# Step Mash Theory - A Technical Question



## goatherder (22/6/07)

A few posts in this pilsner thread and a recent post in AHA techtalk got me thinking.

I'm looking for some discussion around the step-mash technique of separating out the beta-amylase and alpha-amylase rest. In a nutshell, some mashers do a beta rest at 60-63C and follow this with an alpha rest at 68-72C. The beta rest causes starches to break down into fermentable mono and di-saccharides. The alpha rest breaks these same starches down into longer chain sugars. Noonan presents this method as part of the mash schedule in his book.

There seems to be some support for the theory that well-modified malts finish conversion after 15-20 minutes. Following this logic, a beta rest at 60-63C for 20 minutes or more should give complete conversion of the starches into short chain sugars. If this is correct, what function would an alpha rest serve if there are minimal starches left to break down? Or are the enzymatic reactions more complex than this - do the alpha and the beta amylase act on different sets of source starches for example?

It seems to me, based on this thinking, that a dextrin rest following a sac rest isn't going to achieve anything because there is nothing left for the alpha enzymes to break down. If you wanted to do separate dex/sac rests, then the proper order would be do the high temp first then cool down to the low temp - limiting your time at this temp of course to avoid complete degredation of the dextrins. Or is the answer simply spending a short time in the beta range before stepping up?

I'm not keen on getting into a debate on step mash vs single infusion, I'm just after some comments on this theory. Any thoughts?


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (22/6/07)

goatherder said:


> A few posts in this pilsner thread and a recent post in AHA techtalk got me thinking.
> 
> I'm looking for some discussion around the step-mash technique of separating out the beta-amylase and alpha-amylase rest. In a nutshell, some mashers do a beta rest at 60-63C and follow this with an alpha rest at 68-72C. The beta rest causes starches to break down into fermentable mono and di-saccharides. The alpha rest breaks these same starches down into longer chain sugars. Noonan presents this method as part of the mash schedule in his book.
> 
> ...


First off your not likley to achieve conversion in 20 minutes at home.These times would represent laboratory times done in ideal situations(fine grind).So forget that.Do a iodine test to confirm negative starch result. So assuming that you dont need to do a protien rest at say 55c. you head striaght to beta rest to break down your starches the longer you spend at this temp the lower will be your (RDF) real degree of fermentation.IE lower FG.this is because you are producing more maltose/maltotriose ratio.When you head for your high rest say 70-72c you start to produce dextrins which are less fermentable.So a beer with an initial rest of higher than 67 will produce a beer which has higher levels of dextrins and there fore less fermentable and a percieved bigger body.In simple terms alpha is converting some of the work the beta has done the preparation on. Kind of hard to explain technically in words but it does make a lot of difference.
Cheers Neville
GryphonBrewing


----------



## NickB (23/6/07)

Wow, very timely thread, as I was considering trying my first step-mash tomorrow! Would love to know some more details from the more experienced brewers on this subject.

Cheers

Nick


----------



## warrenlw63 (23/6/07)

goatherder said:


> I'm not keen on getting into a debate on step mash vs single infusion




Ahhhh but yer will goat.. yer will. :lol: 

I'll refrain from firing the first shot because in principal I think you're right.

In all honesty "some" of today's malts are so attuned to auto pilot that I'm inclined to think that one temp will do the job regardless. That's even omitting the protein rest and mashout.

The problem with holding a consistent (read; uniform) temp on our inconsistent jerry-rigged equipment is near on impossible. Case in point... jam a thermometer in differing points of your mash and recoil in horror at the overall differences. Hotspots are everywhere :blink:

I'll wait for the Palmer/Noonan/Daniels/Miller/Kunzeites to elaborate.

Warren -


----------



## Zwickel (23/6/07)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> ...you head striaght to beta rest to break down your starches the longer you spend at this temp the lower will be your (RDF) real degree of fermentation.IE lower FG.this is because you are producing more maltose/maltotriose ratio.When you head for your high rest say 70-72c you start to produce dextrins which are less fermentable.So a beer with an initial rest of higher than 67 will produce a beer which has higher levels of dextrins and there fore less fermentable and a percieved bigger body.In simple terms alpha is converting some of the work the beta has done the preparation on. Kind of hard to explain technically in words but it does make a lot of difference


that exactly represents my position, well said  because of my poor english I cant explain well.
I just wrote a response to a PM, part of it Ill repeat here:
Englander, Australians and Americans are used to drink many sorts of ales, all of it are top fermenting and aromatic beers.
Not so in Germany, Netherland, Danmark, Czech republic, France and Italy.
There the most spreaded beers are bottom fermented lager and/or pilsener beers.
Someone who used to drink ales, perhaps would say the German Pilsener tastes flat, nonararomatic, nothing special.
Other Hand someone who used to drink european Pilseners would say, that ales are overloaded with esters and arome.
So I can understand that for Australians a beer should taste a little aromatic, not that flat and dry as we used to.
For that a single rest at around 66C is just fine, both (alpha and beta) enzymes can do their work at the same time.
For myself that would produce too much unfermentable sugar, resulting a too malty, heavy beer (for myself only).
Thats why I try to convert as much starch as I can at 63 (maltose rest) by using the beta amylase, into fermentable sugar, so there is not much starch left to get converted into unfermentable sugar by the alpha amylase.
Result is a very dry (you might say flat) nonaromatic Pilsener, the only arome one may taste, comes out of the hops.
In the above mentioned thread someone posted a recipe for a North German Pilsener and recommended a single step mash at 67C.
My Opinion about that: That will never become a North German Pilsener.
NGP is a very, very dry and bitter Pilsener, you may reach only if you leave the beta amylase working for at least one hour and do a very short rest at around 72C.
Of course, that posted recipe might be a very tasty beer, no doubts, but it will never be what its supposed be.
I dont wanna say this or that beer is better or worse, it very depends on the individual preferences, but if we wanna do an authentic clone, we have to do it the original way, otherwise it will not become a clone.

Fortunately we homebrewers have the freedom to do our beer as we like to do, without boundaries.

Cheers :beer:


----------



## Darren (23/6/07)

Only thing I have to add is that you cannot go back in temp. 

Once you get into alpha amylase temps (67+) most the beta amylase will be killed (denatured).

I agree 67 is too high for a pils. Usually mash mine at 63.

cheers

Darren


----------



## Screwtop (23/6/07)

Zwickel said:


> that exactly represents my position, well said  because of my poor english I cant explain well.
> I just wrote a response to a PM, part of it Ill repeat here:
> Englander, Australians and Americans are used to drink many sorts of ales, all of it are top fermenting and aromatic beers.
> Not so in Germany, Netherland, Danmark, Czech republic, France and Italy.
> ...



Zwickel
Mashout machen auch Sie


----------



## SpillsMostOfIt (23/6/07)

warrenlw63 said:


> The problem with holding a consistent (read; uniform) temp on our inconsistent jerry-rigged equipment is near on impossible. Case in point... jam a thermometer in differing points of your mash and recoil in horror at the overall differences. Hotspots are everywhere :blink:



I take exception at this statement. My equipment is *consistently* jerry-rigged.  

