The answer to the question are my Beta enzymes denaturing at mash in because of the 162 or so temp is NO! Have you noticed the COA of most malts lists the Alpha Amylase but not the Beta? That's because the Beta is in the Alerone layer next to the endosperm. It is not activated until Gelatinazation. I don't know how long complete gelatinization takes but i'm sure 7 min is not enough time.
Do higher mashing temps override lower mashing temps?
- Thread starter beervoid
- Start date
-
- Tags
- attenuation mash temp
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
Robert65
Major Obvious (recently promoted)
Amazingly, not a single thing in here that resembles a fact. Beta amylase is not located in this proposed layer -- and I assume aleurone is meant, which is neither enzyme-bearing nor subject to gelatinization. And it is the gelatinization of starch that makes it fully available to enzymes (though ungelatinized starches are also available,) enzymes are not activated by gelatinization. Beta amylase, like all the enzymes, is active from the moment it goes into solution, at any temperature. And malt COAs give the "alpha-amylase, DU" number because it is one of several indicators of degree of modification. It is rarely of interest to the homebrewer, though commercially it can help a brewer adjust processes to achieve consistency in brewhouse efficiency from lot to lot of malt, though it is still of minor interest. The more significant number on the COA is the total "DP, °L," which accounts for both alpha and beta amylase.
I'm sure it's a Church of Jamil effect. Personally I find MrMalty to be WAY too conservative. I typically pitch 1/3 to 1/2 as much yeast as he recommends. Fermentation starts right up within 12 hours typically, so why use more than that, I dunno.
I'm sure the fineness of control that might, theoretically, be possible would be overcome by all the other variables. My nature is to drill down (it's why I asked for links/sources) until I get to that point where the noise from normal fluctuations is greater than the control I can exercise. Much like your comment on O2 tanks whose weight, empty, varies as much as the weight of the product they're supposed to contain.
I think the time depends on the crush, though if your crush is always the same, a consistent mash should be relatively easy. I've been doing some low-oxygen techniques, and one tenet of the low oxygen approach is to crush coarsely, with as little flour as possible, so as to reduce the surface area of the grist exposed to oxygen and thus oxidation. If I crush finely, the mash proceeds very fast; a coarse crush, it takes much longer to get full conversion.
For me, "normal" would be 60 minutes, give or take. I'm actually more like 75, as the first 7 minutes is underletting, then sit for 10 minutes at 132, then ramp to 149, hold there for 60 minutes or until I have full conversion. Yeah, "normal" is a funny term and I should have been clearer, as it doesn't have a precise meaning.
I wasn't questioning your understanding; rather, it was the drill-down thing. I'm working toward a mental model of how all these pieces fit together; it's complicated, all these various moving parts. If I can get the theory down, then I can apply it (e.g., I thought of trying that, but it won't work, because this). I'm a scientist, so a big believer in empirical evidence, and with brewing, there's a lot.
But I want the theoretical model because then I can tweak. An empiricist would have to try every possible combination to determine what is the best thing to do. A theoretician, if the model is good, can predict with some confidence what the results of any combination would be. And then tweak as necessary. I love empirical evidence, but I also revere good theoretical models.
Me too! It's one of those times, too rare for me here on HBT, where I have to think about and reorganize my conceptualization of brewing and the various moving parts. As a result, my understanding is better, and the ability to produce high-quality beer is enhanced.
And even explaining to someone one's theoretical model has much value; you really find out how much you know when you try to explain or teach it.
FWIW, I think gelatinization begins PDQ, much less than 7 minutes at nominal saccharification temperatures in the 140s or higher.
I normally pay no heed to fortune cookies, but there was one fortune I got that said "One learns most when teaching others." I kept that one.
Robert65
Major Obvious (recently promoted)
And at some point you find after all the drilling down, you know things, and can explain them, but no longer remember where or when you learned them. And it can be a little disconcerting, because you feel like you ought to be able to footnote everything you say to be legitimate. But until confronted with evidence that you are wrong, you have to trust what you think you know. Maybe its a difference between points on the continuum form novice to mastery. As long as we're always questioning, we're good.
