53 replies to this topic

[denny]

Will it be a different beer?

 

Not that any blind taster has ever identified in my experiments.

that's what I'm thinking - denny seems to think it makes no difference so at worst it was a minor amount of effort for nothing.  best case I actually get something positive out of it.

 

But don't trust your impressions without brewing exactly the same thing without the steps and do a blind triangle.

[positiveContact]

But don't trust your impressions without brewing exactly the same thing without the steps and do a blind triangle.

 

doing mash comparisons is really tough.  there are a lot of things that could go differently after the mash, mainly fermentation.  I probably can't control these other variables sufficiently.  if the beer ends up good I'd probably just keep doing it for that particular recipe and maybe one day when I'm feeling confident do a single infusion.  I certainly won't be going around making any claims about the goodness of doing the step mash by infusion other than that it may or may not have contributed to a beer I like and that your results may vary.

Edited by Evil_Morty, 23 January 2015 - 11:05 AM.

[Brauer]

 

I have used many calculators and not one was able to accurately predict infusion temps and amounts.  None of them seem to take the fact that the cooler resists temp changes into account. 

The calculator in BeerTools Pro specifically takes into account the thermal mass of your personal cooler, once calibrated. I've had great success with the calculation, but if it is off, you can use the error to fine tune the thermal mass and improve it's accuracy. Calculators that don't require you to calibrate your tun and then take that thermal mass into account are going to depend on luck that your tun is like the one that the guy used to develop the calculator. 

 

The other thing to keep in mind is that you have a bit of a broader window to hit with an alpha step, than with a single infusion. You are going to accomplish the goal if you hit, at the very least, in the 158-162F range.

Will it be a different beer?

It depends on the exact question. Pulling one out of my hat, "Will a beer mashed for 60' at 148F be different than one mashed for 20' at 148F and 40' at 158F?" There's a strong probablility, and that difference is probably going to vary between systems. Or another, "Is there a single infusion temperature that will give me the same result?" Perhaps you can find the temperature that gives you the same result as the alpha rest, but I don't know what it is.

[denny]

 Pulling one out of my hat, "Will a beer mashed for 60' at 148F be different than one mashed for 20' at 148F and 40' at 158F?" There's a strong probablility, and that difference is probably going to vary between systems. Or another, "Is there a single infusion temperature that will give me the same result?" Perhaps you can find the temperature that gives you the same result as the alpha rest, but I don't know what it is.

 

 

Having done that more than a few times, I certainly couldn't tell a difference.  YMMV

[Brauer]

Having done that more than a few times, I certainly couldn't tell a difference.  YMMV

I am truly surprised. Do you get a detectable difference between a beer mashed at 148F and 158F? If so, how short would you have to mash at 148F before you had detectable character from 158F?

 

It's been a while since I checked, but historically, on my system, I probably got 20%+ of my conversion at the higher temperature with a schedule like that.

[denny]

I am truly surprised. Do you get a detectable difference between a beer mashed at 148F and 158F? If so, how short would you have to mash at 148F before you had detectable character from 158F?

 

It's been a while since I checked, but historically, on my system, I probably got 20%+ of my conversion at the higher temperature with a schedule like that.

 

In a recent test batch, I took the same recipe and mashed at 153 for one batch and 168 for the next.  Both had the same OG, FG, and body.  Kinda weird, huh?

[SchwanzBrewer]

In a recent test batch, I took the same recipe and mashed at 153 for one batch and 168 for the next.  Both had the same OG, FG, and body.  Kinda weird, huh?

 

I mashed your rye IPA at 165 by accident because my thermometer was way off several times when I first started brewing. It always finished way too high/sweet. I mash it at 150 now and it's perfect. 

[positiveContact]

In a recent test batch, I took the same recipe and mashed at 153 for one batch and 168 for the next.  Both had the same OG, FG, and body.  Kinda weird, huh?

 

how much do you trust your thermometer?

[Brauer]

In a recent test batch, I took the same recipe and mashed at 153 for one batch and 168 for the next.  Both had the same OG, FG, and body.  Kinda weird, huh?

Very weird. Having read that Sierra Nevada uses very high mash temperatures, up around 157F or so, I made a Pale Ale mashed at 158F, not long ago. It was extremely full bodied; kind of interesting at first, but a little too much after a couple pints.

[neddles]

Very weird. Having read that Sierra Nevada uses very high mash temperatures, up around 157F or so, I made a Pale Ale mashed at 158F, not long ago. It was extremely full bodied; kind of interesting at first, but a little too much after a couple pints.

Was it sweet? Or just rich and full bodied?

[Brauer]

Was it sweet? Or just rich and full bodied?

The body was the most noticeable characteristic. It was thick, almost like what I imagine James Spencer's 100% Rye beers must be like. This was one of the beers that convinced me that the effect of temperature is dependent on the entire system/process, since this had more body than a Sierra Nevada beer.  I think it was sweeter than a beer mashed at 148F, but it wasn't particularly sweet. Perhaps the sweetness was kept in check because I used very little Crystal Malt, wanting to focus on the contribution of the high temperature mash.

[positiveContact]

Very weird. Having read that Sierra Nevada uses very high mash temperatures, up around 157F or so, I made a Pale Ale mashed at 158F, not long ago. It was extremely full bodied; kind of interesting at first, but a little too much after a couple pints.

 

what was the FG like?  on a stout I recently made and posted about I mashed higher than I normally would (156ish) and it didn't attenuate as much as I would have expected with S-04 or US-05 (split batch).  It only had 1lb of crystal in a 10 gallon batch.  I'm not sure how fermentable oats are...

[denny]

how much do you trust your thermometer?

 

Trust it completely.  It had just been calibrated to a lab thermo.

[Brauer]

what was the FG like? on a stout I recently made and posted about I mashed higher than I normally would (156ish) and it didn't attenuate as much as I would have expected with S-04 or US-05 (split batch). It only had 1lb of crystal in a 10 gallon batch. I'm not sure how fermentable oats are...

1.013 seems to be what I recorded. That may or may not be accurate, since recording FG seems to be the thing I forget most often. That's in line with my recollection, though I thought it might have been 1.014.