Step mash theory
Kelvin Kundert
that step mashes are not required. But what if I want to brew a nice
Czech Pilsner and don't want to bother with a decoction? There have
been posts in the past stating that a step mash is nearly as good as a
decoction.
Now I've done step mashes in the past, going from 122F to 158F & I
achieved a result without knowing what I'm doing. I am now thirsting
for a better understanding. What are the effects of different
temperatures within each range? What I'm getting at is, what happens
if I were to run a protein rest at 122F vs. 131F? What about
saccharification rest at 140F vs. say 148F? Does this work the same
as a single infusion where at higher temperature yields a less
fermentable, more full-bodied wort, or do these steps throw other
wrenches into the equation? What if I do an acid rest too?
I note on this webpage
(http://www.brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue5.3/urquell.html)
that Pilsner Urquell performs a triple decoction, going from
95F-127F-143F-163F. If I were aiming for a beer similar in body to
that beer, would I simply use those temperatures? The 143F
saccharification rest seems to me as if it would yield a highly
fermentable wort.
I am using a fully modified pilsner malt and am simply looking to save
some time by running this mythical step mash instead of standing over
my stove for four hours doing a triple decoction. Any recommendations
would be helpful.
Thanks,
Kelvin
Tony Verhulst
>
> .... There have
> been posts in the past stating that a step mash [protein rest] is nearly as good as a
> decoction.
Different animals, IMHO.
You do a protein rest (step mash) to reduce the amount of long chain
proteins.
A decoction will soften and break down the hard under modified grain so
that the enzymes can act on them.
Tony V.
Denny Conn
Some thoughts...
A step mash will supplant a decoction in terms of conversion tempss.,
but will do nothing for the taste like a decoction will..there IS NO
substitute! (personal opinion)
Don't bother with an acid rest.
A protein rest in the low 120s can be very detrimental to the body and
head retention of a beer made with a highly modified malt. In this
case, a protein rest in the 131-135 range will degrade the proteins
without too adversely affecting the body of the resulting beer.
If I was making that beer, and didn't want to do a decoction (I've
decocted the last 3 batches, so I really into it these days!), and you
REALLY wanted to do a step mash, I'd recommend 15 at 131F, 30 min. at
145F, and 30 min. at 158F. Otherwise I'd just skip the 131 and do the
other 2 steps.
----------->Denny
--
"Remember, I'm pulling for you...we're all in this together."
-Red Green
Todd K.
and many more questions like that. If you want to have true control of what's
going on in your brewery, read that book. I did, and look what it did for me!
Todd K.
Ed
> Ok, so I understand the fact that most malts are fully modified and
> that step mashes are not required. But what if I want to brew a nice
> Czech Pilsner and don't want to bother with a decoction? There have
> been posts in the past stating that a step mash is nearly as good as a
> decoction.
>
> (...)
>
> I am using a fully modified pilsner malt and am simply looking to save
> some time by running this mythical step mash instead of standing over
> my stove for four hours doing a triple decoction. Any recommendations
> would be helpful.
FWIW, I just brewed my first AG a while back, also a Czech Pilsner. I also
prefered decoction, but found the entire process too time-consuming. So I
took a compromise:
Protein rest at 55 C
Heated to 60 C, stayed there for 30 min
Decoction of about 1/3 of the mash (thick part)
Stayed at 70 C until starch test negative
Mashout
I chose the decoction for its supposed effect on maltiness and other
flavour-aspects. Also, the yield turned out to be very high for a
high-gravity brew.
I believe you can more or less think up any combination of decoction and
infusion with decent results, as long as you keep an eye on the basics. FI I
did monitor and correct pH of mash and spargewater.
erl
"Kelvin Kundert" <kelvin.kundert@despam_newviewland.com> wrote in message
news:3e4a8f77...@news.telusplanet.net...
> Ok, so I understand the fact that most malts are fully modified and
> that step mashes are not required. But what if I want to brew a nice
> Czech Pilsner and don't want to bother with a decoction? There have
> been posts in the past stating that a step mash is nearly as good as a
> decoction.
>
not the sort of brewer who is likely to do controlled experiments. So
I don't really know for sure if I'm improving my beer, or wasting my
time. But doing step mashes has seemed to give me the results I was
expecting, and besides, they make me feel more professional, so I
continue to do them.
> Now I've done step mashes in the past, going from 122F to 158F & I
> achieved a result without knowing what I'm doing. I am now thirsting
Sounds like me!
> for a better understanding. What are the effects of different
> temperatures within each range? What I'm getting at is, what happens
> if I were to run a protein rest at 122F vs. 131F? What about
As I understand it, you have two protein-degrading enzymes to work
with. The first degrades the longest chains into medium ones. Supposed
to improve head retention and help eliminate chill haze. The second
degrades the shorter chains into amino acid and provides yeast nutrient.
At ~122F, there is activity of both enzymes. If you're not concerned
with yeast nutrient, you can use ~130F, which favors the long-chain
degrading enzyme.
> saccharification rest at 140F vs. say 148F? Does this work the same
> as a single infusion where at higher temperature yields a less
> fermentable, more full-bodied wort, or do these steps throw other
> wrenches into the equation? What if I do an acid rest too?
A small amount of saccharification occurs during the protein rest,
but not much. Generally, all the same rules apply to the saccharification,
whether you do a protein rest or not. I suspect you meant to say
150/158, right? I think at 140F, you'd need a three-hour mash to
get much fermentables.
