Mash Temps importance

[SFC Rudy]

What Nubiwan said.....

 

[Nubiwan]

Why was that "telling?" It's one taster. No more and no less valid an observation than any other one random person's observation. The fact that this guy made the observation as a byproduct of a Brulosophy experiment doesn't lend weight.

Let's face it; you can find anecdotes that contradict any "generally accepted principle." You can find anecdotes that contradict well established science. (How many people think you can heat a whole room to comfortable temperatures in winter with 4 tea candles and a flower pot?) But if you're going to expect to overturn these generally accepted principles, bring evidence. The burden of proof is on the challenger. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is needed.

Are you saying the guy at Brulosophy lacks experience in tasting beer? Do you have a problem with his methods of brewing? To me, he seems completely open in his experiments, competent at what he does, and enters each experiment with an open mind. That hes likely brewed and tasted more variations and multiple styles of beer than anyone on this forum (a wild assumption i bet very close to being true). That many of his (and the industry) preconceived notions and beliefs are often seriously questioned by his work. Id say he's a pretty decent source of information for those of us have questions about how/what/why to brew a certain way.

Remind the OP then how letting mash temps swing 4-5 degrees will alter his beer.

 

[VikeMan]

Are you saying the guy at Brulosophy lacks experience in tasting beer?

I certainly didn't say that. I don't know anything about the guy who did that particular "exbeeriment."

Do you have a problem with his methods of brewing?

Nope. But full disclosure, I don't know much about his brewing methods.

To me, he seems completely open in his experiments, competent at what he does, and enters each experiment with an open mind.

Ok.

That hes likely brewed and tasted more variations and multiple styles of beer than anyone on this forum (a wild assumption i bet very close to being true).

Why do you think that?

Id say he's a pretty decent source of information for those of us have questions about how/what/why to brew a certain way.

Based on what?

Tell me then how letting mash temps swing 5 degrees will destroy a beer.

Who said that? I don't think anyone did. It seems like you're making a strawman argument.

 

[10_degrees_play-doh]

A few people asked about "reverse stepping" saccarification, and it's actually not that far fetched an idea. The key is to add more beta amylase in some way for the lower temp rest after the bulk is denatured at the higher temp. I've done it by adding a pound or so of wheat or pale malt for the lower rest, though I've also heard of people mashing in thin, pulling off some of that water, doing a higher temp step, then re infusing the lower temp portion. Another perk is that the starches gelatinize better at the higher temp, so the re introduced enzymes can be more effective in the beta range. I can't rattle off too many metrics on the technique, but food for thought anyway... If nothing else, it's a technique to have under your belt in case of an overshot temp target.

 

[Beermeister32]

Blichmann mash temp gauge.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

I'll be honest, I have a tendency to glaze over when I start reading technical stuff. I'm a science guy, but my college chemistry was 40 years ago (and I can't remember what I had for dinner last night). I am a software engineer for a day job and I don't really want to have to think too hard for my hobbies (aka I'm mentally lazy when I'm not at work).

So, I try to understand concepts without getting wrapped up in the details...this for both water chemistry and mashing.

In general, I have a few mash profiles I use:

Max Fermentability (for stuff like brut IPA's and other dry styles): start at 140 for 20 minutes, ramp to 158 for 40 mins, then mash out.
Good Fermentability (I use this to lower FG on beers like imperial IPA's so that they don't get too cloying): mash at 148
Moderate Fermentability (I use this for lower gravity IPAs and pale ales to get a richer feel): mash at 152
Max dextrins (I like imperial stouts that drink like motor oil): mash at 158

Those profiles get me the variety of fermentability I need for most styles. I have not messed with step mashes thta include stuff like protein rests etc.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

Finally I should add: In my opinion, mash TIME seems to be FAR more important than specific mash temperature, as long as we keep the mash temperature anywhere within the Goldilocks zone. If I want a fuller bodied beer, personally I mash for a shorter TIME, say only 35-40 minutes, at any reasonable temperature. And personally if I want a very dry beer, then I'll mash not just at 147 F for 60 minutes, but go 90 minutes or even 120 minutes or more, then it will turn out very dry indeed.

This is very interesting. I do not recall hearing advice to use mash time to control body.

