| |
Main
Date: 20 Jun 2006 17:16:34
From: Dave Smith
Subject: step mash, who does this?
|
I started step mashing in my keg converted to a mash tun. I saw about a
4% increase in efficiency when I did this. I've read on websites that it
is unnecessary though, that there is no advantage. I'm wondering what
the opinion here is.
Dave
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2006 13:54:21
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: step mash, who does this?
|
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:16:34 -0700, <dave@nowhere.com > wrote:
> I started step mashing in my keg converted to a mash tun. I saw about a
> 4% increase in efficiency when I did this. I've read on websites that it
> is unnecessary though, that there is no advantage. I'm wondering what
> the opinion here is.
IMO, for most beers it is unnecessary.
John.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2006 12:51:28
From: Joel
Subject: Re: step mash, who does this?
|
Dave Smith <dave@nowhere.com > wrote:
>I started step mashing in my keg converted to a mash tun. I saw about a
>4% increase in efficiency when I did this. I've read on websites that it
>is unnecessary though, that there is no advantage. I'm wondering what
>the opinion here is.
I only do step mashes when using unusual, or unusual
amounts of, ingredients. E.g., when making a wheatwine
I added a beta glucan rest as well as a protein rest,
and in the brewing lab for a course here we did a
Classic American Cream Ale with flaked corn a few times,
using a step infusion to get a protein rest in.
Admittedly, the latter was mostly just to prove we/they
could, for educational purposes. ;-)
--
Joel Plutchak
I'm looking California, but feeling Minnesota.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2006 07:31:48
From: MDixon
Subject: Re: step mash, who does this?
|
Dave Smith <dave@nowhere.com > wrote in message
news:dave-7375F8.17163320062006@nntp.charter.net...
> I started step mashing in my keg converted to a mash tun. I saw about a
> 4% increase in efficiency when I did this. I've read on websites that it
> is unnecessary though, that there is no advantage. I'm wondering what
> the opinion here is.
IMO if you are gunning for a competition win it can give you a slight
"tweak" that may put you above the others just a smidge. For making most
styles it is a waste of time and effort.
Cheers,
Mike
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2006 11:44:59
From: Todd K.
Subject: Re: step mash, who does this?
|
Like others have said, only necessary when using large % of wheat or
similar sticky grain. It can actually reduce head retention. As far
as mash efficiency gain, I have found that increasing total mash time
increases efficiency. A 90 min. infusion mash gets about the same
efficiency as 30 min rest and 60 min conversion.
Todd K.
Dave Smith wrote:
> I started step mashing in my keg converted to a mash tun. I saw about a
> 4% increase in efficiency when I did this. I've read on websites that it
> is unnecessary though, that there is no advantage. I'm wondering what
> the opinion here is.
>
> Dave
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jun 2006 18:59:50
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: step mash, who does this?
|
On 21 Jun 2006 11:44:59 -0700, <toddk63@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Like others have said, only necessary when using large % of wheat or
> similar sticky grain. It can actually reduce head retention.
yeah, an acid rest as part of the step mash can cause head retention problems
with most modern malts. Typically that step is only required if you are using
under modified malt (difficult to find these days) or a lot of adjuncts.
> As far
> as mash efficiency gain, I have found that increasing total mash time
> increases efficiency. A 90 min. infusion mash gets about the same
> efficiency as 30 min rest and 60 min conversion.
Efficiency is about the sparge, not the mash. IMO, mash times or multi
step versus single step shouldn't have anything to do with your efficiency.
The mash will effect your conversion and sugar profile, but that's different
from your efficiency.
John.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2006 14:21:16
From: Joel
Subject: Re: step mash, who does this?
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
>Efficiency is about the sparge, not the mash. IMO, mash times or multi
>step versus single step shouldn't have anything to do with your efficiency.
>The mash will effect your conversion and sugar profile, but that's different
>from your efficiency.
IIRC, George Fix did a lot of careful experimentation
with various mashing schedules. He concluded that he got
better extraction using multi-step mash schedules (the
40/60/70 schedule). He would then vary sugar profile by
varying the times at each step.
--
Joel Plutchak
I'm looking California, but feeling Minnesota.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2006 12:42:24
From: bregent
Subject: Re: step mash, who does this?
|
In article <slrne9j5s6.psh.spam@weizen.shagg.net >, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar says...
>
>On 21 Jun 2006 11:44:59 -0700, <toddk63@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Like others have said, only necessary when using large % of wheat or
>> similar sticky grain. It can actually reduce head retention.
>
>yeah, an acid rest as part of the step mash can cause head retention problems
>with most modern malts. Typically that step is only required if you are using
>under modified malt (difficult to find these days) or a lot of adjuncts.
>
>> As far
>> as mash efficiency gain, I have found that increasing total mash time
>> increases efficiency. A 90 min. infusion mash gets about the same
>> efficiency as 30 min rest and 60 min conversion.
>
>Efficiency is about the sparge, not the mash. IMO, mash times or multi
>step versus single step shouldn't have anything to do with your efficiency.
>The mash will effect your conversion and sugar profile, but that's different
>from your efficiency.
Different mashing schedules can definitely effect efficiency. Lower rest temps,
like those around protein rest temp, can break down beta glucans which helps to
make more starch available for conversion. There are probably many other factors
too. I got better effciencies when I did step mashes, but for me it wasn't worth
the additional time/effort.
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2006 21:35:53
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: step mash, who does this?
|
On 22 Jun 2006 12:42:24 -0700, <regent@dontspamme.newsguy.com > wrote:
> In article <slrne9j5s6.psh.spam@weizen.shagg.net>, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar says...
>>
>>On 21 Jun 2006 11:44:59 -0700, <toddk63@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Like others have said, only necessary when using large % of wheat or
>>> similar sticky grain. It can actually reduce head retention.
