Author Topic: Fauxpils results and discussion  (Read 16081 times)

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 11659
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #45 on: August 06, 2012, 09:19:14 AM »
...Greg Doss from Wyeast gave a very interesting seminar about a mash temp vs. fermentability experiment he'd done.  Surprising results which kinda make me question a lot of things about mash temps.

I'm very interested in that one as well.

The one thing I remember fro it is that he found a 153F mash temp produced the most fermentable wort.  Surprised me!
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 11659
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #46 on: August 06, 2012, 09:21:54 AM »

I'm thinking specifically about IIPA's that are aiming for the 100+ IBU level, where you are close to maxing out on IBU's and you want to cram as much as you can in there. It would be interesting to see how many more IBU's you can squeeze in using a decoction, if any.

I agree for most hoppy beers, it would be a heck of a lot easier to just use a couple extra ounces of your bittering hop (or maybe some Hop Shot) to get the same result. I'm just wondering if we can somehow raise the upper limit on IBU's.

Maybe if I feel adventurous some day I may boil then chill a batch of wort to get the hot break and cold break to fall out, then rack off the trub and re-boil for 90 minutes with like 300+ IBU's worth of Hop Shot just to see what happens.

But I don't think it would actually raise the IBU limit.  Maybe just your perception of IBU.  And what about the increased tannins from the decoction?  Could they be mistaken for additional bitterness?  In order to know you'd have to do 2 identical batches, one decocted and the other not, and then have them analyzed.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline Pawtucket Patriot

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1353
  • Rebelling against cheap swill since 2005
    • View Profile
    • Bauhaus Brew Labs
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #47 on: August 06, 2012, 10:42:34 AM »
I've been following this experiment from the sidelines and I'm really intrigued by the results.  Thanks for taking the time to do this, Nate!  Very interesting stuff!
Matt Schwandt | Minneapolis, MN
AHA Member

Partial-Mash Pictorial
All-Grain Pictorial

Offline nateo

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2162
  • Aachen, DE
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #48 on: August 06, 2012, 10:48:48 AM »
But I don't think it would actually raise the IBU limit.  Maybe just your perception of IBU.  And what about the increased tannins from the decoction?  Could they be mistaken for additional bitterness?  In order to know you'd have to do 2 identical batches, one decocted and the other not, and then have them analyzed.

IBU is just a measurement of isomerized alpha acids, correct? If so, is there a scale or way to determine perceived bitterness? Kinda like in meteorology where there's the measured temperature and the heat index. I think it's pretty common to perceive low-level astringency as bitterness. If your IPA recipe is really close to where you want it, and you just need a little bit more dry bitterness, decoction may be something to think about. I guess you could just mash out too hot if you wanted more tannins, but I think it'd be easier to control the amount of tannin extraction via decoction.
In der Kürze liegt die Würze.

Offline tomsawyer

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1681
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #49 on: August 06, 2012, 10:59:20 AM »
I always thought my decoctions resulted in a little higher efficiency that also showed up in the FG.  I do quite a bit of no-sparge and haven't noticed any difference in efficiency between it and normal single infusion with batch sparge.

I think there are so many variables that there is really no extrapolating to a "big picture".  I brewed an Ofest Saturday and was too lazy to decoct so I did single infusion/no-sparge with a touch of melanoidin.  Seems like my weird brewing methods and sloth paid off.
Lennie
Hannibal, MO

Offline nateo

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2162
  • Aachen, DE
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #50 on: August 06, 2012, 11:17:26 AM »
I always thought my decoctions resulted in a little higher efficiency that also showed up in the FG.  I do quite a bit of no-sparge and haven't noticed any difference in efficiency between it and normal single infusion with batch sparge.

My range of efficiency when using the floor-malted bopils and a normal sparge is about 72-77%, with 73-74% being most typical, so I don't think I lost much, if any, efficiency due to the no-sparge. The triple-decoction's 90% efficiency was definitely above what I typically get with one- or two-step decoctions, which are more in the 80-85% range. I'm pretty surprised the OG and FG in my study were identical. I didn't test to absolute limit of attenuation, so I'm not sure if one of them could've gone further if I had forced it.

The main motivation behind this study was my frustration with the number of people who say "melanoidin malt does the same thing as decoction" when it really, really seemed to not be the case. I agree you should be conservative with any conclusions drawn, but the results have been surprising to me and have given me a lot to think about.
In der Kürze liegt die Würze.

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 11659
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #51 on: August 06, 2012, 11:21:11 AM »
But I don't think it would actually raise the IBU limit.  Maybe just your perception of IBU.  And what about the increased tannins from the decoction?  Could they be mistaken for additional bitterness?  In order to know you'd have to do 2 identical batches, one decocted and the other not, and then have them analyzed.

