Why raise mash temp?

[GFHomebrew]

Kai has some great info a bit old but where I did a lot of reading when I was starting out brewing
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Starch_Conversion

 

[J A]

I think malt modification is misunderstood. A highly modified malt has been allowed to germinate long enough for the proteins enzymes and betaglucanase to degraded to proteins and glucan to the point so a protein rest or even a glucan rest is not needed. If you have a under modified malt, there still is some proteins and beta glucan that needs to be broken down. This will help with flow in the mash and beer clarity

Highly modified malt does not covert faster than a low modified malt, it just means that mash rests to complete what the maltster failed to complete are not necessary.

The glucan conversion makes sense. I agree that with "modern malts" protein rest isn't necessary.
I still do it, not because I think there will be an over-abundance of proteins to cause haze or other issues but mostly because I like to get the malt well-hydrated and loosen some of the gelatins before proceeding to a recirculated mash at conversion temps.
There's a big difference in the malt and mash from the time I dough in at around .8 qts/lb (very thick and gooey) and the end of 20 minutes held at 122 degrees (separation of grain and mash liquor rather than a paste). I think that what's left of the glucans has a chance to convert further and loosens up the grain bed. I'm careful not to stir or disturb the grain much during my protein rest so that when I start to add water for the conversion-temp infusion, I can count on flour-y starches still being held within the grain mass rather than washing to the bottom to clog up the works. Once the mash thickness is at a more workable level (around 1.25 qts/lb) I can get things stirred up and really get the enzymes in contact with the starches.

 

[Mark Farrall]

You could also add the amount of enzymes in a 'modern malt' into the picture. Is the 60 minute mash a convention from a time before malts had as many enzymes as they do now?

The graphs I've seen of conversion from starch to a sugar show a very high conversion rate through the first 15 minutes, then increasingly slower conversion rates after that. I think the number was over 80% conversion of starch in that period. That's just conversion, fermentability being yet another reason to change your mash approach based on what beer you're making.

 

[GFHomebrew]

I can think of another example of limited conversation time in a few real life examples I've had were I leave the mash for extended periods of time sometimes a couple hours to overnight.

Now do you think my mash efficiency went up?
Nope not a point extra out of the usual this to me means conversion is sorted in my 60-90min mash schedules.

I see the mash as setting up the right sugar profile for the yeast to do their thing.

 

[J A]

I can think of another example of limited conversation time in a few real life examples I've had were I leave the mash for extended periods of time sometimes a couple hours to overnight.

But was the temperature relatively consistent over that period of time? If the mash cooled below a certain range, conversion would be affected. If you maintained heat so that mash temp stayed in the peak range, would it matter if it stayed that way for 2 hours or overnight? Almost certainly not. But the difference between 30 minutes at peak conversion temperature and 2 hours would almost certainly give you a significant or at least notable increase in efficiency.

 

[GFHomebrew]

But was the temperature relatively consistent over that period of time? If the mash cooled below a certain range, conversion would be affected. If you maintained heat so that mash temp stayed in the peak range, would it matter if it stayed that way for 2 hours or overnight? Almost certainly not. But the difference between 30 minutes at peak conversion temperature and 2 hours would almost certainly give you a significant or at least notable increase in efficiency.

It was still in the saccarafication range I think low 60's.
I used to regularly do this on Saturday mornings mash in then off to Dog training around 9 ish then back home in arvo to continue brew day I didn't notice any better efficiency I left the mash to hang out without heat just incase things went sideways while I was away. Can't remember them beers turning out any thinner in mouthfeel due to extended Beta Amylase activity either. But remember this is my HB bias at play too...

I was listening to brulosophy podcast recently where Marshall was saying his short n shoddy brews happened to suffer from haze my mind shot to unconverted starches some of them mashes are 25mins.
Interesting is it unconverted starches or a short boil or both.
I'll be doing a 30min boil tomorrow but I'll still do my regular 60 min ish mash.

@Bubba Wade you cut back on the boil right?

 

[The Brew Mentor]

Enzymes are affected by temperature. The closer they get to their de-nature temperature, the faster they work. Beta amylase enzyme denatures @149-150F. Alpha amylase denatures @165F or so.

