I am thinking about changing the default in BeerSmith of 156* for Full Body mash profile. I am thinking about 165*. What do you think about this temp, and what temperature do you use?
I use 162 for full body session strength beers. I have not tried a mash temp that high for a stronger beer yet. Never tried 165 though. I’d be interested to hear what you find.
I would think 165 would be getting too close to denaturing the enzymes, especially if you thermometer is not calibrated exactly. I don’t think I’ve ever gone above 160F.
cool. looks like mash pH becomes even more of a concern with these high temp mashes. If I’m reading that chart correctly it looks like you’d want to target a slightly higher pH for high temp mashes to help the alpha amylase out a bit
I love that chart - Denny has posted it before, but this time I printed it out as an 8 1/2 by 11 for laminating and posting on a cabinet in my garage. It says so much so concisely. I have the “World of Beer Styles” poster up and guys are always going up to it and pointing and discussing. Now the brewers in the neighborhood will have another thing to talk about over a brew in the garage.
I have that chart too. It is handy but it also shows concrete boundaries where it is actually more diffuse.
What got me to thinking about this is a recent conversation on Carapils:
http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=17621.msg223051#msg223051
There are three voices in this post, separated by asterisks…
I find that Carapils works well to increase body, without adding the residual sweetness you get from higher crystal/cara malts. I have found that mash temps don’t really have as much effect on body as the grain bill.
****
I agree with your first sentence, but to the second I would counter that you just aren’t mashing high enough. I haven’t seen any appreciable difference in body even mashing as high as 156. It’s not until I hit the 158-162 F range where I’ve seen an increase in body. I think that most of the malt we’re using nowadays are so loaded with enzymes that even in the mid 150’s they’ve done their job before the majority of them have denatured.
I mash barleywines at 148, session beers and anything seeing some Brett at 162, and everything else at 153. But I do think you have the right idea for the proper use of CaraPils.
****
Beta is active up to the 158F temp, where it rapidly denatures. Alpha denatures rapidly at 176F.
I have found this to be true as well. I find very little difference between a 145* mash and a 156* mash. Yes my thermometers are calibrated. Yes my pH is correct.
So by targeting low to mid 160’s for a mash, I am trying to denature the Beta so just the Alpha is active.
I use 162 for my session ales as well (and have gotten as low as 44%AA). I have never gone above that, and at this point have no reason to, as I haven’t found my session beers to need more body.
+1. 162F is my upper end as well. I haven’t felt the need to go higher.
The change in fermentability w/ change in mash temp is highly dependent on your base malt.
IME I haven’t been able to significantly reduce fermentability (via high mash temp) on beers made with an American 2-row base. The DP is off the charts. Its bread to produce extremely fermentable worts, even with rice and corn.
Moral of the story - for various grists, don’t expect the same change in fermentability with the same change in mash temp. Don’t just select a “Mash Profile” in Beer Smith and move on - dive into the mash procedure, make sure you’re temps, thickness, volumes, etc. are consistent. I don’t even use the “Mash Profile” option for this reason.
Well maybe this is the route to explore. I’ve assumed that the increase in mouthfeel/viscosity/whatever of the old world grains have been because of more beta-glucans, but I wonder if this is a contributor as well.
What base malts would be less fermentable producing chewier beers?
Grain is my ‘final frontier’ in that I think I have a fairly good handle on the other ingredients and processes of brewing, but not grain. Can’t wait for the Grain book in the Water, Yeast, Hops series.
Lesser-modified base malts can allow for a greater change in fermentability w/ mash temp: Maris Otter, Munich/Vienna, and floor-malted products. Plus they taste better in ‘chewy’ beers.
You can also add a touch of oats or wheat (less than 5%) to boost mouthfeel. I’ve gone away with the flaked stuff from the homebrew shop because I think it has a plasticy taste. I like using steel-cut oats - you just have to boil them first (make oatmeal).
With some homebrew systems, it can be a challenge to maintain the mash/runoff temp all the way through to the start of the boil. I have this issue: I run off slow, batch sparge, and only have one burner, so my first runnings temp can drop and hang out in the low 150’s if I’m unorganized or not paying attention.
Thanks Kyle, I may make MO my new 2-row.
I prefer MO as my basemalt. i dont mind spending a few extra bucks for it.
Thanks for the chart denny:)
You should also consider Golden Promise.
The Malt book is on my list too. Had to look for this link. It should help with grain selection, and thinking on mashing those grains.
http://morebeer.com/brewingtechniques/bmg/noonan.html
Thanks Jeff!
This is the beauty of SMaSH beers. You can really get to know your base malt.
I still think American 2-Row Pale Malt has a firm place in the home brewery. Consistent from year to year. always fresh from the LHBS. Flavor profile associated with benchmark brands for American styles (i.e. SNPA).
In most cases, the extra diastatic power is desired. No worries about full conversion with high-adjunct grists or reduced rest time. It also builds in some forgiveness for poor/inconsistent process, equipment setup, or temp control - especially helpful for new AG brewers.
Has anyone completely gone away from American 2-row? Maybe this is a good Charlie Survey question.