Step Mashing in Cooler

No. You can find sources that say a thinner mash yields poor extraction and you can find sources that say thicker mashes yields poor extraction ... my experience is mash thickness is not a major player in your efficiency. I'm hitting my OG fairly consistently when I step or single infusion. My FG seems equally independent of water/grain ratio.

If others have different results, please share.

 

@PortLargo I think @JohnConnorforealthistime was asking you if you've noticed any less body when using a protein rest with highly modified malts. (Nothing to do with extraction efficiency.) Since you mentioned doing step mashing, I assume he's assuming one of those steps is a protein rest.

 

Again, no noticeable loss of body. I'e done protein rests primarily with Belgians ... you know, Brew Like a Monk. Typically these beers have finished on the low side (1.004 - 1.008) but that has been consistent with single infusion mashes of the same recipies.

FWIW, are you in the thin mash is best or do you like 'em thick?

 

By body In this case I (and @JohnConnorforealthistime I think) meant protein influenced, rather than a difference in attenuation/residual sugars/dextrins.

These days I typically mash around 1.5 qts/lb. I've mashed thicker and thinner, but have never really compiled any data or done any direct A/B comparisons. Maybe someday, but for me 1.5 is right in the middle of the road. Thin enough to mostly avoid doughballs and thick enough to be able to split the runoff fairly equally between the first runoff and the batch-sparge runoff. (When I batch sparge, that is. I usually no-sparge, with a mashout step.)

 

I think they are referring to a dreimaischverfahren or triple decoction (which is a type of 3-step mash). This is how you add the golden hues to a Czech Pilsner.

 

I have been thinking (obsessing?) about step mashes the past few days after rereading this article on Belgian beer:
https://beerandbrewing.com/VMvilisAAKGj51nr/article/belgian-beer-youre-probably-doing-it-wrong

I've also been reading blog posts by David Stelting on step mashing like this one: http://counterbrew.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-beer-geek-guide-to-step-mashing-even.html

He attacks the notion that a protein rest with well-modified malts creates a thin beer:

"Basically what the other sources are saying is bunk. Protolytic enzymes work on protein. For our purposes their main function is to either break a long protein strand into medium-sized protein strands, or to strip off a specific acid component such as ferulic acid. When Brewers talk about conversion they are generally referring to the conversion of starch to sugar. Proteolytic enzymes have nothing to do with this process. All they do is modify proteins or create acid by breaking down a protein. So you can dramatically increase mouthfeel and still have a very very fermentable wort. All you have to do is that the right protein rest. But obviously you do that prior to ramping up to sacrification rest temperatures. Basically mouthfeel created by medium sized protein strands has nothing to do with conversion of sugar they're simply too different and separate components of a mash."

Basically, you can have great body/mouthfeel with a very fermentable wort and a high degree of attenuation.

Stepmashing or decoction may not be necessary for extracting sugars, but I think we have been convinced that brewing quick and easy is the best way and have rationalized that these complicated methods from the past aren't necessary. And the Brulosophy experiments seem to help us convince ourselves even more through their pseudo-science to go the quick and easy route. (By which I mean, I'm not convinced that their beer tasters have enough experience to taste the difference--I'd like to see them do a triangle test with a group of Belgian or German or Czech brewmasters rather than a bunch of American hopheads on subtle differences in different brewing techniques).

Or to paraphrase a friend who enjoys the process as much as the end product (who made this joke in reference to another hobby of mine, woodworking): Homebrewing is like sex. If you think the point is to get it done as quickly as possible, you're probably not doing it correctly.

 

^
The blog article quoted calls it bunk, but nothing else in the article supports the assertion that it's bunk. Remove everything he said about attenuation (which is irrelevant when discussing proteins and their impact on mouthfeel), and what are you left with? The fact that the proteolytic enzymes break proteins down into smaller pieces. Which is rather the point of the assertion that a protein rest on a highly modified malt can reduce body.

Also, he says "so you can dramatically increase mouthfeel," but doesn't offer any explanation of how that happens.

 

I won't try to discourage you from trying a step mash if you have your heart set on it. But please don't let that blog post be the deciding factor. It's not well reasoned.

 

My experience with protein rests is to favor the higher temp range (130+) to make the proteinase enzyme more active . . . the idea is to break long chain proteins into medium chain lengths, ideally this will improve head retention. Supposedly this is the way Monks have been doing it for centuries with good results. I'd like to get some Monk-feedback, but it's as if they are in a secret club . . . don't see them on many press releases.

