73 replies to this topic

[Big Nake]

Wouldn't you still need a 60 min starch conversion rest?

Yeah, probably. When I do the Hochkurz mash routine I think it's 145x30 and 160x60.

He still does the 60 min starch rest at 150 or whatever. He shrugged because he didn't believe or want to listen to my reasons not too. He just claims it is a must from his experiences.

Well, if he has a minute, let him know that I'm curious about the process because I want to try it. I hope he doesn't think I'm asking because I want to debunk his routine... not at all. I'm looking for a way to make a nice all-pilsner beer and if using this process will improve things, I'm all for it.

[matt6150]

Yeah, probably. When I do the Hochkurz mash routine I think it's 145x30 and 160x60. Well, if he has a minute, let him know that I'm curious about the process because I want to try it. I hope he doesn't think I'm asking because I want to debunk his routine... not at all. I'm looking for a way to make a nice all-pilsner beer and if using this process will improve things, I'm all for it.

I will shoot him a email and see if he can explain things further.

[SchwanzBrewer]

Even pro brewers are susceptible to the echo chamber and anecdotal evidence. 

 

I'm not saying that doing a step mash like that won't make a better beer. I very well might get that last 0.5% of intangible benefit in the final product. I am saying that 99.9% of beer geeks won't even be able to tell the difference in the finished product so the extra time and effort useless to me. I'm also saying that it isn't required to make a good beer because our malts are so well modified.

[denny]

10 lbs Best Malz Pils 1.5 ounces Spalt pellets 3.2% for 60 .5 ounces Spalt pellets 3.2% for 20 Wyeast 2124 Bohemian OG: 1.057, FG: 1.012, SRM: 3, IBU: 25, ABV: 5.5.%

 

I've done exactly this.  It was delicious.  A bit like Bitburger.

[denny]

So do you guys not do step mash and protein rest when using all or mostly Pils? A guy in my club was saying last night that it is a must. I don't have much experience with Pils so didn't have much feedback. I did however just brew a Saison with mostly Pils so I will see how it turns out.

 

I never do a protein rest...just not necessary with today's malts and it can even be detrimental.  I have done step mashes many times and concluded that they don't add anything.  Now I just do a 90 min. rest at 148 and call it good.  Anyone who says a p rest is a must must not have looked at malt data sheets for the last 15 years.

[Big Nake]

I never do a protein rest...just not necessary with today's malts and it can even be detrimental.  I have done step mashes many times and concluded that they don't add anything.  Now I just do a 90 min. rest at 148 and call it good.  Anyone who says a p rest is a must must not have looked at malt data sheets for the last 15 years.

I'm willing to throw all of my belief in this because I know Denny has spent a lot of time and effort trying to find ways to make the best beer. I know everyone's taste is different but I would stitch Denny's comment onto a throw pillow if I had the talent to do so.

Even pro brewers are susceptible to the echo chamber and anecdotal evidence.    I'm not saying that doing a step mash like that won't make a better beer. I very well might get that last 0.5% of intangible benefit in the final product. I am saying that 99.9% of beer geeks won't even be able to tell the difference in the finished product so the extra time and effort useless to me. I'm also saying that it isn't required to make a good beer because our malts are so well modified.

I totally get that part and I see both sides of this, don't get me wrong. But conducting experiments on brewing is time-consuming and many of us have not done it and I am at a point where I don't like to leave stones unturned. I think there is a culture in homebrewing where newbies come onto forums and get help from more experienced brewers and the newbies want to get to the point where they become part of the answers as opposed to part of the questions... they want to pay it back. That's not a bad thing unless people say things that they don't know for sure are true. I have seen it myself where people give answers to questions that they're not qualified to answer and that can be very problematic... so I'm at the point where I question things unless some amount of testing has been done. Denny has done decoction experiments and declared decoction unnecessary or let's just say "not worth it" while others think that decoction makes the best beer...so how do you know?

[SchwanzBrewer]

I'm willing to throw all of my belief in this because I know Denny has spent a lot of time and effort trying to find ways to make the best beer. I know everyone's taste is different but I would stitch Denny's comment onto a throw pillow if I had the talent to do so. I totally get that part and I see both sides of this, don't get me wrong. But conducting experiments on brewing is time-consuming and many of us have not done it and I am at a point where I don't like to leave stones unturned. I think there is a culture in homebrewing where newbies come onto forums and get help from more experienced brewers and the newbies want to get to the point where they become part of the answers as opposed to part of the questions... they want to pay it back. That's not a bad thing unless people say things that they don't know for sure are true. I have seen it myself where people give answers to questions that they're not qualified to answer and that can be very problematic... so I'm at the point where I question things unless some amount of testing has been done. Denny has done decoction experiments and declared decoction unnecessary or let's just say "not worth it" while others think that decoction makes the best beer...so how do you know?

 

With regards to the modification of the malts, that is fact, not echo chamber or anecdotal evidence. It's information directly measured by the maltsters and gathered scientifically. You don't need a step mash.

