# Mashing High And Adding Dex



## Nick JD (3/2/10)

Just wondering if anyone can point me in the direction of some info of the various ratios of oligosaccharides produced by mashing at various temperatures (and enzymes regimes). 

I'm wondering if mashhing at high temps and adding some dextrose give the same sugars as mashing at low temps? 

:icon_cheers:


----------



## Bribie G (3/2/10)

Nick JD said:


> Just wondering if anyone can point me in the direction of some info of the various ratios of oligosaccharides produced by mashing at various temperatures (and enzymes regimes).
> 
> I'm wondering if mashhing at high temps and adding some dextrose give the same sugars as mashing at low temps?
> 
> :icon_cheers:



Waaaay outside my detailed chemistry knowledge, but what I do know is that I have mashed UK milds at 70 then added 600g of dex/LDME mixture and won two medals for that exact recipe in comps and got good comments in the nats. I'm not a medal polisher but appreciate comments on score sheets. With the mild recipe it starts at 1046 and finishes at 1020 so the additional dex mix produces a fair whack of what alcohol is there. 
On a more minor scale I often mash Yorkie bitters at around 68 and fling in 500g of dex or sugar to get body, mouthfeel and alcohol strength hopefully in balance.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (3/2/10)

very little glucose is produced by mashing at any temperature. Low temp mashes favour maltose production by favouring beta amylase activity.

Doesn't mean you cant emulate pretty much the same final beer with an addition of dextrose though. Maltose and dextrose both pretty much ferment out completely and so the end point is pretty much the same.

There are thing to consider about flavour profiles, yeast health etc - but as long as you arent' talking about giant additions of adjunct, you should, with a bit of experimentation be able to get more than acceptable beers by using dextrose to manipulate your FG rather than mash temps. Just a different way of doing it thats all.

TB


----------



## andycostin (3/2/10)

Wouldn't mashing at higher temps produce much higher unfermentable sugars resulting in a much higher FG? So adding the dextrose COULD potentially create the same alcohol, but the body of the beer (not to mention the flavours produced) would be significantly different?


----------



## Thirsty Boy (4/2/10)

Andy Costin said:


> Wouldn't mashing at higher temps produce much higher unfermentable sugars resulting in a much higher FG? So adding the dextrose COULD potentially create the same alcohol, but the body of the beer (not to mention the flavours produced) would be significantly different?



Andy - the idea would be to use less base malt - so by mashing high you get a high percentage of dextrins from your malt, but have less malt - so end up with the same percentage of dextrins in your final volume... But less malt and more unfermentable = less alcohol, so you make it "up to strength" with an addition of simple sugar. Result is the same alcohol level and the same amount of dextrins in the final beer. I wouldn't bother with dextrose, I'd just use normal table sugar which is a chunk cheaper.

The flavours however would of course be different - there would be less of them. Well less malt flavours anyway, because of course this type of brewing means you use less malt. You can modify your recipe to include more flavoursome malts though... so at the end of the day, with a bit of tweaking and experimenting.... you can end up back in pretty much the same spot. Unless you try to push the idea too far.. in which case you arrive at high adjunct megaswill.

You can go the opposite way too - brew at a constant mash temp. Say 65C every single time. You want drier beers you add simple sugars - you want beers with more body you add maltodextrin or another form of unfermentables like corn syrup.

A perfectly sound and well proven way to make beer if doing it that way is your cup of tea.

TB


----------



## andycostin (4/2/10)

TB,

Thanks - That's what I was getting at, but I didn't see any reference to lower quantities of mash in the original post. I was assuming that Nick was meaning that if you mashed too high, you could then add dextrose/glucose etc to bring it back to where it should be.


----------



## Nick JD (4/2/10)

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that had a table of the sugars produced by the mash at a certain temperature. Seem to remember cooler mashes having something like 20% glucose in them. 

Now I can't seem to find anything...


----------



## Thirsty Boy (4/2/10)

they dont


----------



## Nick JD (4/2/10)

Thirsty Boy said:


> they dont



So you're saying zero glucose is produced in a mash?


----------



## Fourstar (4/2/10)

Nick JD said:


> I read somewhere (can't remember where) that had a table of the sugars produced by the mash at a certain temperature. Seem to remember cooler mashes having something like 20% glucose in them.
> 
> Now I can't seem to find anything...



you sure you aint talking about starch chains/glucose chains that beta and alpha amylase chomp at to create maltose?