>>
>>yeah, an acid rest as part of the step mash can cause head retention problems
>>with most modern malts. Typically that step is only required if you are using
>>under modified malt (difficult to find these days) or a lot of adjuncts.
I meant "protein rest" above, not "acid rest".
>>> As far
>>> as mash efficiency gain, I have found that increasing total mash time
>>> increases efficiency. A 90 min. infusion mash gets about the same
>>> efficiency as 30 min rest and 60 min conversion.
>>
>>Efficiency is about the sparge, not the mash. IMO, mash times or multi
>>step versus single step shouldn't have anything to do with your efficiency.
>>The mash will effect your conversion and sugar profile, but that's different
>>from your efficiency.
>
> Different mashing schedules can definitely effect efficiency. Lower rest
> temps, like those around protein rest temp, can break down beta glucans
> which helps to make more starch available for conversion.
That's what protein rests do for under modified malts. How much effect does
it have if the malt is fully modified? IE, I thought the process of fully
modifying the malt has already done this.
For example, from Palmer's site:
http://www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter14-4.html
"Modification is the term that describes the degree of breakdown during
malting of the protein-starch matrix (endosperm) that comprises the bulk of
the seed. Moderately-modified malts benefit from a protein rest to break
down any remnant large proteins into smaller proteins and amino acids as
well as to further release the starches from the endosperm. Fully-modified
malts have already made use of these enzymes and do not benefit from more
time spent in the protein rest regime. In fact, using a protein rest on
fully modified malts tends to remove most of the body of a beer, leaving it
thin and watery. Most base malt in use in the world today is fully modified."
What I read from that is when malt used to be under modified (what Palmer
refers to as Moderately-modified), a protein rest would indeed make more
starch available for conversion and increase efficiency. However this is no
longer true. With modern fully modified malts a protein rest should not have
any impact on the amount of starch available.
> There are probably many other factors too. I got better effciencies when I
> did step mashes, but for me it wasn't worth the additional time/effort.
I assume from your statement that you no longer do it? How long ago was
it that you saw higher efficiency with a protein rest? Was it back when
under modified grain was more common?
John.
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2006 16:12:14
From: bregent
Subject: Re: step mash, who does this?
|
In article <slrne9m3cr.end.spam@weizen.shagg.net >, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar says...
>
>On 22 Jun 2006 12:42:24 -0700, <regent@dontspamme.newsguy.com> wrote:
>>In article <slrne9j5s6.psh.spam@weizen.shagg.net>, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar says...
>>>
>>>On 21 Jun 2006 11:44:59 -0700, <toddk63@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Like others have said, only necessary when using large % of wheat or
>>>> similar sticky grain. It can actually reduce head retention.
>>>
>>>yeah, an acid rest as part of the step mash can cause head retention problems
>>>with most modern malts. Typically that step is only required if you are using
>>>under modified malt (difficult to find these days) or a lot of adjuncts.
>
>I meant "protein rest" above, not "acid rest".
>
>>>> As far
>>>> as mash efficiency gain, I have found that increasing total mash time
>>>> increases efficiency. A 90 min. infusion mash gets about the same
>>>> efficiency as 30 min rest and 60 min conversion.
>>>
>>>Efficiency is about the sparge, not the mash. IMO, mash times or multi
>>>step versus single step shouldn't have anything to do with your efficiency.
>>>The mash will effect your conversion and sugar profile, but that's different
>>>from your efficiency.
>>
>> Different mashing schedules can definitely effect efficiency. Lower rest
>> temps, like those around protein rest temp, can break down beta glucans
>> which helps to make more starch available for conversion.
>
>That's what protein rests do for under modified malts. How much effect does
>it have if the malt is fully modified? IE, I thought the process of fully
>modifying the malt has already done this.
>
>For example, from Palmer's site:
>http://www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter14-4.html
>
> "Modification is the term that describes the degree of breakdown during
> malting of the protein-starch matrix (endosperm) that comprises the bulk of
> the seed. Moderately-modified malts benefit from a protein rest to break
> down any remnant large proteins into smaller proteins and amino acids as
> well as to further release the starches from the endosperm. Fully-modified
> malts have already made use of these enzymes and do not benefit from more
> time spent in the protein rest regime. In fact, using a protein rest on
> fully modified malts tends to remove most of the body of a beer, leaving it
> thin and watery. Most base malt in use in the world today is fully modified."
>
>What I read from that is when malt used to be under modified (what Palmer
>refers to as Moderately-modified), a protein rest would indeed make more
>starch available for conversion and increase efficiency. However this is no
>longer true. With modern fully modified malts a protein rest should not have
>any impact on the amount of starch available.
>
>> There are probably many other factors too. I got better effciencies when I
>> did step mashes, but for me it wasn't worth the additional time/effort.
>
>I assume from your statement that you no longer do it? How long ago was
>it that you saw higher efficiency with a protein rest? Was it back when
>under modified grain was more common?
No John, I've always used well modified malts. Even with these malts, there are
still small amounts of beta-glucans that can trap starch - so a
protein/beta-glucan rest can increase the yield somewhat. Not nearly the impact
that it has with undermodified malts, but measurable. Still, not worth the
bother for most folks.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2006 09:33:20
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: step mash, who does this?
|
Dave Smith wrote:
>
> I started step mashing in my keg converted to a mash tun. I saw about a
> 4% increase in efficiency when I did this. I've read on websites that it
> is unnecessary though, that there is no advantage. I'm wondering what
> the opinion here is.
I do it very occasionally. what steps do you do? To many people, a
step mash implies a protein rest, which is almost never needed and I
almost never do. If I do steps, it's for a beta and alpha rests and
mashout.
--------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
|
