# Mash on a higher temperature



## drjoffily (12/5/17)

HEEEEELP!!!
I just made a big mistake! I was distracted and set up my mash temperature to 78° instead of 68°! [email protected]#£&c!!!
I'm doing this recipe for the second time and it's a 2 step mashing. The first one is at 48° for 30 minutes and the second one was supposed to be at 67° for 60 minutes but I made a mistake and set the temp to 78° instead!
Have I spoiled my beer?
Have I killed the enzymes that break the sugars? Will my beer have enough sugar to ferment? Is it going to taste bad?
Has anyone had this problem before?


----------



## Danscraftbeer (12/5/17)

What are you brewing with? If its quick you could mix the mash well to spread the heat. Tip in some cold water!. mix, test. etc.


----------



## mtb (12/5/17)

Not looking good buddy.


----------



## drjoffily (12/5/17)

I'm brewing in a Grainfather. I've just finished sparging going to boiling now.


----------



## TSMill (12/5/17)

Not ideal but possibly salvageable depending on your temperature ramp rates. Only one way to find out really.


----------



## Bribie G (12/5/17)

A kilo of dex might help.


----------



## drjoffily (12/5/17)

It's the first time I make a big mistake like this. Is it worth it going all the way to see or don't even bother?


----------



## Danscraftbeer (12/5/17)

How long it was at the good temps is the question. Or how long above 75c is the question too.
I'd guess you got good conversion and a an overdone mash out time. Nothing to panic about.


----------



## drjoffily (12/5/17)

30-40 minutes on good temps for sure. But a solid 50 minutes above 75 for sure.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (12/5/17)

Your final gravity may be higher than expected. More body. This may not be a bad thing and may be a very nice thing I would go with it and record all notes.


----------



## drjoffily (12/5/17)

Hi Bribie G I never used Dex before. What will be the benefit of adding it?


----------



## drjoffily (12/5/17)

Danscraftbeer this is encouraging. Thanks for that. I wouldn't mind a creamy beer with a nice head retention. Is that what you're talking about?


----------



## Danscraftbeer (12/5/17)

drjoffily said:


> 30-40 minutes on good temps for sure. But a solid 50 minutes above 75 for sure.


You may get some tannins flavours but I tell you I'm judging my own personal likes and dislikes of flavours against respected shelf product and I'm still working on it. I get dislike flavours in the good shelf stuff too. There are just flavours that you like/dislike personally. Mistakes can sometimes be a discovery.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (12/5/17)

Look at decoction mash. You literally remove some of the mash and boil it and re add to the mash. Its old school but it works a treat for malty flavours. Again don't panic just brew it through and see what happens.
There is a philosophy to give every brew every chance it has. Not to think of total ditch if it didn't go to plan. 
$0.02


----------



## Bribie G (12/5/17)

drjoffily said:


> Hi Bribie G I never used Dex before. What will be the benefit of adding it?


If you have ended up with a heap of unfermentables in the wort, at least dex will give you some alcohol content to counteract the body of the beer.


----------



## manticle (12/5/17)

What is it doing at 48 for 30 mins? What beer? Ramp time in deg C per minute?


----------



## drjoffily (12/5/17)

manticle said:


> What is it doing at 48 for 30 mins? What beer? Ramp time in deg C per minute?


Sorry manticle, I'm not in that's level yet


----------



## drjoffily (12/5/17)

Thanks Bribie G and Danscraftbeer. Appreciate your input. I'll update you once I taste the final product. Cheers


----------



## Quokka42 (12/5/17)

The 48 sounds like a protein rest. From the sounds of things the mash has probably spent enough time at temperatures low enough for the enzymes to work to convert most of the starches, you just might have a little more tannins and such depending on the recipe. It will probably turn out to be an OK beer, but you might need to age it a bit. Again a lot depends on what recipe you were making.


----------



## manticle (12/5/17)

drjoffily said:


> Sorry manticle, I'm not in that's level yet


If you're not at a level to understand what temperature and time mean to mashing, go for single infusion and find out (easily done) what that infusion temperature means. Something like 65 for 60 mins.

Ramp time just means how long does it take to climb from 1 degree to the next on your system. If it took 30 mins to get from 48 to 78, you might get some kind of ok beer out of it. If it took 5 mins, I doubt it.


----------



## GalBrew (12/5/17)

I'd tip it and start again. It's not going to be good.


