37 replies to this topic

[Poptop]

This is so up my alley.  I love that combo!!

[neddles]

Well 13 days grain to glass and gawd is this good. This will be brewed again and soon. I opted not to dry hop it and I won't next time either. The only change I would make to start is a small one; I would mash at 152 instead of 154 just to dry it out a hair more. The cascade and willamette combo was as good as advertised and very familiar tasting. I am sure I have unknowingly had several beers with this combo in the past. Finishes with a nice mouthful of bready MO and biscuit. I will definitely use this malt bill again with different hop combinations. This could be turned around even quicker as it stayed in primary a few more days than it needed to. I suspect most of this will be gone before the turn of the year.

[johnpreuss]

Well 13 days grain to glass and gawd is this good. This will be brewed again and soon. I opted not to dry hop it and I won't next time either. The only change I would make to start is a small one; I would mash at 152 instead of 154 just to dry it out a hair more. The cascade and willamette combo was as good as advertised and very familiar tasting. I am sure I have unknowingly had several beers with this combo in the past. Finishes with a nice mouthful of bready MO and biscuit. I will definitely use this malt bill again with different hop combinations. This could be turned around even quicker as it stayed in primary a few more days than it needed to. I suspect most of this will be gone before the turn of the year.

 

Now, I'd raise the IBUs to 55 and keep the mash temp at 154 or even up it to 156 but that's just me!

 

Glad it turned out nice.  I was always a fan of that combo when I had a metric a$$load of willamette.  Those days are gone but I still like that combo.

Edited by johnpreuss, 27 December 2013 - 07:16 PM.

[denny]

Well 13 days grain to glass and gawd is this good. This will be brewed again and soon. I opted not to dry hop it and I won't next time either. The only change I would make to start is a small one; I would mash at 152 instead of 154 just to dry it out a hair more. The cascade and willamette combo was as good as advertised and very familiar tasting. I am sure I have unknowingly had several beers with this combo in the past. Finishes with a nice mouthful of bready MO and biscuit. I will definitely use this malt bill again with different hop combinations. This could be turned around even quicker as it stayed in primary a few more days than it needed to. I suspect most of this will be gone before the turn of the year.

 

Add more gypsum to dry it out.  2F ain't gonna make much difference.  Greg Doss of Wyeast has found that 153 produces the most fermentable wort and both of your temps are right around that.

Edited by denny, 28 December 2013 - 12:34 PM.

[neddles]

Add more gypsum to dry it out.  2F ain't gonna make much difference.  Greg Doss of Wyeast has found that 153 produces the most fermentable wort and both of your temps are right around that.

I guess I should be more clear in my logic. This beer finished at 1.015 or 73%AA with a healthy pitch of WLP001, plenty of O2 and nutrient, and a rising temp fermentation schedule.  It already has 250ppm of SO4 and it is not sweet in the least. I usually like my pales/bitter around 1.011 to 1.013, so I am not exactly far off. Who knows maybe I'll like it better at 1.015 or likely I won't notice a real difference. Either way I just wanted to change one variable at a time to tweak this. 

 

Also Denny, could you elaborate on what Greg Doss said? 153F the most fermentable wort? More than a single infusion at 147F? This is new to me, do you know the logic here?

[denny]

He did a series of experiments and presented the results at NHC in 2012, IIRC.  If you're an AHA member, I can get you a link to his presentation.

Edited by denny, 28 December 2013 - 02:09 PM.

[denny]

Crap...I tried to post the table from the seminar but it didn't format correctly.

[positiveContact]

Also Denny, could you elaborate on what Greg Doss said? 153F the most fermentable wort? More than a single infusion at 147F? This is new to me, do you know the logic here?

 

also confused - i was always told lower mash temp = more fermentable beer.  i assumed up to a point of course but i figured that point was somewhere south of 147F.

[djinkc]

also confused - i was always told lower mash temp = more fermentable beer.  i assumed up to a point of course but i figured that point was somewhere south of 147F.

 

Here's the link.  httpss://www.google.com/#q=Greg+Doss+nhc+2012

 

I only looked at it briefly but it appears this was a 60 minute mash, a relatively small volume and stopped abruptly.  I would guess most of us don't have our mash stop at 60 minutes, rather it continues during the sparge to some degree.  I mash pretty low 148 - 150 for the majority of my brews and they attenuate well IMO.  

 

edit -" (pdf) Exploring Attenuation" is the google search link you want

Edited by djinkc, 28 December 2013 - 04:57 PM.

[positiveContact]

more mash time (90 mins versus 60 mins) making the beer less fermentable?  are the broken down sugars somehow getting turned into more complex carbs?  just seeing the data isn't helping me - i need to know why b/c it doesn't make sense.  that would imply my overnight mashes shouldn't be very fermentable when they seem plenty fermentable to me.  unless of course that curve stops trending down and then goes back up again.

 

also - that temp versus attenuation chart seems wacky.  why is the curve stay so flat from 146-151F and from 154-155F?  and at the same level of 83%?  that seems suspicious as all hell to me.  again - some explanation would go a long way.

Edited by TheGuv, 28 December 2013 - 05:29 PM.

[johnpreuss]

I guess I should be more clear in my logic. This beer finished at 1.015 or 73%AA with a healthy pitch of WLP001, plenty of O2 and nutrient, and a rising temp fermentation schedule.  It already has 250ppm of SO4 and it is not sweet in the least. I usually like my pales/bitter around 1.011 to 1.013, so I am not exactly far off. Who knows maybe I'll like it better at 1.015 or likely I won't notice a real difference. Either way I just wanted to change one variable at a time to tweak this. 

 

 

So are you tasting you're beer with your mouth or your hydrometer?  I have made beers that finished up where yours did and first tasted and then could have swore that it was a 1.010 finisher. 

 

I guess my question is whether or not you like or dislike the final taste/mouthfeel?

[neddles]

So are you tasting you're beer with your mouth or your hydrometer?  I have made beers that finished up where yours did and first tasted and then could have swore that it was a 1.010 finisher. 

 

I guess my question is whether or not you like or dislike the final taste/mouthfeel?

Let me simplify… I am talking about re-brewing this beer while only changing one variable (dropping the FG by 2-4 points) and trying to learn something by answering the following 3 questions.

 

1. Can I control my process well enough to drop the gravity as planned?

 

2. Do I notice a difference in the end product?

 

3. If there is a noticeable difference, do I prefer it or not?

 

Even if the answer to all 3 questions is "NO" I will have learned something from this re-brew and I still end up with essentially the same nice beer I am drinking now. Does that make more sense?

[Brauer]

more mash time (90 mins versus 60 mins) making the beer less fermentable?  are the broken down sugars somehow getting turned into more complex carbs?  

Toward the end of the mash the beta amylase is mostly denatured, so sugars created at the end would be mostly produced by alpha amylase and be less fermentable.  It's probably happening before 60 minutes, but he doesn't have enough data points to show that.

 

153 F is an odd value to derive, though.  This experiment has been done before and 149 F is usually the mash temperature that produces the most fermentable wort.  This is probably a good result to classify as "what was seen on this system".  Since it doesn't agree with historic data, I'd have to see it repeated by someone else to question what we already know ...and what doesn't agree with what I've seen in my brewery.  If I compare somewhat similar recipes, I generally see a noticeable decrease in fermentability from 149 to ~152, and again to ~155 F and 158 F.

 

I haven't found any numbers for mash efficiency in there, yet.  Perhaps if his efficiency was variable with temperature he might end up with odd results.

[johnpreuss]

Even if the answer to all 3 questions is "NO" I will have learned something from this re-brew and I still end up with essentially the same nice beer I am drinking now. Does that make more sense?

 

 

Yes!  DO IT!!!

[positiveContact]

Toward the end of the mash the beta amylase is mostly denatured, so sugars created at the end would be mostly produced by alpha amylase and be less fermentable.  It's probably happening before 60 minutes, but he doesn't have enough data points to show that.

 

153 F is an odd value to derive, though.  This experiment has been done before and 149 F is usually the mash temperature that produces the most fermentable wort.  This is probably a good result to classify as "what was seen on this system".  Since it doesn't agree with historic data, I'd have to see it repeated by someone else to question what we already know ...and what doesn't agree with what I've seen in my brewery.  If I compare somewhat similar recipes, I generally see a noticeable decrease in fermentability from 149 to ~152, and again to ~155 F and 158 F.

 

I haven't found any numbers for mash efficiency in there, yet.  Perhaps if his efficiency was variable with temperature he might end up with odd results.

 

but how much more conversion really happens between 60 and 90 minutes?  it doesn't seem like much so would it really add a whole lot of less fermentables?

[Brauer]

but how much more conversion really happens between 60 and 90 minutes?  it doesn't seem like much so would it really add a whole lot of less fermentables?

That's why I was looking for his efficiency values.  The lower your efficiency, the more late conversion you might expect.  However, 10% of your total gravity seems reasonable late in the mash, from conversion experiments I've seen.  It's very system dependent, though.  

 

Since his attenuation only drops 1% with longer mash, it seems a possible explanation.  Assuming 10% of fermentables it would only take a 10% decrease in fermentability of those fermentables.  That seems in line with what I see from moderately high temperature mashes designed to favor alpha amylase.

[positiveContact]

That's why I was looking for his efficiency values. The lower your efficiency, the more late conversion you might expect. However, 10% of your total gravity seems reasonable late in the mash, from conversion experiments I've seen. It's very system dependent, though. Since his attenuation only drops 1% with longer mash, it seems a possible explanation. Assuming 10% of fermentables it would only take a 10% decrease in fermentability of those fermentables. That seems in line with what I see from moderately high temperature mashes designed to favor alpha amylase.

I'll admit I didn't look very carefully at the graphs. A difference of 1%? Who cares?

[Brauer]

I'll admit I didn't look very carefully at the graphs. A difference of 1%? Who cares?

Very true. Probably within the measurement error.