What if you bring the malts slowly to mash temp?

[hotbeer]

Perhaps I should RTFM, but I'm not...at the moment.

What are the results to be expected if one just adds their malts to the water at the temp it comes out of the faucet and then heats it to mash temp instead of using strike water heated to a temp that provides the chosen mash temp when the two are mixed?

I'm not talking about a step mash. The thing that got me wondering is how I make my oatmeal for breakfast in the morning. I've been just adding it and water together and then heating to boil and then simmering. A week or two ago I got to wondering what it be like if I boiled the water first and then added the rolled oats (old fashioned). And the result is quite a bit different. Adding the oats to heated water seems to gelatinize is more thoroughly and the oats maintain their individuality and are separate. Bring both to temperature slowly together results in a creamier and more homogenous mixture where the grains of oats are much less discernable. Both having their different taste appeal.

I'm thinking that if malts are similar and you just do a slow rise to temp you'll also get a similar homogenous mash that will not let water pass through easily. And if strike temp is calculated correctly, you'll get a individually gelatinized grains that will let water pass between them more easily. Is that about it? Or is there more to the story.

 

[balrog]

As a BIAB-er using propane, it would be difficult to heat my system from tap water temp to mash temp without damaging/scorching the bag/tie. Interesting question though. It would hit all those lower temp steps and rests I see mentioned, and some steps and rests cited as unnecessary for well modified malts of today.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

I believe that one of the Belgian brewers is said to do this.

There is also this Brulosophy article. The batch with the rising temp mash ended up with a lower FG vs the batch that had a single rest at 154˚F/68˚C. That result is not too surprising. The tasting results were significant. I have to wonder if that was due to the scorching shown on the heating element of the raised temp batch. It make me think that you would want a system that applied gentle heat. It could also be that the "slight twang" noticed was a pH impact due to to moving through an acid rest stage.
https://brulosophy.com/2017/10/02/t...on-vs-rising-temperature-exbeeriment-results/

 

[Miraculix]

You go automatically through all the different enzymes sweet spots and activate them for a shorter or longer time. That way you'll get a beta glucan step, ferulic acid step and so on. If you want that or not is your decision.

Your have to keep in mind that the oats from your example don't have enzymes present. The enzymes in the malt however will prevent a gooy substance like porridge from forming anyway, as the enzymes will chop down all available gelatinised starch in solution that would otherwise be forming the goo. So if you are not after activating the other enzymes at the lower temperature points, I don't see any benefit in that slowly heating idea.

 

[Broken Crow]

Perhaps I should RTFM, but I'm not...at the moment.

What are the results to be expected if one just adds their malts to the water at the temp it comes out of the faucet and then heats it to mash temp instead of using strike water heated to a temp that provides the chosen mash temp when the two are mixed?

I'm not talking about a step mash. The thing that got me wondering is how I make my oatmeal for breakfast in the morning. I've been just adding it and water together and then heating to boil and then simmering. A week or two ago I got to wondering what it be like if I boiled the water first and then added the rolled oats (old fashioned). And the result is quite a bit different. Adding the oats to heated water seems to gelatinize is more thoroughly and the oats maintain their individuality and are separate. Bring both to temperature slowly together results in a creamier and more homogenous mixture where the grains of oats are much less discernable. Both having their different taste appeal.

I'm thinking that if malts are similar and you just do a slow rise to temp you'll also get a similar homogenous mash that will not let water pass through easily. And if strike temp is calculated correctly, you'll get a individually gelatinized grains that will let water pass between them more easily. Is that about it? Or is there more to the story.

Not to do with mashing, but oats: If you ever get some decent steel-cut whole oats and want to get the best out of them for breakfast, you start the night before: Boil the water, dump in the oats and put the lid on the pot, and take the pot off the heat and just heat it up in the morning.... Brings out the best in them in my opinion and I'm kinda hooked on the McCanns Oats.
https://mccanns.com/

 

[hotbeer]

Ah... I should have counted on Brülosophy to have already done something on it. It seems that they almost always have done something similar to many situations I ponder about beer. Slight surprised it resulted in a lower FG. But I guess as @Miraculix suggested, the times at the ranges that favors the various enzymes is more favorable for creation of differing amounts of unfermentable and fermentable sugars. Though the 0.003 that the relative difference was from OG to FG of both batches may not say anything for certain.


Thanks for helping me wrap my head around it somewhat better.


