It has been suggested recently that milds should be mashed at high (69ish) temp to give a full bodied malty beer. That seems to make sense.
But...
Most recipes give a low mash temp (63ish) for mild. Can anyone tell me why? Won't that make for a beer low in dextrins and relatively high in alcohol?
Mash temp for mild?
-
BigEd
I'm not much of a mild brewer but 69 sounds too high and 63 too low. My choice would be right in between at 66. A mash at 63 is at the low end of the scale for conversion and might make a thin brew. I don't think the alcohol % would increase a hell of a lot since the grist bill for a mild is still going to yield a low OG.
-
David Edge
If you've not mashed hot before, why not try it? Who cares what mild 'ought' to be like? You're brewing a beer for your own enjoyment and your friends.
Commercial milds are mashed cool because they are drunk very quickly and the unfermented fermentables provide the sweetness. Homebrew practice is different because most of us don't get through a nine in four days. Thus we aim to leave some dextrins behind, especially if bottling.
I'm wary about quoting specific temperatures since I discovered the bottom of my MT can be 5C above the top! (I underlet - that is introduce the liquor through the manifold). Nonetheless we successfully brew at up to 68C (measured at the top) and if you've read Clive la Pensée you'll know he believes you can make good beer at 72C.
The only warning I'd give is that if you do mash hot, don't combine that with a low-attenuating yeast like Windsor, the combination might be too much and you could finish high. But consider 67C+Windsor or 69C+Safale/Nottingham and let us know how you get on. I've had a couple of good reports of Windsor lately - it can give a nice maltiness that would be appropriate in a full-bodied mild.
Finally don't fall into the trap of brewing by numbers. Even if it only ferments down from 1036 to 1016 it will taste good - even if it's nothing like you've tasted before! I once made a series of technical errors resulting in a strong ale that fermented down from 1100 to 1054. It tasted ok and according to Corran that was the typical attenuation for such an ale in the late eighteenth century - the stuff the lords and ladies were drinking. We drank it with the cheese instead of port.
Of course, if you're brewing to win a competition, ignore me.
Commercial milds are mashed cool because they are drunk very quickly and the unfermented fermentables provide the sweetness. Homebrew practice is different because most of us don't get through a nine in four days. Thus we aim to leave some dextrins behind, especially if bottling.
I'm wary about quoting specific temperatures since I discovered the bottom of my MT can be 5C above the top! (I underlet - that is introduce the liquor through the manifold). Nonetheless we successfully brew at up to 68C (measured at the top) and if you've read Clive la Pensée you'll know he believes you can make good beer at 72C.
The only warning I'd give is that if you do mash hot, don't combine that with a low-attenuating yeast like Windsor, the combination might be too much and you could finish high. But consider 67C+Windsor or 69C+Safale/Nottingham and let us know how you get on. I've had a couple of good reports of Windsor lately - it can give a nice maltiness that would be appropriate in a full-bodied mild.
Finally don't fall into the trap of brewing by numbers. Even if it only ferments down from 1036 to 1016 it will taste good - even if it's nothing like you've tasted before! I once made a series of technical errors resulting in a strong ale that fermented down from 1100 to 1054. It tasted ok and according to Corran that was the typical attenuation for such an ale in the late eighteenth century - the stuff the lords and ladies were drinking. We drank it with the cheese instead of port.
Of course, if you're brewing to win a competition, ignore me.
-
maxashton
I find i get very patchy temperatures with my coolbox MT. I was using a digital thermo the last time, and it read even pretty much anywhere i put it. It was, however, faulty... when i took temperature readings with my glass thermos later in the mash (just out of interest), they read at least ten degrees higher, so instead of 66 - 67, i was getting 77ish degrees!
However, the beer tasted watery and uninteresting.
This most recent attempt at the same beer is pretty much the same, though i had much better control.. however, the mash tun's temperature seemed uneven despite stirring well at the onset.
I think perhaps its because i slipped when doughing in, and ended up pitching the whole lot at once onto the liquor.
Excuse poor sentence structure.. it's too early!