Those Brulosophy experiments were a real eye opener to me when I first read them. For years I struggled to manage the body in my beers. I mashed beers at 156F like the books said, and they still turned out thin. Most of my beers were with American 2-Row and mashed for 60 minutes. (As I write this I wonder the impact of "hot" American malts vs the lower diastatic power European malts.)

These days, while I do tweak my target mash temps (say 150F for a Saison, and 154 for a Stout) I am pretty convinced that mash temp has very little impact on body. Maybe a little on "digestibility"...how full you feel after drinking a pint...but I am not positive about that. The thing that pushed me over the edge was a Porter that I mistakenly mashed at 162F. Yes it impacted fermentability and my 5% beer ended up around 3% with a 1.030 FG. But the beer was thin without enough sweetness to back up the roast. It was a decent 3% beer, although with more calories and carbs than if it was 5%.

When I stopped focusing on mash temp to control the body of my beers, I actually started making progress. A Saison that is 100% pilsner, with a boost of Sulfate, a lower pH, and a high attenuating yeast will likely be crisp if mashed at 156F. A Stout with a boost of Chloride, a complex grist with body building grains (oats, wheat, flaked barley, etc.), and a lower attenuating yeast will likely feel thick if mashed at 148F. I am still working some of this out for myself, and I do think mash temp plays some role.

Kai Troester site has some incredible stuff on mashing studies. The site is a bit hard to navigate though. Here is a link to one such page but there are others: Effects of mash parameters on fermentability and efficiency in single infusion mashing - German brewing and more

This is a pretty interesting research paper on the topic from the 1993 Journal of the Institute of Brewing: Wiley - The Mouthfeel of Beer

A Scott Janish article: Dextrins and Mouthfeel - Scott Janish

 

[Birrofilo]

There is similar evidence suggests a beer mashed in the 140s is fuller bodied and has better mouth feel than the same beer brewed at 162, which is somehow counter intuitive to the general consensus. So what is to be believed?

I think the consensus here is wrong, if the consensus is simply that if you mash lower you will have more fermentability and if you mash higher you will have more body. If we take again the comparison with the debranching job, if you completely do without one of the instruments (let's say the chainsaw) you will not reach full fermentability (unless you extend the mashing for long, and maybe not even in that case) because you will not have been able to work on certain branch structures.

My understanding is that mashing at both extremes of the typical temperature mashing range is going to produce a less fermentable and "thicker" beer because only one or the other of the instruments (alpha-amylase or beta-amylase) will work. Full fermentability will be reached only when all the debranching instruments can be used.

But because enzymes do not get denatured abruptly at a certain temperature, and because they will not stop working abruptly outside of a certain temperature range, a long mashing time will create a more fermentable wort within a certain range of temperatures. I understand that, if we exclude the extreme intervals and keep inside the more common 62°C - 68°C, which is a large temperature span, time will be the most important variable for the fermentability - mouthfeel trade-off.

I would not exclude that the beers brewed at 60 and 70 will be both less fermentable and will be so in a different way, because the "branches" that haven't been cut into pieces are different in the two cases and therefore the flavour and the mouthfeel should be different.

A long mash in the lower extreme, though, can ultimately produce a highly fermentable beer because, as said, all enzymes are active (they don't have clear temperature thresholds) and none have been denatured.

Which I think could be summarized with these cases of single step mash:

a) 60°C long mash: highly fermentable (all "instruments" work even though some more slowly);
b) 60°C normal mash: not highly fermentable because some instruments are not effectively used;
c) 62 - 68 °C long mash: highly fermentable in any case;
d) 62 - 68 °C normal mash: "consensus" results: lower temperature leads to more fermentability;
e) 70°C low fermentability in any case if the temperature is actually kept there; fermentability gains if the temperature is left to drift down;

A "long mash" could be 70-90 minutes and a "short mash" could be 40-50 minutes.

To summarize, IMHO the "consensus" gives a rule that suffers these two exceptions:

a) that at all but high temperature, a long mash always produces high fermentability,
and
b) a both low and short mash will not lead to high fermentability.

 

[VikeMan]

A long mash in the lower extreme, though, can ultimately produce a highly fermentable beer because, as said, all enzymes are active (they don't have clear temperature thresholds) and none have been denatured.

FWIW, enzymes are being denatured under all mash conditions. But higher temps do it faster.

