29 replies to this topic

[neddles]

Today I made another version of what I hope will become a house IPA of sorts. I don't rebrew recipes that often but I probably should start to for some of them. I want to get this one really dialed in. I think the grain bill is set and I am close on the hops. If this one turns out right I'm going to play with various yeasts next including 1272/1450/1318 and maybe Conan or Brett Trois at some point.

 

6 gallons

OG 1.063

SRM 6-7

IBU 50

 

95% Weyermann Floor Malted Pilsner

5% MFB Caravienna

-dash of Midnight Wheat for color.

 

10min. protein rest @ 130F

90min sacc. rest @ 154F

 

-Apollo at 60min to 50IBU

-40g each Columbus/Cascade/Centennial and 20g El Dorado in 165F hop steep

-45g each Columbus/Cascade/Centennial and 25g El Dorado dry hop (in 2 additions)

 

WLP001

 

 

 

[ChicagoWaterGuy]

Interesting with the pils malt. It would be cool to try with a lager yeast.

[neddles]

It would be cool to try with a lager yeast.

Yeah good suggestion. If I can get the rest of it dialed I can play with yeasts and also water profiles at some point too. Just so hard to know what your changing when too much gets changed at once. 

[HVB]

I like the pils. My standard grain bill is mainly pils, a touch of marris otter and a small amount of caravieene.

[positiveContact]

do you need to do any special mash procedures for that floor malted pils?

[neddles]

I like the pils. My standard grain bill is mainly pils, a touch of marris otter and a small amount of caravieene.

I like it too. This pils has a rich character that I like a lot. It's pils but it has a flavor that's mildly honey-like or kind of like the rich browned edge of a sugar cookie. And to be honest the style I am using it in isn't where it would shine best but it does come through nicely and plays well with the hops. Light caramel (caravienna) is a good accent for it. 

do you need to do any special mash procedures for that floor malted pils?

"Need" is the question. I don't know for certain. The malt is "slightly under modified" which suggests to me that a short (10minutes) protein rest is not a bad idea so thats what I do. I can also say there has been zero chill haze with this malt. Not even at 33F. Here's chils take on it. https://www.brews-br...malt/?p=1827148

FWIW, there is a review (N=1) on NB that says he got terrible efficiency from using just a single effusion. CWG has used this malt too but I don't know if he single infuses it or not.

 

I will also say it has performed very interestingly. I get an efficiency from it that I do not get from any other malt. At 1.063 I am 81% into the kettle, any other malt with my set up I would expect 74-75% into the kettle. The other thing I noticed is that it drains exceptionally well. In my process I hoist the bag from the wort and let it drain for several minutes until my boil volume is in the kettle. Depending on the grist or if I am in a hurry I will squeeze the bag to get up to volume a little quicker. With this malt I get right up to volume in just a few minutes of draining. There is just less lost to absorption. I don't know why this is but I would guess it's the result of the protein rest or maybe the barley variety used.

[HVB]

Talk to me about the El Dorado.  I have not used them but have been interested in trying them.  How do you like them?

[positiveContact]

I will also say it has performed very interestingly. I get an efficiency from it that I do not get from any other malt. At 1.063 I am 81% into the kettle, any other malt with my set up I would expect 74-75% into the kettle. The other thing I noticed is that it drains exceptionally well. In my process I hoist the bag from the wort and let it drain for several minutes until my boil volume is in the kettle. Depending on the grist or if I am in a hurry I will squeeze the bag to get up to volume a little quicker. With this malt I get right up to volume in just a few minutes of draining. There is just less lost to absorption. I don't know why this is but I would guess it's the result of the protein rest or maybe the barley variety used.

 

Have you tried the same mash procedure with regular pils to compare efficiency?

[ChicagoWaterGuy]

I've only been using this malt for lagers. The mash is no-sparge single infusion with my faux-coction at the end. The beers are bright and finish where I'd like them to, at 1.010-1.012. My efficiency is about the same for all my beers, 75%.

[neddles]

Have you tried the same mash procedure with regular pils to compare efficiency?

I dont think I want to do a protein rest on a well modified pils malt. So I probably wont try it.

[neddles]

I've only been using this malt for lagers. The mash is no-sparge single infusion with my faux-coction at the end. The beers are bright and finish where I'd like them to, at 1.010-1.012. My efficiency is about the same for all my beers, 75%.

Well, if a single infusion is working for this man then I will try it. Its not much hassle to do it but if its not necessary then I'll skip the protein rest.

[positiveContact]

I dont think I want to do a protein rest on a well modified pils malt. So I probably wont try it.

 

what would happen?  I've never done this rest before.

[neddles]

what would happen?  I've never done this rest before.

My understanding is that in a well modified malt the protein structure of the grain is broken down enough to allow sufficient access to the starches during the mash. In an under modified malt there is enough of this protein structure left after malting that a protein rest is necessary to break down that structure and allow the enzymes access to the starch during the mash. You don't want to activate the proteinases on a well modified malt because it will begin to break down desired proteins that are needed for head retention, mouthfeel, etc. Anyone here who understands this better feel free to step in and refine my explanation.

 

In this case, Weyermann says this malt is "slightly under modified" so I did a slight (short) protein rest. I haven't noticed any head retention issues but these are also beers with a ton of hops.