Even with my full-volume mashing 'technique', the temperature variation can be a degree or more across the vessel. I get in there with my thermometer and potato masher every so often to agitate it and watch what's happening. It appears to be much more complex than a simple curve from inside to outside. So, I guess that there are all sorts of things happening in there rather than a simple 'all beta, no alpha' situation. I couldn't even say (even if I knew what I was talking about) that I was likely to get X% alpha and Y% beta action.

It's a bit too complicated for me. I think the best solution is to stop measuring.


----------



## matti (23/6/07)

The alpha amylase temperature of +65 is of my understanding briefer or non existent in light pilsners and longer in heavy Pilsners.

According to Noonan the rests temp has to be precise in temperature and time to be able to produce the style of pilsner or lager you are seeking. 

He also mentions that one can not yield a fully dextrinous wort wthout it.

I guess that is arguable with well modified malts, though you will get a fuller darker pilsner with a saccharification rest proving the sparging is satisfactory.


----------



## Malnourished (23/6/07)

goatherder said:


> There seems to be some support for the theory that well-modified malts finish conversion after 15-20 minutes. Following this logic, a beta rest at 60-63C for 20 minutes or more should give complete conversion of the starches into short chain sugars. If this is correct, what function would an alpha rest serve if there are minimal starches left to break down? Or are the enzymatic reactions more complex than this - do the alpha and the beta amylase act on different sets of source starches for example?


Yeah, it's the old nibbler (beta) and chomper (alpha) analogy. The beta amylases 'nibble' on the end of the starches, whereas the alpha amylases 'chomp' them down the middle. If this is accurate it makes sense to me that beta amylase would work far slower than alpha amylase, and it's presumably why higher temperatures lead to faster conversion. I doubt you'd get close to conversion in 20 minutes at 60C. 

Sorry to get so technical. :lol:


----------



## Screwtop (23/6/07)

Is anyone direct heating their mash tun, can't use my immersion heater to raise from protien rest because it burns the sticky mash. Is there a problem direct heating a SS mash tun, I want to try a small gas burner for stepping instead. Have a spare HLT but no pump for recirc yet.


----------



## oldbugman (23/6/07)

Screwtop said:


> Is anyone direct heating their mash tun, can't use my immersion heater to raise from protien rest because it burns the sticky mash. Is there a problem direct heating a SS mash tun, I want to try a small gas burner for stepping instead. Have a spare HLT but no pump for recirc yet.



Cant use the imersion and keep it moving through the mash?(not just plonking it in)


----------



## AndrewQLD (23/6/07)

Screwtop said:


> Is anyone direct heating their mash tun, can't use my immersion heater to raise from protien rest because it burns the sticky mash. Is there a problem direct heating a SS mash tun, I want to try a small gas burner for stepping instead. Have a spare HLT but no pump for recirc yet.



Screwtop,
I direct fired my S/S mash tun using a small double gas ring until I got my immersion heater and then I blew the immersion heater 3rd time I used it. To be honest I found the gas ring much easier to use, just a quick stir with a spoon every now and then, a lot easier than juggling immersion heater and spoon, and the temp ramps up a lot quicker.

Cheers
Andrew


----------



## Ross (23/6/07)

Yep,

Immersion heaters don't last 5 minutes if you don't keep them moving, as I found out to my cost  . Since replacement though I have no trouble raising mash temp with it (just over 1c a minute typically), just got to keep it moving. Unfortunately I have no faucility to direct fire the mash tun but I reckon it should work fine if you keep it stirred.

cheers Ross


----------



## SpillsMostOfIt (23/6/07)

I use my immersion heater to help with mash temperature in my FB Boiler (BIAB) and the only issue was that if you use it as a mixer too violently you can pull the power cord out of its strain relief (some heat shrink fixed that).

I did a half-sized batch in my small setup on the (gas) stove top recently and with the burner on as low as it would go, the mash temp stayed just right. I reckon I was lucky though and wouldn't count on it happening ever again.


----------



## Darren (23/6/07)

I have burned a mash with bottom heat. Low heat and stirring is the go and NEVER walk away from it.

cheers

Darren


----------



## bugwan (23/6/07)

I was a contributor to the Pilsener thread that Goatherder was referring to in his OP, getting a bit off topic with immersion heater queries... I only tried this last week for the first time (I usually bring up temps with infusions).

I have to say, the immersion heater (always moving) is a superb way to look after temps accurately. No chance of under/over shooting the target (assuming you're carefully watching temps) or running out of room in your esky.

I'll be mashing in my next multi-step mash at a 3:1 ratio and stepping up with the immersion heater. The taste test will tell all I guess, but the convenience of it appeals to me...


----------



## Darren (23/6/07)

bugwan said:


> I was a contributor to the Pilsener thread that Goatherder was referring to in his OP, getting a bit off topic with immersion heater queries... I only tried this last week for the first time (I usually bring up temps with infusions).
> 
> I have to say, the immersion heater (always moving) is a superb way to look after temps accurately. No chance of under/over shooting the target (assuming you're carefully watching temps) or running out of room in your esky.
> 
> the convenience of it appeals to me...




Bugwan,

How quickly can you raise the temps? Actually, what are your temps?

Myself, I can't see anything more convenient than allowing the maltster to define your single-infusion-mash schedule for you. Pilsner style mash low (61-64), ale style, mash a bit higher (65-72)

Nothing worse to your ales than think you ned a protein rest  

cheers

Darren


----------



## Screwtop (23/6/07)

Been using mine for about 10 months, always stir and heat at the same time, works well for step mashing and stepping to mash out, BUT! Four times it has burnt the mash even while stirring and ended up with mash burnt on so hard it has taken all sorts of measures to clean the carbon off. Usually it's when the ratio of grist to water is less than 2:1 and on 3 of the 4 occasions it has been when raising from a protien rest when the mash is very starchy. 

Threw out a batch today after another burn't mash, can't stand the taste of murnt mash. Thanks for the advice Andrew, converted the mash tun today, removed the insulation from the bottom and snapped the inner lugs off the 3 ring burner so the tun would sit properly on the outer lugs. Used the small inner burner and second burner which heated the mash beautifully.


----------



## MHB (23/6/07)

This is a method I have been playing around with, it's a way to step mash by making additions of hot (near boiling) water.

It does require some preplanning, but in essence it's very similar to the stepping process involved with decoction mashing.

The advantages of hot water additions are that you get very sharp transitions from one temperature step to the next, and that there is no extra equipment required.

Just as a rough example:-
Say you expect to get around 5.5 L of sweet water from each 1 Kg of grain, your total water requirements are going to be around 6.5 L/Kg (1L staying in the grain).

Say you mash in heavy ~3:1 - thats 3 L of the 6.5.
You require ~1.5 L/Kg to sparge - thats a total of 4.5 L/Kg
Leaving ~ 2 L/kg to make hot water additions with

Assuming that the hot water additions are at around 95C, using the standard decoction equations*.
The 2 L has enough heating power at 95C to raise a mash about 20 C, or from 60 to 80 C, and to do this very quickly.
Or with smaller additions; to make several other rests between 60 and 80C

Obviously just dumping 2 L of boiling water into the mash tun wouldnt be a good idea (yes Darren it would kill a lot of enzymes  ). Ideally the hot water would be introducer over several minutes - with constant stirring of the mash to keep the temperature homogeneous.

