Menu Icon


Looking for homebrewing gift ideas? Check out our previous gift guides here or here!
Also, if you enjoy BrewUnited, please consider doing your Amazon shopping via our affiliate link!



You are here: Home --> Forum Home --> Brewing Forum --> Brewing Discussion --> Does Mash Temp Matter (Much) Nowadays?

Jump to:    1   
chino_brews
Charter Member
Eden Prairie, MN
301 Posts


So I heard Denny Conn and Drew Beechum on a recent episode of their podcast casually mention that they are not sure mash temp matters nowadays as much as it did in the past because malts are so diastatically "hot". 

I have a recent exception where I mashed 10 degrees F low last year and got higher attenuation than I wanted, but I've generally noticed about the same attenuation levels from one hour mashes as 12 hour mashes and from 150 F to 156F. 

Any thoughts or experiences to share?




Posted 34 days ago.

brulosopher
Charter Member
Fresno, CA
167 Posts


In my experience, mash temp absolutely impacts attenuation, just not necessarily conversion, which I'm pretty sure is what Denny was referring to in the podcast. In private conversations, he's made similar references when discussing step-mashing, basically that anything other than a single infusion is no longer necessary due to how well modified malts are these days.




Posted 34 days ago.

Necropaw
Charter Member
Central WI
608 Posts


Though how much does attenuation seem to matter. not that its gospel, but didnt the xbmt have pretty conclusive results that people couldnt tell? (or was it just inconclusive? either way...)

I dunno. I used to mash low on my pale ales, but ive started bumping it up. we'll see if i prefer it at all. Probably wont notice a difference.




Posted 34 days ago.

chino_brews
Charter Member
Eden Prairie, MN
301 Posts


@brulosopher: I have to listen again to the podcast, but I think Jenny was talking in terms of being able to tell the qualitative difference in the final beer. 



Posted 34 days ago.

brulosopher
Charter Member
Fresno, CA
167 Posts


Ahh, could be, in which case it backs up my experience.

On Feb 22, 2016, at 6:47 AM, chino_brews <[email protected]> wrote:

@brulosopher: I have to listen again to the podcast, but I think Jenny was talking in terms of being able to tell the qualitative difference in the final beer. 

View this topic the BrewUnited forums

Unsubscribe from this topic




Posted 34 days ago.

chino_brews
Charter Member
Eden Prairie, MN
301 Posts


To be fair, the issue at hand in the podcast was whether decoction mashing makes a difference. But then it ranged into a discussion of mash temp. 

Denny's specific quote was, "One thing I [I've?] found is that most malts these days have so much diastatic power that even mash temp makes a whole lot less difference then it used to". He goes on to say it [mash temp? decoction? both?] might make a difference with heirloom malts, but then he notes that Weyermann Barke malt (discussed previously in podcast) seems perfect for single infusion mashing if you read the specs. 

Denny's quote is at 1:52:50 of episode 8 of Experimental Brewing podcast. You may wish to rewind a couple minutes to hear the whole discussion. 

My hypothesis is that (1) assuming that amylase works at a range of temps above and below its ideal range as stated in How to Brew until it denatures, and (2) assuming that alpha-amylase will work at "beta-amylase temps" albeit more slowly, that (3) if you have a shit-ton of alpha-amylase it doesn't matter. To analogize, if you take a take a house dog from California and make it pull a sled in the Yukon, it will do less work in the cold compared to an Arctic-bred dog or compared to what it can do in California, but if you hitch 20+ of them up to a sled it doesn't matter because you have so many dogs (my kid and I just got done reading Call of the Wild). 




Posted 34 days ago.

rayfound
Charter Member
Riverside, CA
313 Posts


I didn't hear Denny's comment, but mash temp absolutely impacts attenuation in a pretty easily observable way.

Attenuation differences as a result of mast temperature are seemingly not particularly impactful on the character of the resultant beer.

My hypothesis is that the sugars we taste strongly are primarily those that are fermentable.





Posted 34 days ago.

Necropaw
Charter Member
Central WI
608 Posts


Im really tempted to mash a pale ale at 158 this weekend...for science...

The one i have just about done fermenting was mashed at like...148 i think, the 10 gal batch yesterday was done at about 152 (target was 153. Missed the temp by like...10 degrees, did a decoction quick, got it up to about 153.5. eventually it dropped to 152ish).

It'd be fun to have 3 beers on tap that are pretty similar on the hop schedules (though im out of citra now, fuck), but mashed very differently.

Though the different ages on them will make an impact.

Maybe this would be a fun summer project where i can knock out 2-3 batches in a day pretty easily.

I was actually just thinking last night that i should buy some more fermenters. If I brew, the day is pretty much shot for doing anything else that i really want to do in the summer (going fishing for example), so if im going to brew, i might as well go balls to the walls and fill the keezer in a day or two. Unfortunately i only have 3-4 fermenters that i really trust right now.




Posted 34 days ago.

uberg33k
Charter Member
The Internet
314 Posts


I wish he would have qualified this statement better because honestly, it makes no sense.  You don't think mashing in at 144 is different than mashing in at 158?  Uh ... ok.  You want to say there's enough enzymatic power in there to convert the mash in 30 minutes?  Usually, that's the case and I could agree with that.  You want to say there's no reason to protein rest?  Unless you have a monster portion of raw grain in there, I also can get behind that statement.  But there will be zero difference in the resulting wort when mashing in at any temp?  C'mon dude.  You need to talk to your dealer cause he's lacing your stash.



Posted 34 days ago.

ingoogni
nl
314 Posts


malt modification and diastatic power a two things. It has been possible for ages to make well modified malts and the Brits have done so, it is a matter of germination time.
Modern grains have more enzymes, especially American varieties bred for conversion of high loads of adjuncts. I've recently seen malt specifications with conversion times of under four minutes. Those maltsers and farmers are stealing our job, it sometimes feels like extract brewing.

Anyone tried this




Posted 34 days ago.
Edited 34 days ago by ingoogni

KidMoxie
Charter Member
San Elijo Hills, CA
405 Posts


As I recall the context was "do step mashes matter?" and his thought was that there wasn't a qualitative difference between doing a convoluted step mash and a simple single-step mash. There were physical differences (e.g. clarity, og), yes, but nothing that testers could reliably distinguish.




Posted 34 days ago.

uberg33k
Charter Member
The Internet
314 Posts


@ingoogni - 

*clicks link* 
*sees it's a Briess base malt* 
*closes link and permanently forgets about it*




Posted 34 days ago.

ingoogni
nl
314 Posts


ouch, that bad?




Posted 34 days ago.

Necropaw
Charter Member
Central WI
608 Posts

Matt
Charter Member
Normal, IL
341 Posts


Shhhhhhhhh





Posted 34 days ago.

Jump to:    1