starch conversion).

Brewing authentic, ale and lager takes eight hours, and longer, because the triple decoction, and Hochkurz brewing methods are used. Step mashing produces pseudo, ale and lager. Single temperature infusion produces distillers beer, and nothing can be done with the beer to turn it into ale because the brewing method skips three steps that are needed for producing the beers. Only, in homebrewing does high modified, high protein, malt, soaked at a single, high temperature produce ale and lager. The high temperatures denature low temperature activated enzymes that produce ale, Beta in particular. It is chemically and enzymatically impossible to produce ale with single temperature infusion, which makes strike, and target temperature pretty much, useless.

"In 1926 they didn't exercise the control and optimization (modification) of malts that is done today." Nah. Malt became modern in the 19th century when the IOB was founded, and malt spec sheets have been around for about 150 years. Brewers pretty much knew all about malt because they taught the Chemists they hired in the IOB how to test malt. Weihenstephan has been around for about 1000 years, too. Modification and germination are connected, and I'd say, the Great Magnet was involved with that stuff. Abstracts from the IOB are online, and so are malt spec sheets.

"Enzyme concentration and accessibility were lower and more time was needed for them to do their work." Nah. A salesman, selling high modified, malt came up with the statement back in the mid 80s. Also, he said that when modern, high modified, malt was invented, the decoction method became antiquated. To convince people that modern, high modified, malt can be soaked at one temperature to make ale, the salesman, basically, told people who had no idea how ale and lager are produced, that brewmasters were dolts and dullards, that purchased crappy malt, and yet, came up with an exotic brewing method that somehow, magically, turned crappy malt, into brewers grade, malt, and none of that is needed now that modern, high modified, malt, has been invented. Under modified, low protein, malt is brewers grade, malt, and to take advantage of the high quality, malt, the decoction method is used. Under modified, malt is richer in enzyme content, and is more expensive than high modified, malt. Modification (Kolbach, S/T, and SNR) are listed on a malt spec sheet. Malt, 40 Kolbach, and lower, is under modified. Malt should contain less than 10 percent protein. The less protein, the more sugar. Homebrew malt can be 52 Kolbach, and contain 16 percent protein.

"With today's highly modified malts you can go right to saccharification (starch conversion)." From the statement, you need a little more training because you don't know about modification, and you have saccharification, liquefaction, and conversion mixed up. You may not know what occurs during dextrinization, and gelatinization, as well, which involves Alpha, and complex starch, amylopectin.
When Alpha liquefies simple starch, amylose, it happens at a 1-4 link in the starch chain, and saccharification occurs. When amylose is sliced, two chains form, and the name changes. The one chain is the reducing end, and the other chain is the nonreducing end. The reducing end contains 1-4 links, and after Alpha liquefies the links, sweet tasting, nonfermenting types of sugar remain. The nonreducing end is simple sugar, glucose. The purpose of Alpha is to release, glucose, one of three building blocks of life, from starch.
Conversion has nothing to do with starch. Beta is responsible for conversion, which occurs at 60 to 63C. Beta converts the glucose that Alpha releases during liquefaction, into maltose and maltotriose, which are the types of sugar that produces ale and lager. The step is skipped in homebrewing for a few reasons. The first reason has to do with the extra time involved with the conversion rest, another has to do with fermentation because a secondary fermenter is required. Another reason has to do with high modified, malt. For conversion to occur in high modified, malt, an Alpha-Beta enzyme mixture has to be added.
For enzymes, such as, Phytase to work, chemical precipitation has to occur, which doesn't occur when malt is soaked in hot water. Phytase works on potassium and magnesium, pH reduces, and myo-inositol forms. For chemical precipitation to occur at the right time, mash is boiled.
Beta Glucan is mentioned on a malt spec sheet. Don't buy malt high in Beta Glucan, it's that simple, otherwise, an Alpha-Beta Glucanase enzyme mixture has to be added, or a rest at 55C should be used. Beta Glucan is fiber, but it is a bunch of glucose packed together, and enzymes break up the glucose. Depending on the length of the rest, complete saccharification can occur, which isn't a bad thing, because the next temperature rest is for conversion.
 