Mechanically underletting from the HLT, through a well secured false bottom would be ideal (just keep stirring).

There are many options and variables, if you mashed in at 2.5:1, cut your sparge water back a bit and got you addition up to 98 C.
Had you mashed in at 50 C, you would have enough heating power to get 78 C (just).

Everyone's system is going to respond differently and depending on all the variables including:-
Your choices of malt
The type of beer you are making (heavy mashers are better for darker beers)
How good your insulation is
How good you are at stirring
This method will be of varying amounts of usefulness - but worth having a play with.

MHB

*For the pedants
I am aware that there is a difference between the thermal mass of water and a mash, but I can't put my hand on the full equations for hot water additions easily, but as I have the decoction** one memorised I used that one and the back of an envelope (literally); from recollection it made a 2-3 C difference in a similar case.

**Boil Volume =[(Desired Change in Temperature) X (Volume Mash + Addition)] / [(Temperature of addition (i.e.95)) - (Temperature of the Mash)]

M


----------



## matti (24/6/07)

You spurred me on as I have read a post previously regarding just adding water. 

My main concern using a cooler is hot side aeration while I am stirring.

I am leaning towards:
Batch 23L 5-6 kgs grains

Protein rest at 55 degrees.20 min
Pull a decoction out
Add water for rest 64 degrees 30 min
add decoction to raise to 68 degrees.20 min
Add water to Mash out 77 

All in a 55 litre esky with false bottom.

A think the temperature will have to be estimates as I expect being 2 degrees off target.

Am I dreaming?
(I have done small mashes about 3 kgs and sucessfully in the past)
matti


----------



## MHB (24/6/07)

Matti
Thats the sort of process I have been playing with, just a small suggestion.

I would try mashing in at 55 C, 10 minutes would be more than enough
Add hot water to take you to 64 - let it stabilise at 64 for 10 min or so.
Draw off the decoction
Use the decoction to step to 68
Then hot water to mash out.

I just think you might find the 55 C mash too heavy and it might burn as you are heating it. You dont want to spend too long around 50C or the beer can have head retention problems and it should take half an hour or so to heat the decoction properly.

Look forward to the outcomes.

MHB


----------



## matti (24/6/07)

Valid point and will keep that in mind.

matti


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (24/6/07)

Screwtop said:


> Is anyone direct heating their mash tun, can't use my immersion heater to raise from protien rest because it burns the sticky mash. Is there a problem direct heating a SS mash tun, I want to try a small gas burner for stepping instead. Have a spare HLT but no pump for recirc yet.


I direct fire my mash with a 4 ring burner (80 liter vessel)but usually only need 3 rings on to achieve 1c raise per minute in a 50 liter batch which is ideal.Never ever looked like burning the mash.And its real nice on those cold morning starts in the shed.Just remember to keep stirring until you reach desired temp.Most important.But Im getting a geared motor to do the stirring job soon.anyone got a good stirring blade design?
Gryphon Brewing


----------



## tangent (24/6/07)

look at Zwickels setup for direct heat stepping as well as his stirrer.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (24/6/07)

tangent said:


> look at Zwickels setup for direct heat stepping as well as his stirrer.


Forum ignorant.How do I view his step up?
Gryphon Brewing


----------



## Adamt (24/6/07)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Forum ignorant.How do I view his step up?
> Gryphon Brewing



I'm pretty sure it is in this topic.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (24/6/07)

Adamt said:


> I'm pretty sure it is in this topic.


 Chite ive got to make one.Just need a few German lessons.


----------



## Zwickel (24/6/07)

gday mates,

sorry for beeing off topic, Ive just done a hard days work.
Someone has time to come over for cleaning?

poooohh...Ive made a fine Hefeweizen, *of course without a protein rest*  

the harvest, almost 70l fine Weizen:







the yeast is pitched already  

here a pic of my setup after the work is done:






Cheers


----------



## blackbock (24/6/07)

Zwickel I think you have reached your 200L limit now and it's time to pay some govt taxes on your Hefeweizen! If you send some to me I won't tell them.

P.S I tried your mash schedule with a Pilsener recipe out of interest this morning. Obviously the final results aren't known yet, but it resulted in a very good efficiency and one of the clearest worts I have ever seen.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (24/6/07)

Just to pull this back to the original question asked, here's my 2 cents worth. This is my understanding of how things work, but then again I aint jeebuz so dont take it as gospel.

The Lab mashes that "convert in 20 minutes" might well show a complete conversion of starch... but they dont show what the starches have been converted to.

In 20 minutes worth of single infusion mash, between them the Alpha and Beta enzymes could well have converted all the starches. But they will have converted only some of them to short chained fermentable sugars, the others will be longer chained unfermetables. The betas will keep on snipping fermentables off the ends of these, in fact they will do so more rapidly, because there are more ends to snip from every time an alpha knocks a long chain into two short chains.

So if you leave it at the low rest temp for say a full hour, the betas will have time to chew through much more and the wort will be very fermentable. If however you rais the temperature up to the "alpha" range, the betas will be de-natured much more quickly and wont be able to make the wort as fermentable.

The Betas Will Not... all be killed off at the higher temperatures, their half life merely reduces. The ones that are left actually work better because of the increased energy available inthe hotter system. So a step mash works well for creating a really fermentable wort. Betas get a long time to play and lots of stuff to play with. But when you raise the temp, you thin them out a bit so that they dont get too out of hand and make your beer thin and nasty.

So there is a point to step mashing. Its not necessary in most cases, but its far from pointless in all cases.


----------



## goatherder (24/6/07)

Well, when we stayed on topic there was some really good discussion. Your post especially Thirsty Boy - I think your explanation has solved my conundrum. Thanks to everyone who contributed, I consider myself more enlightened as a result. Cheers.


----------



## matti (24/6/07)

Since this step mash conversation began,
a though have been processed through my head and I see why not.

IF one could extract a enough of the Beta enzyme and draw the wort
out before raising the temperature.
Add brewing liqour of similar character and simultaneous raise the temp and then draw out the apha enzymes. 
Providing you have left enough of beta in the grains, you could manipulate the style of beer to your commercial needs.
I.e. make a cheap dexterious brew with a lot of head.
Sorry I just had to put that in h34r:


----------



## Thirsty Boy (24/6/07)

Its a bit simpler than that... they just use a short (by homebrewer standards) mash at a medium temp, then push up to sparge temp and lauter for a very long time at that temp.

basically its just mashing high for dextrines... nothing quite as complex as drawing off worts at different temps and re-mixing etc etc.

It helps if you can have malt designed to your specifications.


----------



## bugwan (24/6/07)

Darren said:


> Bugwan,
> 
> How quickly can you raise the temps? Actually, what are your temps?
> 
> ...



Sorry Darren, just spotted your post.

