Thought Experiment: Enhancing Malt Flavor

Discussion in 'Homebrewing' started by OldBrewer, Apr 12, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. OldBrewer

    OldBrewer Maven (1,385) Jan 13, 2016 Canada (ON)

    I'm putting it to the test as we speak - currently brewing a Paulaner Premium Pilsner taste-alike with some of the suggestions in this thread. Not the no-sparge process, though, as I don't want to introduce too many variables at this time.
     
    keilerdunkel likes this.
  2. chavinparty

    chavinparty Zealot (653) Jan 4, 2015 New Hampshire

    I actually don’t own the book and had borrowed it from a friend when I started brewing so I’m sure you’re right. The funny part is I never do a mash out since I read(misread) it and now I swear by it. I still think a no mash out beer would have less tannins
     
  3. OldBrewer

    OldBrewer Maven (1,385) Jan 13, 2016 Canada (ON)

    In Strong's other more recent book, "Modern Homebrew Recipes" (2015), Strong does mention mashout under the heading "Finishing the Mash and Lautering". He says: "I'm not really sold on that idea, but it does get the mash closer to boiling temperatures so it doesn't hurt. I often combine this with the vorlauf since it lets me meet both objectives simultaneously." (Page 16).
     
  4. Prep8611

    Prep8611 Savant (1,208) Aug 22, 2014 New Jersey

    I "mashout" by adding the rest of my no sparge water to the mashtun. This is usually with 160 degree water. I do it to get my water closer to boiling temps and because this is my adjusted way of following @VikeMan 's method. I used to add all the water in the initial mash in but have since adopted adding it later. Saves a little time and I have more of a traditional mash thickness to start.
     
    dmtaylor likes this.
  5. OldBrewer

    OldBrewer Maven (1,385) Jan 13, 2016 Canada (ON)

    I can see raising the temperature of the mash so that the wort will flow more readily and also pick up more of the sugars (better efficiency), but regarding stopping enzyme activity, I cannot at all see the point. Why does it matter if the starches continue to convert even more? Isn't it not much different than than allowing the mash to continue for 70 minutes rather than 60 minutes (or 100 minutes rather than 90 minutes)? So why go to the trouble of trying to stop the enzyme activity before going to boil? Getting it quickly to over 170 F in the boil within 10 minutes or so of draining it should accomplish the same thing.
     
  6. JackHorzempa

    JackHorzempa Grand Pooh-Bah (3,375) Dec 15, 2005 Pennsylvania
    Society Pooh-Bah

    Some folks practice a mash out to achieve a target OG value. If you are unconcerned if the OG value is a bit higher than a certain value then you do not need to mash out.

    Cheers!
     
  7. VikeMan

    VikeMan Grand Pooh-Bah (3,067) Jul 12, 2009 Pennsylvania
    Pooh-Bah

    It would accomplish a similar thing, but not the same. With a mashout, you know exactly when you wacked the enzymes, rather than counting on the kettle heating to do it at a consistent time. And with a mashout (as opposed to mashing for 10 minutes less or whatever) , more time is spent with the grains, extracting flavors.
     
  8. VikeMan

    VikeMan Grand Pooh-Bah (3,067) Jul 12, 2009 Pennsylvania
    Pooh-Bah

    Once you reach full conversion of starches to dextrins/sugars, more time isn't going to increase the pre-boil OG, though it will influence fermentability. (And if an early mashout prevents full conversion...well, I don't know why anyone would want to do that.)

    That said, a mashout can improve lautering/mash efficiency, which will get slightly more wort from the tun to the kettle. It won't be higher or lower gravity wort, but since there's more of it, boiling it (longer) down to the same final volume will increase post-boil OG as compared with no mashout. But I would say the effect is fairly small.
     
  9. JohnnyChicago

    JohnnyChicago Initiate (0) Sep 3, 2010 Illinois

    Interesting idea and I would love to hear the results. Personally, I believe that shortening or reducing time or volume of wort in the boil would have a deleterious effect on malt character. You’d definitely get less melanoidins, but then there’s other flavor compounds that develop during a vigorous boil. Something Dr. Bamforth calls the ‘cooked beer’ malt character.

    Take a commercial brewery. The steam goes on as soon as there’s a couple of gallons in the kettle. Depending on the size of the brewhouse, runoff can be 1-3 hours or more. I’ve seen European breweries that have 6 hour runoffs! The whole time, the wort in the kettle is being kept at near-boiling temps to minimize lag time between kettle full and boil start. Add a 30 minute boil and hour or two cool-in and suddenly a recipe that says “boil for 60 minutes” actually means “hold at or near boiling for 5-6 hours”.