----------



## Benn (12/5/17)

I've been suspicious of the various digital thermometers I've _(for various reasons)_ resorted to using of late. 2 days ago I purchased a Mercury/glass lab thermometer to verify the accuracy of my digital equipment. 
...Seems we've both been mashing in a similar temperature range, I'll go out on a limb here and say that you'll be ok, you'll still make beer but you may quietly query the final product.


----------



## evoo4u (12/5/17)

I'd persist with it. If the ramp-up time was slow enough, there may well have been an adequate conversion as it heated up. One online report says: "_Mashing for a full 60 minutes doesn’t hurt anything, but you might not be accomplishing anything — especially in a high-temperature mash — after 20 minutes has elapsed_."

And who knows - you might have stumbled on a winner - saving time and power (if the mashout were to be quite short, and not an hour!), and producing a multi-faceted beer. But go for it, and let us know how it turns out.


----------



## drjoffily (16/5/17)

Quokka42 said:


> The 48 sounds like a protein rest. From the sounds of things the mash has probably spent enough time at temperatures low enough for the enzymes to work to convert most of the starches, you just might have a little more tannins and such depending on the recipe. It will probably turn out to be an OK beer, but you might need to age it a bit. Again a lot depends on what recipe you were making.


[SIZE=10.5pt]Thanks Quokka42. The OG was encouraging. It was 1046 instead of 1050. It's an amber Ale with most of the malt being amber malt. A bit of wheat malt and crystal. 5.5kg of malts altogether.[/SIZE]


----------



## drjoffily (16/5/17)

evoo4u said:


> I'd persist with it. If the ramp-up time was slow enough, there may well have been an adequate conversion as it heated up. One online report says: "_Mashing for a full 60 minutes doesn’t hurt anything, but you might not be accomplishing anything — especially in a high-temperature mash — after 20 minutes has elapsed_."
> 
> And who knows - you might have stumbled on a winner - saving time and power (if the mashout were to be quite short, and not an hour!), and producing a multi-faceted beer. But go for it, and let us know how it turns out.


[SIZE=10.5pt]Agree evoo4u. I'll persist. it's been fermenting for the last 3.5 days and the first 2 days were very active. It's slowed down now but it looks like there were enough food for the little guys to break the sugar in there. even the smell from the air locker is good. if it turns out better than a VB or a XXXX will be happy with it. I have a feeling it will be an ok beer with a bitter end at the back of the thong [/SIZE]


----------



## RdeVjun (16/5/17)

/OT
"with a bitter end at the back of the thong"
Erm, dunno about that, not sure that's the right technique.


----------



## Bribie G (16/5/17)

Depends what sort of thong you are referring to.





And who's wearing it.


----------



## Pallyjim (16/5/17)

Listen to the most recent brulosophy podcast. They're talking about this very thing! They couldn't tell the difference between 2 beers brewed at wildly different temps. You might end up with a higher fg, and less alcohol, but it'll taste fine!


----------



## Bribie G (16/5/17)

That's the tack I've been taking in brewing British Dark Milds for competitions.

To brew a mild less than 4% alcohol, just start with a grain bill that would normally give you 5% but mash it at 71 degrees, and don't let it fall below that.


----------



## manticle (16/5/17)

Imagine brulosophy reporting those results.

Crazy.


----------



## mtb (16/5/17)

Yeah.. just gonna leave this here

ed: that's for Pallyjim, with a subtle message to take Brulosophy with a grain of (brewing) salt. I read everything they post but a number of good points were made in that thread also.


----------



## manticle (16/5/17)

Bribie G said:


> That's the tack I've been taking in brewing British Dark Milds for competitions.
> 
> To brew a mild less than 4% alcohol, just start with a grain bill that would normally give you 5% but mash it at 71 degrees, and don't let it fall below that.


I do mine at 70 for 30 mins but not 78.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (16/5/17)

It all makes me think back to the old days when they mastered (or fooled upon) all this before our modern gadgets.
Like steep the grain with water then gently stir while warming all the way through to whatever, maybe even the boil?
Drain and batch sparge or fly sparge.
It worked in the old days. Beer is very forgiving to make.


----------



## manticle (16/5/17)

Back in them days.
Ye olde beer.

Arr


----------



## technobabble66 (16/5/17)

drjoffily said:


> Thanks Quokka42. The OG was encouraging. It was 1046 instead of 1050. It's an amber Ale with most of the malt being amber malt. A bit of wheat malt and crystal. 5.5kg of malts altogether.