 

[Birrofilo]

FWIW, enzymes are being denatured under all mash conditions. But higher temps do it faster.

I don't say no but the point is how faster, how slower. We "time" our mash because if we did not end a certain phase by ourselves, the enzymatic conversion would continue, and we make a "mash-out" phase, again, to stop the enzymes work. I don't know after how long would the denaturation happen when the enzyme works, but suspect hours, or even days, or enough to arrive "to completion" (the limiting factor being not the lifespan of the enzyme, but the fact that all substrate has been converted).

In fact, in a homebrewing setting a mash-out is maybe superfluous, but it is necessary in a commercial setting, where grain separation requires one hour or more, and the enzymes would continue working during the grain separation.

In distillation fermentations, when a wash is treated with enzymes those are inserted in tiny quantities because they are not consumed, they will work for many days. I understand 30°C (a common fermentation temperature for whisky) is not 65°C, but I do think that enzymes would go on working for long if it isn't the brewer's initiative to kill them.

I think we can compare to chemical developing in photography: certain baths, such as development, must be very accurately timed; other baths, such as fixing or bleach, go "to completion", after all the work is done, is done, and it's not possible to overdo it. Mashing is like development, and must be timed because the results vary with different times, while let's say clarification, or bitterness hopping, cannot be "overdone", the activity ends by itself.

 

[VikeMan]

I don't know after how long would the denaturation happen when the enzyme works, but suspect hours, or even days, or enough to arrive "to completion" (the limiting factor being not the lifespan of the enzyme, but the fact that all substrate has been converted).

Of course this depends on temperature and other factors, but based on some data I've seen, a reasonable rule of thumb might be that nothing much is happening after about 4 hours or so. Some people do overnight mashes and while they make relatively fermentable worts, compared to typical mash lengths, they're not masking super fermentable worts. No normal barley malt mash ever reaches 100% fermentability (i.e. allowing 100% real attenuation). Imagine the Super Brut IPAs that could be made if they could.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

70°C low fermentability in any case if the temperature is actually kept there; fermentability gains if the temperature is left to drift down;

I don't know after how long would the denaturation happen when the enzyme works, but suspect hours, or even days, or enough to arrive "to completion" (the limiting factor being not the lifespan of the enzyme, but the fact that all substrate has been converted).

The science part of brewing is something I have struggled to understand...

I am trying to track it down and could not, but I recall learning over at braukaiser.com that at temps around 70C Beta Amylase were denatured in minutes (faster with a fine grain crush...like in 10 minutes). My original motivation was a batch where I miscalculated my strike temp. The mash started out around 158F (70C). I thought "no big deal" and stirred the mash to bring the temp back down to my target. This took about 10 minutes. I don't have stats on that beer (it was one my girlfriend made at her place) but the final gravity ended up much higher than I had expected. My observations lined up with what I would expect if it was primarily Alpha Amylase doing the work.

So I am not sure that fermentability of a 70C wort would increase if the temp is left to fall, since the Beta Amylase would have been denatured. I would be interested to hear about sources that discuss how long it takes to denature Alpha and Beta Amylase at different temperatures.

 

[Birrofilo]

So I am not sure that fermentability of a 70C wort would increase if the temp is left to fall, since the Beta Amylase would have been denatured. I would be interested to hear about sources that discuss how long it takes to denature Alpha and Beta Amylase at different temperatures.

Well yes, if there is a "fast kill" of Beta Amylase, then you would have a beer with no fermentability at all, because the Alpha Amylase will not create, for what I understand, fermentable sugars.

A long enough permanence of the wort at 70°C would, at most, give you a favourable iodine test (starch entirely converted to complex sugars such as dextrines) but 0% ABV or a little more depending on the yeast strain you use.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

Well yes, if there is a "fast kill" of Beta Amylase, then you would have a beer with no fermentability at all, because the Alpha Amylase will not create, for what I understand, fermentable sugars.

Yes, Alpha Amylase will produce fermentable sugars. Likely the only reason that Beta Amylase stop working at higher temps is because they have been denatured. My understanding is that most enzymes will work slow at low temps, work well in their optimal temp range, then above that range they work faster but denature quickly.