I've never done an acid rest. I suspect that if you're getting starch
converted to sugar, that's an indication that you really don't need one.
>
> I note on this webpage
> (http://www.brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue5.3/urquell.html)
> that Pilsner Urquell performs a triple decoction, going from
> 95F-127F-143F-163F. If I were aiming for a beer similar in body to
> that beer, would I simply use those temperatures? The 143F
> saccharification rest seems to me as if it would yield a highly
> fermentable wort.
It sure would. And I would think it would take at least two hours.
> I am using a fully modified pilsner malt and am simply looking to save
> some time by running this mythical step mash instead of standing over
> my stove for four hours doing a triple decoction. Any recommendations
> would be helpful.
>
For what it's worth, I use a step mash when I am brewing my "camping
beer", which is seven pounds of pilsner malt, a pound of carapils, and
two pounds of rice. Now, in my defense, I have been very satisfied with
the rich, dense head on this beer, with the lacy foam that clings to the
glass. But, never having brewed it without the protein rest, I can't
honestly claim to know that a step mash was responsible for the results.
But I intend to keep doing them. I use 122F and 151F, respectively.
And I raise the temperature by adding boiling water to the mash. I've
never had much luck trying to heat the mash tun on the stove.
Hope this helps.
ben w
> For what it's worth, I use a step mash when I am brewing my "camping
> beer", which is seven pounds of pilsner malt, a pound of carapils, and
> two pounds of rice.
A camping beer! I'm intrigued. I just load up whatever's on tap, but
that sounds like a good one for a hot day among the redwoods. Sort of
a pre-prohibition lager?
For me, camping season starts with the Anderson Valley Beer Festival,
only 2 months away now!
ben
erl
"ben w" <her...@dalymount.com> wrote in message
news:65612c80.03021...@posting.google.com...
> A camping beer! I'm intrigued. I just load up whatever's on tap, but
> that sounds like a good one for a hot day among the redwoods. Sort of
> a pre-prohibition lager?
>
...the hop schedule is all PU, though.
Andrew Dickerson
This extra handy chart will give you some good info on what the diffrent
temps are for. There should be specail charts for each grain type as the
modification level will change the ranges a little but this is a good
standard guide.
Decoction works by basicaly doing a hot break of half your wort and then
reusing it for the mash. You will not get this break without lots of heat. A
step mash will not do it. However a good way to cheat is just do a double
and not a tripple. With modified grain it should work out ok. Just do two
steps. Decoct. Then do a two more steps. It may ad a hour or two (only
untill you practice) but that is much less time then doing three.
I do want to offer this advice. If you are willing to go this far with your
brewing you know quality (or just realy like pots a burners). There are
plenty of other ways to add body that take much less time, they just are not
as good.
> Ok, so I understand the fact that most malts are fully modified and
> that step mashes are not required. But what if I want to brew a nice
> Czech Pilsner and don't want to bother with a decoction? There have
> been posts in the past stating that a step mash is nearly as good as a
> decoction.
<snip>
MDixon
Andrew Dickerson <dick...@muohio.edu> wrote in message
news:b3inuq$ekt$1...@tribune.oar.net...
> Decoction works by basicaly doing a hot break of half your wort and then
> reusing it for the mash.
Nope, not at all. Decoction is pulling the thick part of the mash (not the
liquid), and then bringing it through a series of rests, or at least to a
saccharification temp, holding, then raising to boiling and boiling 15-30
min. Then that decoction is returned to the main mash to complete the next
step. It has nothing to do with the hot break, and is not boiling wort.
Boiling wort will only caramelize sugars and denature enzymes. Decoction
mashing explodes starch granules and breaks down the protein matrix in
undermodified malt, improving efficiency and formation of melanoidins. It is
useful in waters with low levels of dissolved ions (lack of minerals) to
help enzymatic reactions in the mash proceed at a reasonable rate. Generally
in that type of water the enzymes are working slowly due to a lack of
Calcium.
You will not get this break without lots of heat. A
> step mash will not do it. However a good way to cheat is just do a double
> and not a tripple. With modified grain it should work out ok. Just do two
> steps. Decoct. Then do a two more steps. It may ad a hour or two (only
> untill you practice) but that is much less time then doing three.
>
> I do want to offer this advice. If you are willing to go this far with
your
> brewing you know quality (or just realy like pots a burners). There are
> plenty of other ways to add body that take much less time, they just are
not
> as good.
A decoction can add maltiness, but with most of todays malts and US waters
is generally not necessary and can only add a slight bit of complexity to
the beer at best.
I've done it, to learn the process and understand the results, and I find it
to be generally a time consuming process with few benefits to most beers...
Cheers,
Mike
Dan Listermann
"MDixon" <mpdixon@_no_spam_ipass.net> wrote in message
news:youdndNR6rW...@portbridge.com...
> A decoction can add maltiness, but with most of today's malts and US
waters
> is generally not necessary and can only add a slight bit of complexity to
> the beer at best.
>
> I've done it, to learn the process and understand the results, and I find
it
> to be generally a time consuming process with few benefits to most
beers...
I did my first decoction, a triple, as a misguided attempt to "do it right"
for my second all grain brew. What a lot of work and for what?
My second was at a brew club camp out where I thought everybody might enjoy
a demo and I would have a lot of time and help. Turns out that I did have
the time. . .
My third, and last, decoction was done at the same campout the next year as
an academic exercise. I was really impressed with the temperature control
of the earlier decoction and I wanted to try it without a thermometer. It
fermented.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com
Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.
> Cheers,
> Mike
>
>
>