So your grain bill was solely Amber malt + wheat malt + Crystal? With the majority being Amber malt? [emoji15]
If your talking, say, 80%+ of Amber then you might be struggling for enough enzyme converting capacity from the wheat malt to convert the Amber to sugars, even with a decent amount of time in the 60*C's. In which case, the brevity of time you've accidentally had might make it even more unlikely. So you might have a lot of starch present in your final wort. [emoji51]

Having said that, 1.046 is an encouraging sign you might be ok, so may as well see what happens! If you had a large enough amount of wheat malt in there then 20mins going through ~63-68*C should convert most of the starch (as stated in earlier posts).


----------



## Tony121 (21/5/17)

Any update on this one? Assume it has fermented out by now, what was the FG?


----------



## Lindsay Dive (22/5/17)

Tony121 said:


> Any update on this one? Assume it has fermented out by now, what was the FG?


I'm also keen to see what the result is.


----------



## Rocker1986 (22/5/17)

I don't think I've seen one Brulosophy experiment where any substantial number of people could tell the difference between anything. It's as if the experiments are engineered to achieve the outcome they end up with, whether deliberately or not...

Anyway, I'm also interested to see how this is turning out.


----------



## Lionman (24/5/17)

I wonder if you mashed in at room temp and then just put the thing on to boil, lifting the grain at 78c and then letting it continue on to boiling, what sort of conversion you would get?

Given the amount of time most peoples' rigs take to heat up, I dare say it would probably work fine. Probably spend a good 30min+ between 60 and 78 anyway, which with modern malts seems to be enough.


----------



## drjoffily (25/5/17)

Pallyjim said:


> Listen to the most recent brulosophy podcast. They're talking about this very thing! They couldn't tell the difference between 2 beers brewed at wildly different temps. You might end up with a higher fg, and less alcohol, but it'll taste fine!


Spot on Pallyjim! The FG was 1.028 which left me with a ABV of 2.3%. a very light beer. I also tasted it and it tasted good! surprise surprise! I'm looking forward to open one next week to taste the final product. A 2.3% beer might be the perfect excuse to my wife. Now I can drink 2 beers Mon to Thu


----------



## drjoffily (25/5/17)

technobabble66 said:


> So your grain bill was solely Amber malt + wheat malt + Crystal? With the majority being Amber malt? [emoji15]
> If your talking, say, 80%+ of Amber then you might be struggling for enough enzyme converting capacity from the wheat malt to convert the Amber to sugars, even with a decent amount of time in the 60*C's. In which case, the brevity of time you've accidentally had might make it even more unlikely. So you might have a lot of starch present in your final wort. [emoji51]
> 
> Having said that, 1.046 is an encouraging sign you might be ok, so may as well see what happens! If you had a large enough amount of wheat malt in there then 20mins going through ~63-68*C should convert most of the starch (as stated in earlier posts).


Nice one technobabble66! Thanks for the tip on the malt. For the next iteration should I have some pale malt instead of 80% amber malt? What do you sugest for a Amber Ale with a nice thick head?


----------



## Lionman (25/5/17)

drjoffily said:


> Spot on Pallyjim! The FG was 1.028 which left me with a ABV of 2.3%. a very light beer. I also tasted it and it tasted good! surprise surprise! I'm looking forward to open one next week to taste the final product. A 2.3% beer might be the perfect excuse to my wife. Now I can drink 2 beers Mon to Thu


It might be worth noting that there are enzymes available that can be added ot the fermenter if you ever get a beer thats stuck at a high FG.

The enzymes break the complex carbs down into simple sugars that the yeast can consume.

They will require an extra week or two of fermentation but you will drop a few extra points.


----------



## Rocker1986 (25/5/17)

drjoffily said:


> Nice one technobabble66! Thanks for the tip on the malt. For the next iteration should I have some pale malt instead of 80% amber malt? What do you sugest for a Amber Ale with a nice thick head?


Definitely.. I'd be using 80% pale malt at least, probably closer to 85%, bit of Munich maybe 10%, or use the Amber malt there, and make up the rest with dark crystal or medium crystal with some black malt/roast barley for color deepening.


----------



## Lionman (25/5/17)

drjoffily said:


> Nice one technobabble66! Thanks for the tip on the malt. For the next iteration should I have some pale malt instead of 80% amber malt? What do you sugest for a Amber Ale with a nice thick head?


It's a good idea to check specs on malts if you're not familiar with them. Pretty sure most amber malts are recommended to be max 10% of the malt bill.

If you want to do a simple amber ale, use an existing recipe as a starting point. Brew that and move from there or tweek as you desire.