Hopalong

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
79
Reaction score
21
Dave Line was a home brewer in Britain, who wrote articles and a couple of books that got home brewers out of the grips of wine makers who thought they knew how to brew. His recipes and methods taught us how to brew beer vastly better than the winemaker's methods. Dave died only 37 years of age leaving a widow and young son.

CAMRA was started by people like me, who couldn't drink the gassed-up alcoholic flavored beverages that the major brewing companies produced.and called beer.

Why is most British beer history American invention?

...But not all.
CAMRA was invented by marketers. Dave Line commercialized homebrewing.

"Why is most British beer history American invention?" It's a great advertising technique, most of which is made up, similar, to when CAMRA renamed, distillers beer, and Prohibition beer, Real Ale.
The Brits invented every thing in brewing, they even taught Germans. How about that history, pretty cool. The Brits invented the malt spec sheet, that homebrewers know nothing abo
I would suggest just a single infusion at 154 F, but then hold it overnight. Get it started before you go to bed at night, then get up in the morning and brew. Or start it before work, then finish when you get home from work. Whichever. I find that the total mash TIME is far more critical than the actual temperature, as long as you're in that range of the 150s anyway. The enzymes will continue to work slowly for several hours, but eventually hit some limit to where if you hold the mash temperature for more than 3 or 4 hours or whatever, it doesn't hurt anything and you can just forget about it for a while then come back and finish it later, or the next day. The key with this recipe is apparently to achieve maximum efficiency AND attenuation (i.e., very fermentable and high ABV)... which will happen whether you mash for 2 hours or 10 hours or anything in between because the enzymes work so slowly after a while.
The higher the temperature, the quicker, Alpha denatures.
 

doug293cz

BIABer, Beer Math Nerd, ePanel Designer, Pilot
Staff member
Mod
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
11,922
Reaction score
8,293
Location
Renton
Dave Line was a home brewer in Britain, who wrote articles and a couple of books that got home brewers out of the grips of wine makers who thought they knew how to brew. His recipes and methods taught us how to brew beer vastly better than the winemaker's methods. Dave died only 37 years of age leaving a widow and young son.

CAMRA was started by people like me, who couldn't drink the gassed-up alcoholic flavored beverages that the major brewing companies produced.and called beer.

Why is most British beer history American invention?

...But not all.
Thanks for the link.

Brew on :mug:
 

jerrylotto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
353
Reaction score
241
Location
North Chelmsford
I think that the primary thing that led to highly modified malts was the improvement in analytical techniques and data collection and a secondary factor was the ability to control conditions down to the degree and percentage humidity in a uniform way throughout.. To that end, the process is still going on with malts generally improving in both enzyme content and availability each year.
 

cire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
393
Reaction score
210
Location
UK
CAMRA was invented by marketers. Dave Line commercialized homebrewing.

"Why is most British beer history American invention?" It's a great advertising technique, most of which is made up, similar, to when CAMRA renamed, distillers beer, and Prohibition beer, Real Ale.
The Brits invented every thing in brewing, they even taught Germans. How about that history, pretty cool. The Brits invented the malt spec sheet, that homebrewers know nothing abo
Stop inventing rubbish. The overwhelming majority of members here have a seriously interest in the subject, history and facts. Many here are just like Dave Line, the OP and other contributors, hobbyists wishing to simplify and spread knowledge. Not everybody is a mercenary, and it certainly wasn't in the minds of those who began CAMRA. Some managed the change from live ale to pasteurized fizz, while others campaigned and formed an organization that achieved several of their objectives.
 

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,760
Reaction score
3,101
Location
Two Rivers, WI
If a man you've never met suddenly brings you flowers, that's Impulse.

If a man you've never met suddenly brings you rubbish, that's rubbish.



