Short mash on bigger beers?

[zwiller]

I have successfully been fooling with shorter mash times (30 minutes) and recently did my house IPA 1.075 with same routine. I am seeing a slight loss of efficiency with the shorter mash in other beers but otherwise no issues but the IPA is much cloudier than typical. Noticed this during vorlaufing too.

Not the end of the world and crash cooling should take care most of it but has anyone seen this sort of thing? I figured more malt, more enzymes, faster conversion.

 

[AnOldUR]

Mash time has nothing to do with clarity unless you have a lot of unconverted starches. You mash until conversion is complete. Things like grain bill, crush, temperature and mash thickness are all factors in conversion time regardless of OG.

 

[catdaddy66]

I would note that for bigger beers (ie higher ABV), longer mash times at lower temps allow more sugars to convert. For example, mashing for 60 minutes at 156* will produce fewer fermentable sugars than a mash of 90 minutes at 150*. The type of yeast used will also help, as for higher ABV you want higher attenuation in your yeast. Nottingham is a yeast that attenuated better than Windsor yeast.

Some styles of beer require low/med/high final gravity, that will also factor in to how you mash with regard to warmer or cooler, shorter or longer, etc.

Also, more malt does provide more sugars but conversion speed remains constant (I believe...). Don't know how you could speed up enzymatic action thru mash time only (or at all).

Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[billl]

Your beer doesn't know it's "bigger" at the mash stage. eg If you mash at 1.25, the ratio of water, enzymes and starches are all exactly the same no matter what the intended gravity.

Your efficiency is worse with bigger beers because you've got relatively more sugar to wash out with the same net amount of water.

 

[dobe12]

A thicker mash is suppose to convert quicker since the enzymes are less diluted in water and are in more contact with the starches. A thinner mash is suppose to take longer to convert because they enzymes are more diluted in water and in less contact with the starches, but a thinner mash is suppose to convert more fully if given more time.

I'm currently running a few tests on mash conversion times depending on water/grain ratio. I did the first last week with a thin mash (2qt/lb). Tomorrow I'm going to be doing an average mash at 1.5qt/lb. And next week (hopefully) I'll be trying again, but with a thicker mash of about 1qt/lb. Here's a like to my initial test if you are interested.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/mash-conversion-experiment-475391/

 

[zwiller]

Good points thus far.

Here is some more detail. 15lbs grain 1.6qts:lb ratio, mash pH 5.4, .030 crush - fine but not not crazy fine, 150F mash temp. Thought I would be fine since I was using a "hot" malt, recipe was 95% Briess 2 row brewers malt.

Dobe, you're spot on with your experiment. I would be happy to lower ratio in exchange for faster conversion. 1.6 is a bit on the thin side. Truthfully, I only use this ratio because the water volume results are easier to measure.

Would it be wrong to assume the unconverted starch remaining in the beer would be the clarity issue?

 

[dobe12]

Would it be wrong to assume the unconverted starch remaining in the beer would be the clarity issue?

That is one of many factors that lead to clarity issues.

 

[VladOfTrub]

Refer to IOB article Vol 97, Mar., Apr. 1991. The article is about how mash thickness, pH and temps affect enzymatic activity on carbs. There are graphs and other info that might be helpful.

Some malt manufacturers will mention conversion time on their malt data sheet. The data is derived by different agencies that might use different volumes of water, methods, temp and crush. Data is usually provided by the IOB, ASBC or EBC.

The factor that causes clarity issues in pils, light lager and light ale is a poor brewing process. Starch carry over lessens stability and shelf life. Starch is hard to fine out. Protein is another thing, but easier to deal with. Both issues come from a poor process.


This might be something to consider; a thick mash around 1 qt/lb is usually used in brewing methods other than the English method. Sparging becomes difficult unless batch sparging method is employed. With fly sparging, the mash would have to be ran off slowly. If the malt data sheet indicates high beta glucan percentage/viscosity, 1 qt/lb gets tough to work with. A thicker mash is favored in brewing methods that use more than one rest, as in decoction and programmed methods. Where water infusions might be used to reach certain rest temps, for mash temp maintenance or mash out. In those methods, temps are used that enzymes favor which reduce beta glucans and viscosity. The brewing process takes longer and a thick mash is used to preserve enzymes. If all the ducks are lined up, making the substrate conducive for enzymatic activity, a thick mash will convert quickly. A thin mash allows starch carry over, more so, in the English method. The method is very limited when it comes to taking advantage of enzymatic activity. Using the English method with a mash out, causes the small pieces of starch that are stuck in the ends of the husk to burst, going into solution. Enzymes are denatured due to the high mash out temp, nothing is left to convert the excess starch. Doing a 10 minute vorlauf adds more starch. Starch loaded extract equals no stability or quality in the final product.

What is a "hot" malt recipe? Is it a recipe made up of 95% base and the rest being Ovaltine and hot milk?

 

[zwiller]

Crash cooled and kegged yesterday. It dropped bright fast. Like my last beer with the 30 minute mash the FG was a tad high 1.022. Doesn't taste sweet or worty though. Was kinda rushing it so I could have some “samples” for Memorial Day.

Cool stuff that IOB is online! http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1991.tb01055.x/abstract An interesting read. I am trying to extract some relevant info from it. What I find most unusual is the temperatures used in testing where quite high. Starting at 70C/158F to 90C/194F... In any event, it seems pretty clear that it takes 60 minutes for full conversion with the various mash thicknesses. The only real argument I could make is that the study was done in 1990 and I wonder if malt technology has made some advances that allow a shorter conversion time.

Hot malt I guess is brewers slang for highly modified malt 120 degrees Litner or higher. I use Briess 2 row brewers as my base. http://www.brewingwithbriess.com/Assets/PDFs/Briess_PISB_2RowBrewersMalt.pdf

 

[dobe12]

Dobe, you're spot on with your experiment. I would be happy to lower ratio in exchange for faster conversion. 1.6 is a bit on the thin side. Truthfully, I only use this ratio because the water volume results are easier to measure.

My test and a fellow homebrewer's test this weekend did not prove this theory true. We got roughly the same results with thicker 1.4 and 1.5qt/lb mashes compared to a thinner 2qt/lb mash. Conversion continues up to about 45min or more. Check out my link again. I've added some new info.