60 minute mash Vs 20 minute mash
- Thread starter LarryF
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
20 minutes, huh? I brewed yesterday and that was mashed for 30mins dead, and at 69C. Just experimenting, as is my wont. I hit the OG I expected and it is now fermenting nicely.
MyQul
Chairman of the Bored
Debating the merits of short mashes pops up regularly on brewing forums. The thing that I always agree with is why dont commercial breweries do them? It would save them millions/billions if they did, so there must be a reason to mash for 60 mins or longer. Other than the potential for lower efficiancy and not getting full conversion, I dont know what it is
I suppose it's like an exponential scale, the longer you leave it the less the grain releases. Interesting that the right gravity is reached in each case suggesting that the grains give up their sugars first and then the rest of the time is just for extra body??
LarryF
Brew Numpty
I've wondered before about (fior example), a 20 minute mash, a 15 minute boil to sterilise and hot break the wort. Hops done in a pressure cooker to extract the bitterness and then 5 minute and flame out hop additions als in the pressure cooker. The theory being that the pressure and 140c temp would extract the required bitterness and hop flavouring and then combined with the wort and fermented. Also, would the short mash allow far second mash of the same grain to maybe pull a weaker session brew out of the one batch of grain.
LarryF
Brew Numpty
In the article the differences in his OG seemed negligible, the shorter mash beer seemed to kick off the ferment better than the longer mash beer. The only difference seemed to be the better mouth feel on the longer mash beer and the shorter mash beer being thinner. However the blind tasting didn't seem to show a definitive difference between the beers.
![BREWING THERMOMETER STICKERS ACCURATELY MONITOR FERMENTING BEER & WINE LIQUID TEMPERATURES 5PCS HOME BREW SPIRITS WINE LCD ADHESIVE [US]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/311DDjo2X3L._SL500_.jpg)
MyQul
Chairman of the Bored
Tbh Ive done a number of short mashes and cant really tell any difference taste wise. But I still continue to do 60 min mashes as the mash bit of brewing is so simple, Its the boil that I normally shorten to 30 mins. With the mash you can leave it alone and do other stuff until you're ready to return to it and continue. But you cant really do that with the boil as you have to add your hops at specific times. So you need to be around and paying attention to the timings
Dutto
Landlord.
I just don't understand why there's this need to reduce the time it takes to make a decent brew!
If someone proves that a shorter mash time makes a better brew then count me in, but until then it's 60 minutes. :thumb:
If someone proves that a shorter mash time makes a better brew then count me in, but until then it's 60 minutes. :thumb:
If I can prove to myself that a 30 min (or less ) mash can at least equal the usual 60 min one, then I won't go back to the longer one. Depends what you're after I suppose, but given my preference for malty and full-bodied I'm hopefully on to a winner!
Sadfield
Landlord.
Quite right @Gunge. As the experiment proves, there is a relationship between mash time and attenuation. I see this as another tool in the box, and vary my mash length according to the outcome desired. Usually, a 30, 60 or 90 minute mash.
Maybe, the difference is unperceptible in a mid strength beer with a simple grist, but given the clear difference in FGs, the experiment needs conducting at different abvs and grists before I'll take note of the tasting results.
It's worth saying that the Brulosopher is a very competent brewer. I wouldn't advise going as low as 20 minutes unless you are sure of your mash pH and yeast vitality and pitch rates. Otherwise there is a risk of incomplete conversion or stalled fermentation.
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
Maybe, the difference is unperceptible in a mid strength beer with a simple grist, but given the clear difference in FGs, the experiment needs conducting at different abvs and grists before I'll take note of the tasting results.
It's worth saying that the Brulosopher is a very competent brewer. I wouldn't advise going as low as 20 minutes unless you are sure of your mash pH and yeast vitality and pitch rates. Otherwise there is a risk of incomplete conversion or stalled fermentation.
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
I'm no physicist but I would imagine it's only the cost of heating water to mash temp that is massive, whereas the cost of maintaining the temp in a well-insulated mash tun to be low. At homebrew levels, you might only lose a degree or two over an hour without additional heating so perhaps it scales comparably? Wonder whether the cost of heating is lower than any small increase or adjustment in grain bill/hops to hit the same OG?
