Mash schedule from historical recipe

[doug293cz]

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

 

[jerrylotto]

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]

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]

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.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/thread...ermann-barke-malts.665111/page-2#post-8585014
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/pils-needs-diacetyl-rest-but.665388/#post-8585560
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/is-100-efficiency-possible.665432/#post-8584714

 

[cire]

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?

 

[BigEd]

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]

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]

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.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/thread...ermann-barke-malts.665111/page-2#post-8585014
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/pils-needs-diacetyl-rest-but.665388/#post-8585560
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/is-100-efficiency-possible.665432/#post-8584714

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...

 

[csantoni]

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]

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.

 

[csantoni]

The 66C step for 2 hours will maximize beta amylase activity and denature it more slowly than at higher temperatures.

OK, so this is the kind of answer I was looking for (these are flowers, not rubbish). I'll definitely try the schedule as written first as it may make some difference when used in my process. Now, there's my ability to actually hit those temps and hold them accurately, but that's my problem to figure out.

 

[cire]

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.

Yes, it's a difficult one and must suppose that procedure was to suit their equipment. A two hour mash was fairly standard in those days and when they mashed for 2 hours, so do I.

The next step will probably be an underlet to heat and thin the mash. I do that too, but then will recycle to obtain clear wort, followed by fly-sparging.

Why the next stage I don't know, but it is what they did.

Today we mash until conversion is completed. I once asked Graham Wheeler what happened in the mash after conversion. He paused for what seemed and age before saying, "Probably the most important parts."


EDIT.
Just to say I mash for 90 minutes as a norm when brewing traditional beers. Sparging takes about 2 hours, so with odds and ends here and there, it takes me a minimum of 4 hours to fill the boiler.

 

[BigEd]

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.

I don't know and can't tell you what the original brewer had in mind. Those temps are all within the basic saccharification range but in very basic terms the lower temp will create a higher ratio of shorter chain/more fermentable sugars and the higher temps that ratio will decrease a bit. That said it would hardly be a day-night difference. The schedule is vaguely similar to a German Hochkurz mash although those start a little lower. I think one thing the Hockkurz does is help with the combination of clean, dry finish and good body found in many German lagers.

Don't drive yourself crazy here. Make the beer and see what happens. Even at one temp it will still be a nice beer and if you want to go 2 or 3 steps on the mash it won't be that difficult to do multiple infusions even with basic equipment.

 

[Beer History Bloke]

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?

Hi Kevin ,
Since I started blogging in 2019 , I`ve been consistent in my approach to historical brewing techniques ;
Namely that if the original brewer was following a certain path in terms of Processes and steps in production, there would have been a very good reason for it ; hence my replication of original process details ,
though with some beers I have indeed simplified the mashing and sparging proceedures ,
namely the beers of W B Mew , Langton & Co which call for more Liquor and Sparge steps than are listed in the recipies I`ve published ; so I`m not completely inflexible when designing the beers .
I strongly believe in following the original steps, if any hope of accuracy in reproducing the beer in question is to be achieved ; In short , I`m not prepared to bastardise my research ; to fit someone`s false narrative or , assumptions as to correct technique in reproducing historic beers .
If homebrewers are prepared to do a double or even tripple decoction mash , why is the traditional British practice of a temperature stepped mash so damned difficult to understand or apply in practice ?
Regards ,
Edd

 

[jerrylotto]

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).

One nit - beta amylase activity maxs out at around 143F, before alpha even activates. At 150F it is still active but only about half as much, with alpha just starting to kick in at around 10% efficiency. Alpha max is around 158F where beta is down to about 20%. The "brewers window" is generally between 147F and 158F where both are active to some degree. That was why I was surprised that they STARTED at 150F. As I mentioned earlier that is too hot for an effective acid rest or protein rest.

 

[dmtaylor]

One nit - beta amylase activity maxes out at around 143F, before alpha even activates. At 150F it is still active but only about half as much, with alpha just starting to kick in at around 10% efficiency. Alpha max is around 158F where beta is down to about 20%. The "brewers window" is generally between 147F and 158F where both are active to some degree. That was why I was surprised that they STARTED at 150F. As I mentioned earlier that is too hot for an effective acid rest or protein rest.

