Author Topic: Double Mash  (Read 4500 times)

Offline blatz

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3440
  • Paul Blatz - Jupiter, FL
    • View Profile
Re: Double Mash
« Reply #45 on: January 25, 2018, 07:38:16 PM »
~73% is impressive - hopefully you can squeak a few more points out, or not.

vitality starters are good for anything - its sort of a warm up before the big game. 
The happiest people don’t necessarily have the best of everything; they just make the best of everything they have.

BJCP National: F0281

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8520
    • View Profile
Re: Double Mash
« Reply #46 on: January 25, 2018, 08:29:05 PM »
7 days in the fermentor and it's dropped from 1.110 to 1.030, still lots of yeast in suspension, still an occasional airlock bubble, and the samples tasted pretty darn good for being at the stage it is.

Looks to me like a vitality started might be a viable method for big beers.
And clearly forgetting your O2 wand was no problem!
That's was a different brew. This one got o2 at pitching, at 3 hrs, and then again the next morning. This is the imperial stout I just brewed last week with double mash...

Offline Robert

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1798
    • View Profile
Re: Double Mash
« Reply #47 on: January 25, 2018, 09:27:31 PM »
Yeah now I remember.  That was just my brain at the 2pm flameout....
Rob Stein
Akron, Ohio

I'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8520
    • View Profile
Re: Double Mash
« Reply #48 on: January 31, 2018, 05:00:14 PM »
13 days in the fermentor and looks like I've reach terminal of 1.028. Sample tasted at 70f was green but good. I'm going to give it a few more days to confirm TG then crash, fine and keg

Offline ynotbrusum

  • I spend way too much time on the AHA forum
  • ********
  • Posts: 2822
  • Da mihi sis cerevisiam.
    • View Profile
Re: Double Mash
« Reply #49 on: January 31, 2018, 10:09:28 PM »
ERockPh's interesting iteration mash is similar in some respects to what Kunze discusses (if I recall correctly) where there is a starting low mash step of around 144F for the whole of the batch and an early separation of the mash (I can't recall how much, but likely a third or more), which is then step-mashed up to 154F then up to 165F or so, then returned to the main mash and the main mash is then step-mashed to 149F or so by the addition and then step mashed all the way through to mash out.  This is supposed to introduce the alpha-treated mash back to the beta mash for a highly digestible outcome.  I would think this would be ideal for a larger beer.

Interesting discussion and now I have a new thing to try - thanks, Jim.
Hodge Garage Brewing: "Brew with a glad heart!"

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8520
    • View Profile
Re: Double Mash
« Reply #50 on: January 31, 2018, 11:27:52 PM »

Offline Robert

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1798
    • View Profile
Re: Double Mash
« Reply #51 on: January 31, 2018, 11:36:17 PM »
ERockPh's interesting iteration mash is similar in some respects to what Kunze discusses (if I recall correctly) where there is a starting low mash step of around 144F for the whole of the batch and an early separation of the mash (I can't recall how much, but likely a third or more), which is then step-mashed up to 154F then up to 165F or so, then returned to the main mash and the main mash is then step-mashed to 149F or so by the addition and then step mashed all the way through to mash out.  This is supposed to introduce the alpha-treated mash back to the beta mash for a highly digestible outcome.  I would think this would be ideal for a larger beer.

Interesting discussion and now I have a new thing to try - thanks, Jim.
K's Kettle Mash Process, 3.2.4.3.1?  He says it gives a higher extract yield (but normal wort composition) but at too high a cost in energy.  Similar is Maltase Process (same sec.) but cooled all the way to 113°F to increase glucose to increase esters in wheat beer.  I think erockrph has a different process, but one that is natural to the double mash method .  The first wort will naturally be cooler than the strike liquor, and by simply not heating it but mashing in right away you get this more fermentable wort.  I wouldn't be surprised if this was discovered empirically by the old English brewers (though I don't find anything like this in London and Country Brewer. )

EDIT  Thausing (1907) reports experiments by one Schultze on a "downward infusion mash (abwärtsmaischende Infusion)" reporting that its yield of extract and maltose are at best equal and generally less than upward infusion or decoction.  No indication that this was ever intended to have a practical application.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 12:27:36 AM by Robert »
Rob Stein
Akron, Ohio

I'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8520
    • View Profile
Re: Double Mash
« Reply #52 on: February 01, 2018, 12:01:19 AM »
Yup, I'm hoping for a drop from 160 to about 152 between pumping over and cold boil kettle, maybe I'll get there. If memory serves I had to heat a few minutes last time to hit 150, so maybe I'll get lucky and will be able to hit 145 in the second mash.