Robert65
Major Obvious (recently promoted)
Yep, pretty much instantaneous AFAIK. So, there was one thing tending toward factuality in that post. My bad, apologies.
This is an interesting observation. I develop working models of the world in many areas (brewing being only one), models that have been created from a theoretical understanding of that world.
New information/evidence is tested against those models, and when the information/evidence is counter to the model, that's when I'm trying to resolve that.
I'm not a slow reader, not if the goal is to read fast, but when I read textbooks and brewing texts and such, as I read, I'm testing what I read against my model. I'll often pause in reading and think about how what I've just read fits in with my understanding of the world.
And if it doesn't fit....then I have to figure out why. I'm like you in the sense that I don't always have a rolodex in my mind of where I learned things. As a scholar, it's not always a good thing to forget who said what, but I'm not doing scholarship here.
I'm still at that point in understanding yeast. I keep thinking I am figuring it out, and some new idea or evidence comes forth and challenges what I thought I knew. That's been happening a lot lately, from White's assertion he'd just pitch a tube of yeast, no starter (which in my limited experience works), to understanding what happens with a starter wort we've boiled and from which we've driven off oxygen, only to pitch yeast into a starter wort with no oxygen. (that's why I oxygenate my starters). And then you have the pitching of dry yeast without even having oxygenated the wort in the fermenter. Still wrapping my head around that one.
****
Nobel-winning physicist Richard Feynmann once had an interesting revelation. They were trying to model what happens in atoms and nuclei, when someone made a discovery that something which had been taken for granted for something like 20 years was shown to be wrong.
Feynmann wondered why they had thought what they had, and went back and chased down the original paper published in the area. He discovered that the conclusions weren't particularly defensible, in his mind, yet people had carried them forward as if they were true. And as a result, wandered down the wrong paths for 20 years.
I get the same sense with brewing and much of what we "know." How much of that is incorrect, or simply a conclusion that is correct in one very limited context, and not necessarily so in others?
It's similar to when people post "I did this and nothing happened, ergo, 'this' doesn't have an effect." Well, it may not have had an effect in that context, with that yeast, at that temperature, with that grain bill of that freshness, with that oxygenation or no oxygenation, with.....the point is made. And it doesn't include the testing apparatus, which is when they say it doesn't have an effect....how do they know they're good at determining that?
****
I've thought a lot over the last 3 years about how Brulosophy tests their experiements (I think the experiments are well done; the testing, not as much).
I'm struck by this: in a typical test of results, out of, say, 30 testers, 15 might be able to tell the difference between the test beers, but that means 15 were not. Even in tests that pass the threshold of statistical significance, it's quite often that more can't discern a difference than there are those who can.
How many people here on HBT who say "I couldn't taste a difference" are in that latter group, i.e., who in a triangle test would not be able to tell the difference between two beers?
When people say "there wasn't any difference" I take that with a huge boulder of salt. Is it that there's no difference, or that they just can't tell? And how much of that kind of thing enters the brewing "knowledge" base, and becomes conventional wisdom--which may or may not be correct?
****
You can see I spend way too much time thinking about this stuff, about the "why" and about the "how do we tell?"
Robert65
Major Obvious (recently promoted)
^^^^^
@mongoose33,
OT, but I just had an experience you might relate to. Back when I first started incorporating BrewTan B into my proocess, in the early days of my move to low oxygen methods, I noticed certain things happening (I'll omit the details here.) My mental model, as you put it so well, led me to intuit that I didn't have the level of calcium I expected. I brought this up on another forum, where it ballooned into a couple of monster threads a couple of years back. I couldn't shake the idea that I was onto something, it all fit for me. I supposed that the gallotannin was chelating calcium; after all, chelation of metals is one of its touted advantages. But I was repeatedly assured that this could not happen. The main reason, in addition to no one having read anything about this before, was that, reaching out to a presumed authority, certain forum members of his personal acquaintance had been assured by a manufacturer's representative that, "oh no, you don't have to worry about calcium being affected. That's not what it's for." I then did some tests of my own, measuring the calcium level of a water sample before and at intervals after adding BrewTan B. Sure enough, the calcium levels dropped. But the forum consensus was that I couldn't be right, that the gallotannin must somehow have been interfering with the reagent or indicator and my test was invalid (no mechanism proposed) because, well, the manufacturer's rep didn't seem to know any reason to worry about this.
