Boiling the mash

[Dcpcooks]

Thanks Doug for the thoughts. I cant do the experiment because I dont know how to and have the equipment to measure anything. Being honest, I was hoping a brilliant mind like yourself would give this a go. I hope that somebody takes this on and if not someday I'll probably have the equipment to test.

If you have a hydrometer and brewing software that shows the expected yield from your grain you have everything you need to conduct an experiment.

X lbs of grain will yield roughly x original gravity. For this you could skip mash efficiency and lauter efficiency and just go with OG. Add your grain and bring it to a boil. Measure your OG and see what you get.

You could perform a base line test with a middle of the range single infusion mash and compare your results.

My suspicion is you'll see a little conversion take place as you ramp through to a boil but you'll see a lower OG than you'd see with a single infusion mash. That would be dependent on the amount of time it takes you to get to a boil. The longer it takes for your grain to go through the temp range means your grain will be in the range that enzymes can work before they get denatured.

If you added the grain to boiling liquor you'd see no conversion right? So your basically testing to see what's the minimum amount of time it takes to get to a boil and still have some conversion. It's the opposite of chasing efficiency your chasing time. So if you got 25% efficiency but saved 20 min would that be a benefit to you?

 

[Jim311]

Well we know scientifically that the enzymes are denatured at around 170 degrees. We also know that the time spent between 146 and 152 degrees is where conversion happens between the two types of enzymes. You will get some conversion but it will be VERY poor unless you have a low quality flame while bring it to a boil. Efficiency just depends on how long it spends in that temperature range. To me it sounds like attempting this is just asking to commit a grave mistake. If you want to attempt it that's fine with me but I'm not going to!

 

[doug293cz]

The thickness of the wort, and the pH, combine to protect the enzymes during decoction boiling.

References please. I find it hard to believe that any amylase survives even a short boil, no matter how thick the decoction.

Brew on

 

[eric19312]

The thickness of the wort, and the pH, combine to protect the enzymes during decoction boiling.

This doesn't sound right. I believe the enzymes in the unboiled portion of the mash are responsible for completing conversion once the decoction is returned to the mash and stirred in. I've heard of mashes where the decoction is boiled for 20 min...no way the enzymes that can be denatured by a brief mash out at 170 survive that....

 

[processhead]

This doesn't sound right. I believe the enzymes in the unboiled portion of the mash are responsible for completing conversion once the decoction is returned to the mash and stirred in. I've heard of mashes where the decoction is boiled for 20 min...no way the enzymes that can be denatured by a brief mash out at 170 survive that....

This is also my understanding of decoction mashing. You are relying on the the enzyme activity in the low temperature part of the mash.

 

[applescrap]

In the tripple decoction test I saw, the mash is boiled three times. Three times a full third of the grist, sometimes up to 30 minutes, i think it was. Curious why there was no cereal?

 

[Dolomieu]

Thing is, if you would test your mash with iodine, there is a good chance it's done converting after 20min maybe less. This is at normal mash temp, which would be reached much quicker than boiling the same mass. So what are you actually saving in time? Go to a pharmacy and buy some iodine. Here's an article:
https://byo.com/mead/item/1435-successful-mash-conversion-tips-from-the-pros

Last time I brewed conversion was done in 20min. No boiling needed and again had I tried to boil it that most likely would have taken more time in total.

 

[eric19312]

In the tripple decoction test I saw, the mash is boiled three times. Three times a full third of the grist, sometimes up to 30 minutes, i think it was. Curious why there was no cereal?

There is more enzyme activity than required in malt to convert all the sugars. The decoction is more or less making cereal. But then you return the cereal to the cool part of the mash and mix it in and the enzymes from the cool part take over and convert the cereal.


That said, if you add 10 lbs grain to 2 gallons of water so that the mixture equilibrates at say 140 and then bring the kettle to a boil over 30 minutes you may well fully convert the mash before you reach 170 and rapidly denature the enzymes. I think conversion rate increases through the conversion temperature range with very slow conversion at the low end of the range and much faster from the mid to high end of the range. So part of OPs question about what would happen if I boil the mash depends on how long it takes you to get the full volume of the mash from 140F to 170F. Depending on grist and crush you might fully convert if it takes you 10 min to work from one side of the conversion window to the other side.

But if you stir your crushed malt directly into boiling water and temperature stays above 170F I would expect you will see little or no conversion.

Original question was about why you don't extract tannins doing this and that is the point of thinking about decoction brewing.