I overnight mash and this experiment confirms what my thoughts are. A longer mash gives you higher efficiency and a more fermentable wort. The 20 minute mash clearly was less fermentable. The only surprise is that they say this brew has a thinner mouthfeel. I'd have thought it would be sweeter and heavier.
I always add my crystal in the morning for a steep so that it doesn't get broken down into fermentable sugars. Otherwise my beers are too dry.
I always add my crystal in the morning for a steep so that it doesn't get broken down into fermentable sugars. Otherwise my beers are too dry.
Well... in the small hours of this morning I bottled said brew which I might add, was mashed at 69/70C. The FG was 1006! WTF!?! Mashing low and long should have done that; mashing high and short should have done the opposite, right? What gives? Still tastes awesome but, y'know. Yeast was MJ Liberty Bell, 15 days @ 19C...
Sadfield
Landlord.
Could it be the result of lingering Saccharomyces Cerevisiae var. Diastaticus from a Laissez-faire attitude to sanitation? Have you previously used a dry Saison yeast? Could be a wild Saccharomyces strain carried in on a cat.
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
No cats in this one, Sadfield! My approach to sanitation is basic at best but highly effective so that's the other theory ruled out and besides, the ale is virtually clear already and tastes splendid. So, seriously, what's going down? The MJ yeast is a new one on me but the only other brew I used it in didn't attenuate so deeply, and with more conventional mash time and temp. Hmm...
Dutto
Landlord.
Maybe the Mash wasn't long enough? 
Personally, I use the following Rule of Thumb:
PS I always remove any cats (alive or dead) before pitching the yeast!
Personally, I use the following Rule of Thumb:
- Strike Water
- 2.6 litres per 1kg of grain.
- Heated to give required Mash temperature.
- Mash at:
- 55*C to 66*C (High Alcohol - dry) or
- 68*C to 72OC (Low Alcohol – sweet)
- for one hour.
- DO NOT exceed 75*C
- Stir after 20 and 40 minutes.
- Heat SPARGE water to 80*C.
- Lauter until wort runs clear and then Sparge at one litre per minute.
- Stop sparge when runnings reach SG1.008 / SG1.012.
PS I always remove any cats (alive or dead) before pitching the yeast!
JonBrew
Landlord.
I've followed the Brulosophy stuff for a good while now and I've tried implementing some of the their so called 'short & shoddy' methods in my own brewing with generally good results. That included a 'wee heavy' that I mashed and boiled for 30 minutes each. My target OG was 1.100 and I came in at 1.096 which I thought was decent. I should add that there were no other adjustments made, i.e. I kept my efficiency numbers the same as I normally would when creating the recipe.
I also listen to the Brulosophy podcast where I've heard them refer to members of their team who have had beers picking up medals at the NHC that were brewed using 'short & shoddy methods, including shorter mashes and shorter boils.
I completely agree that these methods arent applicable to every style but, if used in the right way and with the right style, you can make very good beer.
I also listen to the Brulosophy podcast where I've heard them refer to members of their team who have had beers picking up medals at the NHC that were brewed using 'short & shoddy methods, including shorter mashes and shorter boils.
I completely agree that these methods arent applicable to every style but, if used in the right way and with the right style, you can make very good beer.
For commercial breweries, efficiency is a big deal. For us, the difference might be a couple of handfuls of grain but for them it could be several sacks worth. If you are running a business that matters.
The other issue that no one has mentioned is conversion of starch to sugars. It not simply extract efficiency which is clearly still reasonable with a short mash but also the amount and fermentability of the sugars produced. The grain might give up it's starch in 20 minutes but as the differences in attenuation demonstrate it may not be fully converted. Clearly there is plenty of fermentable sugars in a 20-30 minute mash but starch carry over in to a finished beer can cause shelf stability issues, so breweries might be happy to mash for an hour to make sure everything is fully converted
Sadfield
Landlord.
Why the assumption that a contamination isn't possible because the beer is clear and tastes great? Not all yeast or bacteria contamination will cause off flavours. Unexpectedly high attenuation sure does throw up a red flag.
Other causes could be over-pitching yeast or inaccurate temperature measurement.
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