Well, just now, I was going through a paper on upstream beer stabilization with gallotannin and PVPP, which had sat in cloud storage for some time nearly forgotten, and I wanted to check for something on the PVPP dosing. My eye by chance fell on the summary of materials and methods. It was stated that in the beers dosed with gallotannin, the RO water was adjusted to 60 ppm Ca++, as opposed to 40 ppm in the control, to account for the well known chelation effect of gallotannin on calcium. Heavy sigh of relief and vindication.
@mongoose33,
OT, but I just had an experience you might relate to. Back when I first started incorporating BrewTan B into my proocess, in the early days of my move to low oxygen methods, I noticed certain things happening (I'll omit the details here.) My mental model, as you put it so well, led me to intuit that I didn't have the level of calcium I expected. I brought this up on another forum, where it ballooned into a couple of monster threads a couple of years back. I couldn't shake the idea that I was onto something, it all fit for me. I supposed that the gallotannin was chelating calcium; after all, chelation of metals is one of its touted advantages. But I was repeatedly assured that this could not happen. The main reason, in addition to no one having read anything about this before, was that, reaching out to a presumed authority, certain forum members of his personal acquaintance had been assured by a manufacturer's representative that, "oh no, you don't have to worry about calcium being affected. That's not what it's for." I then did some tests of my own, measuring the calcium level of a water sample before and at intervals after adding BrewTan B. Sure enough, the calcium levels dropped. But the forum consensus was that I couldn't be right, that the gallotannin must somehow have been interfering with the reagent or indicator and my test was invalid (no mechanism proposed) because, well, the manufacturer's rep didn't seem to know any reason to worry about this.
Well, just now, I was going through a paper on upstream beer stabilization with gallotannin and PVPP, which had sat in cloud storage for some time nearly forgotten, and I wanted to check for something on the PVPP dosing. My eye by chance fell on the summary of materials and methods. It was stated that in the beers dosed with gallotannin, the RO water was adjusted to 60 ppm Ca++, as opposed to 40 ppm in the control, to account for the well known chelation effect of gallotannin on calcium. Heavy sigh of relief and vindication.
Smellyglove
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2013
- Messages
- 2,807
- Reaction score
- 807
I've thought a lot over the last 3 years about how Brulosophy tests their experiements (I think the experiments are well done; the testing, not as much).
I'm struck by this: in a typical test of results, out of, say, 30 testers, 15 might be able to tell the difference between the test beers, but that means 15 were not. Even in tests that pass the threshold of statistical significance, it's quite often that more can't discern a difference than there are those who can.
How many people here on HBT who say "I couldn't taste a difference" are in that latter group, i.e., who in a triangle test would not be able to tell the difference between two beers?
When people say "there wasn't any difference" I take that with a huge boulder of salt. Is it that there's no difference, or that they just can't tell? And how much of that kind of thing enters the brewing "knowledge" base, and becomes conventional wisdom--which may or may not be correct?
****
You can see I spend way too much time thinking about this stuff, about the "why" and about the "how do we tell?"
I don't read the brulosophy things anymore, they were interesting at first when I found the site, but after a while I concluded the same as you, take the "no difference" as a huge boulder of salt.
For me those tests are like giving a ten persons a haystack and tell them to find the needle in it. Or to put it in another way. "There's ten needles in this haystack, and zero in the other, and maybe ten or zero in the third, pick out the one which stands out in the amount of needles".
But if you'd give the same persons just a few straws of each of the stacks, they would probably find it the needle, because you've narrowed down the search area.
There's so much going on in a beer that it can be hard to find a difference, maybe some are looking in certain areas, like carbonation, mouthfeel, bitterness, while at the same time overlooking the area of interest. Unless there's an obvious and up front difference, it will often be "no difference". But still some people do notice a difference, so to me, there's at least a "potential" of difference, but it depends on who reported it. If I'd give two sour beers to my GF she'd just say "they're sour", and that's it, possibly not noting the difference in for example if they were hopped with EKG or Mittelfruh.
