53 replies to this topic

[positiveContact]

Good info guys!

 

So, Denny commented in the PH thread that there isn't a lot of need to mash lower, much like CG suggests. My personal experience has been that high mash temps = higher attenuation for most beers. But, now that I have good O2 capability, more yeast, and really good fermentation temperature control I think that I may be able to raise the mash temps a little. That excites me a bit because I've noticed that I get better conversion efficiency from a 150 mash rather than a 148 mash. I'm sure there are diminishing returns there, but that could mean a shorter brew day as well.

 

I'm hesitant to try to increase the mash temp too much though. I hate overly sweet beer.

 

I think you meant low mash temps in the bolded part?

[SchwanzBrewer]

I think you meant low mash temps in the bolded part?

 

Oops, yeah.

[denny]

You can ramp up in the kettle as well. An advantage of fly sparging is it's easy and quick to mash out in the kettle since runnings are moved into the kettle at a slower rate than batch sparging.

 

I'm not sure that really matters.  If you start heating your kettle after you collect your mash runnings, as you collect your sparge runnings, it seems like the overall time would be about the same.

Oops, yeah.

 

I only have a single data point at this point, but when I made the same recipe with both 153 and 168 mash temps, I got exactly the same attenuation.

[HVB]

I only have a single data point at this point, but when I made the same recipe with both 153 and 168 mash temps, I got exactly the same attenuation.

Was this the American Mild?  I am just curious about the malt bill.

[BlKtRe]

I'm not sure that really matters. If you start heating your kettle after you collect your mash runnings, as you collect your sparge runnings, it seems like the overall time would be about the same.I only have a single data point at this point, but when I made the same recipe with both 153 and 168 mash temps, I got exactly the same attenuation.

Not to turn this into a sparge off but is your batch sparged wort boiling before before your sparge is complete? Even reaching a full boil volume from mash temps to mash out temps takes time. That makes mashing out in the kettle in conjunction with fly sparging possible. With that said, I'm not totally sold that a mash out is really necessary.

Edited by BlKtRe, 05 March 2015 - 09:58 AM.

[denny]

Was this the American Mild?  I am just curious about the malt bill.

 

50% GW Munich, 25% Rahr pale, 12.5% each C60 and carapils.  So total 25% crystal malts.

[denny]

Not to turn this into a sparge off but is your batch sparged wort boiling before before your sparge is complete? Even reaching a full boil volume from mash temps to mash out temps takes time. That makes mashing out in the kettle in conjunction with fly sparging possible. With that said, I'm not totally sold that a mash out is really necessary.

 

It could be if I turned the flame up more.  The only reason it's not is because I don't want it to.  But like you I'm not convinced a mashout has any value, and if it does, it would pretty much happen before the wort got to the kettle due to my sparge temps.

[SchwanzBrewer]

 

I only have a single data point at this point, but when I made the same recipe with both 153 and 168 mash temps, I got exactly the same attenuation.

 

OK, how did the beer taste? Were they the same?

 

I'm really skeptical about a 168 mash temp turning out the same beer as a 153.

[positiveContact]

50% GW Munich, 25% Rahr pale, 12.5% each C60 and carapils.  So total 25% crystal malts.

 

OG?  yeast?

[HVB]

OG?  yeast?

Yeast .. you know the answer .. 1450

 

I thought I remember reading about this and here it is https://www.experime...merican-mild-v3

[positiveContact]

I think I'd like to see some results of an experiment like this with some higher OGs.  low OG is easy on the yeast.

[HVB]

I think I'd like to see some results of an experiment like this with some higher OGs.  low OG is easy on the yeast.

Start a new thread and propose a Brew board experiment.  Everyone agree on a recipe and a OG they will brew it to.  Results may not be as good as if one person did it all but it could be a start.

 

I will take 1.055

[neddles]

Yeast .. you know the answer .. 1450

 

I thought I remember reading about this and here it is https://www.experime...merican-mild-v3

With the hops schedule the "proper" analog seems more like OB than Mild but whats in a name really? Denny has there been a V.4 yet?

I will take 1.055

What a sport you are.

[positiveContact]

anyone is welcome to brew any of beers at a higher mash temp if they want

 

the American strong ale would be a good candidate for highish gravity and it would use easy for anyone to acquire US-05 yeast.  I won't be making it for a little while though.

[denny]

OK, how did the beer taste? Were they the same?

 

I'm really skeptical about a 168 mash temp turning out the same beer as a 153.

 

Yep, you couldn't taste the difference.  More testing is needed.

Yeast .. you know the answer .. 1450

 

I thought I remember reading about this and here it is https://www.experime...merican-mild-v3

 

Yes, 1450...no surprise.

[denny]

With the hops schedule the "proper" analog seems more like OB than Mild but whats in a name really? Denny has there been a V.4 yet?

What a sport you are.

 

No v4 yet.  One of many more brews I need to get done.  The next 4 or 5 will be devoted to testing syrups from cascadecandisyrup.com.  I hope to get back to the mild after that.  FWIW, on the 27th and 28th of this month I'll be in Redmond OR for an event.  2 breweries there have collaborated on their version of the mild.  I'll be interested to see what they came up with.

[Brauer]

OK, how did the beer taste? Were they the same?I'm really skeptical about a 168 mash temp turning out the same beer as a 153.

I've never tried just 168F, and I usually stay away from 153 F, 'cause they finish too sweet on my system, but 148 F and 158 F produce very different beers on my system. Off the top of my head, probably about 1.010 and 1.014, when I tried it with a simple APA.

[BlKtRe]

I've never tried just 168F, and I usually stay away from 153 F, 'cause they finish too sweet on my system, but 148 F and 158 F produce very different beers on my system. Off the top of my head, probably about 1.010 and 1.014, when I tried it with a simple APA.

Is this true with all styles you brew and using malt from different maltsters? I find this interesting.

[SchwanzBrewer]

I've mashed at 160-162 before, but not on purpose. It was DCRIPA, recipe just as denny posts it. I mashed high because my thermometer was off by about 6 degrees at mash temps. So 154 became 160ish. Result was cloyingly sweet. 

[Brauer]

Is this true with all styles you brew and using malt from different maltsters? I find this interesting.

I've really only tried the full range of temperatures with Pale Ales, Bitters and Milds. That would be with Canada Malting Pale Ale Malt or Thomas Fawcett MO. On the other hand, I can usually get most styles down to 1.010, or a little less, by mashing low and managing the grist.

 

I find that MO tends to have more of an issue with finishing sweet than the American malt, in my hands, and I've always had a problem getting rid of the residual sweetness from Crystal Malts. That would probably be less of an issue if I used American Ale yeast, but I haven't used it for years.