99% of the time, I brew ales and use a single step mash, between 64 and 67 degrees, depending on the recipe.
This time I was brewing a weizen and it was recommended I do a rest at 50 degrees to help prevent a stuck sparge (my recipe was about 55% wheat malt, from memory). I then infused to hit 66, which is when I used the immersion heater. It took a few minutes to raise the mash temp from 62 to 66 with this method. As I mentioned, it's rare I actually do a multi-step mash.

Sorry for the semi off-topic post, just wanted to make sure I answered Darren's queries.

Cheers!
Dave.


----------



## Zwickel (25/6/07)

Referring to the topic, Id like to know if anyone is doing a ferula-acid rest at 42C when a Weizen is produced?

for example my mash schedule for a Weizen looks like that:

mash in at 35 heat up to 42 and rest for 30-40 min. (ferula-acid rest)
step up to 63 for 30min.,
then go to 72 for 30min.
go to 78 and mash out.

the ferula-acid rest produces a beautiful banana aroma  yum

So any comments to that?

Prost


----------



## Thirsty Boy (25/6/07)

Hey Zwickel,

I did a Ferulic acid rest on the first Weizen I ever made. I was advised by a German brewer that it would give a good Clove characteristic. I did it... and the beer was lovely with nice balanced banana and cloves and I liked it a lot. But it was my first wheat beer, so who knows what would have happened if I hadn't done the Ferulic acid rest ??

My understanding is (and I could well be wrong) that the Banana flavour/odour comes from the ester Isoamyl-acetate, the clove smell comes from the phenol 4-Vinyl-Guaiacol.

The ferulic acid rest produces, well... ferulic acid which is a precursor in the yeast cycle to 4-Vinyl-Guaiacol and therefore it should be enhancing the clove aspect of your weizen. I seem to recall getting most of this info (in the first place at least) from the Schneider website (or perhaps one that was about them) because Schneider aims for a Clove rather than a banana balance in their weizen.

I have given the ferulic acid rest a miss since then because I prefer my Wheats with a banana balance (Franziskaner, Schoefferhofer etc) BUT... Depending on how much wheat I am using and what form it is in, I might well do a Beta-Glucan rest, which is pretty much in the ferulic acid range anyway. So I suppose I have a foot in a couple of different camps.

If I'm right (and I might not be) then it seems that your lovely banana aroma is just coming from you own personal brewing skill Zwickel  Sounds like your beer is great.

Someone please correct me if I have this all arse about. I'd hate to be passing on miss-information; and of course, I'd rather be doing the right thing for my beer too.

Thirsty


----------



## MHB (25/6/07)

One other important point, other than those mentioned by Thirsty Boy above.

Lab tests are often reported on a fine grind; that is a sample reduced to something the consistency of talcum powder.

This means that the time taken for water to migrate into the granules is very short, as is the time required to transport the sugars out of the grain partial.

We have relatively massive grain fragments, even if the conversion has occurred, the sugars still need to migrate out to get into solution to do us any good.

MHB


----------



## Screwtop (25/6/07)

Zwickel said:


> Referring to the topic, Id like to know if anyone is doing a ferula-acid rest at 42C when a Weizen is produced?
> 
> for example my mash schedule for a Weizen looks like that:
> 
> ...



Thanks Zwickel,

I'll be using that mash schedule for my next Hefe.

Is 35C the temp of your strike water or the temp of the mash after adding strike water? What water to grain ratio?


----------



## Lukes (25/6/07)

Zwickel said:


> Referring to the topic, Id like to know if anyone is doing a ferula-acid rest at 42C when a Weizen is produced?


Yes I do it and agree on that 4 step mash schedule for a wheat beer.
With step mashing it is horses for courses.
My wheat mash is the same just based on the one listed on the *Weyermann* site and just pass thru the 55 as I ramp the temp.
Here is a pic of a nice cloudy recent acid break.





The other end of the colour scale a stout with the 1 step being only a mash out.






Luke


----------



## therook (25/6/07)

Lukes said:


> Yes I do it and agree on that 4 step mash schedule for a wheat beer.
> With step mashing it is horses for courses.
> My wheat mash is the same just based on the one listed on the *Weyermann* site and just pass thru the 55 as I ramp the temp.
> Here is a pic of a nice cloudy recent acid break.
> ...




hey Luke, did you do all this on your Rims/herms/Hermit

Rook

I gotta see it in action


----------



## Lukes (25/6/07)

Rook sure do.
This type of mash (4 steps) is one that it is fully utilized.
I keep a 2 ltr kettle of boiling water handy too.

- Luke


----------



## tangent (25/6/07)

i step mash for wheat beers and dry pilsners
single infuse for the rest.
i never bother with a protein rest unless I'm making a Belgian Wit and have added a heap of raw protein (wheat).


----------



## Zwickel (25/6/07)

wow...so many experts here.....Im ashamed a little, starting a seemingly simple question and get so many highly qualified responses  

The ferulic acid rest we call the "Herman methode" means a rest at around 42-44C where many flavours are built.
As Thirsty Boy beautifully has explained, I was wrong in saying the banana flavour comes from ferulic-acid, its just as Thirsty Boy has explained, *BUT* at the same time and temperature works the Maltase that cuts the Maltose into Glucose that is responsible for the banana aroma. 
So in the end that means as well the clove aroma as the banana aroma is built.



> Is 35C the temp of your strike water or the temp of the mash after adding strike water? What water to grain ratio?


I fill in the water at 35C and then add the malt.
I hope its not against the board rules if I post my complete recipes, Ive just written in a response to a PM, so I can copy and paste it.
So you may see the relations of quantities:

Pils:
take 11kg (100%) Pilsener malt and mash in at 35C into 42l of water (will be ~50l altogether)
heat up to 52C and rest for 20min
go further to 63C and rest for 45-60min (say 50min)
go to 72C and rest for 20min
heat up to 78 (5min) and mash out

whilst the mash schedule is on the run, Im heating up the sparge water already to 78C, an amount of 45-48liters.

the first run of lautering will bring you around 30l of wort, wait until almost all of the water has run through.
then add the sparge water, stirr well and start lautering again.
in the end youll get around 75-78 liters of wort (before boiling).
Start boiling the wort, let it boil for around 90min., after 10min add 85g of Magnum or Northern Brewer hops with 12-13% alpha acid.
After 75min (from point when the boil began) add 35g aroma hops such as Saaz.
Cool down as fast as you can do to around 10C and pitch an amount of 1% of the total batch size viscous yeast.
the OG should be around 1048 in the end.
Thats all about Pils

Weizen:

the same amount of water and the same procedure.
take 8kg wheat malt and 4kg Pilsener malt
mash in at 35C and heat up to 42C rest for 40-45min (ferulic-acid rest)
go further to 63C and rest for 30min
go to 72 and rest for 30min
heat up to 78C and mash out.
Start boiling and add 80g Hallertauer Perle with 6% AA, just at begin of boiling.
Let it boil for about 60min.
Cool down to 20C and pitch the yeast.
In the end youll get around 65-68 litres of wort (after boiling) at an OG of ~1052
If youd like the weizen a little darker, you may exchange 2 kilo of Pilsener malt into 2 kilo of Munich malt.
Thats all.