The person who has brewed the beer knows exactly where to look. Even if there's just a minuscule difference, the brewer him/herself has a much greater chance of noticing it, and probably will.
@Smellyglove -- We digress, but I'll quickly add on the topic of Brulosophy, I presume about 50-70% of the "testers" / tasters are flying completely blind, having little if any tasting or judging experience, in which case it stands to reason why it would be exceedingly rare for them to be able to pick out the "needles in the haystacks".
In a perfect worlds, I'd like to see more results from professional tasters. Not even just BJCP judges, but a panel of people like those hired full-time at big places like AB Inbev for Quality Control. People who do not much more than scrutinize beer every week or every day of their lives, 48 weeks per year or whatever. I suppose that would be a pipe dream.
In a perfect worlds, I'd like to see more results from professional tasters. Not even just BJCP judges, but a panel of people like those hired full-time at big places like AB Inbev for Quality Control. People who do not much more than scrutinize beer every week or every day of their lives, 48 weeks per year or whatever. I suppose that would be a pipe dream.
brewbama
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,739
- Reaction score
- 2,509
Love it when that happens.
My understanding is that Beta Amylase will denature in the order of 5 to 10 minutes in the 158F (70C) range (depending some on grain crush). I thought I got this info from an article by Kai Troester. I see some graphs on this page but the info did not jump out at me with a quick scan, but there is a lot of good info there: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Enzymes
This matches my own limited experience. On a batch where (due to having the wrong amount of grain) I mashed in around 162F. I cooled the wort by stirring over 10 minutes, and my FG was higher than I would have expected. I also mashed a batch at 162F and the high FG plays around with the idea that it was mostly the Alpha Amylase active during the mash.
I struggle with basic chemistry, so mash chemistry is something I struggle to fully understand...but I try to learn a little more each year. One thing I did not really see discussed is that, while Beta Amylase produces small fermentable sugars, it does so by chopping off small sugars from the ends of chains. Thus it takes a long time to fully chop up a chain...which is a reason that you often see recommendations for longer mash times for low temp mashes. Alpha Amylase will assist this process by chopping the chains ups into random lengths, giving Beta more ends to work on.
Limit Dextrinase is another enzyme that I have seen getting more attention lately (though maybe I just heard John Palmer talking about it some). Limit Dextrinase breaks up chains at the branch points (where the other enzymes cannot) to produce more fermentable sugars. The active range in the mash appears to be below 153.5F (67.5C). I got that info from a quick look at this paper that looks interesting: http://www.********************/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Limit-Dextrinase.pdf
This matches my own limited experience. On a batch where (due to having the wrong amount of grain) I mashed in around 162F. I cooled the wort by stirring over 10 minutes, and my FG was higher than I would have expected. I also mashed a batch at 162F and the high FG plays around with the idea that it was mostly the Alpha Amylase active during the mash.
I struggle with basic chemistry, so mash chemistry is something I struggle to fully understand...but I try to learn a little more each year. One thing I did not really see discussed is that, while Beta Amylase produces small fermentable sugars, it does so by chopping off small sugars from the ends of chains. Thus it takes a long time to fully chop up a chain...which is a reason that you often see recommendations for longer mash times for low temp mashes. Alpha Amylase will assist this process by chopping the chains ups into random lengths, giving Beta more ends to work on.
Limit Dextrinase is another enzyme that I have seen getting more attention lately (though maybe I just heard John Palmer talking about it some). Limit Dextrinase breaks up chains at the branch points (where the other enzymes cannot) to produce more fermentable sugars. The active range in the mash appears to be below 153.5F (67.5C). I got that info from a quick look at this paper that looks interesting: http://www.********************/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Limit-Dextrinase.pdf
Last edited:
Not to make this another Brulosophy thread...but I tend to put more weight on the brewer's feedback than the tasting panel. Sometimes my club has our meetings with a competition at a wings place...with the music and smells it is really hard to taste anything in the beers (especially if I started the meeting with some food and a pint of NEIPA myself). I feel like the Brulosophy articles are best as a starting place for you do do your own experiments and learn for yourself how processes and ingredients impact your beers, on your equipment, following your process.