My last two Saisons (FG-1.002) did not get a protein rest and it's difficult to say the extra long chains made it any "thicker" tasting than the two before that had a Prest. My conclusion: Maybe the Prest made no difference or maybe I'm defficient at identifying the taste of LC proteins. I've seen little to no improvement in head retention between the two techniques. That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Regarding Modification of malts: If the Maltster (love using that word) ensures the enndosperm is fully degraded (fully modified), then the protein matrix will be similarly degraded. At this point no amount of "resting" will result in the poteolytic enzymes making a contribution. Here's a pretty decent explanation (caveat: geek alert):
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...W9dU7_qBFW6VE27JA&sig2=i_btZ_M9sOgex-jUyTL62A

For the OP: here's another pretty good discussion on the subject with some details about mash thickness/temps/ph:
https://byo.com/mead/item/1497-the-science-of-step-mashing
Also, results of some detailed experiments by varying mash parametrs, you'll find a good discusion of mash thickness results (caveat: double geek alert):
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.ph...e_infusion_mashing#Mash_thickness_experiments

Finally, I have one recipe where I do a double decoction, here I still apply a protein rest. Not sure it's affecting the proteins but the mash has to have a step to "rest" when the decoction is pulled. In spite of the decoction nay-sayers I'm sticking with this one, I love my double Ds.

 

There is a lot of science that supports ignoring the Protein rest, even the authors of Malt suggest it is futile. Yet you still have pro brewers (usually European) who insist that multi-steps are beneficial.

I have done what you proposed; start at a Beta-rest (146'ish), then step up to an optimum Alpha-rest temp (155'ish). I'm happy with these type steps but can not offer solid evidence that a single step wouldn't accomplish the same. I'll pose the question to @VikeMan : If I rest at 130, pull a decoction and step to 147, then pull another D and step to 155 would that give unique results or could it be duplicated with a single step somewhere in between? This assumes fully modified malt which is common place. Does Brewcipher address multi-step sach-rests and the efficiency that results from that type profile. Are German brewers too self-righteous to acknowle single step mashing?

FWIW, i've never really been displeased when I've multi-stepped, so expect no harm. I did find the braukaiser linked article helpful in underestanding overall mash parameters.

 

I suspect it would give unique results. My educated guess would be: Possibly less body/foam enhancing proteins. More melanoidins. Possibly increased mash efficiency. Possibly a different wort sugar/dextrin profile (not only attenuability, but possibly the proportions of each sugar/dextrin type).

In BrewCipher, mash efficiency is a user input (though there's also a calculator to help determine expected mash efficiency given a known efficiency plus changes in grain volumes and the brew house's setup/process). But BrewCipher doesn't directly support decoctions or other multi-step mashes. The reason is that there's no comparative attenuability data available (nothing to base a model on).

I don't know about too self-righteous, but some (many/most?) of them are very traditional. German brewing traditions are older/longer and more ingrained than American.

 

“Are German brewers too self-righteous to acknowledge single step mashing?”

Kai Troester discussed German Lager brewing in 2012 at the Australian National Homebrewing Conference. He mentions that the ‘popular’ mashing regime for brewing lagers is the Hochkurz step mash (there is no protein rest).

I would encourage folks to watch the entire video but the discussion on mashing goes from 4:00 till 8:00.

Cheers!

 

Interesting video, lots of details . . .who knew Kai Troester was German? In the spirit of German brewing I drank a Dunkel while watching.

First of all the Germans seems mighty proud of the Hochkurz (low/short) two step mash profile. They emphasis skipping the protein rest, doughing in at 142, first step rest at 145 for 30 minutes, then a rise to 162 for 45-60 minutes (@JohnConnorforealthistime , are you getting this?), skip the mash-out. The context here is Lager and the method of stepping (direct heat, infusion, or decoction) doesn't matter. Get all your fermentalbes in 30 minutes then allow your foam supporting dextrins (glycoproteins) to accumulate.

For @VikeMan , how would Brewciipher treat a 145F first step for 30 minutes? Kai also emphasizes mash ph (typical German efficiency) . . . now I have to figure out how to make a lactic acid fermenter to keep the Reinheitsgebot Polizei off my back.

 

Here I have been doing a protein rest and adding rice hulls just to prevent stuck sparges

 

BrewCipher uses a model based on Kai's temperature experiment data and Kai's/Greg's time experiment data. Of course attenuation also depends on other modeled factors (grain bill, yeast strain), but I can say that 145F for 30 minutes will be predicted to produce a wort that's 98.5% (and some decimal dust) as attenuable as a wort mashed at 151F for 30 minutes.

However, I strongly suspect there would still be some conversion of non-fermentable dextrins to fermentable sugars during the subsequent rest at 162F. I don't know if it would make a significant difference.

 

Yes, the German people do have a deep belief of tradition.

There is also the factor of the training that the brewers receive at beer school; they are taught the traditional ways of brewing.

Cheers!