    This always puzzled me. Getting everything you could out of the grain and then liquoring-down if it came in too high always seemed to make more sense. But to each their own, I guess!
     
    keilerdunkel likes this.
  10. OldBrewer

    OldBrewer Maven (1,385) Jan 13, 2016 Canada (ON)

    I've never been too concerned whether or not the OG is a point or two above or below my target, but the OG can also be adjusted higher if needed by increasing the length of boil, or lower by decreasing it (or adding water later). However (other than adding water), that will impact on the hop bitterness.
     
  11. OldBrewer

    OldBrewer Maven (1,385) Jan 13, 2016 Canada (ON)

    That's true if you wanted to reach a certain FG. But if you aimed at the lowest possible FG, then you would want full conversion, and wouldn't therefore the enzymes have already stopped working? Why then the need to whack the enzymes?
     
  12. OldBrewer

    OldBrewer Maven (1,385) Jan 13, 2016 Canada (ON)

    I just brewed a pilsner on Saturday using the approach. I took a liter of first runnings, and set it aside to cool. I then added it back to the kettle after the wort had been chilled. I'll report on the results in a couple of months when the pilsner is ready.
     
    JohnnyChicago likes this.
  13. VikeMan

    VikeMan Grand Pooh-Bah (3,067) Jul 12, 2009 Pennsylvania
    Pooh-Bah

    First, I always want full conversion. Full conversion means that all the starches have been converted to something other than starches. But within that full conversion state, there's a continuum of potential fermentability, based on the proportions of various sugars and dextrins that make up the wort. That's where the mash length (and other factors) come into play.

    I don't think I've ever shot for the lowest FG possible. I can't imagine why I would do that. But if I did, I would mash for 4 or 5 hours, to allow enzymes to keep working up until they have all denatured. But all other things being equal, this would result in a much drier beer than would be typical for the style/recipe.
     
  14. OldBrewer

    OldBrewer Maven (1,385) Jan 13, 2016 Canada (ON)

    I didn't realize that the enzymes would continue working for 4 or 5 hours. I was under the understanding that they were generally finished in less than about 2 hours, of course depending on the mash temperature.
     
  15. JackHorzempa

    JackHorzempa Grand Pooh-Bah (3,375) Dec 15, 2005 Pennsylvania
    Society Pooh-Bah

    If all of the starch in the mash has fully converted than a mash out will not affect the OG value. If there is some remaining starch remaining (e.g., a mash with low DP as one example) then further conversion will occur during the sparge process.

    It is also the case that the fermentability of the wort can be altered during the sparge if a mash out is not conducted; breaking long-chain dextrins into shorter, more fermentable sugar.

    You stated: “I've never been too concerned whether or not the OG is a point or two above or below my target…”. If you share a similar thought as regards the FG value then I would suggest that conducting a mash out is not something that you need to be concerned about.

    Cheers!
     
  16. OldBrewer

    OldBrewer Maven (1,385) Jan 13, 2016 Canada (ON)

    No, that was my point - I don't see the need for a mash-out, specially when it seems to make such little difference, and the difficulty of obtaining that temperature with the size restrictions of a picnic cooler mash vessel. However, I do agree that the temperature of the mash should be raised to allow better draining (no stuck mash) and better extraction of sugars in the grain.
     
  17. VikeMan

    VikeMan Grand Pooh-Bah (3,067) Jul 12, 2009 Pennsylvania
    Pooh-Bah

    Just curious...how big is your picnic cooler? I have a 52 quart cooler that's big enough for mashing out all but the biggest worts, like really big imperial stouts. I'm talking about 5 gallon batches.
     
  18. OldBrewer

    OldBrewer Maven (1,385) Jan 13, 2016 Canada (ON)

    It's a ten gallon conical picnic cooler (Rubbermaid). I have used it often in the past for making 10 gallon batches, but now mostly use it for 5 gallon batches. I mash at 1.5 gallons per quart, and mash out with about 10 liters of sparge water (the cooler has capacity for almost 20 liters in addition to the mash). This results in a temperature of a little over 60 F. I then drain, add another 10 liters or so of water for batch sparging, and then drain again.

    https://www.ebay.com/p/Rubbermaid-1610-10-Gallon-Water-Cooler/1401612151
     
    #38 OldBrewer, Apr 17, 2018
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018
  19. OldBrewer

    OldBrewer Maven (1,385) Jan 13, 2016 Canada (ON)

    Sorry, in the last message, I meant "1.5 quarts of water per pound of grain", not "1.5 gallons per quart".
     
  20. OldBrewer

    OldBrewer Maven (1,385) Jan 13, 2016 Canada (ON)

    VikeMan, would it be better to add ALL the sparge water to the cooler after mashing has completed, rather than adding it a second time? I think there might just be enough capacity to do this. It would likely reduce the efficiency, but what would be the advantages, other than saving time?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.