Smellyglove
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2013
- Messages
- 2,807
- Reaction score
- 807
Apologies. I forgot which thread we were in. But I guess It's all been covered as far as I read the thread. It's about the different gelitinization temperature of the starch-granules in the grains. To be on topic. This was a confusing thing for me too before I understood the aspect of gelatinization.
Just to add to that, I bet it has been mentioned before, but if you do a 72C step after a 65C step, your efficiency goes up, because you gelatinize more starch, and convert it, but FG also goes up because higher OG and the starches converted at 72C at normal time temp rests are mostly longer chain sugars.
(This last bit was just mainly to make up for me going off topic earlier).
Just to add to that, I bet it has been mentioned before, but if you do a 72C step after a 65C step, your efficiency goes up, because you gelatinize more starch, and convert it, but FG also goes up because higher OG and the starches converted at 72C at normal time temp rests are mostly longer chain sugars.
(This last bit was just mainly to make up for me going off topic earlier).
Fascinating stuff. A couple of things, I can understand a lot of the science of beer, but as a hobby, I don't want to work my brain too hard. LOL. I have always done single infusion mashes with batch sparging and I could not really tell the difference from a 147 f and a 153 f mash. Also, for the first 30 - 40 batches (no matter how big a beer it was) I would pitch one vial/packet of yeast. I'm sure my buckets were leaking as often I didn't see any activity in the airlock. I went by the thought that in a week or so it will turn into beer and it always did. Some better that others, but I've only had two dumpers. 
I have found that most everything in the homebrew world is pushed over the limits and a lot of it works out just fine for its intended purpose. We are supposed to chill wort asap but then they came up with no chill brewing. Lagers are meant to be cold and stored colder then short and shoddy appeared. It all has a place.
Large pitches of yeast are best for clean, full and quick fermentations. The shorter the time the less chance of infection and oxidation as well as not wearing out the yeast for re-pitching. Throwing a single vial in will result in beer. It just takes longer and stresses the yeasts more. You also lose any benefit of added oxygen when a long lag period occurs as it dissipates before the yeast come alive.
No worries either way but I am sticking to starters to give the yeast a running start. My experience with pitching a vial is 36+ hour lag times which I can not stand.
As to mash profiles, I mainly dough in at 130F (avoids dough balls and has a little protein rest), then go to the 140s & 161F or just a straight 152F for the 60 minutes. Always with a mashout at 171F. Hefes get more love at 111F.
It all makes beer, so enjoy this great hobby to your chosen level of involvement!
Large pitches of yeast are best for clean, full and quick fermentations. The shorter the time the less chance of infection and oxidation as well as not wearing out the yeast for re-pitching. Throwing a single vial in will result in beer. It just takes longer and stresses the yeasts more. You also lose any benefit of added oxygen when a long lag period occurs as it dissipates before the yeast come alive.
No worries either way but I am sticking to starters to give the yeast a running start. My experience with pitching a vial is 36+ hour lag times which I can not stand.
As to mash profiles, I mainly dough in at 130F (avoids dough balls and has a little protein rest), then go to the 140s & 161F or just a straight 152F for the 60 minutes. Always with a mashout at 171F. Hefes get more love at 111F.
It all makes beer, so enjoy this great hobby to your chosen level of involvement!
This is a great thread.
To add to the discussion, I found when I analyzed my mash, I was getting nowhere near the results I thought I would be. In my system, which is a fancy electric recirculating rig, it still takes 90 minutes to achieve full conversion!
The reason has to be the crush, I assume—I do use the LHBS mill and so have no control over what I get.
If anyone wants to get into this stuff I recommend not assuming anything about your conversion rates. Test your mash. It’s easy to take multiple readings with a refracrometer. Kai’s site lists the anticipated maximum gravity for a given mash thickness.
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Efficiency#Conversion_efficiency
This was really eye-opening for me and now I need to buy a mill...