I did find this for you on maltase to create a high glucose content from malted barley during the mash: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title...Mashing#Maltase

Although its abit of a fart about todo the above it looks like its possible, a standard mash temp however will have very low glucose counts due to the enzymatic processes A & B Amylase go through during starch conversion.


----------



## Nick JD (4/2/10)

Fourstar said:


> you sure you aint talking about starch chains/glucose chains that beta and alpha amylase chomp at to create maltose?
> 
> I did find this for you on maltase to create a high glucose content from malted barley during the mash: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title...Mashing#Maltase
> 
> Although its abit of a fart about todo the above it looks like its possible, a standard mash temp however will have very low glucose counts due to the enzymatic processes A & B Amylase go through during starch conversion.



So alpha amylase almost never cuts a maltose in half? Only ever cuts maltoses off the longer chains? 

But there is _some _glucose in the wort ... just not 20% like I thought? 

I wish someone would do an animation of the starch getting chopped up. It'd be nice to have a visual perspective of what's happening in the tun.

EDIT: something has come up though. Maltase is "deactivated" at sacc rest temps - does this mean is isn't denatured? Could no chilling and subsequent storage at maltase active temps be converting cubed worts?


----------



## Fourstar (4/2/10)

Nick JD said:


> EDIT: something has come up though. Maltase is "deactivated" at sacc rest temps - does this mean is isn't denatured? Could no chilling and subsequent storage at maltase active temps be converting cubed worts?



I'd say it would be denatured at high temps, hence the reason for reserving 1/2 of the malt for the lower temp conversion after maltose has been created.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (4/2/10)

Nick JD said:


> So you're saying zero glucose is produced in a mash?



no thats not what I am saying - "about" 10% of your mash sugars will be glucose. I am saying that your mash temperature isn't going to have a particularly profound affect on that proportion.

Beta amylase is what you are targeting by lowering your mash temperature, and beta amylase makes maltose... only maltose.

cant do an animation - heres a picture though







alpha amylase can break the starch molecule up at any point (at the 1, 4 linkages) except where it branches (the 1, 6 linkages) or the 1, 4 linkages next to a 1,6 linkage. So it can just smash the starch into smaller bits or it can bust of glucose, maltose or anything else, but it cant bust up the branchy bits.

Beta amylase bites maltose (two units) off the non-reducing end of the big molecule, and off any of the bits the alpha amylase breaks it into, but beta amylase also cant break the 1,6 linkages or the 1,4 linkages near them.

So what you are left with is branched dextrins hanging off the 1,6 linkages, where neither enzyme can act - various bits and bobs from random cleaving - and a lot of maltose from beta amylase chewing away at the ends of anything it can.

There are of course other enzymes active.. but they are minor players and either already deactivated or quickly on the way out at mash temperatures. Once an enzyme is deactivated - it doesn't start up again.

An animation isn't a bad idea... I might make one one of these days just for fun.


----------



## kevin_smevin (4/2/10)

Fourstar said:


> you sure you aint talking about starch chains/glucose chains that beta and alpha amylase chomp at to create maltose?
> 
> I did find this for you on maltase to create a high glucose content from malted barley during the mash: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title...Mashing#Maltase
> 
> Although its abit of a fart about todo the above it looks like its possible, a standard mash temp however will have very low glucose counts due to the enzymatic processes A & B Amylase go through during starch conversion.



B amylase hydrolysis malt starches amylose and amylopectin to yield maltose. a-amylase produces shorter sugar chains of varying lengths from the same molecules.

This figure from Briggs, brewing science and practice should help things.

TFS= total fermentable sugars
SG = specific gravity
G2 = maltose
G3 = maltotiose
G4 = Maltotetraose
S = sucrose
G= glucose




Hope the attachment works


----------



## Pete2501 (4/2/10)

Nick JD said:


> I read somewhere (can't remember where) that had a table of the sugars produced by the mash at a certain temperature. Seem to remember cooler mashes having something like 20% glucose in them.
> 
> Now I can't seem to find anything...



You're not thinking of this graph are you?







Check this out for more info on starch conversion http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?t...arch_Conversion


----------



## Thirsty Boy (4/2/10)

yum yum yum said:


> This figure from Briggs, brewing science and practice should help things.



Dammit... what page of Brewing Science and Practice is that on... I was looking for that and couldn't find it.

Thanks for posting it.