 

[applescrap]

Thing is, if you would test your mash with iodine, there is a good chance it's done converting after 20min maybe less. This is at normal mash temp, which would be reached much quicker than boiling the same mass. So what are you actually saving in time? Go to a pharmacy and buy some iodine. Here's an article:
https://byo.com/mead/item/1435-successful-mash-conversion-tips-from-the-pros

Last time I brewed conversion was done in 20min. No boiling needed and again had I tried to boil it that most likely would have taken more time in total.

I am aware that conversion can happen quickly, its my understanding though that efficiency takes a little hit that short as does flavor. Maybe bringing it to a boil helps with those two factors. Also by heating to a boil and mashing the whole time, one would be double dipping time. I feel like until we know all the facts, how this would or wont help brewing is difficult to discern.

If the grains were added at the get go, as the pot heated to boil, at what temp, and or time would there be conversion? Having the grains on during heating and possibly having a positive effect could save time, and from there what happens at and through boiling. If the grains were added at the get go and stirred the whole time if quality conversion happened i could brew in 1hr 45 min I think.

 

[PsychoBiter]

If you take a step back and look at existing brewing practices, you have to realize how long it took to come up with them. From a previous post, decoction was used before thermometers How many brews did it take to come up with a decoction method that worked...lots. Think of how many different decoction combinations there could be...

I would think that one of the very first attempts at making beer involved just boiling the mash because it is pretty simple....it obviously didn't work out as well as current methods, because that isn't the way it is done now. Will it work and make beer? probably Will it be as good? Who knows. You aren't the first to think about doing it that way.

With that being said, go for it and let us know the results. What testing equipment would you need?
It would definitely shorten brew days if you could just boil the mash and turn out good beer.

 

[Dolomieu]

I am aware that conversion can happen quickly, its my understanding though that efficiency takes a little hit that short as does flavor. Maybe bringing it to a boil helps with those two factors. Also by heating to a boil and mashing the whole time, one would be double dipping time. I feel like until we know all the facts, how this would or wont help brewing is difficult to discern.

If the grains were added at the get go, as the pot heated to boil, at what temp, and or time would there be conversion? Having the grains on during heating and possibly having a positive effect could save time, and from there what happens at and through boiling. If the grains were added at the get go and stirred the whole time if quality conversion happened i could brew in 1hr 45 min I think.

I don't have the same understanding as you. If conversion is complete, which the iodine test will show you, then it's complete. If you take a hit on efficiency, I would think that there is something else in your process causing that. The only thing I can really think of that may be an issue is that you raise the temp to quickly and conversion occurs at the higher end causing longer sugar Chan's to be created giving you less fermentable sugar or at least making it harder for the yeast to properly attenuate. Anecdotally, I have never had efficiency issue with my shorter mashes.

Decoctions work, I've. Done two, but it generally takes extra time. Though if you are doing it in a single vessel maybe your on to something. Though i won't be collecting data for you.

Different enzymes have different temp thresholds, but in general alpha and beta work between like 140-160. That's not to say conversion won't happen at all out side those temps. If you look up step mash techniques you may get better information on that. Just keep in mind that some believe step mashing is a water of time and could actually be bad for you beer considering we are all using highly modified grains.

Best of luck to you on this journey.

 

[Dolomieu]

If you take a step back and look at existing brewing practices, you have to realize how long it took to come up with them. From a previous post, decoction was used before thermometers How many brews did it take to come up with a decoction method that worked...lots. Think of how many different decoction combinations there could be...

I would think that one of the very first attempts at making beer involved just boiling the mash because it is pretty simple....it obviously didn't work out as well as current methods, because that isn't the way it is done now. Will it work and make beer? probably Will it be as good? Who knows. You aren't the first to think about doing it that way.

With that being said, go for it and let us know the results. What testing equipment would you need?
It would definitely shorten brew days if you could just boil the mash and turn out good beer.

This seems like a good logical point.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

Before I started brewing someone gave me a partial kit that was missing several parts. It was for one gallon and had about a pound and a half of cracked grain, a plastic fermentor, the tubing and nothing else. I knew at the time that I would need sugar from the grain to get beer, but didn't know how that worked. I dumped the grain into boiling water and boiled it for what seemed like a long time, maybe a half hour. It tasted like exactly like malt-o-meal. I would have had a bowl, but the texture was unappealing due to the husks. My plan was if I had gotten a sweet, even a little sweet soup, I would have dumped the whole thing into the fermentor with some bread yeast. I probably would have anyway, but I didn't have bread yeast at the time. After that homebrewing didn't interest me until my step son bought me a kit that still had the instructions in it (also extract and steeping grains). After that first real brew I came here and learned some stuff.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

Sorry double post

 

[Funkychef]

In the tripple decoction test I saw, the mash is boiled three times. Three times a full third of the grist, sometimes up to 30 minutes, i think it was. Curious why there was no cereal?