To add to the discussion, I found when I analyzed my mash, I was getting nowhere near the results I thought I would be. In my system, which is a fancy electric recirculating rig, it still takes 90 minutes to achieve full conversion!
The reason has to be the crush, I assume—I do use the LHBS mill and so have no control over what I get.
If anyone wants to get into this stuff I recommend not assuming anything about your conversion rates. Test your mash. It’s easy to take multiple readings with a refracrometer. Kai’s site lists the anticipated maximum gravity for a given mash thickness.
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Efficiency#Conversion_efficiency
This was really eye-opening for me and now I need to buy a mill...
Robert65
Major Obvious (recently promoted)
I think we need to distinguish between conversion and extraction. The starch can be converted quickly, but the sugars will still be entrained in the matrix of the solids remaining. It takes time, varying with your system, to fully leach the extract out into your wort. Conversion is quick and relatively consistent from system to system. Extraction, the key factor in efficiency, is quite variable. Terminology here is variable, but I'm sure you guys get my point.
But if my grain isn't crushed well isn't the starch inaccessible for longer?
Smellyglove
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2013
- Messages
- 2,807
- Reaction score
- 807
Yes, it will take longer for the starch do be fully hydrated and thus also converted.
Some people are afraid of the flour. The flour is starch, which is grinded to well.. flour. The flour is the first which will "dissapear" (matter of few minutes) because it's so accessible to the enzymes.
What is the best way to track extraction? Iodine test? I think extraction is also important from a flavor point of view. If you over extract you get into tannic flavors. Under extract but with plenty of malt present you get super malty flavor. Some dialing in to had for sure.
Smellyglove
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2013
- Messages
- 2,807
- Reaction score
- 807
Iodine test only shows if the conversion of starch which is accessible has been converted. Tracking extraction is easy with a refractometer. I don't think you mean "overextract" but maybe oversparge. Since you can't extract more than the potential.
If you have a stable pH and extract 100% of the potential you'll still be fine. Tannins leak from the husk if pH is high and you use too much water to rinse the sugars, since you're sparging out the buffering capacity of the malt.
If you for example do a no-sparge tannins is of no concern if the pH is right.
Last edited by a moderator:
To have a full understanding I think you have to do both the refractometer test to track increasing gravity over time, and do an iodine test including smooshing bits of grain to see if any starch has been still locked away.
All I know for sure is it takes me 90 minutes to hit the theoretical maximum gravity for my mash thickness, which is not awesome if for no other reason than I would like a shorter brew day.
All I know for sure is it takes me 90 minutes to hit the theoretical maximum gravity for my mash thickness, which is not awesome if for no other reason than I would like a shorter brew day.
Robert65
Major Obvious (recently promoted)
Correct.
On these issues there's good information here
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Efficiency
and here
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Iodine_Test
The first section linked explains how to determine the theoretical maximum gravity for your mash.
Thanks for clarifying. I need to go back to Kai's website again. I guess I was thinking in terms of how different systems and brewing approaches produce different end beers. For an extreme example, a no sparge vs an over sparge. Even with pH in line I would think the no sparge would have a maltier, thicker presence compared to a thinner, trending towards tannic presence of the heavy sparge.
presence of the heavy sparge.
Fascinating stuff. A couple of things, I can understand a lot of the science of beer, but as a hobby, I don't want to work my brain too hard. LOL. I have always done single infusion mashes with batch sparging and I could not really tell the difference from a 147 f and a 153 f mash. Also, for the first 30 - 40 batches (no matter how big a beer it was) I would pitch one vial/packet of yeast. I'm sure my buckets were leaking as often I didn't see any activity in the airlock. I went by the thought that in a week or so it will turn into beer and it always did. Some better that others, but I've only had two dumpers.
This is not a "you're wrong!" post.
I brew a dark lager, a Schwarzbier essentially. I do LODO techniques, and the malt backbone to the beer is pronounced. And yet, by using Mexican Lager yeast, I get this nice clean finish with a ghost of maltiness.
I've been mashing those at 151-152, and thought it would be nice if I could crisp it up just a bit, so I did an experimental brew using the step mash approach; started at 136 degrees for 10 minutes, then ramped up to 149.