However, the beer tasted watery and uninteresting.
This most recent attempt at the same beer is pretty much the same, though i had much better control.. however, the mash tun's temperature seemed uneven despite stirring well at the onset.
I think perhaps its because i slipped when doughing in, and ended up pitching the whole lot at once onto the liquor.
Excuse poor sentence structure.. it's too early!
-
David Edge
Violently agree! Mild ale malt is kilned a little warmer so the enzymes perhaps need a bit more care for optimum saccharification performance.
I know a brewing club where I tried to discuss mashing temperature and they all looked at me in horror when I suggested mashing at anything other than 66C which I think is Line's 150F. Many of them had been brewing together for forty years and nobody had asked 'what happens if we mash hotter'? We need people like Ron Allison, CBA's Derby champion for the last two years, who asks questions like "I wonder what would happen if I threw another brick of hops in?" without worrying about all this IBU nonsense! The results are never less than interesting he won several classes in the 2007 with this approach.
I realised I was being a little cavalier advocating mashing hot. It works for me, perhaps because of a few wrinkles that others wouldn't necessarily know:
1) iodine test. If I have overcooked the enzymes I can leave it for another hour in the mash tun. Also I run off to the copper and hold at 66C for a while if I'm worried about the progress of conversion. On only one occasion in 230 brews did I throw a packet of 'pilsner enzyme' in. (A useful standby at 50p a sachet by the way).
2) Wort recirculating - At end of mash I always recirculate the first few litres for clarity. Thus if conversion wasn't complete in the hottest part of the mash it gets a second chance at some enzymes.
3) Running in mash liquor and grist together reduces the thermal shock. If you fill the MT with hot water the first kilogram or two may get its enzymes zapped a bit - especially if you mash in slowly.
So there are ways in which you could come unstuck at 70C, but I'd still say go for it!
Max's point reminds me of another trap I used to fall into. I would wave the thermometer probe around until it said what I wanted! That's why I started recirculating a little and measuring tap temperatures - and discovered the difference between top and bottom.
Max: As for a watery beer at 77C I'm surprised - unless the some starch didn't convert at all and hence gravity was low - was that the case? Also doing iodine tests over the years has saved me much grief. I know a lot of people don't bother, but I'd recommend it.
I know a brewing club where I tried to discuss mashing temperature and they all looked at me in horror when I suggested mashing at anything other than 66C which I think is Line's 150F. Many of them had been brewing together for forty years and nobody had asked 'what happens if we mash hotter'? We need people like Ron Allison, CBA's Derby champion for the last two years, who asks questions like "I wonder what would happen if I threw another brick of hops in?" without worrying about all this IBU nonsense! The results are never less than interesting he won several classes in the 2007 with this approach.
I realised I was being a little cavalier advocating mashing hot. It works for me, perhaps because of a few wrinkles that others wouldn't necessarily know:
1) iodine test. If I have overcooked the enzymes I can leave it for another hour in the mash tun. Also I run off to the copper and hold at 66C for a while if I'm worried about the progress of conversion. On only one occasion in 230 brews did I throw a packet of 'pilsner enzyme' in. (A useful standby at 50p a sachet by the way).
2) Wort recirculating - At end of mash I always recirculate the first few litres for clarity. Thus if conversion wasn't complete in the hottest part of the mash it gets a second chance at some enzymes.
3) Running in mash liquor and grist together reduces the thermal shock. If you fill the MT with hot water the first kilogram or two may get its enzymes zapped a bit - especially if you mash in slowly.
So there are ways in which you could come unstuck at 70C, but I'd still say go for it!
Max's point reminds me of another trap I used to fall into. I would wave the thermometer probe around until it said what I wanted! That's why I started recirculating a little and measuring tap temperatures - and discovered the difference between top and bottom.
Max: As for a watery beer at 77C I'm surprised - unless the some starch didn't convert at all and hence gravity was low - was that the case? Also doing iodine tests over the years has saved me much grief. I know a lot of people don't bother, but I'd recommend it.