Yes but while one third of the mash was being boiled two thirds was still mashing, and if it was boiled for almost 30 min at a time they would had mashed the other two thirds for over an hour possibly even two hours.

 

[govner1]

I skimmed this, I didnt see any mention of at what point the lauter was to be performed.

I agree with your point but even more of a conundrum is why and what is the perceived advantage.
Also, who's going to clean your BK? 15+ lbs of wet grain from the MLT is one thing but dealing with it at 212°F is another. Plus, how are you going to chill and maintain sanitation?

 

[NeoBrew]

The only question that remains for me... why do I keep reading this thread?

<-- This is me on my way out the door unsubscribing.

 

[ChefRex]

The only question that remains for me... why do I keep reading this thread?

<-- This is me on my way out the door unsubscribing.

Because it's hard to look away from a train wreck!

 

[doug293cz]

The only question that remains for me... why do I keep reading this thread?

<-- This is me on my way out the door unsubscribing.

So, throw a grenade and then retreat.

Brew on

 

[applescrap]

Yes but while one third of the mash was being boiled two thirds was still mashing, and if it was boiled for almost 30 min at a time they would had mashed the other two thirds for over an hour possibly even two hours.

Yes, I think so. I still dont understand how taking one third of the mash and boiling it 3x doesnt denature it and create cereal. I get that the enzymes are more active in the water, but at some point the boiling would have to have an ill effect on wort creation based on some of the comments. Plus wouldn't the whole thing be cereal at some point.


Look, even though it is hard to believe, there is the outside chance that what we know about mashing is somewhat limited in the realm of possibilities. Furthermore people are mashing very creatively. I've read stories of people doing overnight mashes, decoctions, Herms and rims, experiments suggesting minute differences in different temperatures, experiments suggesting people couldn't tell a decoction and a single infusion and more.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

I thought you unsubscribed. Why are you still posting here? This is the WE thread now. I'm sorry Apples I'm afraid I can't do that.

 

[eric19312]

Can't stop looking.


For argument's sake how long would you boil the mash? I am thinking about an experimental design. Say I took 1/4 lb crushed 2-row and added it to 6 oz boiling water and kept it at a low boil. How long would you want this mash to boil? What would I do to deal with evaporation during the "mash"? Would you be convinced if I just boiled it for 5 min and then turned the stove off and let it sit for rest of an hour?

I could do that side by side with mash held in the conversion range and maybe a third batch where I start the mash at bottom of conversion range and then bring it to a boil over a very low flame so that it takes 10 min or so to get to 170 and another 20 min to reach a boil.

I'd measure SG of the resulting wort using a refractometer and my prediction would be that batch 1 - the boiled from start would see little or no sugar, and batch 2 (standard infusion mash) would show the most sugar and batch 3 (10 min in the conversion temp window and then boiled) would be petty close but a little under batch 2.

Would these results convince you that boiling the mash is not a good idea?

 

[processhead]

I am certain the government isn't telling us everything they know about decoction mashing.

Their secrets are probably kept in an undisclosed bunker near Area 51.

 

[applescrap]

Can't stop looking.


For argument's sake how long would you boil the mash? I am thinking about an experimental design. Say I took 1/4 lb crushed 2-row and added it to 6 oz boiling water and kept it at a low boil. How long would you want this mash to boil? What would I do to deal with evaporation during the "mash"? Would you be convinced if I just boiled it for 5 min and then turned the stove off and let it sit for rest of an hour?

I could do that side by side with mash held in the conversion range and maybe a third batch where I start the mash at bottom of conversion range and then bring it to a boil over a very low flame so that it takes 10 min or so to get to 170 and another 20 min to reach a boil.

I'd measure SG of the resulting wort using a refractometer and my prediction would be that batch 1 - the boiled from start would see little or no sugar, and batch 2 (standard infusion mash) would show the most sugar and batch 3 (10 min in the conversion temp window and then boiled) would be petty close but a little under batch 2.

Would these results convince you that boiling the mash is not a good idea?

Thanks eric.

No need for side by side as we all know a 60min single infusion works.

Maybe test it this way....... i hope some of you with better minds for this really chime in here

5 g test better but 1 g test

Start with 1.5 gallons of water and 2 pounds two row.

Bring to boil
Test for conversion in 3 (?) minute intervals
Take samples for gravity every 3 minutes
Bring mash to boil
Continue sample taking for conversion, if necessary and gravity
Continue boil, testing for gravity, and making anecdotal observations
Hopefully be able to drain in false bottom or something giving anecdotal observation of wort. Maybe ferment it, my hypothesis is that wort will be made and beer could be made


Repeat the test, but this time stir aggressively.