I can't be certain, forgive me if I am mistaken, but IF you are referencing the "bell curves" that are so often tossed around in this forum, realize that the curves I typically see around here are really only an approximation and not necessarily true to real life. Reaction rate is temperature dependent, proportional relationship, where higher temperature increases saccharification rate, and doesn't reduce the rate, at least not directly. The way I always picture it: enzymes are like microscopic little machines. You can run the machines faster by raising the temperature and increase the saccharification rate quite well. The complicated part is that when you run the little machines a little too fast, they are fragile, can't handle it, and they begin to break faster the higher the temperature goes. BUT, they do NOT all break at exactly the same time or at the same temperature. It's somewhat of a half-life scenario -- the beta amylase doesn't all just instantly disappear at some certain threshold like 150 or 155 F or whatever, but the vast majority of it might become denatured quickly, leaving a much reduced amount of remaining beta as temperature is increased. But the ones that DO remain working, not yet broken, are cruising along at phenomenally great rates at the higher temperatures until they do finally denature. So... when the temperature rises and the standard curves seem to be heading back downwards, it's not because the reaction is slower, but rather it's because the enzymes are beginning to denature more quickly at those higher temperatures.

I agree with you, however, that you won't be getting much of an acid rest or protein rest if the mash starts at 150 F because those particular enzymes will indeed be gone almost instantly at that temp -- those little machines are much much more fragile than beta or alpha. Beta amylase, however, will work for at least a few minutes at 150 F, probably 10-20 minutes at least, before the majority of them are gone. I don't know if it's accurate to say "beta is still active but only about half as much". There might just be half as much that aren't denatured yet... while the enzymes that remain are in fact working really fast! So there can still be benefit in holding a rest anywhere in the goldilocks zone. Even if 99% of the beta is gone at X temperature (155 F? I'm only guessing, somewhere around there), a bit of it might actually be surviving and working SUPER fast for a while.

 

[jerrylotto]

I can't be certain, forgive me if I am mistaken, but IF you are referencing the "bell curves" that are so often tossed around in this forum, realize that the curves I typically see around here are really only an approximation and not necessarily true to real life.

True dat, and other factors like chemical nutrient composition and pH play an important role, but in the absence of all of those details, approximations are pretty good here. At 150F, beta is going to be deactivating as you mention and there won't be much going on in the second hour until you raise the temp into alpha happy zone.

 

[cire]

As I mentioned earlier that is too hot for an effective acid rest or protein rest.

So it is probable the brewer needed neither.

Page 94 found here has a description of the brewery at around 1890.

It would seem they had malted barley delivered direct to the brewery, which likely was likely grown in East Anglia and low in protein. The water would be high in mineral content, acid treated to substantially reduce alkalinity.

Effectively the mash is a single infusion with underlet, followed by a single batch sparge and finishing fly-sparge.

 

[Beer History Bloke]

So it is probable the brewer needed neither.

Page 94 found here has a description of the brewery at around 1890.

It would seem they had malted barley delivered direct to the brewery, which likely was likely grown in East Anglia and low in protein. The water would be high in mineral content, acid treated to substantially reduce alkalinity.

Effectively the mash is a single infusion with underlet, followed by a single batch sparge and finishing fly-sparge.

Hi Cire ,
I`d be interested in knowing what book you`re referring to there , as the only reference works that spring to mind are ; The Noted Breweries of Britain & Ireland by Alfred Barnard , Published in 1888 , and a self published history of the company issued / published by the brewery Ca 1905 or so ( Peter Walker & Sons ( Illustrated) .
As to the Malts delivered to the Dallam Lane brewery , they were using a number of different UK Maltsters ,
Baird , Crowther , Plunkett`s ( Dublin ) to mention but 3 , all delivered to the brewery rather than malted on site as with other companies such as Henry Bentley & Co of Woodlesford Nr Leeds and , John Sumner & Co of Haigh in Lancashire ( whose Maltings closed Ca 1912 ) to name two .
I`m also interested in your statement that the liquor at Dallam Lane would be high in residual minerals ; as far as I`m aware NO 19 Th century liquor analysis for any Wells at Dallam Lane have survived in the archives , though as a MAJOR UK brewer , I`m sure that the Walkers were WELL aware of the use of different additions of X Salts to replicate liquor qualities from the liquors available in the brewhouse .
As to the mash programme , In essence you`re correct ; though after the first mash heat and rest , there are a number of steps ; usually an UNDERLET SPARGE before any OVER GOODS SPARGE indicated by the records .
Best Regards
Edd

 

[cire]

Hi Edd, indeed it is Alfred Barnard's work. From what I've read of his work, he was quite thorough and quite fastidious. He makes no mention of any malting facility in the plant despite a 2 day visit, but gave the very large capacity for storage of malt. rather than barley.

