Poll #9 <- determined that the Wheat Malt percentage with be 10%, leaving 90% for the German Pilsner malt. This poll will determine the basic mash strategy, before getting into the specifics of mash temperature(s) and length(s). This is a simple plurality poll. I recommend you think about this in terms of the parameters needed to hit an apparent attenuation of ~82%, along with any recommended mash temp(s) and mash length(s) that might be knocking around your grey matter. This poll will be open for 48 hours. If you have issues with or suggestions for methodologies used in this project, please send them via PM. Let's keep the threads themselves on topic to the question at hand and not about how you would have asked the question differently. Keep in mind that these polls must ask one question at a time, while normal recipe formulation often involves back and forth interplay between decisions and changes to decisions. To a small extent, we have that capability too, in the form of buyer remorse polls. The Averagely Perfect Kölsch Recipe so far... Target ABV: 4.8% OG: 1.045 FG: 1.008 Yeast: Wyeast 2565 Kölsch Grain Bill: - German Pilsner Malt (90%) - Wheat Malt (10%)
Step mash because that's what evil henchmen do. The super villains do triple decoctions, ain't nobody got time for that.
Making a Kolsch without at least step mashing is a shame. When the processes starts to get complicated or time consuming is where this “Averagely perfect” beer will fall apart.
I've never done a step mash. When reading up on it one thing I've found is Pilsner malt is (or was?) slightly undermodified. Does that come in to play here?
Yes, if you are using undermodified malt a step mash is needed: “If you are brewing with undermodified malt, a step mash is highly recommended. (If you single infusion mash, you may end up with too many proteins in your wort and gums (glucans) may make lautering difficult.).” I am not aware of any undermodified malt that is sold today. Cheers!
In my limited research I found one regional maltster (Riverbend Malt House, Asheville) that produces what they have dubbed their Pilsner. It is "Slightly undermodified and kilned at lower temperatures than our Pale Malt", but it's american 6-row. I thought all Pilsner malt was 2-row. If that's correct, sounds like their moniker is a descriptor of their process and result, and not so much the variety. ETA: That being said, it seems unlikely (per what Jack said) that one would get undermodified malt unless searching it out. I'm up for learning how to step mash, and my vote reflects that. ETA part deux: What other benefits will result from a step mash for this brew?
Well, I can report that all of the brands of Pilsner Malt that I have purchased have been made from 2-row barley. I suppose that if we were to view Pilsner Malt in terms of how light in color the malt is (e.g., less than or equal to 2 degrees L) then perhaps a Malting Company can refer to their light colored malt made from 6-row malt as being a Pilsner Malt. Cheers!
That's my question as well for the step mash voters. What are they looking for out of the step mash? Typically the only beer I step mash is hefeweizen.
You will achieve a wort with high fermentability via conducting a step mash. But you have to ask yourself, do I really need to do this? I recently brewed a Kolsch with 100% Pilsnar Malt and I achieved an AA = 83% via single temperature infusion mashing. Maybe a step mash would achieve 84%. Do you need (or want) an AA = 84+% for your Kolsch beer? Cheers!
I brewed a Grodziskie and I conducted a step mash including acid & protein rests since a 100% wheat malt grain bill will provide 'extra' beta-glucans. Cheers!
If you’re looking for under modified malt there are two options somewhat readily available. Chit malt from Best Gateway malt from Mecca In regards to step mashing. Clarity, attenuation, head retention, mouthfeel would be the reasons for doing a step mash for this beer or any beer for that matter.
Edit: For the selected values of ABV = 4.8% and a FG = 1.008 this equates to AA = 81% (achievable via infusion mashing).
Ditto. Anything being marketed as such is in fact about 99% likely to be well modified. The only stuff that's undermodified is like if you malted your own at home, or yes I suppose "chit malt" which to me tastes like grass and hay and is thus crap in my opinion. Few commercial maltsters will make such a product because there's essentially zero demand from commercial brewers.
Have you experienced these advantages yourself when step mashing? Is so, how would you rate the improvement (qualitatively or quantitatively) in each of these areas when doing a step mash vs a single infusion? Cheers!
I’m intrigued by step mashing this one. I’ve never tried with a Kölsch, but seems like a good choice. It’s what could set this Kölsch recipe apart from all the other identical Kölsch recipes out there.
I haven’t done a single infusion mash in maybe 3 plus years. I’m on the fence about whether a short protein rest in the 130-133 range would help the clarity of this beer or not. Most of the steps for German Style beers with German Pils Malt that I make start with a rest around 145ish. That rest will vary in length depending on the beer. Then it’s usually a jump to a long rest at 162, 20-30 minutes usually. Big fan of this rest. First and foremost to make sure everything has been converted but also for mouthfeel and head formation/retention purposes. I am convinced this rest makes the biggest tangible difference, especially in these delicate/simple “boring” beers. Then always a jump to 170ish for 10 minutes. Helps with wort clarity into the kettle and maximizing extract. Can get around 90% mash efficiency on a 12* beer with this mash regime which is also a benefit.
It would depend on yeast and malt a bit but In order to hit 1.009ish from say 1.046 with 2565 first gen probably 45 minutes?? I’d probably have to brew the same exact beer a few times in order to give you the correct answer however.
I was thinking of replying to @JackHorzempa with chit malt, too, but then I looked it up at Best, where the say it has a DP of 250 wk (~75 degrees linter) which makes it more modified than several modern base malts. Their description even says "... has a particularly high level of inherent starter enzymes, which contribute significantly to improving the conversion of starch, thus increasing the yield." I suppose Best isn't the only chit malt out there, but it is the only one I ever saw for sale (I haven't searched for it).
I thought Kolbach index was the best indicator of modification. Best Chit malt is 34 which falls into the “undermodified” category.
I'm not going to claim a lot of expertise here, as I am not really familiar with the use of the Kholbach index. I have always thought of full modification as implying a malt has the enzymatic power to convert itself. This article on malt sheet analysis alludes to using DP for that assessment.
There are multiple stages to the overall malting process. One stage is the germination step where the malt is steeped in to encourage the barley to germinate and develop acrospires. A measure of protein modification is the soluble/total protein ratio (S/T). This ratio is also known as the Kolbach Index. Malt is further processed and for base malt that would be kilning. Diastatic Power (DP) is a measure of the enzymatic power of the kilned malt (both alpha and beta amylase content). DP is often in units of WK (Windisch-Kolbach) by European Malting companies and in degrees Litner (°L) by American Malting companies. A malt with ≥ 35 °L is considered to be “self-converting” (i.e., the starches will convert to sugars in a single temperature infusion mash with just this malt). A malt (e.g., chit malt) that has 75 °L is certainly not ‘underpowered’ and has the ability to self-convert starch to sugars via a single temperature infusion mash. According to the BESTMALZ website under the use tab: “For all beer styles to optimize foam stability.” Cheers!
You couldn’t make a 100% Chit Malt beer without a protein rest. From Kunze Technology in Brewing and Malting: “The lower the degree of protein modification (Kolbach index), the lower the degree of modification of the malt and the less the degradation.” Modification and conversion (or DP) are two different things.
I'll be more apt to believe Brulosophy's results when they (A) have more than 40 tasters per session, and (B) when they run the same exbeeriment like 20 times so we can review the entire population of results for repeatability. Alternatively, their p value threshold should be p<0.20 instead of p<0.05, as in like "maybe we might have 80% confidence that maybe there's a difference", rather than "20 putzes who don't know anything about beer are so very 95% confident that there's a difference". </derailment rant on the Bru boys, whom I do love and respect, but with grains of salty deserved criticism added>
