# Best Pilsner Malt - Do I need a protein rest?



## madawoods (17/3/14)

I've heard that some of the German malts aren't as modified and would benefit from a Protein rest. Any thoughts or experience brewing with this malt?


----------



## HBHB (17/3/14)

_They're well modified and a protein rest isn't necessary._

_Floor malted Bo Pils on the other hand would & does benefit from it._

_Martin_


----------



## verysupple (17/3/14)

Martin is right, Best pils is highly modified so no need for a protein rest.

I'm not much of a fan of anecdotal evidence, but FWIW, I've used it a bunch of times without doing a protein rest and everything turned out fine.


----------



## madawoods (18/3/14)

verysupple said:


> Martin is right, Best pils is highly modified so no need for a protein rest.
> 
> I'm not much of a fan of anecdotal evidence, but FWIW, I've used it a bunch of times without doing a protein rest and everything turned out fine.


Thanks lads, it great when you get a decisive answer!


----------



## MartinOC (18/3/14)

Throwing a cat amongst the pigeons.....

Whilst a protein rest may not be NECCESSARY, it has other benefits, such as head retention, stability & clarity, so make your own decisions....


----------



## peas_and_corn (18/3/14)

Historically German malts have been under modified, leading to decoction mashes. This is what the texts are referring to. Nowadays all malts are highly modified


----------



## manticle (18/3/14)

Martin - I do a short high protein rest for most beers (52-55 for around 5 mins) for almost every brew and combine it with a 72 rest for 10 which definitely helps head retention but a longer rest at lower temps can degrade proteins too much and have the opposite effect.. Found this out when a 5 min rest became 2 hours on a mate's system, brewing a Rochefort 10 tribute (hence my distrust of HERMS and things I can't easily fix).


----------



## HBHB (18/3/14)

manticle said:


> Martin - I do a short high protein rest for most beers (52-55 for around 5 mins) for almost every brew and combine it with a 72 rest for 10 which definitely helps head retention but a longer rest at lower temps can degrade proteins too much and have the opposite effect.. Found this out when a 5 min rest became 2 hours on a mate's system, brewing a Rochefort 10 tribute (hence my distrust of HERMS and things I can't easily fix).


Yup, done the same myself. These days, i keep it simple mostly. For your typical Pilsner malts, it's really (i believe) not necessary to do the protein rests though. The current generation of base malts are pretty well modified. best Malz, Wetermann, etc. on the other hand, if i were doing a floor malted pils/ bohemian pilsner base, i still tend to do step mashes and decoctions with them. Simply because the results are worth the effort. it's not that you CAN'T, Nor SHOULDN'T, it a case of, there's not much of a need. If you can read the newspaper through your Pilsner, it's probably clear enough.

I typically do a 72 degree rest for 15-20 minutes is always a good idea for better foam stability with all of them. Common practice.

When it come to boil times with pilsner malts, i know some guys say 60 minutes is enough and they don't get DMS issues. I have before. I've also had some bloody woeful DMS in the odd one of them. 90 minutes for me now with the standard pilsner malts out of germany and i do a full 120 minute with the floor malted / bo pils malts. Except using the Australian Pilsner base malts, then i just do a 60-75 minute and never had e DMS issue. 

End waffle.


----------



## mje1980 (18/3/14)

manticle said:


> Martin - I do a short high protein rest for most beers (52-55 for around 5 mins) for almost every brew and combine it with a 72 rest for 10 which definitely helps head retention but a longer rest at lower temps can degrade proteins too much and have the opposite effect.. Found this out when a 5 min rest became 2 hours on a mate's system, brewing a Rochefort 10 tribute (hence my distrust of HERMS and things I can't easily fix).


I've been doing this on all beers since manticle suggested it to me. I like the results. My HLT is stuffed at the moment but when it's fixed I'll continue doing it. I can do it on the stove with two pots but it's a bit of a pain haha. 

I used a few bags of best pils. I found it contributes a nice euro aroma and flavour. Made a nice koelsh and a great helles with it.