TB


----------



## kevin_smevin (4/2/10)

Thirsty Boy said:


> Dammit... what page of Brewing Science and Practice is that on... I was looking for that and couldn't find it.
> 
> Thanks for posting it.
> 
> TB




From memory it is on p252 but i dont have it with my. I lifted it off one of the tutorials i handed in last year.


----------



## Pete2501 (4/2/10)

That's like US$300 worth of book there yum yum yum. 

Also TB there's a table showing the content percentage of several sugars in wort vs malt here http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?t...tarch_breakdown

Were you looking for something like that? Or just that graph?

Edit: Used the right words this time.


----------



## grod5 (4/2/10)

end this topic, my head hurts. I need a beer.

daniel


----------



## Nick JD (4/2/10)

I have to buy that book(s). Yum yum's graph is the biznuss. I think we could all study that.

The most significant thing on that graph seems to be Maltotetraose ... four glucoses stuck together. It must be a really "thick" sugar to make the SG so much higher when it's only there in a small amount.

If I read the graph right it's the only thing that's different above 64C - mash below this and so long as you don't go below 54C you'll still make the essentially same beer. Well I'll be; I thought if I went under 62C the mash would fail. 

I'm gonna try a mash at 59C just to see what happens. From that graph nothing really different as at 63C. Probably take longer though, huh?

Thanks for the help fellas - much appreciated.


----------



## Pete2501 (4/2/10)

grod5 said:


> end this topic, my head hurts. I need a beer.
> 
> daniel



No don't end it. <_< 

I want to know more about the sugars created and how the impact my beer.


----------



## Nick JD (4/2/10)

Pete2501 said:


> Also TB there's a table showing the content percentage of several sugars in wort vs malt here http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?t...tarch_breakdown



That's the table! Legend.

About 10% glucose in all mashes, not 20% - although I might have added sucrose, is why I thought higher. 

So there's sugar in ALL BEER!


----------



## Nick JD (4/2/10)

Pete2501 said:


> No don't end it. <_<
> 
> I want to know more about the sugars created and how the impact my beer.



I think that graph is probably the single best thing about brewing AG beer I have ever seen. Says it all - everything.


----------



## Pete2501 (4/2/10)

Nick JD said:


> That's the table! Legend.
> 
> About 10% glucose in all mashes, not 20% - although I might have added sucrose, is why I thought higher.
> 
> So there's sugar in ALL BEER!




Well yes and no. 

Glucose (C6H12O6) contains six carbon atoms, one of which is part of an aldehyde group. 

maltotetraose A linear oligosaccharide consisting of four maltose residues
Maltotriose is a trisaccharide (three-part sugar) consisting of three glucose molecules linked with α-1,4 glycosidic bonds.
Maltose, or malt sugar, is a disaccharide formed from two units of glucose joined with an α(1→4) linkage.

So the amylase doesn't break down the Maltose or Maltotriose further because ;



> α- and β-amylase alone cannot completely saccharify (i.e. convert to all sugar) starch. The reason for that are α(1-6) that make up 6-7% of the bonds in amylopectin.


Source : http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?t...tarch_breakdown


----------



## Nick JD (4/2/10)

Yes and no. You score 50%.


----------



## Pete2501 (4/2/10)

The part that confuses me is that glucose makes up less than 10% of the carbohydrate bill and in some cases people are using all dextrose (d-glucose). 


Now if only the enzymes could break down those a(1-6) bonds you'd be left with ultra fermentable wort. 


50% is a pass mark so I'll live with that


----------



## Thirsty Boy (5/2/10)

Unfortunately - that graph _doesn't_ say it all - it just tells the wort composition story; and not even all of it.

It doesn't talk about extraction efficiency or complete conversion of starch. You can mash at 59.. It'll work - but You probably don't want to do a three hour mash do you?? and thats how long its going to take at 59 to get reasonable conversion and also to actually get to the point where that graph is true - the wort composition changes over time. Plus mashing too low leaves you in the range where your proteolytic enzymes might still be on the go - stuffing up your protein composition and messing with (among other things) your foam formation.

There is, believe it or not - a quite good reason that brewers either use multiple step mashes that start low but finish high, or use an isothermic mash at a medium high compromise temperature. Its because thats where the mashing process works the best. Sure, you can mash differently and it will work - but why would you?