As for the steel cut oats, I like those too. But I've not tried soaking them overnight yet. Just not ready to think about breakfast to that extent before bedtime.

 

[balrog]

Slight surprised it resulted in a lower FG.

Wait'll you see what an overnight mash can do to dry out a beer (lower FG)

 

[Bobby_M]

Step mash is just primarily a technique that was driven by the way heat was applied (decoction) but chemically a slow ramp through all the temp zones would accomplish the same thing. That is to say, make sure your grist would benefit from a protein rest. If you used say 100% Barke Pilsner, which is highly modified with low protein content, you'd probably end up with a "relatively" low head retention.

 

[dmtaylor]

I'm sure there are brewers who have tried this. As others have stated, the brewer will need to take care that the wort does not scorch at the heat source. An indirect source of heating (like a false bottom, or by blowing in steam) along with stirring would be ideal. The malt will experience all of the common rests on the way up. I would theorize that using this method, the beer could turn out being more well attenuated / thinner bodied, with lower head retention, but it also depends on the speed of the ramp-up. If you could ramp very fast within say 90 minutes, these effects could be minimized and result in a fairly standard wort. You would need to have the right process in order to pull this off. Otherwise it seems this could just be a pain having to stir (by hand?!) the entire time to prevent scorching, etc. Or maybe next to impossible to do it right without all the proper process.

EDIT: I wrote the above response before reading the Brulosophy article. Their experiment seems to confirm much of it.

 

[BigEd]

The method is called a ramped infusion. Many years ago on a brewery tour of an Anheuser-Busch plant I encountered a tour guide who actually knew something about brewing. He told me they were doing a ramped infusion mash, starting at about 120F and raising the temp one degree per minute up to mash out. This was followed by a very slow sparge of several hours.

My assumption is that by exposing the grist to a wide temperature range all types of enzyme activity are allowed some time at their respective prime temperatures. The long, slow sparge that follows lets them extract every last sugar molecule from the mash. So their main reason for the choice is economic rather than artistic.

 

[AlexKay]

My concerns would be scorching and reproducibility. And while the slow ramp will give all the enzymes a chance to do something, some of those somethings might not be what you want for a particular beer.

But overall I'd expect the effects on the beer to be pretty small. I'm actually a little surprised Brulosophy found a perceptible difference.

 

[hotbeer]

I wasn't really considering the step mash, as that is still done with water heated to a certain amount. But perhaps since the step mashes are usually started below the gelatinization temp of barely malts then my question is much the same but a little less controlled as there are no steps and just gradual heating.

Do step mashes require more water and are slower to drain? Particularly for BIAB.

 

[balrog]

I wasn't really considering the step mash, as that is still done with water heated to a certain amount. But perhaps since the step mashes are usually started below the gelatinization temp of barely malts then my question is much the same but a little less controlled as there are no steps and just gradual heating.

Do step mashes require more water and are slower to drain? Particularly for BIAB.

Perhaps someone who's actually done step mashes in BIAB can jump in, but my understanding is that you add the calculated amount of boiling water to progress from one temp step to another. However many steps you desire, you have to do the calculation, recursively I guess, to determine how to end with the full volume desired after all the steps and additions. I don't see how it would make the BIAB draining any different.

 

[Miraculix]

Perhaps someone who's actually done step mashes in BIAB can jump in, but my understanding is that you add the calculated amount of boiling water to progress from one temp step to another. However many steps you desire, you have to do the calculation, recursively I guess, to determine how to end with the full volume desired after all the steps and additions. I don't see how it would make the BIAB draining any different.

I've done this and I've done the heating method. There is a mash infusion calculator by brewer's friends that works well for this task. In any way, draining is not an issue.

 

[hotbeer]

Glad to know that draining isn't an issue. I had that idea from my recent discovery about rolled oats. Seems that dumping them in boiling water gelatinizes them instantly and they stay separated. But bringing them up to temperature at the same time as the water produces a creamier more homogenous mixture that I'd think will be hard to drain and retain more water.

But I guess the other factor missing for my bowl of oatmeal is that if I was mashing, there'd be a lot more water to keep it from being a sticky mess. At least till the end.

Oh... if any are thinking about waiting to throw their breakfast old fashioned rolled oats in boiling water, then do so carefully. It does cause the water to go into a violent boil briefly. The result is interesting difference from the creamier texture that bringing both to a boil together causes.