----------



## manticle (18/3/14)

HBHB said:


> Yup, done the same myself. These days, i keep it simple mostly. For your typical Pilsner malts, it's really (i believe) not necessary to do the protein rests though. The current generation of base malts are pretty well modified. best Malz, Wetermann, etc. on the other hand, if i were doing a floor malted pils/ bohemian pilsner base, i still tend to do step mashes and decoctions with them. Simply because the results are worth the effort. it's not that you CAN'T, Nor SHOULDN'T, it a case of, there's not much of a need. If you can read the newspaper through your Pilsner, it's probably clear enough.
> 
> I typically do a 72 degree rest for 15-20 minutes is always a good idea for better foam stability with all of them. Common practice.
> 
> ...


Meant Martin OC rather than you.

Definitely no more necessary than doing a separate alpha and beta rest. I still prefer the results though.


----------



## lmccrone (18/3/14)

HBHB said:


> Yup, done the same myself. These days, i keep it simple mostly. For your typical Pilsner malts, it's really (i believe) not necessary to do the protein rests though. The current generation of base malts are pretty well modified. best Malz, Wetermann, etc. on the other hand, if i were doing a floor malted pils/ bohemian pilsner base, i still tend to do step mashes and decoctions with them. Simply because the results are worth the effort. it's not that you CAN'T, Nor SHOULDN'T, it a case of, there's not much of a need. If you can read the newspaper through your Pilsner, it's probably clear enough.
> 
> I typically do a 72 degree rest for 15-20 minutes is always a good idea for better foam stability with all of them. Common practice.
> 
> ...


Sorry for highjacking the thread but I'm keen on cracking a really good bo pils, so I brought a bag of the floor malted pils malt on the basis that it was the most expensive so it must be the best. I have also been looking at doing a decoction mash for the same reason (time being money and all). What sort of decoction mash do you find most effective?

Cheers

Luke


----------



## Black n Tan (18/3/14)

Luke check this out http://www.weyermann.de/downloads/pdf/Voigt_Poster_Trends%20in%20Brewing%20Ghent%202010.pdf


----------



## madawoods (18/3/14)

Is the 72 rest you're talking about separate to mash out? Thanks for all the feedback, I've usually done a 90 min mash so I'll stick with that but leave the protein rest for now for simplicity. I'm not fussed about clarity and I'm looking at doing something more of a pale ale as follows. Received some great feedback so far so feel free to chip in on the recipe good or bad. Not sure about the Columbus, have mixed results - also have some Styrian Goldings I might throw one half as I split the batch

Batch Size (L): 46.0
Total Grain (kg): 10.400
Total Hops (g): 160.00
Original Gravity (OG): 1.052 (°P): 12.9
Final Gravity (FG): 1.013 (°P): 3.3
Alcohol by Volume (ABV): 5.11 %
Colour (SRM): 5.2 (EBC): 10.2
Bitterness (IBU): 33.7 (Average)
Brewhouse Efficiency (%): 75
Boil Time (Minutes): 90
*Grain Bill*
----------------
8.200 kg Pilsner (78.85%)
1.000 kg Wheat Malt (9.62%)
0.600 kg Victory (5.77%)
0.400 kg Munich I (3.85%)
0.200 kg Carapils (Dextrine) (1.92%)
*Hop Bill*
----------------
20.0 g Magnum Pellet (12.2% Alpha) @ 60 Minutes (Boil) (0.4 g/L)
20.0 g Centennial Pellet (10% Alpha) @ 30 Minutes (Boil) (0.4 g/L)
20.0 g Columbus Pellet (14.6% Alpha) @ 10 Minutes (Boil) (0.4 g/L)
40.0 g Galaxy Pellet (13.4% Alpha) @ 5 Minutes (Boil) (0.9 g/L)
60.0 g Galaxy Pellet (13.4% Alpha) @ 5 Days (Dry Hop) (1.3 g/L)


----------



## manticle (19/3/14)

72 is too low for mash out. I mash out at 78 after my 72 rest.


----------



## HBHB (19/3/14)

lmccrone said:


> Sorry for highjacking the thread but I'm keen on cracking a really good bo pils, so I brought a bag of the floor malted pils malt on the basis that it was the most expensive so it must be the best. I have also been looking at doing a decoction mash for the same reason (time being money and all). What sort of decoction mash do you find most effective?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Luke


Flick across to this link & scroll down to Triple decoction and go nuts.