Do you like James Squire Amber Ale? There are a few JSAA clone recipes around. This thread has a few versions

http://aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/44576-james-squire-amber-ale/


----------



## drjoffily (25/5/17)

Rocker1986 said:


> Definitely.. I'd be using 80% pale malt at least, probably closer to 85%, bit of Munich maybe 10%, or use the Amber malt there, and make up the rest with dark crystal or medium crystal with some black malt/roast barley for color deepening.


 thanks Rocker. A Wonder how it'll taste like. On the initial taste it was very smoky and caramel like flavour.


----------



## technobabble66 (25/5/17)

drjoffily said:


> Nice one technobabble66! Thanks for the tip on the malt. For the next iteration should I have some pale malt instead of 80% amber malt? What do you sugest for a Amber Ale with a nice thick head?


As suggested above, i'd be looking at something like 60-80% Ale malt. The rest you could look at 10-30% Munich if you like a general, pronounced maltiness, 5-10% Amber for a toasty element, ~5% medium crystal. I'd probably start with something simple like that.
EG: 70% Ale, 15% Munich, 10% Amber, 5% Med Xtal. That's very middle-of-the-road, equal between the malt-toasty elements and the caramel elements. I'm not saying this is a good recipe, by the way. It's simply my view on what is a "mid-point" on proportions of the kind of core ingredients for an Amber Ale.
The Munich pushes maltiness, the crystal pushes a caramel/toffee element. If you specifically want one rather than the other, i'd drop/minimise the other, if that makes sense.
FWIW, Amber is similar to Biscuit & Victory, though they're (obviously) not the same - they all add a variant of a toasty, biscuity, nutty element.
I'd say for my tastes, the Biscuit adds a biscuity element (sah-prise!), Victory is more nutty-toasty, Amber is in between with a more toasty-biscuity-roasted element.
There's lots of secondary spec malts you could look at to push other elements, but that's a good starting point 

The thick/good head can be from both the mash temp profile & a few ingredients.
The primary temp point is a 15-20mins rest at 72°C.
Ingredients are basically wheat malt, oats (malt or raw/instant) (and maybe rye) or Carapils. ~5% of either should be enough. Though you could add more if you want to be able to taste either the wheat or oats. (Personally, I'm not a fan of wheat, so i'd use oats. I'm currently a big fan of oats, so i'd push it to 10% - as an example of manipulating a recipe for this). Carapils is technically like a very light crystal malt, however at normal levels, it won't add any discernible flavour, so it can be a very handy/simple 5% addition to help guarantee a good head. FWIW, the mash profile thingy should be enough to do this. One last thing, hops oils/components can greatly aid head retention, so really hoppy beers typically have great heads while ignoring the other things i've mentioned.


----------



## drjoffily (30/5/17)

Ok folks... after my embarrassing rooky mistake - actually a couple of them - first mashing at 78° and secondly using amber malt as base malt I finally tasted it after one week conditioning. I could wait no longer! Surprisingly it doesn't taste that bad. It actually tastes alright to be honest. It's very drinkable. It's way pass a amber ale in terms of colour and toasty flavor. It's more towards a brown ale with a strong toasty note and some caramel note as well. Quite pleasant bitterness with IBU around 40-45. The toastiness of the amber malt overtook the fruity aroma and taste of the cascade, Citra and Amarillo hops.

I'm glad I didn't throw it out! I can easily drink it. 

I'd like to thank you all for the tips and suggestions.

Lesson learned. I'm ready for the next brew. This time something more simple


----------



## Lionman (31/5/17)

Gongrats, you made beer from scratch :beerbang: Keep going, your beers will keep getting better.

Never throw beer out, it's sacrilege and will only anger the beer gods. Drink it, it will make sure the lesson is well learned.

Do a SMaSH for a nice simple brew. One malt, one hop, less to worry about. I have done a few and they have all been really delicious.

Something like 

23L
5.5Kg Munich I - 68c for 60mins
20g Citra @ 60mins
20g Citra @ 10mins
20g Citra @ 5mins
40g Citra dry hop 5 days

should be roughly
5.5%
40IBU
8SRM


----------



## drjoffily (31/5/17)

Lionman said:


> Gongrats, you made beer from scratch :beerbang: Keep going, your beers will keep getting better.
> 
> Never throw beer out, it's sacrilege and will only anger the beer gods. Drink it, it will make sure the lesson is well learned.
> 
> ...


thanks mate. Are you trying to confuse me asking me to brew another batch using only a specialty malt!? 
Isn't Munich a specialty malt used to get a specific malt character, a bit of colour and mouthful?
The recipe looks tempting though. I like a tropical fruity aroma and taste beer. It looks like this recipe will give me that.