In the real world, it would be best to have those two flipped around, because alpha needs to work before beta can finish the job. Alpha splits the starch molecule down the center and creates lots of "ends". Beta can only work on the "ends" of the molecule, that's why the the alpha needs to go first. So how long does it take to convert depends on temperature. The lower temperatures and pH favors the beta enzyme, but the alpha is also working, but at a slower rate. When you get above 150F, the beta enzymes work the fastest, but are quickly denatured. Alpha continues to work up 168-170F. At those temperatures the alpha enzyme works the fastest, but like beta is quickly denatured.

Beta creates the most fermentable wort, so lower temperature keeps the beta from going away. Beta converts the starches into mostly maltose, sucrose and glucose. Alpha works at the lower temperatures, but again, at a slower rate. Alpha converts starches into dextrin, but it can also produce fermentable sugars like maltose.

Mashes can convert fairly quickly, but the problem lies with the enzymes could still be working on creating simpler sugars or more fermentable wort. So stopping the mash short reduces conversion efficiency and fermentability.

145F mash takes more time 60-90 minutes depending on the beer style.
152F works much faster, but the beta enzyme doesn't last very long, thus less fermentable wort.
158F the mash converts very quickly, but contains more dextrin because the beta didn't have much of a chance to work.
168F is super fast, but alpha is soon disable or denatured.

So why do a mashout? To get the most out of the mash as you can and to a lesser extent, denature amylase enzymes. Mashouts are not necessary. But like I said before, if you can, why not?

Sorry to be so long winded.

There you go, in a nutshell! Nice job laying it out HVM

 

[J A]

I'll still do my regular 60 min ish mash.

I think the useful test would be to compare the 30 minute mash to the 60. It's totally possible, even likely (my observations of apparent increase notwithstanding) that the extra time doesn't yield any significantly better result.
At this point I feel like it's "in for a penny, in for a pound" time-wise. Since any extra time spent mashing or boiling seems fairly small compared to the chunks of time it takes to clean and sort everything before and after the actual brew process, I begrudge any potential or imagined decline in quality that might be attributable to my hurrying things along.

 

[The Brew Mentor]

I think the useful test would be to compare the 30 minute mash to the 60. It's totally possible, even likely (my observations of apparent increase notwithstanding) that the extra time doesn't yield any significantly better result.
At this point I feel like it's "in for a penny, in for a pound" time-wise. Since any extra time spent mashing or boiling seems fairly small compared to the chunks of time it takes to clean and sort everything before and after the actual brew process, I begrudge any potential or imagined decline in quality that might be attributable to my hurrying things along.

But are you willing to dump a batch?

 

[Dogwood]

Wow!! What good infoi!! I think my understanding has increased! I will change my temp profiles and start around 148 degrees and slowly increase the mash to 158. My brew equipment has a heating element that slowly increases heat on recirculation, should take at least an hour to change that temp that much! Looking forward to the next brew!
Thanks everyone!

 

[J A]

But are you willing to dump a batch?

If doing a 30 minute mash is possibly going to cause a batch to be a dumper, then I don't know why we're even discussing the possiblity of full conversion in as little as 15 minutes. Especially given that those of us who are "long mashers" seem to be somewhat in the minority. It would be interesting to see if there was a slightly higher OG in the longer mash but I'd expect to get a perfectly viable beer from a 30 minute mash using typical home-brew malts.

 

[J A]

Wow!! What good infoi!! I think my understanding has increased! I will change my temp profiles and start around 148 degrees and slowly increase the mash to 158. My brew equipment has a heating element that slowly increases heat on recirculation, should take at least an hour to change that temp that much! Looking forward to the next brew!
Thanks everyone!

I'd start even lower if a slow rise is your goal. Some Belgian methods include starting at 120 to 130 and raising the temp slowly over a fairly long period of time. That's usually using under-modified brewers malt. For homebrew malt, starting around 144 and raising slowly should probably mimic that method.

 

[The Brew Mentor]

If doing a 30 minute mash is possibly going to cause a batch to be a dumper, then I don't know why we're even discussing the possiblity of full conversion in as little as 15 minutes. Especially given that those of us who are "long mashers" seem to be somewhat in the minority. It would be interesting to see if there was a slightly higher OG in the longer mash but I'd expect to get a perfectly viable beer from a 30 minute mash using typical home-brew malts.

