90 min mash

[rybinss]

I was looking in Graham Wheelers Brew your own British Beers to get a recipe for Bathams. I noticed that most of the recipe's stated a 90 min mash. Normally I mash for 60 but just wondering what if any an extra 30 mins would make. The book was written c2013 so views might have changed. I think 90 mins was the standard time for boiling Cabbage in the 50's. Not wanting to rekindle the 30 v 60 v 90 min boil argument but curious as to what a longer mash would provide.

 

[The Baron]

A little higher efficiency, more boil off therefore wort is concentrated and probably some extra Maillard.
Its your choice and as you say it has been done to death in the 30v60v90 threads before. I would say try it and see if it suits you and your process

 

[Agentgonzo]

more boil off therefore wort is concentrated and probably some extra Maillard.

... not for mash!

 

[Agentgonzo]

You may also get more beta-amylase and thus a more fermentable wort and thus a lower FG.

 

[Braufather]

I was looking in Graham Wheelers Brew your own British Beers to get a recipe for Bathams. I noticed that most of the recipe's stated a 90 min mash. Normally I mash for 60 but just wondering what if any an extra 30 mins would make. The book was written c2013 so views might have changed. I think 90 mins was the standard time for boiling Cabbage in the 50's. Not wanting to rekindle the 30 v 60 v 90 min boil argument but curious as to what a longer mash would provide.

I am going to try it on my next red ale as i have heard that it helps with the colour

 

[AJA]

If mashing at a 'normal' temperature, you'll get a little extra efficiency.
Not a lot though as the gain from 30/60minutes is already fairly small.

If you mash on the very low side you can get a highly fermentable wort.

Taken to extreme, some mash overnight. This gives both a higher gravity and a more fermentable wort but this will affect head retention, and risk souring.

IMO 60mins is probably a sweet spot.

 

[dmtaylor]

You'll barely notice any difference. Might get an extra point or two lower in FG. Maybe, maybe not.

 

[peebee]

Time changes things. "The book was written c2013" ... it was written long before that; that "2013" date was a reprint or later edition. Try mashing Chavallier barley malt for only 60 minutes. You'll probably never try it again. I'd say 75 minutes is minimum and I prefer a "heavy" (high FG) beer.

90 minutes was once standard. But changes in malting techniques, better quality home brew ingredients (wouldn't surprise me if most malt I used in the 1980s was "slack"). Most of all, the Americans have taken over top spot for home brew article writing and their malts have very much higher beta-amylase content (even if the barleys are lower quality flavour-wise ).

So, I'm a bit out of line with some of the above answers? They've just got very short memories! Some (one) actually are from America!

 

[The Baron]

... not for mash!

Sorry long day mis-read yes it was mash not boil

 

[Agentgonzo]

Sorry long day mis-read yes it was mash not boil

As soon as we see 30/60/90 minutes, our minds immediately become fearful of a religious argument about boils!

 

[peebee]

Just in case anyone wants to argue!

 

[Sadfield]

As soon as we see 30/60/90 minutes, our minds immediately become fearful of a religious argument about boils!

 

[Hazelwood Brewery]

I think the answers are pretty much already noted but to reinforce I guess…

A longer mash can make the wort more fermentable by giving the alpha and beta amylase time to do a more thorough job, and, a longer mash can help with efficiency if the crush is coarse or the malt is not fully modified through malting. This last point is unlikely to be a factor unless you are using heritage malts or malt that is deliberately intended to be less well modified like chit malt.

 

[LeeH]

I mash at 90 and skip the sparge as I use a BM. 75 percent effiency, good enough for me.

 

[LeeH]

View attachment 81768
Just in case anyone wants to argue!

How much!

 

[LeeH]

just bought a copy from flea bay 9.99

 

[peebee]

How much!

Okay, I was only referring to arguments about the date. Actually, the price (£44) isn't too crazy for a pristine new copy of the book. (First edition). It'll be without all the "pretty pictures", product placements, etc. that later adorned Graham's work. I'm guessing a bit 'cos I hadn't even heard of him back then, let alone read his book! (It was a few years later before he made sure I knew about him ... He didn't approve of the early drafts of my "treatise". "Keggy-ade" was the term he'd use ).

 

[pilgrimhudd]

When the kids were littler and I had less time I used to overnight mash so I could get everything done quicker in the morning. I had much better efficiency than a normal 60 min mash. I wouldn't say I had higher fermentability as my beers generally stop at 1010 whatever I do. I think they possibly had more body to them, but wouldn't say that was scientific ly proven.

 

[Twopan]

If mashing at a 'normal' temperature, you'll get a little extra efficiency.
Not a lot though as the gain from 30/60minutes is already fairly small.

If you mash on the very low side you can get a highly fermentable wort.

Taken to extreme, some mash overnight. This gives both a higher gravity and a more fermentable wort but this will affect head retention, and risk souring.

IMO 60mins is probably a sweet spot.

Interesting. What do you call the low side - 62 degrees C? Received wisdom seems to suggest that 66C is the usual mash temperature, but the recipe I have borrowed for a Brugse Zot clone calls for a mash at 62. Does that mean I'll get better efficiency at that slightly lower temperature?

 

[AJA]

The higher the temperature the higher the efficiency, as alpha amylase wins.
Mashing longer is a way to compensate for this if lower temperatures are used, so the beta amylase has longer to act.
A 62 degree mash is not unusual. Commonly 62-68 is used.