62ish for dry - 69ish for not dry -- tweak with sugars etc if you want to just go with a single mash temp... I would pick 65


----------



## Nick JD (6/2/10)

Thirsty Boy said:


> Unfortunately - that graph _doesn't_ say it all - it just tells the wort composition story; and not even all of it.
> 
> It doesn't talk about extraction efficiency or complete conversion of starch. You can mash at 59.. It'll work - but You probably don't want to do a three hour mash do you?? and thats how long its going to take at 59 to get reasonable conversion and also to actually get to the point where that graph is true - the wort composition changes over time. Plus mashing too low leaves you in the range where your proteolytic enzymes might still be on the go - stuffing up your protein composition and messing with (among other things) your foam formation.
> 
> ...



Why does the enzyme become three time less active with a 3 degree temperature drop? 

I don't protein rest - so I'm not utilising Protease anyway (I'm always above the max temp for it (57C - I will be above it)).

Are we too worried about dropping our mash temperatures down to 60C?


----------



## Thirsty Boy (6/2/10)

Nick JD said:


> Why does the enzyme become three time less active with a 3 degree temperature drop?
> 
> I don't protein rest - so I'm not utilising Protease anyway (I'm always above the max temp for it (57C - I will be above it)).
> 
> Are we too worried about dropping our mash temperatures down to 60C?



Yes they do drop off quite a lot when lower, chemical reaction slow down at lower temperatures. Also if you go low enough you are below the full gelatinization temperature for malt starch; and while you can still get conversion.. things take longer. There is a bunch of chemistry involved, or you can go with empirical evidence - in fact from the same book as the other table. Lower temperatures mean longer times for conversion and for the wort composition to stabilise.

You seem to slightly misunderstand how enzymes work - protease enzymes still work outside their "optimum range" 57 isn't their maximum temperature, its just at the upper end of their range and where they are starting to turn up their toes. You wont get a lot of action at 60, but you will get some. You go below 60 and you'll get more.

You can mash at 60, of course you can. But it will take longer, you will get less efficiency and your beers will be very fermentable. If thats what you want, then go for broke. But you will achieve basically nothing that you cant get by mashing in the normal range - so the question is - why would you? What is it that you would be trying to do?


----------



## Nick JD (6/2/10)

Thirsty Boy said:


> What is it that you would be trying to do?




Understand where and when I have to worry about things in brewing and where I don't. I watch other brewers who brew by rote and ask them why they do something. They say, "Because that's how it's done!" without understanding if they are on the edge of failure or miles from it.


I'm wondering if you can point me in the right direction for some information of alpha amylase activity vs temperature? I'm also a bit confused - do we want to break down proteins, or do we not want to?


----------



## Thirsty Boy (6/2/10)

sorry - I didn't mean what are you doing asking questions.... I just meant that the the only reason you would want to mash at such a low temperature would be to try and achieve something specific... so the question "what are you trying to do?" is about choosing the appropriate action for the result you are trying to get.

If you are just trying to work out how far you can push the process till it breaks - as a learning exercise - I respect that attitude a lot. Do it myself pretty frequently and understand the desire completely. You might with brewing find that you have to push pretty hard though.

Brewing is too robust a process for there to be a truly definable "edge of failure" point - grain, and especially malt - want to be beer. Given that you mix it with water at some point... you'd actually have to work pretty hard to stop it becoming beer of some sort. So the rest is really about your expectations of flavour and how much effort, time and money you want to apply. The standard processes are about years (centuries) of experience saying that this is the easiest, most efficient way to go about this job... nothing to do with it being the only way.

You don't really need to break down proteins in a mash using modern malts. Which is why most people don't bother with P rests. Its been done for you by the maltster.

PM me an e-mail address and I will send you some information.

TB


----------



## Nick JD (6/2/10)

Thirsty Boy said:


> sorry - I didn't mean what are you doing asking questions.... I just meant that the the only reason you would want to mash at such a low temperature would be to try and achieve something specific... so the question "what are you trying to do?" is about choosing the appropriate action for the result you are trying to get.
> 
> If you are just trying to work out how far you can push the process till it breaks - as a learning exercise - I respect that attitude a lot. Do it myself pretty frequently and understand the desire completely. You might with brewing find that you have to push pretty hard though.
> 
> ...



Thanks, Thirsty - will do.


----------



## rwmingis (7/2/10)

Yum Yum,

With the Briggs chart, what's the weight per volume on the veritical axis: pounds per gallon, or kilos per litre?

BB


----------



## Thirsty Boy (8/2/10)

I think its being expressed as a percentage of the total SG - SG being the weight per volume usually compared to water. Although it looks like there is a factor of ten shoved in there ...

The graph makes sense to me interpreted like that.. so I'll stick with it for now.


----------