-
David Edge
Probably too late, but
a) any old sugar if you want to
b) those recipes are derived from the brewery recipes, but I don't believe you should be a slave to that. If the beer comes out wishy washy, just try some of the standard things:
replace sugars with malt
mash warmer
budget for lower efficiency - ie scale up the malt bill and stop sparging earlier, top with water
add CaCl and maybe a little NaCl
use body builders (eg crystal)
increase gravity*
The last one is perhaps the most contentious. I argue as follows:
Big breweries have graduate brewers, laboratories and tasting panels to allow them to maximise perceived beer quality and minimise tax by optimising ingredient specs and process parameters. We can't afford this - we have neither the time nor the money - but we can afford a scoop of malt.
At some point I'll complete the rant on 'brewing by numbers' - it may need to be a book, but if say your Landlord clone isn't as bitter as Landlord put some more hops in. Don't laugh - this is based on a real chap who came along with two beers - a failed Landlord clone and a 1049 pale ale he had accidentally over-hopped. By good fortune it had the characteristic esters (fruity notes - to me Landlord is apricots and strawberries) as well. But could I convince him he was darned close to Nirvana? Could I heck. "But the gravity is too high and the IBUs are wrong" he cried. And I used Maris Otter when Graham's recipe says (whatever malt it is). But it tasted more like Landlord than Landlord does these days to me.
[Emoticon for slap forehead with exaggerated theatrical gesture]
a) any old sugar if you want to
b) those recipes are derived from the brewery recipes, but I don't believe you should be a slave to that. If the beer comes out wishy washy, just try some of the standard things:
replace sugars with malt
mash warmer
budget for lower efficiency - ie scale up the malt bill and stop sparging earlier, top with water
add CaCl and maybe a little NaCl
use body builders (eg crystal)
increase gravity*
The last one is perhaps the most contentious. I argue as follows:
Big breweries have graduate brewers, laboratories and tasting panels to allow them to maximise perceived beer quality and minimise tax by optimising ingredient specs and process parameters. We can't afford this - we have neither the time nor the money - but we can afford a scoop of malt.
At some point I'll complete the rant on 'brewing by numbers' - it may need to be a book, but if say your Landlord clone isn't as bitter as Landlord put some more hops in. Don't laugh - this is based on a real chap who came along with two beers - a failed Landlord clone and a 1049 pale ale he had accidentally over-hopped. By good fortune it had the characteristic esters (fruity notes - to me Landlord is apricots and strawberries) as well. But could I convince him he was darned close to Nirvana? Could I heck. "But the gravity is too high and the IBUs are wrong" he cried. And I used Maris Otter when Graham's recipe says (whatever malt it is). But it tasted more like Landlord than Landlord does these days to me.
[Emoticon for slap forehead with exaggerated theatrical gesture]
-
monk
David:
I thoroughly agree with your rant against brewing for the numbers. The numbers work quite well for commercial brewers whose brewing equipment/setup is professional and very exact. I, on the other hand, mash in a container meant to hold sports drinks. I boil in a pot meant for deep frying turkeys, etc. You get my point. There's no way I'm going to get (or be able to reliably predict) the same numbers and taste from the exact same recipe. It's much better to use a little trial and error and shoot for the flavor/aroma you want, not the numerical description you think will get you that beer.
Incidentally, I used to talk to a master brewer at a small brewpub (brewery in the pub type of place). This guy hadn't homebrewed at all since he "went professional". He gave me several bits of advice, but some really didn't help my beer at all. I put it down to the differences between homebrewing and largescale professional brewing.
monk
I thoroughly agree with your rant against brewing for the numbers. The numbers work quite well for commercial brewers whose brewing equipment/setup is professional and very exact. I, on the other hand, mash in a container meant to hold sports drinks. I boil in a pot meant for deep frying turkeys, etc. You get my point. There's no way I'm going to get (or be able to reliably predict) the same numbers and taste from the exact same recipe. It's much better to use a little trial and error and shoot for the flavor/aroma you want, not the numerical description you think will get you that beer.