He mentioned the large liquor tank which might have held water brought by rail from Burton, where the family had also brewed, or, as you suggest, replicated it.

 

[doug293cz]

True dat, and other factors like chemical nutrient composition and pH play an important role, but in the absence of all of those details, approximations are pretty good here. At 150F, beta is going to be deactivating as you mention and there won't be much going on in the second hour until you raise the temp into alpha happy zone.

Alpha and beta amylase are active down around room temperature, just a lot slower than at higher temperatures. Remember that the biological function of these enzymes is to breakdown the starch in the seeds to feed the embryos/young plants until such time as leaves can form and start producing food for the plant. This all happens around room temp.

There is plenty that alpha amylase can do around 150°F, especially during a two hour mash.

Brew on

 

[Beer History Bloke]

Hi Edd, indeed it is Alfred Barnard's work. From what I've read of his work, he was quite thorough and quite fastidious. He makes no mention of any malting facility in the plant despite a 2 day visit, but gave the very large capacity for storage of malt. rather than barley.

He mentioned the large liquor tank which might have held water brought by rail from Burton, where the family had also brewed, or, as you suggest, replicated it.

Hi Cire ,
Thanks for your reply , Barnard `s a brilliant little reference point for descriptions of breweries !! .
I only know of one brewery transporting Water by railway to their brewery over any substantial distance , Magee Marshall & Co of the Crown Brewery in Bolton ( From 1902/3 - 1908/9 until the mid to late 1960`s ) , with the Maltings being located at Castleton Nr Rochdale ( 1896 - Ca 1966 ) ; also featured in Barnard is the brewery Magee Marshall bought in 1912 , John Halliwell & Sons of The Alexandra Brewery
( I have their Wage Books 1879-1912 in my collection)
FYI ; Allsopp`s had a 1,000 barrel copper at one point in their Burton brewery !!!

Cheers
Edd

 

[cire]

Hi Cire ,
Thanks for your reply , Barnard `s a brilliant little reference point for descriptions of breweries !! .
I only know of one brewery transporting Water by railway to their brewery over any substantial distance , Magee Marshall & Co of the Crown Brewery in Bolton ( From 1902/3 - 1908/9 until the mid to late 1960`s ) , with the Maltings being located at Castleton Nr Rochdale ( 1896 - Ca 1966 ) ; also featured in Barnard is the brewery Magee Marshall bought in 1912 , John Halliwell & Sons of The Alexandra Brewery
( I have their Wage Books 1879-1912 in my collection)
FYI ; Allsopp`s had a 1,000 barrel copper at one point in their Burton brewery !!!

Cheers
Edd

Wow, a 1000 barrel copper would take some firing.

Before the 1880 Act of Parliament, many of the large London Brewers either made agreements with a Burton brewer to supply water, or open their own plant there. Truman, for example, failed to get an agreement, so bought the Phillips Brewery outright in 1873 and made themselves the then worlds largest brewery.

From the passing of the "Gladstone" or "Mash Tun" act, there was a mass decline in breweries in Burton as some London based companies close their Burton operations with water treatment no longer seen as tax evasion and the creation of the word, "Burtonise" or "Burtonize".

 

[jerrylotto]

There is plenty that alpha amylase can do around 150°F, especially during a two hour mash.

Kinetics - you don't see much plant growth in two hours

The relative activity of alpha at 150F and 158F is about 1:10

 

[dmtaylor]

The relative activity of alpha at 150F and 158F is about 1:10

I don't buy it.

David M. Taylor
Nuclear Environmental Qualification Engineer
B.S. Chemical Engineering - Michigan Tech 1997

P.S. Watch me wax ad nauseum on Arrhenius here (but with respect to isomerization instead of saccharification, same concept, different chemical reactions):

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=37070.msg465053#msg465053
P.P.S. Here's some more junk I just Googled for ya's:

 

[jerrylotto]

I don't buy it.