You see, its quite simple, but very tasty  

Apologies if its a little off-topic

Cheers mates :beer:


----------



## AndrewQLD (25/6/07)

Hi Zwickel,
The confusion we have here is that, for us in Aus at least, "mash in" temperature refers to the temp of the mash After the water is added, not the temp of the water you are adding. 

Thanks for clearing that up, basically what your saying is you heat your strike water to 35c, then add your grain and raise the temp to 42c for the Ferulic rest.

Thanks again for the Pm, I will be giving your recipe and method a try for the Qld case swap.

Cheers
Andrew


----------



## Zwickel (25/6/07)

thank you for the hint Andrew  

I gotta say that I dont care so much about the mash in temp, sometimes its only 30, sometimes its about 40, I dont think thats that important. 
Am I too careless about that?


----------



## AndrewQLD (25/6/07)

Zwickel said:


> thank you for the hint Andrew
> 
> I gotta say that I dont care so much about the mash in temp, sometimes its only 30, sometimes its about 40, I dont think thats that important.
> Am I too careless about that?



Not at all, just different ways of doing things in different places. All is clear now  .

Cheers
Andrew


----------



## Darren (25/6/07)

Thirsty Boy said:


> The Lab mashes that "convert in 20 minutes" might well show a complete conversion of starch... but they dont show what the starches have been converted to.
> 
> So if you leave it at the low rest temp for say a full hour, the betas will have time to chew through much more and the wort will be very fermentable. If however you rais the temperature up to the "alpha" range, the betas will be de-natured much more quickly and wont be able to make the wort as fermentable.
> 
> ...




Nice post Thirsty,

Thought that I would add this data from Brewing, Lewis and Young 1998. I think it shows quite clearly that B amylase is almost completely inactivated instantly at 66-70C (any residual enzyme activity would obviously retarded not sped-up) It also shows that if you are to "rest" the mash at 50-55C for 20 or more minutes there will be alot of B-amylase activity (and you will thin the beer to its detriment)

The second graph shows how low the fermentabilty will be with no B amylase and also clearly shows the effects of heat on that enzyme. (please note the 4C difference between active and inactive)
You should also note the "brewers window" on the bottom graph.

My take on all this and the other pages in the chapter from this book (and personal communication with a mega-maltster on the subject) is that the maltster spends huge amounts of resources so their customers can do single infusion mashes and get the same beer everytime. 

Why is it that a few homebrewers feel that they can improve on million dollar technology?? Makes them feel they are in control?

Home malted barley or undermodified malt may need step mashing. Commercial product certainly does not.

cheers

Darren


----------



## AndrewQLD (25/6/07)

Darren, that my be true if the brewer is trying to achieve the same results over and over again, but I am sure even the malster you spoke to would say that varying the mash regime would give different results even in highly modified malts. So isn't it possible that step mashing could change the flavor and texture of the beer your brewing and if so what's wrong with doing that?

It seems to me that some brewers are happy to brew generic beers that are going to result in what the Malster thinks is how a beer should taste, and some brewers want to vary their product by introducing step mashing.

Cheers
Not afraid to give it a go Andrew


----------



## Darren (25/6/07)

Andrew,

The obvious thing to do would be to select your malts on the basis of the style you are attempting to make.

You want a pils, select pils malt, you want an ale, select ale malt and of course, if you want a wheat select wheat malt  .

These days all the work has been done for you. All I am saying is that if you want to work harder, go for it. I doubt you will make a better beer than the malt was originally intented to make.

BTW, I have done some step mashes. Did not seem to improve the beer over any of the other numerous variances associated with homebrewing. Just took longer.  

cheers

Darren


----------



## AndrewQLD (25/6/07)

I still wonder what your maltser would have to say. After all they are only trying to produce a malt for ease of use and economy, that doesn't mean it is better.
But I still think that varying your methods will change your results as it does with all things in life.

Cheers
Andrew


----------



## Thirsty Boy (26/6/07)

Nice Graphs Darren. Good info in there. Mind you I disagree with some of the things you have inferred from the information, but I still appreciate seeing it.

That point where the Beta am hits the zero mark (roughly 7.5 mins) is what I thought the enzyme's half life was reduced to at 70C. Not where it was essentially reduced to zero. Live and learn.

Still, I think the statement _". . . I think it shows quite clearly that B amylase is almost completely inactivated instantly at 66-70C . . ." _ is a tad strong an interpretation of that data. I am actually taking heed of your admonishment to note the difference made by the 4 degrees in that range here. At the high end, we are still talking 7.5 minutes of activity before it goes belly up, this is a third of the time most people are ascribing for "full conversion" in a mash of modern grains. I don't think that that period of activity can even be described as insignificant let alone instantly gone. And at 66-69 well its even more so.. right to the point where significant activity is maintained for longer than that lovely 20 minute figure that people like so much.

As for _" . . .It also shows that if you are to "rest" the mash at 50-55C for 20 or more minutes there will be a lot of B-amylase activity (and you will thin the beer to its detriment) . . "_ Well, the graph shows that there will be lots of B-amylase activity at that temp and that it wont be significantly reduced over a period of 20 minutes, BUT, the graph says nothing at all about how this will effect the fermentability of the wort. That is wholly an inference on your part. One that I tend to only partially agree with. In fact a clue to one of the reasons why is contained in the text directly below those lovely graphs. Where it says that while the extract recovered at the lower temperatures is highly fermentable... in fact not a lot of the extract is actually recovered at that temperature because the starch substrate dissolves poorly. Therefore _my_ inference is that there will be plenty of starch left over for the A-amylase to convert into longer chain dextrines at a higher rest temperature; and so your beer wont necessarily be detrimentally thinned.

Sorry, but you did it again _". . . The second graph shows how low the fermentabilty will be with no B amylase and also clearly shows the effects of heat on that enzyme. . . "_ Yes the graph shows the effect of the heat on the enzyme, but once again, it shows absolutely no information whatsoever about the fermentability of a wort. All your inference again. Of course, in this instance I completely agree with you. The wort _would_ be unfermentable with no Beta activity. But the graph also shows that you have to be at pretty high temperatures for a reasonable time in order to actually achieve this state.

So... you see how its hardly cut and dried. Same data available to both of us, and yet we interpret it in different ways. Of course, thats why we have these little debates, so that other people can see the argument, weigh up the facts and decide for themselves.

As far as homebrewers believing that they can improve on the results of million dollar technology... thats because they can. In the same way that my mothers chicken soup beats the hell out of the stuff produced on Campbells' million dollar equipment. So can homebrew easily outstrip megabrewed beer. Along with that million dollar equipment comes million dollar sales targets, procurement agreements, energy restraints, time restraints and a whole lot of restrictions that a homebrewer does not face nor have to account for. This is where they gain back against the technology and resources.

By the way, you will also find that while the big brewers are similar to the homebrewer in the fact that they can almost always achieve their results with a single infusion mash. You are wrong to suggest that they do so in every case.