If Beta Amylase did not denature at the optimum Alpha Amylase temps, then it would be very easy to get a highly fermentable wort by starting around 158F and letting the temp drop. Alpha would have created a bunch of random length chains, so the Beta would have a bunch of ends to work on. My understandings is that this strategy does not work.

I have a copy of Greg Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer" book. I got it in a raffle years ago and never read through it (except for his water chapter which is pretty solid). I was looking through his chapters on mashing and enzymes last night. The discussion on enzymes got over my head quickly and his mashing chapters are focused on decoction mashing. Chapter 16 of "How to Brew" is pretty solid on the topic.

 

[Birrofilo]

Yes, Alpha Amylase will produce fermentable sugars. Likely the only reason that Beta Amylase stop working at higher temps is because they have been denatured. My understanding is that most enzymes will work slow at low temps, work well in their optimal temp range, then above that range they work faster but denature quickly.

But then, if Alpha Amylase can produce fermentable sugars, then there is another exception to the "common knowledge" regarding mashing:

A long enough mashing in Alpha Amylase temperature range will produce a highly fermentable wort even if Beta Amylase is denatured.

This goes again in the direction of time being more important than temperature for the final fermentability.

 

[VikeMan]

A long enough mashing in Alpha Amylase temperature range will produce a highly fermentable wort even if Beta Amylase is denatured.

Alpha alone cannot produce a highly fermentable wort (unless the bar for highly fermentable is set pretty low), because it leaves limit dextrins. It can't break limit dextrins down any further, no matter how much Alpha and time you have.

 

[dmtaylor]

Great discussions above guys.

Yes I believe alpha will result in fermentable sugars, such that a long rest (we're talking 90-120 minutes or more) at 70 C could result in a relatively high fermentable wort, even if beta is quickly gone. I think of alpha amylase working at 70 C as a sort of Jason Voorhees with a chainsaw but on speed/cocaine/pick a drug that speeds him way up. He slices, he dices, he keeps on going and going, pretty tough to kill.

So yeah, mash TIME matters more than anything. Which is a huge key fact that hardly anybody ever seems to think about. We might not really need beta at all, not really.

Also, don't forget, yeast strain matters to a very great extent as well. Some of these sugars that alpha will produce are easily fermentable by certain yeasts, while other yeasts can't eat them nearly as well.

 

[VikeMan]

Interestingly, you can buy Alpha Amylase from at least one of the online HBSs. It wouldn't be too hard to do a small experimental mash with nothing but Alpha Amylase and flaked barley for say, 4 hours, at say, 160F, boil it up, then ferment it with a non-diastaticus yeast strain and see.

The only slightly tricky bit would be to figure out how much Alpha to use, to simulate the alpha contribution from an average base malt.

Edit: Crap. Looking more closely, it's 4% alpha amylase and 96% dextrose. I suppose you could adjust for that, by calculating how much dextrose actually makes it to the kettle after lautering and assuming 122% apparent attenuation for its contribution to the gravity. But pure alpha, or at least alpha that doesn't add sugars (FFS) along with it, would be cleaner.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

I cycled back and read back through chapter 16 "How the mash works" in "How to Brew". I feel like every time I reread a chapter from that book I pick up a few things. I have the 4th edition.

On page 250 there is an interesting graph showing the types of sugars and "Apparent Attenuation Limit %". The highest attenuation is from a mash at 149F. At temps a little below that, the attenuation drops a little, but the percentage of Glucose raises quite a bit and the percentage of Maltose reduces. I would be curious what impact that would have on the character of the beer. The idea that 149F is the peak attenuation goes against what I had in my head...that a long mash at around 145F would produce higher attenuation.

On page 255 there is another interesting graph showing "Extract %" and "AAL %". While the Extract % increases about 1% from 30 min to 60 min, the Attenuation jumps from around 86% to 91%. That seems to tie into @dmtaylor's comments about using mash time to control character.

I get confused about what classifies something as an amino acid vs starch vs sugar vs dextrin vs long chain vs short chain...and at what point in the cycle the "thing" becomes something that a human registers as sweet.

 

[Birrofilo]

I get confused about what classifies something as an amino acid vs starch vs sugar vs dextrin vs long chain vs short chain...and at what point in the cycle the "thing" becomes something that a human registers as sweet.

Aminoacids are the costituents of proteins.
Starch is for what we are concerned the most complex carbohydrates.
Dextrines are a family of carbohydrates which is intermediate between starch and sugars as far as complexity is concerned. They mostly cannot be digested by yeast, although there certainly is some yeast strain which can do that, and one must never forget that, in the long run, certain yeasts do feed on complex sugars which they overlook in the normal fermentation ("fermentability" is function of strain and time).
"sugar" is anything which is digestible easily by yeast: glucose, maltose, sucrose, and they are the simplest carbohydrates.

Complex sugars like maltotriose are simpler than dextrines but more complex than simple sugars. Not all yeast strains digest maltotriose and more complex sugars. Some do.

Simple sugars are perceived as sweet by all humanity.
Dextrines and complex sugars are perceived differently by people, some people get a sensation of sweetness, some other not.
Alcohol is perceived by "sweet" by some people and not by others, the perception of "sweet" is not constant between tasters, much less constant than acidic or alcoholic or bitter for what I know.

 

[Birrofilo]

In the distilling world a >100% apparent attenuation is allegedly reached from cereals (when the FG is less than 1, apparent attenuation is greater than 100%). I never specifically read of a real 100% attenuation with malts but I suspect this is feasible by some using enzymes. If I recall correctly, enzymes are added in the fermenter and work for many days at low temperatures. They will not get denatured and will crack everything.

In the distilling world adding enzymes is not uncommon, and using baker's yeast is quite common. Baker's yeast is probably more voracious than the yeast we homebrewers use, although it requires a higher temperature to work properly (at 19 °C it can absolutely get stuck. 25 - 26°C is the preferred working temperature). Use of wine yeasts, or specific "distillers' yeast" is also not uncommon, actually I saw different strains of distillers' yeast aimed at different product (tequila, whisky etc.) and I don't think this is marketing bullstuff. A whisky strain must be able to digest complex sugars that other strains don't digest, while a wine strain must have an high alcohol tolerance (some people do very dense mashes).

Diastatic yeast strains can reach an apparent attenuation of 100%. I read an impressive attenuation of a distiller, starting from 1,095 down to 1,000 with a wort which was made exclusively with maltodextrines, using Danstar Belle Saison, with a two-month fermentation.

A Super Brut IPA would probably be feasible technically by using a whisky strain but would be refused by the market as too unbalanced.

A typical distiller's mashing scheme is 63°C for 90 minutes. I suppose the maximum fermentability is there, because that's what distillers want, and it's the 90 minutes I think that makes the difference between "homebrewing beer" and "distiller beer".

 

[VikeMan]

In the distilling world a >100% apparent attenuation is allegedly reached from cereals (when the FG is less than 1, apparent attenuation is greater than 100%). I never specifically read of a real 100% attenuation with malts but I suspect this is feasible by some.

People have reportedly hit/passed 100% apparent attenuation with saisons fermented with Wyeast 3711. But it should be noted that this is a diastaticus strain and can use dextrins that "normal" strains can't. It's also worth recognizing that 100% apparent attenuation is roughly 82% real attenuation, so there's really nothing "special case" about 100% apparent attenuation, i.e. it doesn't mean that there are no carbs remaining, which I think a lot of folks think it does.

 

[Birrofilo]

It's also worth recognizing that 100% apparent attenuation is roughly 82% real attenuation, so there's really nothing "special case" about 100% apparent attenuation, i.e. it doesn't mean that there are no carbs remaining, which I think a lot of folks think it does.

Yes but that strain digests 82% of a "100% dextrines" wort. Which means that if the fermentable part of a wort is let's say 70% simple sugars and 30% dextrines, and supposing there is not nothing else than those, this yeast should attenuate 100% of the 70% sugars and 82% of the 30% dextrines, thus reaching a real attenuation of 94.6% of the total fermentable matter (which is probably quite dry although not perfectly dry).

 

[doug293cz]

Alpha alone cannot produce a highly fermentable wort (unless the bar for highly fermentable is set pretty low), because it leaves limit dextrins. It can't break limit dextrins down any further, no matter how much Alpha and time you have.

Beta amylase also cannot break down limit dextrins. Neither alpha nor beta can hydrolyze the 1-6 branching bonds in amylopectin. To get higher fermentability than you can get with only alpha and beta, you need to break some of the branching bonds, as doing so will reduce the amount of limit dextrin in the final wort. The enzyme that hydrolyzes the 1-6 bonds is limit dextrinase (the one most people never learn about or forget about.) Limit dextrinase is most active just below the most active temp for beta amylase, so low temp mashes end up with less limit dextrins due to the action of limit dextrinase.

Brew on

 

[VikeMan]

Yes but that strain digests 82% of a "100% dextrines" wort. Which means that if the fermentable part of a wort is let's say 70% simple sugars and 30% dextrines, and supposing there is not nothing else than those, this yeast should attenuate 100% of the 70% sugars and 82% of the 30% dextrines, thus reaching a real attenuation of 94.6% of the total fermentable matter (which is probably quite dry although not perfectly dry).

I'm not sure why you say 82% of a "100% dextrins" wort. A saison wort is not that. When someone hits 100% apparent attenuation (82% real attenuation) with Wyeast 3711, that attenuation includes all the simple sugars and a portion of the "unfermentable" (to other strains) dextrins.

 

[VikeMan]

Beta amylase also cannot break down limit dextrins.

Yep. I probably should have mentioned that, but we were talking about a theoretical "Alpha only" scenario, so I didn't mention beta amylase or limit dextrinase.

 

[doug293cz]

Interestingly, you can buy Alpha Amylase from at least one of the online HBSs. It wouldn't be too hard to do a small experimental mash with nothing but Alpha Amylase and flaked barley for say, 4 hours, at say, 160F, boil it up, then ferment it with a non-diastaticus yeast strain and see.

The only slightly tricky bit would be to figure out how much Alpha to use, to simulate the alpha contribution from an average base malt.

Edit: Crap. Looking more closely, it's 4% alpha amylase and 96% dextrose. I suppose you could adjust for that, by calculating how much dextrose actually makes it to the kettle after lautering and assuming 122% apparent attenuation for its contribution to the gravity. But pure alpha, or at least alpha that doesn't add sugars (FFS) along with it, would be cleaner.

I have also thought about doing an experiment like this. Correcting for the dextrose shouldn't be too hard, since it will be a small fraction of the total carbohydrate in the wort.

Brew on

 

[Birrofilo]

I'm not sure why you say 82% of a "100% dextrins" wort. A saison wort is not that. When someone hits 100% apparent attenuation (82% real attenuation) with Wyeast 3711, that attenuation includes all the simple sugars and a portion of the "unfermentable" (to other strains) dextrins.

I was quoting the attenuation results that a distiller reported in a distiller forum. This distiller prepared a wort using only maltodextrines: you can do that, instead of using normal DME or LME you use this specific extract which only contains maltodextrines and not simple sugars, they are, I think, very useful for low-alcohol beers, because they help in reaching low attenuation by making the beer less fermentable.

This distiller wanted to test the ability of this yeast (a diastatic yeast) to digest maltodextrines and he prepared a wort which is made solely of maltodextrines, and he obtained this 100% apparent attenuation, or 82% real attenuation.

Also, he started from an outrageous high density, 1,095, which probably also limited the attenuation. The final attenuation points were reached only in the last 40 days, while the first 20 days gave the most of the attenuation.

Although not perfectly in-topic, I think this is very interesting in showing the space of manoeuvre homebrewers have in deciding the trade-off between fermentability and body. Some yeasts just eat everything and their dog.

How to get high attenuated all grain ferments - Home Distiller page 1 look for "Stibnut"

 

[hotbeer]

While one temperature over the other might give you more fermentable sugars, I thought the whole idea of a particular temperature and time was to give you repeatable results and maybe impart a particular character to a specific type of beer.

This is mostly a question, even though its written as a statement. I just seems if we always go for the perfect temp that gets the most fermentable sugars, then we might be loosing out on some of the other things that make one beer different from another beer.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

This is mostly a question, even though its written as a statement. I just seems if we always go for the perfect temp that gets the most fermentable sugars, then we might be loosing out on some of the other things that make one beer different from another beer.

I am not sure anybody is advocating that the goal is the most fermentable wort or the most ABV in a beer. At least my goal is to better understand the impact that mash temps have on a beer so I can adapt the mash to the style of beer I am brewing. Following a process, one should be able to have a repeatable process, be that a single infusion mash at 152F, or a triple decoction mash.

I pretty much just do single infusion mashes from 150F to 154F with a 60 minute duration. I am pretty happy with most of my beers with that process (Pale Ales, IPAs, Stouts, Porters, etc.). I have been digging more into Belgian beers lately, and feeling like I might be missing out with just a single infusion mash at 150F.

 

[Nubiwan]

I certainly didn't say that. I don't know anything about the guy who did that particular "exbeeriment."



Nope. But full disclosure, I don't know much about his brewing methods.



Ok.



Why do you think that?



Based on what?



Who said that? I don't think anyone did. It seems like you're making a strawman argument.

Fair enough.

Brulosophy method is there for all to see. They have hundreds of intriguing tests performed, and they are tested by impartial tasters, and sometimes judges, who either can or cannot tell the difference. Even the tester himself appears surprised by results he gets, and decides for himself whether or not he will alter his own process. Plus it is scaled to Home brewing, and not commercial. Not sure I see a problem.

Show me another resource on the web, where home brewing processes are tested "side by side/split batches" in a more "scientific' less anecdotal manner.

 

[VikeMan]

Show me another resource on the web, where home brewing processes are tested "side by side/split batches" in a more "scientific' less anecdotal manner.

I don't know why you resurrected this to make a strawman argument. I never said there was another homebrewing web site that does what Brulosophy does, either less scientifically or more scientifically. But I will continue to be honest about what Brulosophy's results mean and what they don't mean, scientifically speaking.

 

[Nubiwan]

Why was that "telling?" It's one taster. No more and no less valid an observation than any other one random person's observation. The fact that this guy made the observation as a byproduct of a Brulosophy experiment doesn't lend weight.

Let's face it; you can find anecdotes that contradict any "generally accepted principle." You can find anecdotes that contradict well established science. (How many people think you can heat a whole room to comfortable temperatures in winter with 4 tea candles and a flower pot?) But if you're going to expect to overturn these generally accepted principles, bring evidence. The burden of proof is on the challenger. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is needed.

It is telling to me. He makes a shed load of beer, at least compared to me, has a good deal more experience, better equipment, and no real reason to lie about the result he got.

Indeed, it is also telling in that it shows just how different we all taste. One mans nectar is another mans gruel.

I can only ever go by what I make, and what I get served when I buy at a bar, whether craft or commercial. My beer stands up well. And I am a self confessed lazy brewer.

 

[Nubiwan]

I don't know why you resurrected this to make a strawman argument. I never said there was another homebrewing web site that does what Brulosophy does, either less scientifically or more scientifically. But I will continue to be honest about what Brulosophy's results mean and what they don't mean, scientifically speaking.

Never intimated you did suggest another site either. So for now, we have Brulosphy to look at, or advice from the forum, and decide for ourselves. Not trying to get people angry over it.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

Hopefully this thread does not go south....

My take away so far from this thread is that mashing is more complex than just temperature. I think the couple Brulosophy experiments on the topic are valid data points, but they may or may not apply to your/my system or preference.

 

[cmac62]

Interesting discussion. I know for me when I want to brew a brut anything I use glucoamylase in the mash and in the fermenter which does chop the dextrin long chain sugars (I think).

 

[doug293cz]

Interesting discussion. I know for me when I want to brew a brut anything I use glucoamylase in the mash and in the fermenter which does chop the dextrin long chain sugars (I think).

Yes, glucoamylase (amyloglucosidase) hydrolyzes (breaks) the linear 1-4 bonds (just like alpha and beta amylase), but also hydrolyzes the 1-6 branching bonds, which neither alpha nor beta can touch. Gluco can give you 100% fermentability of the carbohydrates in the wort, but can't do anything with the 10 - 12% proteins and other stuff.

Brew on

 

[cmac62]

^^ Thanks for the reply. ^^

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

The time comments are interesting. It makes me wonder if any of the brewing software out there takes mash time into account when predicting attenuation. I'm pretty sure Brewer's Friend will change FG if you tweak the mash temp.

 

[VikeMan]

The time comments are interesting. It makes me wonder if any of the brewing software out there takes mash time into account when predicting attenuation. I'm pretty sure Brewer's Friend will change FG if you tweak the mash temp.

BrewCipher considers Mash Temp, Mash Time, Grain Types, and Yeast Strain. BeerSmith considers all of those except for Grain Types.