 

cire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
393
Reaction score
210
Location
UK
I think that the primary thing that led to highly modified malts was the improvement in analytical techniques and data collection and a secondary factor was the ability to control conditions down to the degree and percentage humidity in a uniform way throughout.. To that end, the process is still going on with malts generally improving in both enzyme content and availability each year.
Yes, enormous advances in the last hundred years and more, finding where different strains of barley grew best and how best to malt them. This vastly simplifies brewing today against earlier times, but I still wonder if the result is better beer? Sad to say, while I endeavour to make better beer at virtually every brewing attempt, For many years I have seemed condemned to inevitably find evermore disappointing, new, commercial beers than improved ones.

Marris Otter is now more than 50 years old and while it is still preferred by many brewers, with new emergent dual purpose strains for brewing and distilling, in future some farmers may wish to shorten their odds for a better return in less certain weather conditions. Golden Promise will reliably crop in poorer summers, but grows well only in locations with mild conditions all year. In time to come there will be many changes for brewers and some will be forced upon them, and while advances in technology will smooth the transition, as it always has and will, I just wonder how quality of the finished product might be effected.

More than a hundred years ago, when Britain was financially stronger in the world, and many of these improvements were not imagined, maltsters and brewers strategically chose their ways in response to demand and financial prowess. I just wonder what those beers were truly like compared to those made bish-bash-bonk today?

On Page No. 532 found here will be found information written circa 1890 of a large and important British maltser and below (top right) is an extract of a page of a long forgotten modest Britishbrewery showing it using a mix of malt from barley grown in Denmark and North Africa. Am I wrong to be sceptical that not all advances produce a better product, but maybe just an easier way to tackle an objective?

Smyrna.JPG
 

BigEd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2004
Messages
2,944
Reaction score
461
Am I wrong to be sceptical that not all advances produce a better product, but maybe just an easier way to tackle an objective?

View attachment 736898
Not at all IMO. Many business decisions then as now are driven by economics. Saving a buck is almost always at the top of the list. Lots of homebrewers have a romantic notion about the brewing business but just like any other business it's the accountants running the show not the brewers.
 

Beermeister32

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2013
Messages
793
Reaction score
1,130
Location
Southern California
Good point. Take a look at the economy we are now in and the shortages. Buyers are purchasing whatever material they can find anywhere. Cost comes into play, but so does availability or lack thereof. Probably a lot of blending back with their good stock too to extend the supply. That is done in many industries when off-spec materials are the only available.
 

Qhrumphf

Stay Rude, Stay Rebel, Stay SHARP
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
16,666
Reaction score
6,336
Location
Arlington (DC)
If a man you've never met suddenly brings you flowers, that's Impulse.

If a man you've never met suddenly brings you rubbish, that's rubbish.



I was wondering why years old posts of mine responding to this clown were getting liked all of a sudden....

Seems the Science-y(TM) word salad hasn't changed...

At least I didn't see a recommendation to read some allegedly extremely expensive but ultimately actually non-existent brewing text from 200 years ago from which the font of brewing knowledge flows...
 
OP
csantoni

csantoni

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 11, 2021
Messages
265
Reaction score
522
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
The more I read and think about this mash schedule it makes me wonder:

Since the temperatures are in a fairly narrow band, it seems as if they could all be considered one long saccarification step. Therefore, and I guess this is really my original question stated differently, what was the intent of these small temp changes?

Maybe if I understood that I’d have a better idea of how/if to reproduce them in my process.
 

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,760
Reaction score
3,101
Location
Two Rivers, WI
The more I read and think about this mash schedule it makes me wonder:

Since the temperatures are in a fairly narrow band, it seems as if they could all be considered one long saccarification step. Therefore, and I guess this is really my original question stated differently, what was the intent of these small temp changes?

Maybe if I understood that I’d have a better idea of how/if to reproduce them in my process.
Great question. The 66C step for 2 hours will maximize beta amylase activity and denature it more slowly than at higher temperatures. Then the difference between the 69-70C temperature steps is basically nil, but will accelerate the alpha amylase, if there's even any left after the 66C step (I'm not sure).

This is why I think combining all the steps into just one loooong infusion at 154 F (~68 C) should give you about the same results, but with much less hassle. Others might not agree, and they might be right, but.... ask yourself whether you or most people care to know for sure. Experiment over several batches if curious.
 
Top