Last week I helped to conduct 5 separate 100,000+ liter step mash brews, each with a total rest time of more than 2 hours at the different stages. And (within an admittedly quite small range) each of those mashes produced wort of different volumes, different Gravities and different fermentability profiles. At least one of them was far enough out of whack so that the recipe had to be changed on a subsequent batch to bring the total into the fermentor into spec. Oh, and we regularly change stand times to account for differences in malt and other ingredients.

You are of course fundamentally right though, in most cases, a homebrewer doesn't need to do a step mash. But they are not pointless, they can definitely create a different fermentability profile on the wort and that might be just what you are looking for in your beer. Or not.

Thirsty


----------



## matti (26/6/07)

I think we waste time on convincing you Darren.
You are partially right in the todays modified malts the use of step mashing is maybe overdoing it at times.

Though I am not a BEER GOD in any way, I must say that step mashing will assist you with many parts of the brewing.

Doughing in grain for example at lower temps helps to reduce balling without starting the enzymatic activities too early and later assist in lowering the ph as well.

Modified malts is recommended to be doughed in at 55C providing the brewing water is adjusted correctly, then brought up to the saccharification rest temp unless you make a decoction and a higher dextrination rest before sparging.

Of cause you can instead used acidulated malt in the beginning and through in some Crystal to try to achieve the similar result.

We are simply talking about Pilsner here and not your average tasteless lager.
I like my pilsner with a bit of colour and that slight sweetness and extra body you can achieve with just a little bit of 2-3 step mashing seems to me be worth the trouble when time allows.

In the partial I have done this improved clarity and I have had no real problem with head retention either.

time for some work now B)


----------



## AndrewQLD (26/6/07)

Thirsty Boy said:


> As far as homebrewers believing that they can improve on the results of million dollar technology... thats because they can. In the same way that my mothers chicken soup beats the hell out of the stuff produced on Campbells' million dollar equipment. So can homebrew easily outstrip megabrewed beer. Along with that million dollar equipment comes million dollar sales targets, procurement agreements, energy restraints, time restraints and a whole lot of restrictions that a homebrewer does not face nor have to account for. This is where they gain back against the technology and resources.
> 
> By the way, you will also find that while the big brewers are similar to the homebrewer in the fact that they can almost always achieve their results with a single infusion mash. You are wrong to suggest that they do so in every case.
> 
> ...



Nice post again Thirsty, and you have said it far better than my lame attempt as well. And your comments above are enough to encourage me to try step mashing for my heffe.
Can't get any more conclusive than that me thinks.

Cheers
Andrew


----------



## Lukes (26/6/07)

Yep, Thirsty nice post at that time of the morning.

Much better than my one liner "horses for courses"

Luke


----------



## Screwtop (26/6/07)

AndrewQLD said:


> Hi Zwickel,
> 
> I will be giving your recipe and method a try for the Qld case swap.
> 
> ...



Zwickel, I will be giving it a go too, just for me 

Thanks for clarifying the 35 water for me, I like the idea of starting the mash this way. Now using the direct heated tun it will be much simpler.


----------



## SJW (26/6/07)

I have been reading this thread and have found it especially interesting as I always do single infusion mash's. 
Now I am doing a Bav. Lager next week with 4.5kg Pils, 1kg Vienna and a little Carared, (and will use Andrews hop schedule 60, 40, 20)
I was going to single infuse at 62.5 deg C with no mash out and do two equal batch sparges. Could someone explain the advantage of doing a stepped mash and suggest a suitable mash schedule.
I may have done one or two stepped mash's before but must not have noticed any advantage in the final product as I went back to infusions. 

Steve


----------



## Thirsty Boy (26/6/07)

SJW said:


> I have been reading this thread and have found it especially interesting as I always do single infusion mash's.
> Now I am doing a Bav. Lager next week with 4.5kg Pils, 1kg Vienna and a little Carared, (and will use Andrews hop schedule 60, 40, 20)
> I was going to single infuse at 62.5 deg C with no mash out and do two equal batch sparges. Could someone explain the advantage of doing a stepped mash and suggest a suitable mash schedule.
> I may have done one or two stepped mash's before but must not have noticed any advantage in the final product as I went back to infusions.
> ...



There might well be no advantage to a step mash at all. Was there something that you were tryig to achieve in your lagers that you aren't getting by using a single step?.

Maybe, if you dont mind that it mght actually just be a waste of your time, you could try raising it to 69-70 for a bit before you sparge. That might pull out and convert a little starch that remained un-gelatinised at the lower temps??? Possibly a little gain in efficiency and maybe a little extra body???

But unless you have a purpose in doing it... I really wouldn't bother.

TB


----------



## SJW (26/6/07)

> Was there something that you were trying too achieve in your lagers that you aren't getting by using a single step?.


I want my Lager's to be a little dryer and a little crisper, thats why I was thinking of mashing cooler at 62 or 63. I usually do a mash out but thought this time I would just do two batch sparges of equal size.

Steve


----------



## Malnourished (26/6/07)

Thirsty Boy said:


> As for _" . . .It also shows that if you are to "rest" the mash at 50-55C for 20 or more minutes there will be a lot of B-amylase activity (and you will thin the beer to its detriment) . . "_
> ...
> Therefore _my_ inference is that there will be plenty of starch left over for the A-amylase to convert into longer chain dextrines at a higher rest temperature; and so your beer wont necessarily be detrimentally thinned.


The problem with resting in the 50-55C range and 'thinning' beer is that this is right in the optimal temperature range for peptidases. This is why it's suggested that step mashes with modern malts start ~60C, but I've banged on about this so many times on this site I'll leave it at that.



Thirsty Boy said:


> As far as homebrewers believing that they can improve on the results of million dollar technology... thats because they can. In the same way that my mothers chicken soup beats the hell out of the stuff produced on Campbells' million dollar equipment.


I agree with your point. Step mashes can be beneficial (as long as you aren't resting in the low 50s!) because you can control proteinase and beta amylase activity in the low 60s and complete conversion easily in the high 60s/low 70s. That said, your analogy is dodgy because 99.999% of homebrewers _are _ using these modern malts but seem to want to throw in weird rests in the 40s and 50s*. To run with it, performing an old school step infusion with modern malts that are designed for a different mash regime is akin to buying the can of Campbells soup and boiling it for three hours like you would making chicken soup from scratch. Or like flash frying chicken thighs in a hot pan, or slow-cooking chicken breast in a casserole. Blech!