 

Like I said though, doing a decoction very well might make the best beer for that particular beer, but it's going after the last 0.5% of intangible benefit. I'm not telling you not to do a decoction or step mash. I'm saying it's not necessary to do the step mash or decoction to make wort. In fact I don't think you could make the same beer by doing both a single scarification rest on one and a decoction on the other side by side, but I'd chalk that up to inexperience in decocting a mash and lack of ability to accurately control mash temps for the steps. If you had an electric or gas RIMS system, I'd say you might have a chance, but not under normal homebrewer type equipment conditions, you'd most likely end up with similar, but not totally the same, beers.

[Big Nake]

With regards to the modification of the malts, that is fact, not echo chamber or anecdotal evidence. It's information directly measured by the maltsters and gathered scientifically. You don't need a step mash.   Like I said though, doing a decoction very well might make the best beer for that particular beer, but it's going after the last 0.5% of intangible benefit. I'm not telling you not to do a decoction or step mash. I'm saying it's not necessary to do the step mash or decoction to make wort. In fact I don't think you could make the same beer by doing both a single scarification rest on one and a decoction on the other side by side, but I'd chalk that up to inexperience in decocting a mash and lack of ability to accurately control mash temps for the steps. If you had an electric or gas RIMS system, I'd say you might have a chance, but not under normal homebrewer type equipment conditions, you'd most likely end up with similar, but not totally the same, beers.

I totally get that you don't need decoction or step mashes but I do wonder if there is any benefit or if someone could taste the difference between one or the other. I'll be honest... when I'm sitting there with my glass of beer, I'm carefully analyzing what I'm tasting. I'm not doing anything on a scientific level but I am hyper-critical of maltiness, hop presence, a crisp finish, what the yeast did or did not do, etc. and when I have that beer in my mouth... I'm thinking that the slightest difference in process could possibly make a world of difference. Maybe not. The very simple gold lagers I tasted in Munich (mostly helles) were unbelievably good. Nothing like I have tasted over here unless I found myself at a Hofbrauhaus in Chicago or a good German bar that has kegs of fresh German beer. Like you, I'm always looking for an angle.

[SchwanzBrewer]

I totally get that you don't need decoction or step mashes but I do wonder if there is any benefit or if someone could taste the difference between one or the other. I'll be honest... when I'm sitting there with my glass of beer, I'm carefully analyzing what I'm tasting. I'm not doing anything on a scientific level but I am hyper-critical of maltiness, hop presence, a crisp finish, what the yeast did or did not do, etc. and when I have that beer in my mouth... I'm thinking that the slightest difference in process could possibly make a world of difference. Maybe not. The very simple gold lagers I tasted in Munich (mostly helles) were unbelievably good. Nothing like I have tasted over here unless I found myself at a Hofbrauhaus in Chicago or a good German bar that has kegs of fresh German beer. Like you, I'm always looking for an angle.

 

That's fine and yes I would say that you might taste a difference. Whether it's better or repeatable in a way that shows that it wasn't another unintentional minute change that made the difference is impossible to say for sure.

 

Personally, knowing how much you like the Continental beers, I would say do it for the hell of it. I would also brew the same beer the way you normally would and see if there is a difference for yourself. It will likely be a tasty beer no matter what. Your evidence will be anecdotal, but it may sway you one way or the other.

 

What's it going to hurt? Now you have to drink two good kegs of beer instead of one? I'll ponder how to feel sorry for you when I'm drinking a beer camp beer tonight.

[denny]

I totally get that you don't need decoction or step mashes but I do wonder if there is any benefit or if someone could taste the difference between one or the other. I'll be honest... when I'm sitting there with my glass of beer, I'm carefully analyzing what I'm tasting. I'm not doing anything on a scientific level but I am hyper-critical of maltiness, hop presence, a crisp finish, what the yeast did or did not do, etc. and when I have that beer in my mouth... I'm thinking that the slightest difference in process could possibly make a world of difference. Maybe not. The very simple gold lagers I tasted in Munich (mostly helles) were unbelievably good. Nothing like I have tasted over here unless I found myself at a Hofbrauhaus in Chicago or a good German bar that has kegs of fresh German beer. Like you, I'm always looking for an angle.

 

Ken, you must have seen this...https://www.ahaconfe...8/DennyConn.pdf , starting on pg. 25.  The bottom line is that "preferred infusion" combined with "no preference" beat "preferred decoction".  Tasters were everything from experienced homebrewers to commercial brewers to BJCP Master.  And as much as you think you are being critical with your tasting, I'm totally convinced that it's impossible to do an objective comparison evaluation on your own beers when you know what they are and what went into them.  And in an extensive discussion of "that German lager flavor" on the BJCP forum, with great comments by Kai, the conclusion was that the flavor likely comes from oxidation.

Edited by denny, 15 July 2014 - 12:06 PM.