I still pull out a bag of floor malted stuff every now and then when a streak of insanity hits me and I'm bored.

Nothing like a decoction mash in basic gear to set the mind straight. :blink:

It's a nice recipe done at 40 IBU's :icon_drool2:


----------



## verysupple (19/3/14)

HBHB said:


> ... on the other hand, if i were doing a floor malted pils/ bohemian pilsner base, i still tend to do step mashes and decoctions with them. Simply because the results are worth the effort. it's not that you CAN'T, Nor SHOULDN'T, it a case of, there's not much of a need. If you can read the newspaper through your Pilsner, it's probably clear enough.


What's different about the floor malted pils or bo pils malts that makes them worth the effort? Does a step mash or decoction get something out of them that you don't get with other malts?


----------



## HBHB (19/3/14)

verysupple said:


> What's different about the floor malted pils or bo pils malts that makes them worth the effort? Does a step mash or decoction get something out of them that you don't get with other malts?


Different barley variety and not as well modified.


----------



## wessmith (19/3/14)

HBHB, the different barley variety is a correct statement, but your conclusion that they are not as well modified is totally incorrect. Go have a look at the C of A or even the specifications. Both Best Malz and Weyermann have that data on their websites if you dont have an applicable C of A. You need to look at the "Kolbach index" and the "Hartong" figures along with the protein levels. Higher proteins will require a higher level of modification, but generally German malts ar in the lower protein catagory anyway. I will see if I can find an explanation of malt analys that might help here.

And lets give the respective maltsters a break! They work bloody hard to make sure their malts are brewable and consistent. This "German malts are under modified" mantra has been around since I started brewing some 20 yers ago and simply is not correct. I dont know of any main stream maltster that has knowingly or deliberatly produced an "under modified" malt.

In my experience with English floor malted malts, they are always sprouted to 100% acrospire growth and almost lovingly nurtured through the whole malting process. And you certainly do not need a decoction mash to bring out the best in a floor malted Maris Otter.

Wes


----------



## AndrewQLD (19/3/14)

wessmith said:


> HBHB, the different barley variety is a correct statement, but your conclusion that they are not as well modified is totally incorrect. Go have a look at the C of A or even the specifications. Both Best Malz and Weyermann have that data on their websites if you dont have an applicable C of A. You need to look at the "Kolbach index" and the "Hartong" figures along with the protein levels. Higher proteins will require a higher level of modification, but generally German malts ar in the lower protein catagory anyway. I will see if I can find an explanation of malt analys that might help here.
> 
> And lets give the respective maltsters a break! They work bloody hard to make sure their malts are brewable and consistent. This "German malts are under modified" mantra has been around since I started brewing some 20 yers ago and simply is not correct. I dont know of any main stream maltster that has knowingly or deliberatly produced an "under modified" malt.
> 
> ...


Nice to see some facts finding their way into this thread, some good info there Wes, I'd be keen to see any info you could find that will help explain the C of A that the malsters supply, it looks pretty technical at first glance but would surely help dispel the under modified myths.


----------



## HBHB (19/3/14)

wessmith said:


> HBHB, the different barley variety is a correct statement, but your conclusion that they are not as well modified is totally incorrect. Go have a look at the C of A or even the specifications. Both Best Malz and Weyermann have that data on their websites if you dont have an applicable C of A. You need to look at the "Kolbach index" and the "Hartong" figures along with the protein levels. Higher proteins will require a higher level of modification, but generally German malts ar in the lower protein catagory anyway. I will see if I can find an explanation of malt analys that might help here.
> 
> And lets give the respective maltsters a break! They work bloody hard to make sure their malts are brewable and consistent. This "German malts are under modified" mantra has been around since I started brewing some 20 yers ago and simply is not correct. I dont know of any main stream maltster that has knowingly or deliberatly produced an "under modified" malt.
> 
> ...


Thanks Wes. Will have to get in and do some more up to date reading then. Appreciate the information.