*Wheat/rye beers excepted


----------



## tangent (26/6/07)

nice work Malnourished :beer:


----------



## Hargie (26/6/07)

P r o d u c t S p e c i f i c a t i o n

P I L SNER MALT


Raw Material Source: German-grown two-row spring barley (2004 harvest).
Product Characteristicserfect foundation grist for all lagers. Excellent modification and
favorable protein and glucan levels. Excellent lautering properties. Provides finished beer with
substantial body and mouthfeel, as well as good foam development and head retention. Very
flexible grain with high extract efficiency for reliable lager-making in any brew house, including
pub ale systems. Yields optimum results for any process from single-step to multi-step
infusion, to decoction.Recommended Quantities: Up to 100% of total grain bill
Suitability (beer styles):
All lagers, especially Pils/Pilsner/Pilsener, low-alcohol beer, light beer, Belgian beers


WEYERMANN SPECIALTY
MALTING COMPANY
Andreas Richter⎯Quality Manager
Brennerstrae 17-19 D-96052 Bamberg, Germany
phone: +49-951-93-22-0-22 fax: +49-951-93220-922
[email protected] www.weyermann.de



....from the horses mouth , which is good enough for me.....for what it's worth I p/rest @ 50c /15 min for all my beers and i have enough medals to feel confident it works for me....and magnificent head retention every time....


----------



## Malnourished (26/6/07)

Yeah but that says nothing about the temperature of the rests themselves.

Imagine how many medals you would've won if you made your 50C rest a 60C rest!!!


----------



## Hargie (26/6/07)

....you reckon i might have got a _second_ one....bugger....  


...i find that they may not be neccessary, but they make enough of a difference to be worthwhile...




...i'm a 50-63-70/lagers and 50-66-72/ wheats & ales kinda guy....


----------



## bugwan (26/6/07)

From a non-technical perspective, I've tried and tasted both (multi-step, single-step brews) and can't detect much of a difference.
That said, I had no control sample and I'm sure there was enough variation between the batches to make it very unscientific.

Take home story: if I can get an end product of the same (better?) quality for less work, then I'm all over it!

A longer brew day doesn't really worry me, as I enjoy the process, but the previous statement still stands. Enjoy whatever you do


----------



## matti (26/6/07)

I am not too concerned about medal and even less worried that over what some else thinking about my brew. Reason with-held. hehe
SAH that I am. Just ask my partner.

But I think Step mashing is an craft brewers excuse to spend more time in the shed and get more time for drinks, hey.

Seriously though, I am very please with the debate and that we have have come to the conclusion that it is possible to go against the grain, pardon the pun, of the Mega brewers that do every thing to ensure the shareholder getting more in their pockets.

I say well said Thirsty, on the other hand Malnourished's logic, is equally sound.

:super:


----------



## Thirsty Boy (26/6/07)

Malnourished said:


> The problem with resting in the 50-55C range and 'thinning' beer is that this is right in the optimal temperature range for peptidases. This is why it's suggested that step mashes with modern malts start ~60C, but I've banged on about this so many times on this site I'll leave it at that.
> I agree with your point. Step mashes can be beneficial (as long as you aren't resting in the low 50s!) because you can control proteinase and beta amylase activity in the low 60s and complete conversion easily in the high 60s/low 70s. That said, your analogy is dodgy because 99.999% of homebrewers _are _ using these modern malts but seem to want to throw in weird rests in the 40s and 50s*. To run with it, performing an old school step infusion with modern malts that are designed for a different mash regime is akin to buying the can of Campbells soup and boiling it for three hours like you would making chicken soup from scratch. Or like flash frying chicken thighs in a hot pan, or slow-cooking chicken breast in a casserole. Blech!
> 
> *Wheat/rye beers excepted




Hey Mal - reading your post there you are spot on. I was interpreting Darren's comment on improving the million dollar tech as being about homebrewing as compared to industrial brewing _in general_; rather than specifically about using modern malts. and my analogy was meant to address that. After your post I see that my both my interpretation and my intent were far from clear. So my analogy indeed sucked... note to self: work on written comprehension and clear communication skills. not up to snuff.

BTW, could you please give me a quick point to the thread/s where you have "banged on about" the peptidases thing. I am completely ignorant of that to which you refer and I would like not to be. I have actually been regularly doing a 55C rest to try and create medium length protiens for head production/retention. It seems to have been working... but it also seems that I might well be doing other things to my beer that I dont know about.

I'd really appreciate a shove in the right direction in learning about this.

Thanks

Thirsty


----------



## PistolPatch (26/6/07)

bugwan said:


> From a non-technical perspective, I've tried and tasted both (multi-step, single-step brews) and can't detect much of a difference.





Thirsty Boy said:


> There might well be no advantage to a step mash at all. Was there something that you were tryig to achieve in your lagers that you aren't getting by using a single step?.



There's a lot of science and good reading in this thread which I always enjoy. But...

I think the above quotes (there were many others as well) are good grounding quotes and I think grounding quotes, quotes that bring home brewers back to earth, are always in short supply.

We can talk all day about fine technicalities but in doing this, often miss the basics.

To be honest, I have tasted as many great beers brewed by inexperienced brewers as I have of experienced brewers. (I was going to re-write that sentence but after a several minutes of recollection find that it is actually completely true.)

So, whilst talking about technicalities is fun and interesting, I think it is really important to remember the quotes above. A lot of newer AGrs will read this thread and maybe. because of it, place their attentions where it shouldn't be.

Maybe, they'll think, h! I'll do a step mash and that will balance that beer!'whereas the truth is probably that the recipe isn't balanced.

Maybe they'll think that you your mash is complete after 30 minutes because an iodine test says it is. (That's what I was told by a brewer I respected.) But, it is not as Thirsty has pointed out in this thread and as Trough Lolly answered for me in another thread after I posted some detailed figures that made me believe otherwise.

What I'm trying to say is that, for a new brewer (and many other brewers from what I have tasted!) until you find a recipe you like, then ignore the fine science. A tweak here with this and a tweak here with that will GENERALLY make not much of a difference if you have a recipe out of balance.

Let's face it, unless you have hugely controlled conditions that enable repeating two brews several times you have no possibility of telling whether a tweak is advantageous or not.

If you need to have such controlled conditions then you really should ask whether the recipe is good enough. Is that fair?

I've just been thinking about efficiency. It's another issue we all talk way too much about and I have explored it considerably. I'll keep exploring it but the more I explore (and have posted threads on it) the more I realise how we home brewers haven't even got that basic measurement right.

Should we even be discussing stuff like alpha and beta whatevers? Maybe that's what bugwan and Thirsty are hinting at?

Well I don't know but I reckon I need to hear some actual brewer's results, side by side tests, before my ears start to prick up and how many brewers have the capabilities of doing that?

Spot ya,
Pat

P.S. Yep, I know there are at least a few spelling and grammatical errors that I would normally spend a lot of time fixing but I am slowly changing my ways - lol!


----------



## matti (27/6/07)

> Should we even be discussing stuff like alpha and beta whatevers?



I think we should. It is after a technical issue regarding traditional Pilsner style beer.
Decoction and step Mashing may not be for every one, but I am certainly interested in learning more about the effect and ill effects of manipulating the modern malts.

In Australia Pilsner is not a traditional beer and it is not of commercial value to Malters or the brewing industry but well worth the discussion on a beer forum.

I am going to read up about modern malts and its properties and when I am wiser I get back to you.

But logic says that for one to achieve a heavier pilsner like Dunkel or bock in style with the original it does take a little bit more then right ingredient and right yeast. 
Methods and ingredient go hand in hand I believe.

The more I learn about brewing, the more this seems true.

