Would this perhaps work with a millet mash?

[Michaelinwa]

Ok, this is probably a dumb idea, but....

As I gear up for my first all grain (millet) mash, I seem to be pondering ways to EASILY deal with the fact the millet gelatinizes at a higher temperature than the enzymes like. Now, I'll probably just try a single infusion that holds the temperature at around 158F, along with some alpha amylase for a couple hours, because clearly it works (or does for some, anyway).

BUT, what if I did a bastardized decoction thing where I hold the grain at say 155F for a while, skim off the thin liquid and put it aside, bring the grain above 164F to gelatinize for a while, cool the grain back down to 155F or so, add back the thin liquid (warmed to about 155F) that I skimmed off, thrown some alpha amylase, and them mash for however long it takes to convert the grain.

I know there are no rests, and all that stuff that I'm unlikely to ever fool around with and do not understand (and I suspect may be a whole different ball game with millet v.s. barley because they are so different), but would my idea be any worse than a straight one-step infusion to high 150s? Would I be killing off enzymes or whatever in the grain (heated to 164f) that still need to be in there working?

If you think this has potential, any thoughts on time needed for gelatinization? Time needed to let thin liquid with enzymes develop prior to heating the grains to 165?

Another idea was to just heat up a portion of the grain, say one-third of it, to gelatinize, and add it back into the mash so that at least there are more available starches (at least in theory).

Thanks for any input on this. If you think it has potential, I'll let you know how it goes.

Mike

 

[Osedax]

That is great thinking. Google Andrew Lavery. That is similar to his mash schedule. However, the enzymes in question aren't denatured completely until 168F. Also, a thicker mash will help preserve the enzymes at higher temperatures. That's why my quick gel rest at 163F works. 15 minutes seems to be adequate. Longer times did not effect my efficiency at all. Your theories should all work for the most part.

 

[Michaelinwa]

That is great thinking. Google Andrew Lavery. That is similar to his mash schedule. However, the enzymes in question aren't denatured completely until 168F. Also, a thicker mash will help preserve the enzymes at higher temperatures. That's why my quick gel rest at 163F works. 15 minutes seems to be adequate. Longer times did not effect my efficiency at all. Your theories should all work for the most part.

I guess, it's not terribly different from what you are doing. Maybe doing that protein rest isn't so much trouble now that I think of it. Do you think pulling out the thin mash liquid is worth the trouble if the enzymes are ok at 164/165F, or so? My main concern was ensuring gelatinization and still keep the enzymes happy.

 

[brwmistr]

I pull out three liters of the grain colored liquid to save and add back in after my 55C rest and then bring the batch to 85C until the mash becomes thick then cool to 65C and add it back in for the conversion and I get great results with this. 77% efficiency with a 4 Gallon is 1.034-1.045 depending on the recipe.

 

[igliashon]

Completely unnecessary. Decoction mashes with millet malt are a waste of time. If you don't believe me, try my method and try the decoction method and compare your yields. I used to do it the hard way--I had some crazy 6-step mash that I would have sworn was necessary. Translating to a 15 bbl brewery made me desperate to simplify the process because a 6-step mash even with a heated MLT is an all-day affair at this scale. On a lark I tried a single-infusion mash at 152°F and discovered that nothing changed about my extraction and I stopped having issues with over-attenuated super-dry beers like I did. FWIW, my old mash was this (direct heated kettle mash):
15 minutes at 120
15 minutes at 135
30 minutes at 158
5 minutes at 180
Chill mash & add amylase
60 minutes at 152
5 minutes at 175
Sparge

I got great extraction but could not keep my beers from finishing below 1.008, no matter how high the OG. My stouts were thin and watery, my IPAs dry and harsh. Switching to a single infusion saves me so much time and the beers finish better.

 

[Michaelinwa]

Completely unnecessary. Decoction mashes with millet malt are a waste of time. If you don't believe me, try my method and try the decoction method and compare your yields. I used to do it the hard way--I had some crazy 6-step mash that I would have sworn was necessary. Translating to a 15 bbl brewery made me desperate to simplify the process because a 6-step mash even with a heated MLT is an all-day affair at this scale. On a lark I tried a single-infusion mash at 152°F and discovered that nothing changed about my extraction and I stopped having issues with over-attenuated super-dry beers like I did. FWIW, my old mash was this (direct heated kettle mash):
15 minutes at 120
15 minutes at 135
30 minutes at 158
5 minutes at 180
Chill mash & add amylase
60 minutes at 152
5 minutes at 175
Sparge

I got great extraction but could not keep my beers from finishing below 1.008, no matter how high the OG. My stouts were thin and watery, my IPAs dry and harsh. Switching to a single infusion saves me so much time and the beers finish better.

Well, I guess I'll start with simpler first, then. Single infusion works for me!

Thanks!

 

[Osedax]

Decoction is unnecessary and a single infusion will work fine. However, I still believe a decoction is good for certain styles just like in barley brewing. It creates certain malliard reactions that are hard to replicate in any other way.

Same thing with the other mash rests. They may not increase extraction but, they do serve a purpose. Granted 6 steps is probably not needed. I think the most advanced I would get would be a single decoction from protein to sacc rest.

Point is, try the single infusion first. It will work in 99% of the beers you make. Then, try a more complex mash if you are feeling experimental.

 

[dcbw]

Completely unnecessary. Decoction mashes with millet malt are a waste of time. If you don't believe me, try my method and try the decoction method and compare your yields. I used to do it the hard way--I had some crazy 6-step mash that I would have sworn was necessary. Translating to a 15 bbl brewery made me desperate to simplify the process because a 6-step mash even with a heated MLT is an all-day affair at this scale. On a lark I tried a single-infusion mash at 152°F and discovered that nothing changed about my extraction and I stopped having issues with over-attenuated super-dry beers like I did.

Do you still use Amylase enzyme with the single infusion mash @ 152?

 

[Maxham51]

With Grouse millet malt it I found it takes a lot of enzymes and an long time to convert if it ever does
With Colorado malt I just do a protein rest At 125 for 20 min then @ 153 for 60, adding some amalyse to be safe. No problems full conversion.
So I would say it depends where you get your malt from would recommend Colorado Malting.

 

[brwmistr]

I home malt all my grains so I will see how they stack up to the pro's on this single infusion mash. My next batch is very soon. I will make my summer IPA. Thanks for the info.