Well. That beer is thin. It's a drinker, but some of that maltiness has disappeared. It's not a dumper, not yet--a buddy says it has intereresting complexity--but the difference in mash temp and schedule has produced profound results. Some of that undoubtedly is from starting the step mash low, and I did end up with a relatively low final gravity for this brew--1.012, versus the more typical 1.015 when I mash it at the higher temp with no step.
Based on this and other batches, it seems clear to me that I can influence the outcome of the beer simply by manipulating mash temp and perhaps using steps. I have a little more experimenting to do with this one, see if I can move it forward, from what is already a great beer.
Smellyglove
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2013
- Messages
- 2,807
- Reaction score
- 807
This is not a "you're wrong!" post.
I brew a dark lager, a Schwarzbier essentially. I do LODO techniques, and the malt backbone to the beer is pronounced. And yet, by using Mexican Lager yeast, I get this nice clean finish with a ghost of maltiness.
I've been mashing those at 151-152, and thought it would be nice if I could crisp it up just a bit, so I did an experimental brew using the step mash approach; started at 136 degrees for 10 minutes, then ramped up to 149.
Well. That beer is thin. It's a drinker, but some of that maltiness has disappeared. It's not a dumper, not yet--a buddy says it has intereresting complexity--but the difference in mash temp and schedule has produced profound results. Some of that undoubtedly is from starting the step mash low, and I did end up with a relatively low final gravity for this brew--1.012, versus the more typical 1.015 when I mash it at the higher temp with no step.
Based on this and other batches, it seems clear to me that I can influence the outcome of the beer simply by manipulating mash temp and perhaps using steps. I have a little more experimenting to do with this one, see if I can move it forward, from what is already a great beer.
Did you only do 136F + 149?
When doing these kind of mashes, for a lager, it's also typical to use a 72C step, to add some body back in form of longer chain sugars. It will sort of end up "dry but full, or "balanced". If you did only 136 + 149 then you've squeezed it pretty hard when it comes to the "thin" mouthfeel and FG, since the 57C step promotes the limit dextrinase activity. An enzyme which is often not mentioned.
I always find it interesting to read experience on mash temps. Mouthfeel and body are areas that I have struggled with over the years, and I have learned that mash temp alone is not the switch that I once thought it was. These days I have been able to manipulate mouthfeel more with grain bill (stuff like sugars, adjuncts, light malts to lighten a beer...and flaked barley/oat/etc., sweet/dark malts, lactose to thicken a beer), and with water chemistry teaks. Yeast can have an impact as well, and I like to include some wheat in lots of beers to help out with head retention (I think it helps...could just be bias).
I see lots of references on this forum lately to step mashes. I used to do a protein rest (which maybe was needed 20+ years ago...maybe not), but I have been doing single temp mashing for a long time now (usually with a mash out). I guess I need to add step mashing to my long list of things to play with.
That Kai article linked above has an interesting section on Mash Out saying that a Mash Out can increase efficiency, but since at that temp range Beta Amylase is denatured it will produce mostly longer chain sugars and can lead to a higher FG (which should mean more body...if that is what you want).
Smellyglove
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2013
- Messages
- 2,807
- Reaction score
- 807
If you want more body boil longer. Your FG will not increase by much. Boiling is one of the most overlooked aspects of homebrewers. It's pretty much narrowed down to 60/90 minutes due to pilsner malt/dms. It has a HUGE impact on any beer.
What is the logic here? What happens during the boil to increase body?
Yep, just 136 and 149.
The reason I did that is I've used that schedule with a couple of Kolsch's I've brewed, and they are delicious. Good malt backbone, really nice.
Now, the Schwarzbier isn't the same malt, and not the same yeast (though that has nothing to do with the mash), so i wouldn't expect it to be exactly the same, but I was surprised there isn't more maltiness to it. On top of that I'm using LODO hot-side techniques, so that should enhance malt backbone, and the opposite has happened.
I'll keg this shortly and fully carbonate and see if that changes anything, plus a little conditioning time. Maybe it'll flesh out.
But--in my experience, the mash temp matters, and can matter fairly significantly.