I guess what I was really meaning was are you willing to compromise the quality of what you're making or change what you're making for an experiment and on a small batch that's fine but if you have something that's proven that's working that 30 minutes really means nothing in the overall scheme of things

 

[J A]

I guess what I was really meaning was are you willing to compromise the quality of what you're making or change what you're making for an experiment and on a small batch that's fine but if you have something that's proven that's working that 30 minutes really means nothing in the overall scheme of things

I got the drift. And, yes, I've stuck with what works with pretty good reason so it's not likely that I'll bother with it but it would be interesting to explore the potential difference.
Yes, I'm very satisfied with what I'm getting and I definitely wouldn't do any number of things that might risk problems. But at some point it's good to test what points of procedure are really adding up to a better product and which are being held on to basically to avoid jinxing the batch.
Because I'm measuring gravity several times over the course of the mash, I'm convinced of the efficacy of the longer mash but what if the substantial increases I see are a product of release and suspension of sugars that were already converted rather than of new conversion? Yes, I'd have to be willing to have a batch that might turn out a little different but I suspect it would be well within a quality range that I could live with.
It's one of the few advantages that we homebrewers enjoy over pros. We don't have a lot riding on the outcome of any single brew day. Smaller batches and a captive and not-too-picky clientele for our free product takes a lot of pressure off.

 

[The Brew Mentor]

Don't get me wrong, I love to experiment.
I've always been willing to try something new or what someone else hasn't.
In the end, it's always about what do I need to do to make the very best product efficiently.
Science for sure, but mix in creativity and process and there you have it!
This is why this hobby is so fun and exciting.
Cheers all!

 

[BarbarianBrewer]

But at some point it's good to test what points of procedure are really adding up to a better product and which are being held on to basically to avoid jinxing the batch.

Oh No! By talking about jinxing the batch...you have jinxed the batch!

If it could be reliably proven that there is absolutely no difference between a 30 minute and a 60 minute mash, I'd probably switch. Until then I'll keep doing 60+ minute mashes because 30 fewer minutes in a long (but relaxing) brew day really isn't that much.

 

[Megary]

So…is the 60 minute mash a happy medium for both conversion and fermentability? Because I would be interested in how different mash times affect both OG and FG. I’m sure Brulosophy has done this already, but they haven’t done it in my kitchen, with my BIAB crush, with my simple set-up, and with my recipes.

I wouldn’t mind knocking off some time on my brew day, especially if I was only wasting that time to begin with.

 

[Bubba Wade]

It was still in the saccarafication range I think low 60's.
I used to regularly do this on Saturday mornings mash in then off to Dog training around 9 ish then back home in arvo to continue brew day I didn't notice any better efficiency I left the mash to hang out without heat just incase things went sideways while I was away. Can't remember them beers turning out any thinner in mouthfeel due to extended Beta Amylase activity either. But remember this is my HB bias at play too...

I was listening to brulosophy podcast recently where Marshall was saying his short n shoddy brews happened to suffer from haze my mind shot to unconverted starches some of them mashes are 25mins.
Interesting is it unconverted starches or a short boil or both.
I'll be doing a 30min boil tomorrow but I'll still do my regular 60 min ish mash.

@Bubba Wade you cut back on the boil right?

@Trialben I have standardized my process to a 45 minute single infusion mash and a 30 minute boil. And this results in….a perfectly clear beer. After running some tests with iodine strips, I found complete conversation around 40 minutes for just about every recipe I make. So I rounded up to 45 to be on the safe side. Most recipes are at 150-152 F.

And in 30 minutes for the boil, hop isomerization is mostly complete and the hot break has done its job.

 

[Ward Chillington]

I wouldn’t mind knocking off some time on my brew day, especially if I was only wasting that time to begin with.

Do a search on "short and shoddy" for a bunch of video and write ups and podcasts with other interviews with the Brü guys cutting off time for boils and mash cycles that even if you don't do it, it's going to add to your knowledge base!

I'm more prone to be in J A 's camp and stick with what works for me. Given all the differences in our rigs, systems, recipes, conditions and methods, I can't help to think that this is one of those questions without one "right" anwser, but rather a whole lot of "good" anwsers!