David M. Taylor
Nuclear Environmental Qualification Engineer
B.S. Chemical Engineering - Michigan Tech 1997

P.S. Watch me wax ad nauseum on Arrhenius here (but with respect to isomerization instead of saccharification, same concept, different chemical reactions):

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=37070.msg465053#msg465053

alpha-amylase enzyme activity is a catalytic process involving iterative hydrolysis of the internal alpha 1,4-glycosidic linkages in polysaccharides to low molecular weight products. It is also balanced with denaturation that occurs simultaneously. Much more complex than hop isomerization. If you want to read about a recently developed, tested model, see
https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/beverages/beverages-06-00060/article_deploy/beverages-06-00060.pdf

 

[csantoni]

I brewed this today. I didn’t quite manage to hit the temps per the schedule but I had a 3.5 hour mash at 154-157. My mash efficiency was so far above what I predicted that I completely omitted the sugars in the boil. I suppose I’ll end up with a fuller-bodied beer but I didn’t want to exceed my OG target by too much. Ultimately, I was right on target and have 5.5 gallons of 1.040 OG in the fermenter at 62F with a pack of Notty waiting to kick in. Great brew day and I’m excited to see how this batch turns out.

 

[jerrylotto]

I'll be interested in seeing how fermentable that wort ends up. Please post your final gravity once you're done. Beta amylase is the enzyme responsible for making the vast majority of fermentable sugars and it is mostly denatured at that temperature. Alpha amylase breaks down starches but primarily produces maltose and dextrins which will certainly add to gravity but are less fermentable.

 

[doug293cz]

I'll be interested in seeing how fermentable that wort ends up. Please post your final gravity once you're done. Beta amylase is the enzyme responsible for making the vast majority of fermentable sugars and it is mostly denatured at that temperature. Alpha amylase breaks down starches but primarily produces maltose and dextrins which will certainly add to gravity but are less fermentable.

Lot of not quite accurate information here.

Maltose is a disaccharide (two glucose molecules bonded with an ⍺1,4 bond) and is very fermentable. In fact it is the primary fermentable sugar in wort. Beta amylase creates only maltose by chopping off maltose molecules from one end of a starch chain (what's known as the non-reducing end.) So, beta creates only fermentable sugar.

Alpha amylase cuts starch chains at random ⍺1,4 bonds, so it can make pretty much any chain length (that is shorter than the starting chain length.) The shortest pieces it creates are glucose (monosaccharide) and maltose, which are both highly fermentable. It can also create maltotriose, a trisaccharide that is fermentable by some yeasts. but not others. Alpha also creates longer chains, but can continue to cut these longer chains into shorter chains as time goes on, eventually getting to all fermentable sugars and limit dextrins. Early in the mash process, alpha produces more non-fermentable dextrins than fermentable sugars, but that changes as the mash progresses.

Each time alpha cuts in a way that creates two chains, both longer than 2 glucose molecules, the new chains each have a reducing end and a non-reducing end, so now we have two non-reducing ends instead of one (from the starting chain), so there are more non-reducing ends for beta to work on.

Not all starch is linear chains (amylose, with only ⍺1,4 bonds.) Some starch (amylopectin) also has occasional ⍺1,6 bonds, which create branch points, with three chains emanating from the branch points. Neither alpha, nor beta amylase can hydrolyze (break) the ⍺1,6 bonds, nor can they hydrolyze ⍺1,4 bonds within about 4 glucose units of an ⍺1,6 bond. So, after alpha and beta have done everything they can, you are still left with dextrins with three branched chains, each about 4 glucose units long. These are what's known as "limit dextrins," and they are not fermentable.

There is a third amylase enzyme in malt which is known as "Limit Dextrinase." Limit dextrinase can hydrolyze the ⍺1,6 bonds, so it makes more straight chains available for alpha and beta to break down into fermentable sugars. The action of limit dextrinase reduces the amount of limit dextrins that remain in the final wort, resulting in a more fermentable wort (because the limit dextrins have been turned into fermentable sugars.)

Limit dextrinase denatures at temps slightly below the temp at which beta amylase denatures, so you get more limit dextrinase action in lower temperature mashes vs. higher temperature mashes. It is actually the limit dextrinase that creates the higher fermentability of lower temp mashes, since it is the enzyme that reduces the amount of unfermentable dextrins in the wort.

Brew on

 

[jerrylotto]

Serves me right for typing too quickly. Thanks for chiming in. In fact given enough time, alpha amylase will produce primarily maltose. I guess that's what these historical profiles are all about.