Robert65
Major Obvious (recently promoted)
You want to limit boiling (thermal loading) as far as possible, as thermal stress is highly damaging to wort and beer. All you need is a gentle simmer sufficient to maintain circulation in the kettle, and 60 minutes should be the maximum time. Keeping the lid fully on can help to achieve the necessary ends with minimal application of heat. (Asymmetrical heating of the kettle is also a great aid to achieving circulation.) DMS is a nearly nonexistent bogeyman, and in the rare event it is an issue, it takes at least 30 minutes on heat to convert SMM to DMS, after which a very short boil with a partial opening of the kettle lid is sufficient to expel it; just long enough for every bit of circulating wort to be exposed at the surface. Excessive heating of wort breaks down many flavor and aroma compounds as well as body and foam positive proteins, resulting in dull malt flavors and aromas and a thin body and poor foam qualities. It also develops complex melanoidins and other products which not only have unpleasant flavors and aromas, unlike the simple melanoidins produced in malting, but also lead to greatly accelerated oxidative staling in the finished beer.
Boiling is indeed one of the most misunderstood subjects among homebrewers. But what they mostly fail to understand is how important it is to minimize it.
Great paragraph Robert. For some reason, the homebrewing world was told to boil the snot out everything. I did this myself for many years. I have been reading a lot about lower thermal load and have been moving to much lower boils which results in much lower evaporation rates. It actually brings the all in one units like the Grainfather and new Anvil Foundry more into play as one can run these units at 120v and be spot on with the thermal loads.
Smellyglove
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2013
- Messages
- 2,807
- Reaction score
- 807
I agree with most of what you say when it comes to the facts of whats happens and how much is enough.
I spent last summer brewing numerous beers and tried to research the boil intensity, lid/no lid, time, etc. Even made a few with pronounced DMS in them.. read everything I could find about the boiling part of brewing beers, different boiling systems etc, effects of it and what not.
However, the heat stress is nothing I personally think about, I mostly brew beers which have short turnaround, and they sit in the fridge most of the time, and I brew for myself, not for a big brewery and have never had any problems with foam etc. Although some parameters would very likly improve by doing a simmer, but for me there might be other parameters which makes the beer I'm brewing more important to make it taste like I'd want it to taste.
I don't do a simmer if the beer I make tastes better to me with a fuller body due to boiling, and vice versa, I don't do a longer or stronger boil if I want a lighter bodied beer, for instance. Where the effect of fuller, or lighter is the boil itself. There's other ways to tailor this, but boiling gives one distinctive effect of this, imo.
One aspect of boiling shorter/easier is coagulation of proteins, proteins gives mouthfeel.. In my setup I get more mouthfeel by boiling longer, so the effect of maillard is stronger that the one of uncoagulated proteins, for example.. So that's how I do it.
I believe in the science, but some of it takes the passanger seat when I chose the boiling time for some particular beers, because for me they override the effect of heat stress. But I do also boil shorter and very gentle for the beers I want to be boiled that way.
My best example of a long boiling time and body/mouthfeel was a 5hr boil, it sat for about 9 months in the basement and the body was thick as oil and it was "smooth as silk", like commented by a judge and tok 3rd place in nationals class "imperial". Last time I boiled the exact same grist composition for 75 minutes, same OG and it was a much lighter beer. Very different beer. Both were good in their own ways.
Last edited:
Great addition Smellyglove. Thanks for the new info (for me). Boiling is kind of unchartered in the learning phase of homebrewing. I never thought of using it as a lever just like recipe or mash temps. Looking back over the years, when I had the volcano setup, (two heating elements in a Sanke for 5 gallon batches) my beers were pretty chewy. For some styles like an Irish red it was great. Pilsner - forget about it. I will be thinking of this going forward for my recipes.
Smellyglove
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2013
- Messages
- 2,807
- Reaction score
- 807
Maillard reactions.
Smellyglove
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2013
- Messages
- 2,807
- Reaction score
- 807
Wow. Really? Maillard produce melanoidins, so malt with more meladoinins does not contribute to mouthfeel, for example? Someone needs to rewrite a lot of information then.
Similar threads
