Author: Phil Rusher

The mash step involves steeping crushed grain in hot water for a certain amount of time, during which enzymes convert starches to fermentable sugars in a process referred to as saccharification. Depending on the temperature and, to some degree, duration of the mash, a brewer is able to create wort with a predictable profile of fermentable sugars, hence the effort many invest in overall mash management. One concern some brewers have has to do with the temperature drop that occurs during the lautering step, as enzymes remain active and thus can influence one’s intended wort profile.

A simple solution employed by those worried about this involves raising the temperature of the mash to around 170°F/77°C prior to lautering in a process referred to as the mashout. In addition to rendering enzymes impotent and curtailing any further activity, essentially locking in the wort profile, this step also reduces wort viscosity, making for smoother lautering.

On the commercial scale, employing a mashout is important for the purposes of consistency, predictability, and yield. As it is with many brewing processes, some homebrewers have adopted the method and use it as a matter of course, while others ignore it under the belief it has no impact. Interested to see for myself, I put it to the test!

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between two beers of the same recipe made either with or without the using a mashout step.

| METHODS |

I thought a nice pale lager would emphasize any impact of this variable well and designed a recipe inspired by Czech Premium Lager with a slightly higher OG.

Over The Fence

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 5.5 gal 60 min 34.2 IBUs 4.8 SRM 1.061 1.015 6.1 % Actuals 1.061 1.01 6.7 % Fermentables Name Amount % Mecca Grade Pelton: Pilsner-style Barley Malt 10.5 lbs 89.36 Mecca Grade Metolius: Munich-style Barley Malt 1.25 lbs 10.64 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Saaz 35 g 60 min Boil Pellet 2.4 Hallertau Magnum 10 g 60 min Boil Pellet 11 Saaz 35 g 30 min Boil Pellet 2.4 Saaz 35 g 10 min Boil Pellet 2.4 Saaz 35 g 10 min Boil Pellet 2.4 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature Urkel (L28) Imperial Yeast 73% 52°F - 58°F Notes Water Profile: Ca 20 | Mg 0 | Na 13 | SO4 15 | Cl 35 Download Download this recipe's BeerXML file

A couple days before brewing, I made a single large starter using two pouches of Imperial Yeast L28 Urkel.

I then started collecting the proper volume of RO water for both batches.

After adjusting both sets of water to my desired profile and hitting the switch on my Grainfathers on brew day, I weighed out and milled two identical sets of grain.

When each volume of water was properly heating, I stirred the grains in then checked to ensure both hit my target mash temperature.

While waiting on the mashes to finish, I weighed out the kettle hop additions for each batch.

At the end of 60 minute mash rests, I immediately removed the grains from one batch and sparged while I began raising the temperature of the other mash.

Once the mashout mash reached 175°F/79°C, I removed the grains, sparged, and proceeded to boil both worts for 60 minutes. At the completion of each boil, the worts were passed through a CFC on the way to sanitized Brew Buckets.

Refractometer readings showed both worts achieved the same OG.

The filled fermenters were placed next to each other in my chamber and allowed to finish cooling to my desired fermentation temperature of 66°F/19°C. Once the worts were cool, I split the yeast starter evenly between them. Activity was observed a few hours later and proceeded similarly over the next 6 days, at which point fermentation appeared to be completed. Hydrometer measurements confirmed both beers reached the same FG.

I let the beers sit a few more days then took a second set of hydrometer measurements confirming no change in FG before racking them to CO2 purged kegs.

The filled kegs were placed in my cool keezer, burst carbonated them overnight, then reduced the gas to serving pressure and let them condition for a week before serving to tasters. The beers looked identical at this point (despite shitty lighting in the pic below).

| RESULTS |

A total of 23 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was served 2 samples of the standard mas beer and 1 sample of the mashout beer in different colored opaque cups then asked to identify the unique sample. While 12 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to identify the unique sample in order to reach statistical significance, only 9 (p=0.35) made the accurate selection, indicating participants in this xBmt could not reliably distinguish a beer made using a mashout step from one made without a mashout step.

My Impressions: Out of the 7 semi-blind triangle tests I attempted, I correctly identify the odd-beer-out twice, which aligns nicely with random chance. To me, these beers were indistinguishable from one another– solid malt flavor with supportive herbal Saazer hop character, and the bitterness was firm yet not distracting or harsh despite the somewhat generous hopping rate. The fermentation character was very clean, exactly what I expect from a pale lager, no off-flavors associated with the warm fermentation temperature at all.



| DISCUSSION |

The primary purpose of a the mashout step is twofold– in addition to halting enzymatic activity and locking in the intended wort profile, raising the temperature at the end of the mash also reduces viscosity to make for easier lautering. This step is appealing on the commercial scale where maximizing efficiency is a major focus, and until recently, it was viewed as a standard homebrewing practice as well. While there are conflicting opinions as to the perceptible impact a mashout has on beer, the fact tasters in this xBmt were unable to tell apart pale lagers produced with or without this step suggests it’s rather small.

Additionally, a commonly touted risk of the mashout step is tannin extraction from the grain, leading to increased risk of astringency. Considering the findings of this xBmt, it would appears astringency levels in both beers were similar, which according to participant reports following completion of the survey, was very low. As for the more objectively measurable claims made about the mashout step, I neither saw better extraction nor a difference in lautering between the beers in this xBmt, which suggests to me a lack of necessity on the homebrew scale.

The act of honoring the traditional step mashes can be satisfying, especially when one is able to program mash steps with electric brewing rigs. I’ve performed many mashouts over the years using various brewing setups and I can say I never noticed it having much of an impact. For commercial breweries who need to reduce as much risk as possible, performing a mashout step makes sense, but I’m not personally convinced it has any benefit on the homebrew scale. At the same time, for those who prefer to emulate the pros or simply honor tradition, it also doesn’t seem to have a negative impact. My main goal being to keep the brew day as simple as possible, I’ll be skipping the mashout step henceforth.

If you have any thoughts about this xBmt, please do not hesitate to share in the comments section below!

Support Brülosophy In Style!

All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!

Follow Brülosophy on:

If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!

Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

Email



Like this: Like Loading...