----------



## manticle (31/5/17)

Munich is a base


----------



## rude (31/5/17)

30 min mash might as well reduce you're grain bill & go the 90 min one

Then again I could be wrong 

Mash temp I understand more body less fermentables mouthfeel

Whats the go for shorter mash times


----------



## manticle (1/6/17)

Similar. You can tweak mash time and temp together to get a more or less fermentable wort.

High mash temp plus shorter time= dextrinous or lower temp plus longer = more fermentable.

2 sets of enzymes working on starch conversion so you can favour one over the other in a variety of ways. Optimum pH for either is also mildly different.


----------



## drjoffily (1/6/17)

Lionman said:


> Gongrats, you made beer from scratch :beerbang: Keep going, your beers will keep getting better.
> 
> Never throw beer out, it's sacrilege and will only anger the beer gods. Drink it, it will make sure the lesson is well learned.
> 
> ...


Hey Lionman have you tried this recipe before? How does it taste like? Cheers


----------



## Lionman (1/6/17)

I have done similar, not exactly the same. It should be pretty nice though.

Munich I is a good malt to use in a SMaSH if you like a decent bit of malt flavour in your beer. Alternatively, you could use something like Marris Otter or Golden Promise. These are decent pale malts that have a special maltiness to them that makes them great for higher IBU SMaSH brews.

You could swap Citra out for something like Simcoe if you like a more pine resinous flavour or Galaxy if you like a more passionfruit flavour. There are almost endless choices.

Feel free to swap out malt or hops for something you like or a particular flavour or aroma your chasing. Don't be afraid to get creative, just make sure the ingredients you are using are suitable. For example, some malts cannot be used in high quantities and some hops don't work as well as others for late additions. I found doing a few brews like this are a good way to get a feel for certain ingredients and also got on top of your brewing process.


----------



## drjoffily (14/6/17)

This beer is growing on me! It taste so good that I'm thinking in repeating the mistake .
It's hoppy and it's malty at the same time. And the head is the best I've made. If only I could get another 1% on the ABV it would be a perfect session brown ALE.
Do you think I could get that by mashing on the right temperature this time? Around 68°.

I understand now that the Amber malt is a specialty malt and I should not use it as the majority of my grain bill but the beer tastes too good! Colour is beautiful, head is creamy, aroma is fruity (from the cascade and Amarillo hops)... I guess I'm breaking paradigms here. Sorry to the brewers evangelists of this group!


----------



## Rocker1986 (14/6/17)

You could probably get something similar using a large proportion of pale malt, a bit of Munich and some Caraaroma, and it would probably work better than using a heap of specialty malt. The Caraaroma is potent as ****, and one of my favourite grains.

I regularly make a red ale with Maris Otter, Caraaroma, Carapils and a bit of Black Patent, hopped with Centennial and Cascade, and fermented with 1469 yeast, which turns out similar to that description. Lovely malty/toffee/caramel but well balanced by the hops which give a bit of fruit but not overpowering. I used to ferment it with US-05 but when I tried 1469 in it, it just went to another level. One of my favourite recipes I've ever come up with that one, and other than the change of yeast, a recipe that has never changed since its first brewing. I'm happy to share the recipe if you want to have a go at it yourself.


----------



## drjoffily (14/6/17)

Rocker1986 said:


> You could probably get something similar using a large proportion of pale malt, a bit of Munich and some Caraaroma, and it would probably work better than using a heap of specialty malt. The Caraaroma is potent as ****, and one of my favourite grains.
> 
> I regularly make a red ale with Maris Otter, Caraaroma, Carapils and a bit of Black Patent, hopped with Centennial and Cascade, and fermented with 1469 yeast, which turns out similar to that description. Lovely malty/toffee/caramel but well balanced by the hops which give a bit of fruit but not overpowering. I used to ferment it with US-05 but when I tried 1469 in it, it just went to another level. One of my favourite recipes I've ever come up with that one, and other than the change of yeast, a recipe that has never changed since its first brewing. I'm happy to share the recipe if you want to have a go at it yourself.


Nice one Rocker! Cheers


----------



## Rocker1986 (14/6/17)

This is for a 25 litre batch, scale up or down as needed. Mash time is 90 minutes, boil time is 75 minutes. Based on 75% brewhouse efficiency. Ferment at 19C with 1469 West Yorkshire Ale yeast.