Edited by nettles, 23 March 2015 - 09:46 AM.

[Big Nake]

My understanding is that in a well modified malt the protein structure of the grain is broken down enough to allow sufficient access to the starches during the mash. In an under modified malt there is enough of this protein structure left after malting that a protein rest is necessary to break down that structure and allow the enzymes access to the starch during the mash. You don't want to activate the proteinases on a well modified malt because it will begin to break down desired proteins that are needed for head retention, mouthfeel, etc. Anyone here who understands this better feel free to step in and refine my explanation.   In this case, Weyermann says this malt is "slightly under modified" so I did a slight (short) protein rest. I haven't noticed any head retention issues but these are also beers with a ton of hops.

I probably don't understand it any better but I did read the same thing... doing a protein rest on a 'fully-modified' or 'well-modified' malt can result in a thinner-tasting beer with little-to-no head. I bounced that around in another thread and someone who does the protein rest on fully-modified malt said he didn't experience that.

[positiveContact]

I only asked b/c I was surprised that better efficiency was obtained on an under modified malt.  If the protein rest really doesn't help "regular" malts I'm not sure why your efficiency wouldn't at least be as good with those malts.

[Big Nake]

One question I have is... does a beer made with less-modified malt and a protein rest differ [significantly] from a single-infusion mashed beer made with fully-modified malt? I have always said that I would go through the steps necessary for better beer but I always try to balance that by getting to "great beer" without making it any more complicated than is absolutely necessary. There is a guy in this FB Group (German Brewing) who does all kinds of tests on some of this stuff and then posts them on his site. I'm not if he did this specific test but he has had some great write-ups. Link HERE. Click on ExBEERiments.

Edited by Village Taphouse, 23 March 2015 - 02:12 PM.

[neddles]

One question I have is... does a beer made with less-modified malt and a protein rest differ [significantly] from a single-infusion mashed beer made with fully-modified malt? I have always said that I would go through the steps necessary for better beer but I always try to balance that by getting to "great beer" without making it any more complicated than is absolutely necessary. There is a guy in this FB Group (German Brewing) who does all kinds of tests on some of this stuff and then posts them on his site. I'm not if he did this specific test but he has had some great write-ups. Link HERE. Click on ExBEERiments.

Yeah I like that blog.

 

I think the difference in flavor between the fully and under modified malt you're asking about is a result of the grain itself and how it is malted. The fact that is slightly under modified I think is just a function of the malting process and not something that is in and of itself going to lend an extra dimension to the flavor of the malt. Hope that makes sense.

 

ETA: Ken, I think I mentioned it in your recipe thread (or somewhere) but this is the base malt New Glarus uses for Two Women.

Edited by nettles, 23 March 2015 - 03:16 PM.

[Steve Urquell]

I only asked b/c I was surprised that better efficiency was obtained on an under modified malt.  If the protein rest really doesn't help "regular" malts I'm not sure why your efficiency wouldn't at least be as good with those malts.

Morty, I've done a protein rest with well modified pils (Best Malz)before and my efficiency didn't jump any higher than normal. I only do beta and alpha rests with well modified malts now. On my single infusion mashes with regular 2-row I usually get 75-80% eff. That Weyermann floor malt with a 3 step infusion mash always gives me 92+% efficiency. It leaves a very waxy cap on top of the mash so I know some of the protein is taken out. I did a couple of batches with 20-30min protein rests and the beers had head retention problems. I now do a 10min/135F protein rest and (2) 30min beta/alpha rests. 70min mash time total. My efficiency is so high and my beers are coming out like I want them to, so I don't think I'll ever do any other type of mash with this malt.

Edited by chils, 24 March 2015 - 05:47 AM.

[neddles]

ETA: Ken, I think I mentioned it in your recipe thread (or somewhere) but this is the base malt New Glarus uses for Two Women.

Correction: I had a bottle of Two Women last night and the bottle read that is is made with "Weyermann floor malted bohemian malt" which means it could be the floor malted Bohemian pils or the floor malted Bohemian dark malt (which is a floor malted munich style malt) or it could be both. Anyone ever use that floor malted Dark Malt? Rebel Brewer carries it. Also just want to reiterate what a beatiful beer the Two women is. Sofa King Good.

Edited by nettles, 24 March 2015 - 09:38 AM.

[positiveContact]

Morty, I've done a protein rest with well modified pils (Best Malz)before and my efficiency didn't jump any higher than normal. I only do beta and alpha rests with well modified malts now. On my single infusion mashes with regular 2-row I usually get 75-80% eff. That Weyermann floor malt with a 3 step infusion mash always gives me 92+% efficiency. It leaves a very waxy cap on top of the mash so I know some of the protein is taken out. I did a couple of batches with 20-30min protein rests and the beers had head retention problems. I now do a 10min/135F protein rest and (2) 30min beta/alpha rests. 70min mash time total. My efficiency is so high and my beers are coming out like I want them to, so I don't think I'll ever do any other type of mash with this malt.

 

my question was more why don't you get 90+% efficiency with the well modified malts?  that's the part I don't quite get.  are they under specifying the potential of the floor malt?

Edited by Evil_Morty, 24 March 2015 - 09:40 AM.