Chart it all up nicely and I think it would be a great offering in home brewing.



I don't know if a test about dropping grains in at boiling is necessary. If the grains react really well heating the mash, that would save time as it comes to boil. I don't know that bringing water straight to a boil and then adding grains adds too much value, but......for science

Bring water to a boil and drop grains in

Take conversion and gravity readings every minute.

 

[applescrap]

I am certain the government isn't telling us everything they know about decoction mashing.

Their secrets are probably kept in an undisclosed bunker near Area 51.

I hope government beer is better than government cheese. The aliens probably make wicked brew. What would you call an alien Brew?

 

[jodell]

Would you add yeast to boiling wort to make fermentation go quicker?

 

[doug293cz]

Would you add yeast to boiling wort to make fermentation go quicker?

Good troll. (But be careful, serious trolling is against the rules, and mods are everywhere.)

Brew on

 

[jodell]

Good troll. (But be careful, serious trolling is against the rules, and mods are everywhere.)

Brew on

I wasn't trying to troll (re-reading that I see it came off like that, my bad)

I said that as a point that no matter what it is; yeast, enzymes, proteins, etc. have to function and operate under certain conditions. boiling a mash just wouldn't work.

 

[slym2none]

Why not just boil the malt and the hops for like 15 minutes, then lager ferment at 120° for 36hrs. Have that **** on tap in under 48.

After drinking straight from the keg via a 1/4" hose for a few minutes, you won't ever care about how it tastes.

 

[joshesmusica]

Yes, I think so. I still dont understand how taking one third of the mash and boiling it 3x doesnt denature it and create cereal. I get that the enzymes are more active in the water, but at some point the boiling would have to have an ill effect on wort creation based on some of the comments. Plus wouldn't the whole thing be cereal at some point.


Look, even though it is hard to believe, there is the outside chance that what we know about mashing is somewhat limited in the realm of possibilities. Furthermore people are mashing very creatively. I've read stories of people doing overnight mashes, decoctions, Herms and rims, experiments suggesting minute differences in different temperatures, experiments suggesting people couldn't tell a decoction and a single infusion and more.

I think the highlighted, bolded, and underlined portion is the kicker here. No matter how many times people on this thread have tried to explain it to you, you still don't seem to quite understand how a decoction mash works. Go ahead and look it up, even google it if you need to, and then come back to these ideas and questions.

Maybe dumping the grains into the water, then heating it up to boiling (not sure how you plan to lauter, as others have suggested, as I wouldn't personally want a nylon bag to be in my boiling wort), you might get some conversion. But you're also likely to be left with quite a bit of starches in the beer. I'm not personally into starchy beer.

As has been mentioned, though, there's literally zero need to experiment with dumping the grains into the already boiling water. Most, if not all, of the enzymes will be denatured almost immediately. If it does happen to drop the temperature below 170 by doing this, and you happen to get lucky enough that the enzymes aren't denatured either 1) you will end up with starch water... mmmmh sounds tasty. Or 2) you will *still* need to bring it up to a boil afterward... so you won't even be saving any time going that route.

Lastly, it's all fine and dandy to throw out these incredibly random ideas and say "I'm going to try this. I'll post the results later." But it's another thing completely to come on here and expect that people might want to do this nonsense for you.

Go buy a hydrometer finally, and test it out for yourself. Write down the results. Pretty easy to do.

 

[doug293cz]

...

Lastly, it's all fine and dandy to throw out these incredibly random ideas and say "I'm going to try this. I'll post the results later." But it's another thing completely to come on here and expect that people might want to do this nonsense for you.

Go by a hydrometer finally, and test it out for yourself. Write down the results. Pretty easy to do.

Exactly!

Brew on

 

[applescrap]

I know right. I agree with that, but im still hoping.

 

[joshesmusica]

I know right. I agree with that, but im still hoping.

Then best get to testing it out for yourself.

Let me know what starchy, yeasty water tastes like, as I'm actually interested in that, being a guy who will try anything once. But not interested enough to actually put all this work into it.

 

[jtratcliff]

There's a difference between a hypothesis and a wild ass guess...

The temperature sensitivities of enzymes are well understood and well established. If you have a reasonable hypothesis about why this known info might not apply at homebrew scales... then good on you... State your idea, why you think it might work, and propose some experiments that could disprove your idea....

But coming from "I don't understand how enzymes work but someone should test this idea that totally goes against how enzymes work" isn't going to win you any points...

It's not fear of "new" ideas... It's not close-mindedness ... No one is trying to keep the little man down... Just like we no longer test flat earth hypotheses, vaccine-autism links, or the face on Mars, etc...

