Rauchbier

[lancsSteve]

There is absolutely no point to doing temperature stepped mashes these days . . . apart from the empirical exercise of course.

Keep reading/seeing this view - which always gets me to wondering why stepped mashes are held on to? Out of tradition? Using old recipes (e.g. Dave Line's)? or is it about chill haze? Or just the desire to fiddle as 90 minutes waiting for a mash is a long time not fiddling with stuff (but comes too early in the brew day to fill the time with 90-minutes worth of pints and expect the beer to end up good and not all over the floor and you asleep in the chair, though I bet most here would disagree with that one)...

I noticed in Noonan's 'New Brewing Lager Beer' he addresses stepped infusion and single-step but dismisses them for 'authentic continental style lagers' (an american obsession with 'authenticity' perhaps?) the why's of the even-more-complex decoction process saying:

"The beguiling maltiness of German lager styles can only be achieved by decoction mashing poorly modified malts" (my emphasis).

This suprised me as it seems to invalidate its own argument for using decoction mashing - because who uses poorly-modified malt these days? (and where would you even get it from if you really wanted to?). This seems to be extended to temp-stepped mashes which again were a simpler method than decoction but developed to compensate for now-nearly-extinct poorly-modified malts.

However stepped infusion IS still used by a lot of (most?) large-scale breweries so... is that about efficiency, and if so, is it the sort of industrial-scale efficiency which doesn't scale-down to home-brewing? And is it then copied/aped by home brewing with conflicting information out there as alluded to above.

I've also seen stepped-infusion listed for specific recipes/beer characteristics, are there any ways of achieving these effects with a single-temp infusion? e.g.:

ferulic acid rest: This is a little different from the regular acid rest as this rest is primarily for the generation of ferulic acid which wheat beer yeasts convert to 4VG, the phenolic character of Bavarian Wheat beers.
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?ti ... on_Mashing

Sorry lots of questions and digressions here but a topic of much interest for me at the moment though I fear my desire to tinker and play at a new hobby may lead me to finding a 'justification' for stepped-infusion much as batch or fly spargers find justification for their choice when both have merits.

[Aleman]

If you are lucky enough to get hold of some under modified Moravian spring barley malt then you will need to do a decoction mash. Otherwise pretty much every malt we can get our hands on is fully modified (or even over modified), and has a level of protein similar to British pale malt . . . and therefore the likely hood of getting a protein haze using these malts is very low.

If you happen to know the protein level of your malt, and you have accurate control over mash temperature then you can get a significant increase in efficiency . . . which for the mega commercials is important . . . but extracting the last oz of sugar from the malt may very well be detrimental to the beer.

Noonan no longer advocates decoction mashing, but does recommend raising the temperature at the end of the mash (using a thin decoction) to decrease wort viscosity making run off and sparging easier.

The low temperature rest helps extract the enzymes into the liquor where they are left during the decoction so they are not destroyed by the boiling. If you are not doing a decoction then you don't really need the low temp rest.

The other issue is that these temperatures given for the various stages are not the only temperatures that the enzymes are active at. Protein conversion for example does not just happen at 50C but a significant amount occurs at 60C (and possibly even at 65C) . . . if you have too much protein conversion then you will have poor head retention and reduced mouthfeel.

About the only time you need to do a rest (adn its a minor factor in my experience) is the Ferulic Acid Rest . . . and What I do there is mash the wheat malt at 35C and the pale at 65, then raise the wheat to 65C and add to the main mash. . . . When Using a lot of wheat oats and especially rye malts then I'll do the same thing (mash the 'adjunct' separately at 35 C and raise to 65C)to aid in the reduction of the glucans assisting the viscosity of the mash, and increasing the head formation/retention ability of the beer.

To simulate the effect of decoction mashing I find the replacement of the base malt by 15% Munich/Vienna malts or up to 5% melanoidin malt works extremely well, and only a side by side comparison with a decocted beer using the same recipe is likely to show any difference . . .


. . . . Incidentally St Pats of Texas used to sell Moravian Undermodified malt . . . who used to import it from the Czech Republic . . . alas no more

[Invalid Stout]

I am led to believe that most every German brewery has a heatable mash tun, so doing a stepped mash is really easy for them.

[lancsSteve]

Noonan no longer advocates decoction mashing, but does recommend raising the temperature at the end of the mash (using a thin decoction) to decrease wort viscosity making run off and sparging easier.

Would that be kind of exactly like the start of a batch sparge then?

[Aleman]

I am led to believe that most every German brewery has a heatable mash tun, so doing a stepped mash is really easy for them.

If you happen to know the protein level of your malt, and you have accurate control over mash temperature

What ths means is that you can program the steps and rests very easily and rarely have problems with staying in the 'wrong' temperature ranges for too long / short . . . Also Most German breweries have a seperate mash and Lauter Tun so the mash tun can be stirred easily while the temperature steps are going on. Then the mash is pumped to the lauter tun for Vourlauf and sparging.

Noonan no longer advocates decoction mashing, but does recommend raising the temperature at the end of the mash (using a thin decoction) to decrease wort viscosity making run off and sparging easier.

Would that be kind of exactly like the start of a batch sparge then?

Yeah, If you add the additional liquor at a higher temperature to raise the mash up to78C then it has the same effects, temperature wise, as a thin decoction. The thin decoction also neutralises a lot of enzymes, as they are boiled, with an infusion you will not inactivate as much

[babalu87]

A stepped mash can definately help with smoked malts regarding efficiency , especially if home smoked.

A protein rest and or a longer mash.

Oh, and as far as Wheat beers you cant get the flavor profile using a single step that you can doing a multi-step mash.

[lancsSteve]

About the only time you need to do a rest (adn its a minor factor in my experience) is the Ferulic Acid Rest . . . and What I do there is mash the wheat malt at 35C and the pale at 65, then raise the wheat to 65C and add to the main mash. . . . When Using a lot of wheat oats and especially rye malts then I'll do the same thing (mash the 'adjunct' separately at 35 C and raise to 65C)to aid in the reduction of the glucans assisting the viscosity of the mash, and increasing the head formation/retention ability of the beer.

Can you mash wheat and grain together at this temperature or not advised/worth it? My 50/50 pale malt/what is already mixed up!

To simulate the effect of decoction mashing I find the replacement of the base malt by 15% Munich/Vienna malts or up to 5% melanoidin malt works extremely well, and only a side by side comparison with a decocted beer using the same recipe is likely to show any difference . . .

Thanks for the tips - shall look at adding these once I get to lager brewing and cellar temps are lower for the fermentation period (which should be November - April or so from prev experience)

Oh, and as far as Wheat beers you cant get the flavor profile using a single step that you can doing a multi-step mash.

Intriguing, I'd love to try a side-by-side comparison sometime, is that from experience? And if so is the fdifference noticeable enough compared to say the larger factors involved such as the quality and types of grain, water and yeast used?

Your post has got me thinking about what mashing *is* and the relation of tradition to historical context and current practice. As I understand it mashing is, essentially, the end of the malting process. Different types of mashing evolved in response to different malting practices which reflected the grain used - in Britain this was infusion mashing as we had well modified 2-row barley, on the continent and new world infusion/decoction predominated for less well modified malts and especially high-nitrogen 6-row barley.

Nowadays there's little or no poorly modified malt made, so why would you use the processes developed essentially to compensate for it? Could the perceived benefits actually be a huge deviation from what the traditions aimed to achieve? They clearly have benefits at a commerical scale but do those scale down to a homebrew setting?

Just musing here - will have to try them out myself I guess!