Offline Wilbur

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
    • View Profile
Re: Double Mash
« Reply #53 on: February 01, 2018, 04:18:15 AM »
ERockPh's interesting iteration mash is similar in some respects to what Kunze discusses (if I recall correctly) where there is a starting low mash step of around 144F for the whole of the batch and an early separation of the mash (I can't recall how much, but likely a third or more), which is then step-mashed up to 154F then up to 165F or so, then returned to the main mash and the main mash is then step-mashed to 149F or so by the addition and then step mashed all the way through to mash out.  This is supposed to introduce the alpha-treated mash back to the beta mash for a highly digestible outcome.  I would think this would be ideal for a larger beer.

Interesting discussion and now I have a new thing to try - thanks, Jim.
K's Kettle Mash Process, 3.2.4.3.1?  He says it gives a higher extract yield (but normal wort composition) but at too high a cost in energy.  Similar is Maltase Process (same sec.) but cooled all the way to 113°F to increase glucose to increase esters in wheat beer.  I think erockrph has a different process, but one that is natural to the double mash method .  The first wort will naturally be cooler than the strike liquor, and by simply not heating it but mashing in right away you get this more fermentable wort.  I wouldn't be surprised if this was discovered empirically by the old English brewers (though I don't find anything like this in London and Country Brewer. )

EDIT  Thausing (1907) reports experiments by one Schultze on a "downward infusion mash (abwärtsmaischende Infusion)" reporting that its yield of extract and maltose are at best equal and generally less than upward infusion or decoction.  No indication that this was ever intended to have a practical application.

Is there anything more german than a million subsections and stringing a few words together and pretending they're one?

Is the energy cost a big deal for a homebrew scale? Erockph's does seem a bit easier. If I understand this process right, it'd be a a bit like decoction, but instead of boiling the second part of the wort I just heat it?

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8520
    • View Profile
Re: Double Mash
« Reply #54 on: February 01, 2018, 04:37:08 AM »
ERockPh's interesting iteration mash is similar in some respects to what Kunze discusses (if I recall correctly) where there is a starting low mash step of around 144F for the whole of the batch and an early separation of the mash (I can't recall how much, but likely a third or more), which is then step-mashed up to 154F then up to 165F or so, then returned to the main mash and the main mash is then step-mashed to 149F or so by the addition and then step mashed all the way through to mash out.  This is supposed to introduce the alpha-treated mash back to the beta mash for a highly digestible outcome.  I would think this would be ideal for a larger beer.

Interesting discussion and now I have a new thing to try - thanks, Jim.
K's Kettle Mash Process, 3.2.4.3.1?  He says it gives a higher extract yield (but normal wort composition) but at too high a cost in energy.  Similar is Maltase Process (same sec.) but cooled all the way to 113°F to increase glucose to increase esters in wheat beer.  I think erockrph has a different process, but one that is natural to the double mash method .  The first wort will naturally be cooler than the strike liquor, and by simply not heating it but mashing in right away you get this more fermentable wort.  I wouldn't be surprised if this was discovered empirically by the old English brewers (though I don't find anything like this in London and Country Brewer. )

EDIT  Thausing (1907) reports experiments by one Schultze on a "downward infusion mash (abwärtsmaischende Infusion)" reporting that its yield of extract and maltose are at best equal and generally less than upward infusion or decoction.  No indication that this was ever intended to have a practical application.

Is there anything more german than a million subsections and stringing a few words together and pretending they're one?

Is the energy cost a big deal for a homebrew scale? Erockph's does seem a bit easier. If I understand this process right, it'd be a a bit like decoction, but instead of boiling the second part of the wort I just heat it?
It way easier than decoction. You start with all the water you'll need for the full batch. Mash the first half of the grain bill. Remove those grains, then mash the second half of the grain bill in the first running. Easy peasy. Erock's nuance is to take advantage of the two stages by mashing high the first time and low the second. Theory being that the fresh enzyme load will easily chop down those long chain sugars while converting the second load of grain.

Offline Robert

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1798
    • View Profile
Re: Double Mash
« Reply #55 on: February 01, 2018, 05:02:07 AM »
ERockPh's interesting iteration mash is similar in some respects to what Kunze discusses (if I recall correctly) where there is a starting low mash step of around 144F for the whole of the batch and an early separation of the mash (I can't recall how much, but likely a third or more), which is then step-mashed up to 154F then up to 165F or so, then returned to the main mash and the main mash is then step-mashed to 149F or so by the addition and then step mashed all the way through to mash out.  This is supposed to introduce the alpha-treated mash back to the beta mash for a highly digestible outcome.  I would think this would be ideal for a larger beer.