The science is already in.... There is no merit to your "hypothesis".... If you think otherwise, then the onus is on you to provide the evidence. No one is going to chase your white rabbit for you.

In my job, I get people who write to me with their theories disproving Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's relativity all the time... Believe me, if I thought they had something, I'd be all over it. Short list to Nobel Prize in Physics... I'm not purposefully ignoring them or part of conspiracy to keep the status quo...

When they display a misunderstanding of the fundamental ideas under discussion, I'm less inclined to lend credence to any "hypothesis" the have... It's up to them to prove it. Not me. I'm under no obligation to follow them down their rabbit hole of misinformation...

Several people have explained to you why the well understood science of enzyme activity argues against the validity of your idea. You are under no obligation to accept the "argument from authority". But you can't expect anyone to do the work for you. You *could* be right... unlikely based on current knowledge... but it's up to you to demonstrate that you *are* right... and *why*!

If you can, most folks would be more than happy to listen...

When you're just spit balling ideas that go against well established science... not so much.

Try it out and let us know... If your data suggests it works like you suggest, then you'll get more favorable response here...

Good Luck!

 

[applescrap]

So, I will take that as a no jtratcliff? No seriously though really well thought out post. Thanks. Your job sounds pretty cool. I hope someone with a refractometer will take this on. I lack the equipment and skills as already stated now three or four times. The science is insightful for sure, but I think there might be more to it. Much of what was such common thought years ago has changed and some hasnt. Perhaps some of you have done something in brewing at some point that others would argue doesn't or wont work. This is just a proposition to expand on what we already know.

There is a very good chance that some if not all conversion could occur in the 20 minutes it could take to get full volume mash to lets say 170 ish, especially with an aggressive stir. At that point bag pulled and there would be no need to go into boil. A rising temp mash so to speak. It could really shorten a brew day and perhaps affect flavor. I think that aspect alone would be worth testing/understanding better.

 

[Pkrd]

I lack the equipment and skills as already stated now three or four times.

You know a hydrometer is around 10$ on amazon.

Have you heard about extract brewing? That will shorten your brew day somewhat. And then there's the liquor store...

 

[slym2none]

There is a very good chance that some if not all conversion could occur in the 20 minutes it could take to get full volume mash to lets say 170 ish, especially with an aggressive stir. At that point bag pulled and there would be no need to go into boil. A rising temp mash so to speak. It could really shorten a brew day and perhaps affect flavor. I think that aspect alone would be worth testing/understanding better.

Then do so. Go out & buy the equipment if you don't already have it. As has been said 3-4 times, it's not that expensive. Then do the work, and tell us your result. Otherwise, you are wasting everyone's time, and I begin to wonder if this whole thread isn't a troll-post to the whole forum.

 

[eric19312]

So, I will take that as a no jtratcliff? No seriously though really well thought out post. Thanks. Your job sounds pretty cool. I hope someone with a refractometer will take this on. I lack the equipment and skills as already stated now three or four times. The science is insightful for sure, but I think there might be more to it. Much of what was such common thought years ago has changed and some hasnt. Perhaps some of you have done something in brewing at some point that others would argue doesn't or wont work. This is just a proposition to expand on what we already know.

There is a very good chance that some if not all conversion could occur in the 20 minutes it could take to get full volume mash to lets say 170 ish, especially with an aggressive stir. At that point bag pulled and there would be no need to go into boil. A rising temp mash so to speak. It could really shorten a brew day and perhaps affect flavor. I think that aspect alone would be worth testing/understanding better.

This would probably work to fully convert the mash I direct fire recirculate my mash and aim for 1 degree per minute ramps. If I dough in at 140 it would be 30 min to get whole mash to 170, much of that time in the 150-160+ range where conversion is supposed to be fast.

What is proposed advantage of doing this? Saving time? I'm experimenting with a 30 min at 154 no mash out faster sparge right now. similar time I think. Took a 5% hit on efficiency, that's acceptable, will know how the beer turned out in a week or so. This saves more than an hour on my brewday, if I like the results I will absolutely go here for double batch days but would note the faster pace also ate up all the natural breaks I'm used to in my brew day and really had to push to keep up with the operation. One issue is that I normally keg on brew day, generally during the mash and lautering.

 

[Qhrumphf]

and I begin to wonder if this whole thread isn't a troll-post to the whole forum.

Whole account is a troll. Don't know how others haven't seen it. Had him sussed the moment he showed up on HBT. Never shoulda taken him off ignore list.

Fiji water all boiled hot lager? Go troll go!

 

[processhead]

Suspected as much.