Martin


----------



## MHB (19/3/14)

COA for Floor Malted Bo-Pils from a delivery about two weeks ago
Mark
View attachment WM436MEL_Floor.pdf


----------



## Black n Tan (19/3/14)

The poster from Weyermann, that I linked above, states that the floor malted bo pils malt is slightly under modified.


----------



## HBHB (19/3/14)

http://www.weyermann.de/downloads/pdf/Voigt_Poster_Trends%20in%20Brewing%20Ghent%202010.pdf worth a read as well. 

Given it's from 2010, it also shouldn't be necessarily viewed as the very latest in recommendations either.

Martin


----------



## verysupple (19/3/14)

HBHB said:


> Different barley variety and not as well modified.


If you mean Weyermann, then the floor malted pils is actually slightly better modified than the ordinarly pils - according to the 2013 crop specs.

EDIT: I just read the pdf MHB linked and although I can't find a crop year, the Kolbach index is 39.6 wich indicates that it's highly modifed (perfectly fine for single infusion).


----------



## verysupple (19/3/14)

Black n Tan said:


> The poster from Weyermann, that I linked above, states that the floor malted bo pils malt is slightly under modified.


Strange, the Kolbach index for the floor malted pils (2013) is higher than that of the pils or premium pils. Am I missing something?

Am I misunderstanding the Kolback index or is there more to it than I thought?


----------



## lmccrone (19/3/14)

HBHB said:


> Flick across to this link & scroll down to Triple decoction and go nuts.
> 
> I still pull out a bag of floor malted stuff every now and then when a streak of insanity hits me and I'm bored.
> 
> ...


Well my misses will be very grateful to you for providing me with more interesting facts I can tell her about beer over dinner...

I think I'm across the Triple decoction couple of quick questions

1. I'm assuming that by taking a third of the mash and boiling it and re adding it I will get very close to the target temps, do i just add boiling water or cold water to fine tune?

2. 1.85 L per Kg of grain in much less water than I normally use, I'm up around 3.5 L per Kg. I assume the breweries ratios are appropriate for the home brewer, if you use different ratios does it affect the answer to question 1?

2. Once the sun starts to go down and I have finally finished mashing can I just batch sparge to get to my pre boil volume?

Cheers

Luke


----------



## Donske (20/3/14)

lmccrone said:


> Well my misses will be very grateful to you for providing me with more interesting facts I can tell her about beer over dinner...
> 
> I think I'm across the Triple decoction couple of quick questions
> 
> ...



You definitely need to reduce that liquor to grist ratio for decoction mashing, I made that mistake recently and wound up not being able to pull enough thick mash to raise the temps as needed. I'm going to try again soon on a pilsner and I'm thinking of coming down to about 2.5l per kg from my normal 3l per kg, or even lower, still doing some reading.


----------



## manticle (20/3/14)

Just pull mostly grain with enough water to stop the grain sticking. Whatever the ratio is in the tun is irrelevant to what it ends up being in the decoction pot.
I use a strainer pot to remove the grain. Plenty of liquid remains in the grain for the purpose.

Not saying grain:liquor ratios have no bearing on mash chemistry - just that the amount of liquid that makes it to the decoction is independent of that.


----------



## Donske (20/3/14)

manticle said:


> Just pull mostly grain with enough water to stop the grain sticking. Whatever the ratio is in the tun is irrelevant to what it ends up being in the decoction pot.
> I use a strainer pot to remove the grain. Plenty of liquid remains in the grain for the purpose.
> 
> Not saying grain:liquor ratios have no bearing on mash chemistry - just that the amount of liquid that makes it to the decoction is independent of that.


What I found on the Hefe I decocted was that with 3l per kg of grain was that there was so little thick mash to be drawn that I couldn't get enough decocted to raise the mash to the next step.

The more liquor that needs to be raised to the next step the more thick mash required to do so, just something I'll be keeping in mind next time I do a decoction mash.


----------



## manticle (20/3/14)

I use an immersion element to step so I'm not relying on the decoction but I see what you mean.


----------



## Bribie G (20/3/14)

Some handy background information about various mash schedules used by German brewers.
Decoction

and Infusion (for example the Hochkurz mash I sometimes use for lagers)


----------



## lukiferj (20/3/14)

Thanks Bribie. Great links.


----------

