[skyler]

I understand that most domestic craft brewers do super-short mashes. Why don't we (homebrewers)? Anyone tried this? Any reason not to? Do you have to greatly adjust mash temp?

[beveragebob]

Because we have more time and there is a whole lot more going on than just simple conversion of starches to sugars. It's late and I'm tired so, I'll let others expound on the virtues of a longer mash. Personally, all of my mashes are at least 90 minutes....it's not a race....it's a hobby.

[gordonstrong]

It's not the mash temp.  You have to start with the right malts, often selecting more for speed of conversion than for flavor (remember Turbo Pils?).  You have to have it crushed into almost flour, at least to a uniform small size, without doing the same to the husk.  You have to properly hydrate it.  You have to stir it.  You have to maintain consistent temperatures throughout the mash.  You have to maintain a proper pH with the right enzymatic cofactors present.

Or you can let it go longer and get to basically the same place without all the equipment, process control, and fuss.

People who do this for a living are looking to maximize throughput through their fixed resources so they can maximize profits.

If it was only about saving time, it would probably be fastest to skip the mash and just open a can.

[dmtaylor]

If you have a family, time IS a factor.

As such, I have run a lot of experiments with mash time.  For me and my system, the limiting factor was attenuation.  20 minutes wasn't ever long enough for proper attenuation, e.g., the final gravity would quit at like 1.028 and be done.  30 minutes was enough about 50% of the time.  But 40 minutes always works, so that's what I do now -- 40 to 45 minutes.  Try it and see.  No need to mash for 90 minutes unless you want your beer to be as dry as possible -- heck, then why not mash for 2 hours or overnight if you want it that dry.  But for 95% of styles, 40 minutes is perfect.  At least for me.

[gordonstrong]

Dave, can you describe your crush?

FWIW, I normally mash 60 minutes in a single infusion, and it's always done.  So I'm sure with precise measurement, it's possible to determine an earlier time.  I usually use that time to go clean carboys, find hops, or otherwise get set up for the rest of the process.  So it's not wasted time per se.

[bluesman]

I usually mash for 60 min and get for the most part "complete conversion" but I'm not sure exactly when and how repeatable the conversion occurs. This is a good question. I can get complete conversion time after time at 60 min so I am of the mindset that "if it works...don't fix it".

IMO...the pros outweigh the cons for this particular mechanism. Perhaps I'm just staying on the safe side with this one.

That being said...I wouldn't be opposed to saving time if I was confident of the outcome.

[Hokerer]

I usually use that time to go clean carboys, find hops, or otherwise get set up for the rest of the process.  So it's not wasted time per se.

+1  That's the biggie for me.  Why go to the extra effort needed to minimize mash time when I can just let it go the full hour and get plenty of other things done during that time.

Like that infomercial says "Set it and..... forget it!"

[denny]

I understand that most domestic craft brewers do super-short mashes. Why don't we (homebrewers)? Anyone tried this? Any reason not to? Do you have to greatly adjust mash temp?

The also sparge and lauter for over an hour, all the while at mash temps.  To say they do a 20 min. mash isn't really accurate.

[SpanishCastleAle]

First post here.

I've tried short-ish mashes, around 30 minutes, and while I didn't have a problem with attenuation I did have decreased efficiency.  No other problems that I can recall.  I did condition the malt before milling and did stir it several times.  I've never been a long-masher (and I stopped doing iodine tests years ago); I just mashed an Imperial Pils at 147* F for 45 minutes, then up to 156* F for 15 minutes, then a mash-out @ 165* F and lauter/sparge.  The FFT finished at 84% AA (using a washed slurry of Wyeast 2124) which is a bit higher than I wanted.

[ccarlson]

IMO if you really can't afford to spend an hour mashing, you should go back to extract brewing.

[4swan]

I tried 30 and 40 minute mashes for a while with fly sparge and no mash out (insert Denny's point here.)  I didn't have any attenutation problems and my efficiency was fine, although none of those were big beers.  I've started going back to 60 minute and my efficiency might have gone up a point or two.  Basic Brewing Radio had a good podcast in February about mash times if you're intetested.

[weithman5]

to me, shortening the mash time would make me feel more "time pressed" as it is i find this to be relatively leisurely, i plan my mash for around 60 minutes and give or take a few, i don't worry

[denny]

I've actually started going the other way and do most of my mashes for 75-90 min.  It improves my conversion efficiency and gives me drier beers, which I like.

[ccarlson]

Sometimes I brew early in the morning and the 60 minute mash gives me time to drink coffee and wake up.

[bluesman]

I've actually started going the other way and do most of my mashes for 75-90 min.  It improves my conversion efficiency and gives me drier beers, which I like.

Me too... especially for my lagers. Plus it gives me more time to take care of other tasks during my brew session.