4.000 kg Pale Malt, Maris Otter (Thomas Fawcett) (5.9 EBC) Grain 4 86.6 %
0.300 kg Caraaroma (Weyermann) (350.7 EBC) Grain 5 6.5 %
0.200 kg Carapils (Weyermann) (3.9 EBC) Grain 6 4.3 %
0.070 kg Black Malt (Thomas Fawcett) (1300.2 EBC) Grain 7 1.5 %
0.050 kg Acidulated (Weyermann) (4.5 EBC) Grain 8 1.1 % - this can be left out
_Mash at 66/67 degrees C_

20.00 g Cascade [6.80 %] - First Wort 75.0 min Hop 9 16.3 IBUs
7.00 g Magnum [12.20 %] - Boil 60.0 min Hop 10 8.9 IBUs
20.00 g Centennial [10.00 %] - Boil 20.0 min Hop 11 12.7 IBUs 
30g Dry Hop of Cascade when fermentation dies down as well.
_The amount of Magnum needed will vary with the AA% of all the hops used. I normally leave the Centennial and Cascade additions alone and only adjust the Magnum as needed to keep it around 38-39 IBUs, sometimes dropping it altogether.
_
Est Original Gravity: 1.0434 SG
Est Final Gravity: 1.0127 SG
Estimated Alcohol by Vol: 4.0 % (4.4% if bottled)
Bitterness: 39.4 IBUs
Est Color: 33.5 EBC


----------



## Lionman (26/6/17)

I have done a couple lately with around

83% pale malt
16% munich 1
1% caraaroma

Nice maltiness, beautiful colour. Latest batch is bittered with Magnum with all Amarillo late hopping. Looking forward to this one. Smelling nice in the fermenter.


----------



## a1149913 (28/6/17)

For future brews i'd suggest sticking with single infusion. Decoction will riddle your brew day with variables that will do more harm than good. 
http://brulosophy.com/2016/12/12/mash-methods-pt-3-decoction-vs-single-infusion-exbeeriment-results/

I'm keen to find out how this brew went. Did it ferment out?
Just to add more fuel to the fire - don't stress too much about hitting exact mash temp numbers. Its always going to make "good" beer and i doubt the average punter will be able to tell the taste difference between upper and lower limits of mash temps.

http://brulosophy.com/2015/10/12/the-mash-high-vs-low-temperature-exbeeriment-results/
http://brulosophy.com/2015/10/12/the-mash-high-vs-low-temperature-exbeeriment-results/


----------



## Jack of all biers (28/6/17)

a1149913 said:


> Just to add more fuel to the fire - don't stress too much about hitting exact mash temp numbers. Its always going to make "good" beer and i doubt the average punter will be able to tell the taste difference between upper and lower limits of mash temps.



Good beer yes, but taste differences between 60C mash's and 72C mash's are quite "there" to be discerned by all but the most taste hindered of us.


----------



## a1149913 (29/6/17)

I agree - 60 to 72 is a big jump!

Check out the experiment i posted - super interesting read. Actually quite surprised at the outcome!


----------



## Lionman (29/6/17)

Difference between 60 and 72 would be pretty apparent.

Difference between 64 and 68 would be much harder to discern. There would be a difference, but it's likely that in general the home brewer would be more concerned about how fermentation and hop utilisation impact on the final product, compared to the relatively small difference a few degrees at mash would make.

To some people it's important, depends on what you're striving for.


----------



## Jack of all biers (2/7/17)

a1149913 said:


> I agree - 60 to 72 is a big jump!
> 
> Check out the experiment i posted - super interesting read. Actually quite surprised at the outcome!



The experiment was a dud in my opinion. The usual reasons being his tasting group, but probably the main reason, being he either doesn't understand or forgotten to take into account the 'cross over' temperature areas of both Alpha and Beta Amalyse and completely ignored the affect pH has on both. 

His experiment compares 64C against 71.7C mashing temps. Whilst 68-72C is the temp range that Alpha is most active, it is also active at 64C. If he picked 57 or 60C then it would be a fairer comparison between the effect of both Amylase groups. If he had changed the mash pH for each mash to put both Amalyse in it's optimal area then that would have been a better comparison also.

Once again he compares Oranges with Tangerines and then blind folds people and states that no discernible outcome can be gauged when they fail to tell the difference he is after (how many are BJCP trained we are never told [it could be one from twenty]). I could go on, but many have pointed out the inadequacies of his methods and data collection previously. I also am no scientist or expert, however having brewed batches at low and high temps, I can say that they can not be confused with each other at all.


----------