[Big Nake]

That's fine and yes I would say that you might taste a difference. Whether it's better or repeatable in a way that shows that it wasn't another unintentional minute change that made the difference is impossible to say for sure.   Personally, knowing how much you like the Continental beers, I would say do it for the hell of it. I would also brew the same beer the way you normally would and see if there is a difference for yourself. It will likely be a tasty beer no matter what. Your evidence will be anecdotal, but it may sway you one way or the other.   What's it going to hurt? Now you have to drink two good kegs of beer instead of one? I'll ponder how to feel sorry for you when I'm drinking a beer camp beer tonight.

Cheers and have fun beer-camp-boy.

[Big Nake]

Ken, you must have seen this...https://www.ahaconfe...8/DennyConn.pdf , starting on pg. 25.  The bottom line is that "preferred infusion" combined with "no preference" beat "preferred decoction".  Tasters were everything from experienced homebrewers to commercial brewers to BJCP Master.  And as much as you think you are being critical with your tasting, I'm totally convinced that it's impossible to do an objective comparison evaluation on your own beers when you know what they are and what went into them.  And in an extensive discussion of "that German lager flavor" on the BJCP forum, with great comments by Kai, the conclusion was that the flavor likely comes from oxidation.

Denny... on this all-pils beer we're talking about (which you said you made as well), do you remember the temp of your single infusion? If I did do a single infusion, I'm thinking I might have to make the temp a smidge higher than I ordinarily might because this will be all pilsner malt with no munich or vienna to add maltiness. Thoughts?

[ChicagoWaterGuy]

I pull off a gallon of grain after my sac rest on lagers and boil it dry for 20 minutes. There is definitely a color change as well as a deeper and more intense aroma. I might be able to mimic this with specialty grain but I prefer my way. To each their own.

[denny]

Denny... on this all-pils beer we're talking about (which you said you made as well), do you remember the temp of your single infusion? If I did do a single infusion, I'm thinking I might have to make the temp a smidge higher than I ordinarily might because this will be all pilsner malt with no munich or vienna to add maltiness. Thoughts?

 

I always do 148 for 90 min.  I want an extremely dry, drinkable beer.  I go for the German model rather than the Bohemian.

[SchwanzBrewer]

I pull off a gallon of grain after my sac rest on lagers and boil it dry for 20 minutes. There is definitely a color change as well as a deeper and more intense aroma. I might be able to mimic this with specialty grain but I prefer my way. To each their own.

 

How exactly does that work, I mean boiling it dry? Are you adding boiled, dried grain back to the mash tun?

[Big Nake]

I pull off a gallon of grain after my sac rest on lagers and boil it dry for 20 minutes. There is definitely a color change as well as a deeper and more intense aroma. I might be able to mimic this with specialty grain but I prefer my way. To each their own.

Okay so take 1 gallon of your first runnings and boil it for 20 minutes? I'm not sure I understood the 'dry' part. I remember a conversation where we were talking about boiling/carmelizing some of the first runnings to sort of 'fake a decoction' and someone mentioned that boiling the runnings wouldn't do anything. Another [possible] example of someone not knowing what they're talking about but you never know. What was the character of the beer when you did this? Slightly darker wort and a deeper aroma? Anything else... maltier beer? EDIT: Oh, my bad. A gallon of grain. I thought it was runnings. Boiling a gallon of grain dry for 20 minutes sounds suspiciously like a decoction.   

Edited by KenLenard, 15 July 2014 - 12:23 PM.

[ChicagoWaterGuy]

How exactly does that work, I mean boiling it dry? Are you adding boiled, dried grain back to the mash tun?

I use a strainer and fill a deep saute pan with a gallon of grain. There is some wort but it boils off by the end. I continue to stir until the 20 minutes is up. There is no scorching. It gets added back to the mash, stirred up and vourlaufed. 

[ChicagoWaterGuy]

Okay so take 1 gallon of your first runnings and boil it for 20 minutes? I'm not sure I understood the 'dry' part. I remember a conversation where we were talking about boiling/carmelizing some of the first runnings to sort of 'fake a decoction' and someone mentioned that boiling the runnings wouldn't do anything. Another [possible] example of someone not knowing what they're talking about but you never know. What was the character of the beer when you did this? Slightly darker wort and a deeper aroma? Anything else... maltier beer? EDIT: Oh, my bad. A gallon of grain. I thought it was runnings. Boiling a gallon of grain dry for 20 minutes sounds suspiciously like a decoction.   

It's my fauxoction. I do it to create melanoidins, not step the mash. Since I no-sparge, the temp effect is minimal.

[SchwanzBrewer]

That kinda goes along with doing a long boil. I agree with doing something to increase the malt complexity. Neat technique. I might try it on one of my lagers next month.

[neddles]

I pull off a gallon of grain after my sac rest on lagers and boil it dry for 20 minutes. There is definitely a color change as well as a deeper and more intense aroma. I might be able to mimic this with specialty grain but I prefer my way. To each their own.

Did you do this and the no-sparge also to nail that 46pt. Helles you made? Was that also the 100% pils Helles you made?