It aint' as easy as just putting grain in hot water and then rinse.
What about the water, ph, etc etc.

I think it is great to discuss this and in earnest I think any new AG blokes shouldn't go in blindfolded and most of them can think for themselves.
what is written here is not gospel after all and no one forces any one to take it on less reading it.

Sorry for the rant be good all
Had to put in I didn't mean to have go at anyone just it seem very harch reading it again


----------



## PistolPatch (27/6/07)

Don't worry about the rant Matti. Rants are good!

Here's what I reckon...

pH (I adjust but several mates don't and I think I'm about to stop), filtered water (several mates filter, I used to in my early days).

Liquor to grist ratio is another one. Mmmm. Way too much mportant' stuff that often proves to be way unimportant.

And then there is the 'human factor,' just to throw you further off kilter - lol!

Ended up having a few beers with the Coopers rep here in WA tonight and he is a qualified chef. We talked about putting the same ingredients in front of 5 different chefs and whether you would see a difference in the meal produced given identical oven temps etc. He and I both reckoned you would and this is purely explicable with quantum physics.

Maybe that's why some home-cooked meals will always be better than those at a restautant?

Who knows?


Pat

Edit: Change 'a few beers'above to 'a few too many.' I suppose the mention of quantum physics makes that fairly obvious - lol.


----------



## sqyre (27/6/07)

AndrewQLD said:


> Thanks again for the Pm, I will be giving your recipe and method a try for the Qld case swap.



Looking forward to the taste test Andrew  

Sqyre...


----------



## Zwickel (27/6/07)

....and I will do my next batch the Australian way  
Im really curious about that matter.

After all Id like to get some honest report, as I will report about my experience with a single step mash honestly  

So far Ive made already 65 batches Pilsener, always the same way, so that means, I know exactly how my Pilsener turnes out, any difference in flavour Ill notice at once.

I dont see it as a competition in doing it your way or doing it my way, thats just for our personal science  
Id say, theory and practise are not the same.
Lets find out by ourself.
Im here to learn more about brewing stuff, I wont say there is only one way leading to truth
and other hand, what is nicer than to make better beers than all the million dollar investing, mega swill producing industries?
evidently we can.

Cheers mates :beer:


----------



## Ross (27/6/07)

Zwickel said:


> After all Id like to get some honest report, as I will report about my experience with a single step mash honestly
> So far Ive made already 65 batches Pilsener, always the same way, so that means, I know exactly how my Pilsener turnes out, any difference in flavour Ill notice at once.
> 
> Cheers mates :beer:



Really looking forward to the results Zwickel; other than the fact, if you produce in your eyes an inferior beer with single infusion, i'll be persuaded to give step mashing another try. My few attempts so far, have not produced any noticable improvements to my pallatte :unsure: .
This has been a very informative thread, but real life practical results are what really grab my interest.

cheers Ross


----------



## Screwtop (27/6/07)

Zwickel said:


> Im here to learn more about brewing stuff, I wont say there is only one way leading to truth
> and other hand, what is nicer than to make better beers than all the million dollar investing, mega swill producing industries?
> evidently we can.
> 
> Cheers mates :beer:



Ain't that the truth brewers!

So why don't the big breweries convert their operations to small 25 - 50 litre operations with one brewer per system, doing 3 step mashes to produce better beer. Got the picture? Of course this is an exaggeration, but it is possible for all big outfits to make better beer, but they are run be bean counters not brewers. They have to produce a product that looks like beer and tastes like beer, is packaged to match the markets perception of how beer should be packaged, and marketed to the masses in a manner which will build and maintain acceptance and consumer demand. There is so much more to beer that making it. So why don't they make better beer, if in doubt tick COST. 

No matter what the science, there will be variances, some methods will work better for some and not for others due to the variance in our systems and procedures, THAT IS WHY LARGE COMMERCIAL VENTURES SO VEHEMENTLY RESTRICT AND CONTROL THEIR SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES. When it comes to commercial breweries, due to their need to control production outputs (read profit) and quality, a number of design elements have been adopted resulting in many brewing systems/plants today which are very similar in design. Todays malts are designed around these systems and modern brewing procedures. 

As for Weyermann's statement, gez it's 2007, thought that most were immune to commercial product babble and disclaimers by now. Remember it's not what they say, it's what they don't say in these statements. Very unlikely that they would make a statement such as "NO ADVANTAGE IN STEP MASHING THIS MALT" or "SINGLE INFUSION REST ONLY REQUIRED FOR THIS MALT. The product statement needs to cover all things to all brewers, remember that. Whatever procedure you use, THIS MALT"S GONNA BE FINE, MATE!

This does not mean that there will not be a discernable difference using certain procedures or equipment which may be quite different to those of the large commercial breweries.

When it comes to an experienced brewer using his individual methods and being familiar with his system. If he notices a benefit from using some method and is convinced that the additional time and effort required is worthwile, then who are we to disagree with him. Why should any of us try to tell him it isn't so because we read differently somewhere.

And besides, a man convinced against his will, will be of the same opinion still.

PS: I STEP MASH AND FLY SPARGE, HAVE TRIED OTHER WAYS, IT MAKES MY BEER CLEARER THAN OTHER METHODS AND LIFTS MY EFFICIENCY.


----------



## Hargie (27/6/07)

... yeah well regarding the weyermann specs i said


Hargie said:


> ....from the horses mouth , which is good enough for _me_....




....good enough for me, maybe not good enough for you , but good enough for me...



...for what it's worth , i prefer the beer i make with step mashes,etc because the extra effort is with it , to _me_....i've brewed over 1700 ltrs of beer at home in the last 9 months - single infusions,multi steps, decoctions, thin mashes,thick mashes etc etc etc....

...step mashes make_ my_ beer clearer, much less hazy,more attenuative, and with healthier fermentions....

...it could make_ your _ beer shit....


...enjoy your beer however you make it.... :beer:


----------



## bindi (27/6/07)

Screwtop said:


> And besides, a man convinced against his will, will be of the same opinion still.
> 
> PS: I STEP MASH AND Batch SPARGE, HAVE TRIED OTHER WAYS, IT MAKES MY BEER CLEARER THAN OTHER METHODS AND LIFTS MY EFFICIENCY.



Sorry Screwtop I changed your post to batch.   
Works very well for me.


----------



## Stuster (27/6/07)

Hargie said:


> i've brewed over 1700 ltrs of beer at home in the last 9 months



Wow. That's an amazing amount. Hope somebody's helping you out with drinking that.  :lol: 

I agree with you. It's up to the brewer. It's not something I'm likely to try myself, but if it's getting you what you enjoy, then that's great.


----------



## Hargie (27/6/07)

Stuster said:


> Wow. That's an amazing amount. Hope somebody's helping you out with drinking that.  :lol:





....yes mate, i get plenty of help gettin' thru all that , couldn't possibly do it all alone...

....just had a look and i have brewed about 990 ltrs for 2007 so far ....i'll brew another 45 ltrs on Saturday that will take me over 1000ltrs right on halfway thru the year......hooray...  


....whoops...OT...sorry....


----------