IBU is just a measurement of isomerized alpha acids, correct? If so, is there a scale or way to determine perceived bitterness? Kinda like in meteorology where there's the measured temperature and the heat index. I think it's pretty common to perceive low-level astringency as bitterness. If your IPA recipe is really close to where you want it, and you just need a little bit more dry bitterness, decoction may be something to think about. I guess you could just mash out too hot if you wanted more tannins, but I think it'd be easier to control the amount of tannin extraction via decoction.

I don't know of any way to measure perceived bitterness, kinda like there's no way to measure aroma.

And I'm trying to imagine how easy it would be to control tannin extraction via decoction....
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline nateo

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2162
  • Aachen, DE
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #52 on: August 06, 2012, 11:31:15 AM »
I don't know of any way to measure perceived bitterness, kinda like there's no way to measure aroma.

And I'm trying to imagine how easy it would be to control tannin extraction via decoction....

I just meant that I've never heard of or made a beer that had an obnoxious level of tannins due to decoction mashing. I have had and made beers that were obnoxiously tannic because of sparge or grind issues. So if decoction actually does extract more tannins, then it's not likely they'll be obnoxious, while just sparging with too hot or alkaline water, you're more likely to extract an unpleasant amount.
In der Kürze liegt die Würze.

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 11659
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #53 on: August 06, 2012, 11:48:17 AM »
Got it.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline tomsawyer

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1681
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #54 on: August 06, 2012, 11:57:32 AM »
I always thought my decoctions resulted in a little higher efficiency that also showed up in the FG.  I do quite a bit of no-sparge and haven't noticed any difference in efficiency between it and normal single infusion with batch sparge.

My range of efficiency when using the floor-malted bopils and a normal sparge is about 72-77%, with 73-74% being most typical, so I don't think I lost much, if any, efficiency due to the no-sparge. The triple-decoction's 90% efficiency was definitely above what I typically get with one- or two-step decoctions, which are more in the 80-85% range. I'm pretty surprised the OG and FG in my study were identical. I didn't test to absolute limit of attenuation, so I'm not sure if one of them could've gone further if I had forced it.

I get similar efficiency with a no-sparge where I use all the water in the mash.  The math seems to work out about the same.  I do have to mash longer to get conversion though.

I wasn't trying to rain on your parade either, I'm all for doing tests especially when theres beer involved.  Be sure and put "further testing is required" somewhere in your writeup, thats standard for scientific papers and code for "need more research funds".
Lennie
Hannibal, MO

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 11659
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #55 on: August 06, 2012, 12:33:02 PM »
I get similar efficiency with a no-sparge where I use all the water in the mash.

Lennie, do you mash really thin or do you mash at a "normal" ratio and then add water before you run off?
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline anthony

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
  • Hoppy to help!
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #56 on: August 06, 2012, 12:39:29 PM »
...Greg Doss from Wyeast gave a very interesting seminar about a mash temp vs. fermentability experiment he'd done.  Surprising results which kinda make me question a lot of things about mash temps.

I'm very interested in that one as well.

The one thing I remember fro it is that he found a 153F mash temp produced the most fermentable wort.  Surprised me!

What was the equipment set up for this? How did he maintain temperature?

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 11659
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #57 on: August 06, 2012, 01:45:09 PM »
What was the equipment set up for this? How did he maintain temperature?

Damn, I wish I could remember more, but there was drinking involved!  All I can recall is that he had a very innovative little setup.  I'll try to find out when the info will get posted.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline tomsawyer

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1681
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #58 on: August 06, 2012, 02:37:57 PM »
I get similar efficiency with a no-sparge where I use all the water in the mash.

Lennie, do you mash really thin or do you mash at a "normal" ratio and then add water before you run off?
I mash thin, all the water is in the MLT the whole time.  Its generally a ratio of about 3.25qt/lb for a 1.050 range recipe and goes up for bigger grain bills (to compensate for the absorbed water).

I suppose it wouldn't matter if I mashed at 2qt/lb and added the water, if all thats going on is the extra buffering effect of the components in the wort.  I just like the idea of steeping in a more dilute solution, less chance of high concentrations of solutes inhibiting further solubilization.
Lennie
Hannibal, MO

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 11659
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #59 on: August 06, 2012, 02:42:55 PM »
I get similar efficiency with a no-sparge where I use all the water in the mash.

Lennie, do you mash really thin or do you mash at a "normal" ratio and then add water before you run off?
I mash thin, all the water is in the MLT the whole time.  Its generally a ratio of about 3.25qt/lb for a 1.050 range recipe and goes up for bigger grain bills (to compensate for the absorbed water).

I suppose it wouldn't matter if I mashed at 2qt/lb and added the water, if all thats going on is the extra buffering effect of the components in the wort.  I just like the idea of steeping in a more dilute solution, less chance of high concentrations of solutes inhibiting further solubilization.

Thanks.  I think I'm gonna start experimenting with this.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe