Mashing for 90 mins. is that common?

[saeroner]

So my brew buddy had recently talked to someone that works in a small brewery. The guy said he typically mashes everything for an hour and a half. We are typically brewing IPA. What would be the benefits of this?

 

[dlester]

High efficiency...I get an extra 10%. There might be another reason, but this was the result of my 90 minute mash.


Cheers,

 

[rpkincaid]

If mashing at lower temperatures it may result in higher attenuation of the resulting beer.

 

[LLBeanJ]

I usually mash for 90m on my lower temp mashes (150° and lower).

 

[bajaedition]

there are a lot of recipes that call for 90 minute mashes

as homebrewers a lot of our COMMON technique is based on minimums and convenience.

not being guys who get paid for this, a lot of guys would not do much if they knew it took extra time so 60 minutes became our standard, but quite a few professional brewers use 90 minutes to 2 hours as mash times

 

[thaymond]

I did notice a jump in efficiency with a longer mash time at lower temps 150-152. Higher temps 154-156 for me at least don't show much more yield in efficiency. Not sure if it's temps or process, but I now stick it to 90 minutes because I can bottle my previous batch during a single infusion mash.

 

[FuzzeWuzze]

People like Jamil also advocate 90 minute boils for pretty much everything, not just pils malts.

 

[jperry]

While mashing low(150°F or lower), it takes longer for the enzymes to convert starch into sugar. That's the main reason why we wait the extra time, when mashing low.

 

[DoWBrewer]

For a low temp mash (for my Saison), say 148 I will do a 90-min mash or two stage 140 for 45-mins and 154 for 45-mins. Having said that, most of the highly modified malts used today covert very quickly. I heard an interview with the head brewer from Stone (if memory serves) that most modern highly modified grain converts in about 15-mins. I know a couple of brewers that have moved to 30-min mash for normal beers (mashing in the 150s, at a normal gravity 1.055 and below). I tasted a 60-min mash and 30-min of the same beer and couldn't really taste any difference.

If you are using less highly modified malts it might make a difference. With modern 2-row, it probably doesn't.

 

[Teromous]

The main thing here is total conversion. If you are not achieving total (or anticipated) conversion then some extra time in the mash tun could benefit you. If you are achieving total (or anticipated) conversion then you are just wasting time. I suggest reading a source such as BrauKaiser (scroll down to "What affects the conversion efficiency").

 

[prohl84]

As many have said- at temperatures less than 150 this may be effective. At higher temperatures beta amylase will denature rather quickly and alpha amylase won't take 90 minutes for conversion so it wouldn't do much for you to mash that long.

I think for IPAs you'll be fine with the ol' 152 for 60 depending on your yeast. With that schedule US 05 will get it down to the 1.006 area depending on your OG and percentage crystal malts used.

+1 to highly modified malts not requiring as long to mash. I have been meaning to test the 30 minute mash- maybe on my next smash.

 

[BeerLoverHere]

+1 on 90 minute boil time

+1 on 90 minute mash

i'd like to add to make sure you sparge/trickle wort out of mash tun very slowly with sparge water (maybe 45 minutes or so)

 

[dlester]

I usually mash for 90m on my lower temp mashes (150° and lower).

Good for Lagers and Ales.

 

[Hello]

Good for Lagers and Ales.

So all beers then?

 

[RM-MN]

As many have said- at temperatures less than 150 this may be effective. At higher temperatures beta amylase will denature rather quickly and alpha amylase won't take 90 minutes for conversion so it wouldn't do much for you to mash that long.

I think for IPAs you'll be fine with the ol' 152 for 60 depending on your yeast. With that schedule US 05 will get it down to the 1.006 area depending on your OG and percentage crystal malts used.

+1 to highly modified malts not requiring as long to mash. I have been meaning to test the 30 minute mash- maybe on my next smash.

That's a good idea. I've been doing 30 minute mashes BIAB and have done a couple with a 10 minute mash. The 10 minute mash ones (mashed at 152) attenuated down from 1.052 to 1.002 so I think I got good conversion from the beta amylase with even that short time. Iodine tests show full conversion in less than 3 minutes with a very fine milling.

 

[rpkincaid]

That's a good idea. I've been doing 30 minute mashes BIAB and have done a couple with a 10 minute mash. The 10 minute mash ones (mashed at 152) attenuated down from 1.052 to 1.002 so I think I got good conversion from the beta amylase with even that short time. Iodine tests show full conversion in less than 3 minutes with a very fine milling.

1.052 -> 1.002 is ~96% AA. What yeast are you using?