Incidentally, I used to talk to a master brewer at a small brewpub (brewery in the pub type of place). This guy hadn't homebrewed at all since he "went professional". He gave me several bits of advice, but some really didn't help my beer at all. I put it down to the differences between homebrewing and largescale professional brewing.
monk
-
mysterio
I mash my milds at 69 and it makes them so much better than when I did my first one at 65/66. It's really night and day. The first one I did was thin and watery, the hot mashed one had a nice, luscious mouthfeel.
To be honest I never really noticed the effect of mash temperature until I started making milds and low gravity bitters, it's one of the keys to success IMO.
Bare in mind that the warmer mash temperature creates dextrins which are actually tasteless carbohydrates which change the texture of the beer. They aren't sweet or malty.
To be honest I never really noticed the effect of mash temperature until I started making milds and low gravity bitters, it's one of the keys to success IMO.
Bare in mind that the warmer mash temperature creates dextrins which are actually tasteless carbohydrates which change the texture of the beer. They aren't sweet or malty.
I used to suffer from this problem. What I do now is use a water to grist ratio of 2.6 L / kg in (almost) everything I brew, purely because its a ratio which I find easy to stir, and also to get the temperature uniform so there are no hot spots. If the mash is much thinner than that I find the grain sinks to the bottom and it becomes more difficult to measure the temperature, which can be a problem if you want repeatable results.I find i get very patchy temperatures with my coolbox MT. I was using a digital thermo the last time, and it read even pretty much anywhere i put it. It was, however, faulty... when i took temperature readings with my glass thermos later in the mash (just out of interest), they read at least ten degrees higher, so instead of 66 - 67, i was getting 77ish degrees!
-
David Edge
As a detail point, all mashing creates dextrins, cool mashing converts more of them to fermentable sugars, leaving less dextrin. That aside, this puzzles me.Mysterio wrote:Bare in mind that the warmer mash temperature creates dextrins which are actually tasteless carbohydrates which change the texture of the beer. They aren't sweet or malty.
Why do beers mashed hot seem sweeter and maltier than those mashed cool? Anybody any ideas?
-
David Edge
Someone who is not a trained taster may be misled. For example they may report sweetness in a drink that has a floral aroma. However, a trained taster focuses on palate sensation to differentiate between bitterness and astringency, for example.
So why would the sweetness be sensed by the sweetness receptors at the tip of a tongue? While Mysterio posits the tasteless dextrin and suggests it is all down to mouthfeel, Steve Alexander has been rather scathing about dextrins and sweetness. For one of his more relaxed pieces see http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/5086.html#5086-5
It might help to decide what we mean by dextrins here. I use it (without looking at a dictionary) to refer to the unfermentable sugar fraction - maltotetraose and above. That's probably a brewer's definition, not a chemist's. Any other definitions, anyone? If you don't count maltotetraose as a dextrin then how do you classify it.
So why would the sweetness be sensed by the sweetness receptors at the tip of a tongue? While Mysterio posits the tasteless dextrin and suggests it is all down to mouthfeel, Steve Alexander has been rather scathing about dextrins and sweetness. For one of his more relaxed pieces see http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/5086.html#5086-5
It might help to decide what we mean by dextrins here. I use it (without looking at a dictionary) to refer to the unfermentable sugar fraction - maltotetraose and above. That's probably a brewer's definition, not a chemist's. Any other definitions, anyone? If you don't count maltotetraose as a dextrin then how do you classify it.
-
David Edge
OK, all's quiet.
I asked Geoff Cooper who confirms it is an open point, but suggests that the sweetness might result from digestive enzymes in saliva working on the dextrins.
Someone in 'Evaluating Beer' - probably Papazian - points out that nobody has ever tasted beer - they've only ever tasted beer mixed with saliva and warmed in the mouth.
I asked Geoff Cooper who confirms it is an open point, but suggests that the sweetness might result from digestive enzymes in saliva working on the dextrins.
Someone in 'Evaluating Beer' - probably Papazian - points out that nobody has ever tasted beer - they've only ever tasted beer mixed with saliva and warmed in the mouth.