Interesting discussion and now I have a new thing to try - thanks, Jim.
K's Kettle Mash Process, 3.2.4.3.1?  He says it gives a higher extract yield (but normal wort composition) but at too high a cost in energy.  Similar is Maltase Process (same sec.) but cooled all the way to 113°F to increase glucose to increase esters in wheat beer.  I think erockrph has a different process, but one that is natural to the double mash method .  The first wort will naturally be cooler than the strike liquor, and by simply not heating it but mashing in right away you get this more fermentable wort.  I wouldn't be surprised if this was discovered empirically by the old English brewers (though I don't find anything like this in London and Country Brewer. )

EDIT  Thausing (1907) reports experiments by one Schultze on a "downward infusion mash (abwärtsmaischende Infusion)" reporting that its yield of extract and maltose are at best equal and generally less than upward infusion or decoction.  No indication that this was ever intended to have a practical application.

Is there anything more german than a million subsections and stringing a few words together and pretending they're one?

Is the energy cost a big deal for a homebrew scale? Erockph's does seem a bit easier. If I understand this process right, it'd be a a bit like decoction, but instead of boiling the second part of the wort I just heat it?
Nothing more German than what you mention!  I cited these because they show there is nothing really  to be gained for most of us from the processes mentioned by the German sources, while erockrph has something that really presents a useful way to get a kind of wort you couldn't otherwise produce. It's in fact not like decoction: the reason Kunze et al  devised their schemes reserving a cooler portion of the mash is because, in total, decoction is ALWAYS an exclusively upward program, no way to go back. (And of course the downward infusion experiment just proved the error of a method every beginning homebrewer has briefly imagined might work! The beta is all gone by the time the temp drops. Double mash provides a fresh supply. )
Rob Stein
Akron, Ohio

I'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8520
    • View Profile
Re: Double Mash
« Reply #56 on: February 15, 2018, 10:25:11 PM »
I kegged this yesterday. Pulled a sample and quick carbed it with a carb cap. It was actually quite excellent considering it's young and quick carbing is abusive. For a 10.75% beer it was warm but not solventy, the roast, hops, and alcohol warmth all balance nicely. Good head for what it is, lacey and leggy. Sweet smooth full bodied but not thick, sticky or cloying. I've had much worse in store bought.

The big takeaway for me is how versatile my Oxygenated starters are. I'm not badmouthing cell count, but I am having great success with simply pitching a smack pack in 1200ml oxygenated 10% starter morning of brewday, and pitching the whole thing that night. Works with normal ales, normal lagers, and now in high gravity as well, provided you redose with oxygen a couple times in the first 12 hrs.

Brewing a couple English pales today, but next brew day I'm revisiting this double mash. Another stout with minor tweaks in recipe and process, and a big ol Bigfoot-like Barleywine.

The imperial stout is going to be "Full Monty" and the triple IPA/Barleywine I'm calling "Neck Tattoo"!
« Last Edit: February 15, 2018, 10:30:28 PM by klickitat jim »

Offline erockrph

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 6218
  • Chepachet, RI
    • View Profile
    • The Hop WHisperer
Re: Double Mash
« Reply #57 on: February 16, 2018, 10:52:28 PM »
Sounds tasty, Jim! I've been brewing all my brews at 1.050 or less since I got my kegerator last year (too dangerous to have a big boy on tap), but you have me itching to give another go at a big-ass BW soon.
Eric B.

Finally got around to starting a homebrewing blog: The Hop Whisperer

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8520
    • View Profile
Re: Double Mash
« Reply #58 on: February 16, 2018, 10:55:04 PM »
Sounds tasty, Jim! I've been brewing all my brews at 1.050 or less since I got my kegerator last year (too dangerous to have a big boy on tap), but you have me itching to give another go at a big-ass BW soon.
Ya, they are keg carbonating but then beergunning them. A bomber of 11% would be a wild party for me.

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8520
    • View Profile
Re: Double Mash
« Reply #59 on: February 25, 2018, 01:54:30 PM »
I was going to test bottle a couple samples of the double mash stout yesterday but found it wasn't quite carbonated enough, so I put it back on CO2 for a few days. The sample was tasty though. I think the extra dose of challenger that I added, because of my higher than expected gravity, really boosted the hop bitter and flavor. It's pretty similar to Old Rasputin in that regard. I'm looking forward to the final product and seeing how time effects it.