 

[Weezy]

I haven't done any true testing, but I believe the mash time is more dictated by the time needed to saturate the grain and extract the starches. The enzymatic conversion takes just minutes, especially for US base malts which are very highly enzymatic. US barley, from what I understand, was bred this way to help convert all the corn used in beer and liquor. Continental barley is not so enzymatic and is therefore much more sensitive to temp variations, since it converts more slowly (but not slow).

You could probably convert barley flour in 3 minutes. Hehehe

 

[RM-MN]

1.052 -> 1.002 is ~96% AA. What yeast are you using?

1 packet of Nottingham in a 2 1/2 gallon batch. I've had similar attenuation with half a packet of Windsor in a 2 1/2 gallon batch. Both took 4 weeks to come to FG.

 

[RM-MN]

I haven't done any true testing, but I believe the mash time is more dictated by the time needed to saturate the grain and extract the starches. The enzymatic conversion takes just minutes, especially for US base malts which are very highly enzymatic. US barley, from what I understand, was bread this way to help convert all the corn used in beer and liquor. Continental barley is not so enzymatic and is therefore much more sensitive to temp variations, since it converts more slowly (but not slow).

You could probably convert barley flour in 3 minutes. Hehehe

Less than 2 minutes. I checked. My Corona mill is set as tight as it goes and the grain looks like cornmeal.

 

[Weezy]

Less than 2 minutes. I checked. My Corona mill is set as tight as it goes and the grain looks like cornmeal.

Cool! (it'd help if I would have actually saw that in your previous post too! haha)

 

[prohl84]

US base malts which are very highly enzymatic. US barley, from what I understand, was bred this way to help convert all the corn used in beer and liquor. Continental barley is not so enzymatic and is therefore much more sensitive to temp variations, since it converts more slowly (but not slow).

I think you are referring to 6 row barley varieties- commonly used in adjunct laden, American fizzy yellow- having a higher diastatic power than 2 row varieties. A difference of only 10 lintner.

I think the malt type/ degree of modification matters more than the specific variety of barley i.e. Conlon or Harrington. I'm no maltster but I am pretty sure you could make a less modified pilsner malt or a fully modified 2 row pale from either of those barleys. A malt that is less modified is also going to have a lower DP.

 

[VladOfTrub]

Floor malt is enzymatically richer than high modified malt. The diastatic power is less than high modified. Used with the right process, diastatic power of floor malt raises drastically and it's not uncommon to fully convert in 10 to 15 minutes with adjuncts. The diastatic strength of high modified is determined in the kiln. Wetting the malt to keep it from burning during the high temp the malt is kilned at, converts, inverts and crystallizes certain things in the malt. Enzymes have less to work on. Making it convenient for baggers and infusers to use adjuncts that will convert easily, using a simple process.

Mashing for 90 minutes at 150F is useless. In a thick mash, beta is denatured in less than an hour. Notice in recipes for brewing German styles of beer using high modified malt, a low temp rest around 140F to 145F is used. Starch doesn't gelatinize at the temp. However, beta is active. Then another rest around 149F to 153F is used. Starch becomes gelatinized. Then a rest around 155 to 162 is used for final conversion. Alpha is in the grain when it is in the field, beta is produced in the malting/kilning process. Other than producing non fermentable sugar, alpha is able to liquify native starch and turn it into carbohydrate soup. The activity begins when mash is doughed in and resting at 100F. Debranching enzymes are kilned out of high modified malt, making the malt worthless from that aspect. The baggery and single infusion process limits alpha's ability to make carbohydrates and reduces the time needed for alpha to chop up starch into reducing and non reducing ends, slowing down beta. Beta works only on the non reducing ends of the chain. Chopping off a couple of molecules of starch and blending them with one molecule of water, producing sugar. Alpha doesn't randomly chop up the chain where ever it feels like. It chops up the chain at what is called 1-4 links. Beta can work down to the 1-6 link. Leaving a branch. Since dextrinase and maltase are kilned out. The branches cannot be broken down. A-limit and B-limit dextrins are formed. Methods, other than baggery or infusion methods, increase enzymatic efficiency and activity. Not too much takes place when hot water is dumped on mash or when mash is in a bag soaked in hot water.

 

[smccarter]

Single infusion mash.... 60 minutes, open cooler and stir.
Close the cooler again and set the timer for another 30 minutes, then sparge.

Has been working great for me, so 90 minute mash.... yes.

I was having difficulty reaching the OG I was looking for with a 60 minute single infusion mash. Was having trouble reaching the efficiency I was looking for at 60 minutes. Once I starter using the above process, I stopped having said difficulty. There may be a better way, but this process has worked for me 100 percent of the time. Not saying my way will work for everyone, but it's working extremely well for me.