Step Mashing in Cooler

Assuming that you performed the arithmetic properly it appears that what you are proposing should work just fine.

I did something along these lines when brewing a Grodziskie a few years ago and the mash 'worked' just fine. My steps:

• Acid rest: 1 qt./lb.
• Protein rest: 1.6 qt./lb.
• Starch Conversion: 2+ qt./lb

My 'editorial comment' is performing a step mash is a pain in the a$$ and when brewing with well modified barley malt (basically all of the barley malt sold these days) I will only conduct a single temperature infusion mash. The only reason I did a step mash for my Grodziskie was because the grain bill was 100% smoked wheat malt and IMO an acid/protein rest was needed for this grist.

Best of luck with your step mash.

Cheers!

 

Although it shouldn't be necessary, I do just about all of my mashes with at least two steps. Either 120 or 140 @ 1qt/lb followed by 150F @ 1.5qt/lb.

I consistently hit the pre-boil OG numbers calculated by Brewcipher this way. I was getting somewhat lower numbers before.

It may well be that I have some other problem that this is band-aid-ing, but it works.

Cheers!

 

You may well get a higher mash efficiency (and thus higher OG) with a step mash, but I wouldn't say your normal mash was falling short of some pre-ordained expectation of BrewCipher. There is a Mash Efficiency parameter on the Recipe tab and is intended as a user input. It sounds like your brewhouse's/process's natural mash efficiencies may just be lower than the default.

Rather than going to a step mash, you could look for other ways (finer grain crush, water chem, etc.) to increase efficiency. Or simply use more malt to compensate.

OTOH, if you're happy with your step mash results, that's good too. (Personally, I'd be concerned about potentially thin body when doing a protein rest on highly modified malts.)

 

The protein rest encourages enzymatic breakdown of large proteins into smaller proteins (which enhance foam retention and body) and amino acids (which are used by the yeast). In highly modified malts, the needed breakdown has already happened. So a protein rest will be redundant and serve to break the already small foam retaining proteins down into more amino acids, losing some body and foam retention.

 

Maybe, but what problem would you be trying to solve? Or what improvement would you be looking for?

IMO, no. Unless I were going to do an A/B comparison just for yucks to see if there's a difference. And for me it would have to be a true A/B, not just brewing a couple batches a different way and trying to remember what the old way was like.

Not really. Maybe there are one or two somewhere. But I haven't encountered any.

ETA: I forgot that Palmer included sections on various rests. For a beginner book, I'm not sure that was wise. But I do still think HTB is the best book for beginners.

 

I've only done protein rests with wheat malt grists, and a pumpkin beer.

That being said, I did just rig up a HERMS system this week and going to step mash the hell out of a pilsner.

 

Sounds delicious. Inspired by the one Yards brewed a handful of years ago? How'd it turn out?

 

Actually it was inspired by a Grodziskie brewed by Manayunk. Ironically there is a Yards connection of sorts - I ran into the head brewer of Yards of that time (Doug Marchakitus) at a Yards Real Ale Festival and I peppered him with questions and he was very forthcoming with details on how they brewed that beer.

For completeness I must give a shout out to Stan Hieronymus since he responded to a number of my e-mails with questions about brewing a Grodziskie and he very generously responded to my numerous queries. I 'rewarded' Stan by giving him a bottle of my Grodziskie at the 2015 NHC.

The beer turned out well. The only 'defect' was that it should have been more highly carbonated but I did this on purpose; I wanted to limit it to no more than 3 volumes out of caution for bottle bombs.

Cheers!

 

Well, wheat malts tend to have more proteins than barley malts, so I guess I'd say yes.

Sounds like a solution for a problem introduced by a solution looking for a problem.

 

I have to say this is the first time I've heard of step mashing providing golden hues. I think my pilsners are pretty golden.

 

Care to share?

 

I suspect that you are exactly right. I'll spare you the evolution of my process, but suffice it to say that this is a stop along the way until I have identified what to fiddle with next. I think it will be water since the other culprits have been addressed. The water report that's available on line doesn't provide the needed data. In the meantime, my brew-buddies and I all enjoy what we end up with.

Excelsior! Cheers!

 

Back to your original concern about water/grain ratios; I normally mash at 1.30qt/lb, when step-mashing I do exactly as you proposed, i.e. start at 1.1 and add boiling water to hit my next steps. When a mash-out is included it ends up in the 1.9-2.0 range. I have experienced nothing adverse with these ratios. Caveat: Beersmith underestimates the water quantities to hit my temps. There are parameters that can be tweaked or my work around is to just have extra water available.

My philosophy is similar to yours, if some pro brewers do it then it must have a relevance. In truth, it's hard to say it has improved my brews (but it has done no harm). I almost always do a mash-out (technically a step).

"The Journey is the Reward" Steve Jobs & Buddha​