Link Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:17 pm Post subject:
Thank you again - I've been reading and listening to loads of podcasts by now and almost everyone claims that there is't really a need because of the "quality" of the malt these days. So every time I read or hear people say they do step I always ask in hope to find the reason I should start doing it. I brew on a clone of your system and I just love it, so thanks for that. I also tried most of your recipes and like them all as well - Thumbs up I forgot all the details in your last reply so thank you for refreshing my memory. I'll probably ask you again next time I forget in a few years. Cheers
Joined: 12 Dec 2010 Posts: 10940 Location: Ottawa, Canada
Drinking: Pub Ale, Electric Creamsicle, Mild, Pliny the Younger, Belgian Dark Strong, Weizen, Russian Imperial Stout, Black Butte Porter
Link Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:01 pm Post subject:
Remember that there are multiple "parts" to some step mashes, including this one here which has 4 temperatures.
The low protein rest temp is probably the one that most people will drop. That's what people tend to talk about when they say "step mashes aren't required because the malt is already fully modified".
The next two steps in the in the beta and alpha ranges will definitely help with conversion/fermentation as they hit those two separate temp ranges. Converstion of those sugars happen differently at different temps so by doing two different temps (one optimized for beta, the other for alpha) that maximizes fermentability. That has nothing to do with how modified malt already is (or isn't).
Then the mashout is the 4th step which also has nothing to do with how modified malt already is (or isn't).
So we have to be careful when people stay "step mashes aren't any benefit". What they probably really mean is that mashes below beta/alpha/mashout aren't any benefit.
Link Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 8:14 pm Post subject:
I agree and understand the alpha, beta and mashout temps. I often reference John Palmers book "How to Brew" when I forget why things are done and just stumbled over this, which is why I asked:
The typical Protein Rest at 120 - 130°F is used to break up proteins which might otherwise cause chill haze and can improve the head retention. This rest should only be used when using moderately-modified malts, or when using fully modified malts with a large proportion (>25%) of unmalted grain, e.g. flaked barley, wheat, rye, or oatmeal. Using this rest in a mash consisting mainly of fully modified malts would break up the proteins responsible for body and head retention and result in a thin, watery beer. The standard time for a protein rest is 20 - 30 minutes.
I honestly don't know anything apart from what I read so was just curious because I wanted to undestand it
Joined: 12 Dec 2010 Posts: 10940 Location: Ottawa, Canada
Drinking: Pub Ale, Electric Creamsicle, Mild, Pliny the Younger, Belgian Dark Strong, Weizen, Russian Imperial Stout, Black Butte Porter
Link Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 8:28 pm Post subject:
Definitely!
The protein rest is one that I flip back and forth on. Some well respected brewers do them like this at the high end of the range like I do, so that's why I've done them a few times now and liked the results. That said, I haven't done back to back brews to really see if it makes any difference. Here's an interesting thread on it: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/protein-rest-at-133-degrees-for-modified-malts.348096/
Most relevant post:
Quote:
When you do a 133 rest which is the upper limit for protein modification, you're working with the longer chained proteins and cutting them up into medium and short chains which are responsible for foam and head retention. The longer chains are also responsible for haze if your soluble to total protein ratio is too low. Look for the Kolbach index or S/T number on your malt analysis sheet. Also look for the total protein reported. If Kolbach or S/T are under 38% and/or total protein is above 12% (guideline, not a rule), the malt can benefit from a protein rest. It doesn't take much time either, a 10 minute rest can make a difference.
Link Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:48 pm Post subject:
I look forward to making. I still have a few bottles of a Belgian Dubbel I made in 2003. This is aged very well. IMO, better now than, say, in 2005. Everyone has enjoyed it.
Time to make more.
Thanks Kal for the recipe and interesting recipe/brew background (as in all your recipes).
Joined: 12 Dec 2010 Posts: 10940 Location: Ottawa, Canada
Drinking: Pub Ale, Electric Creamsicle, Mild, Pliny the Younger, Belgian Dark Strong, Weizen, Russian Imperial Stout, Black Butte Porter
Link Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2019 3:22 am Post subject:
Enjoy! Good luck on brewing it again. 2003 is a long time ago!
For anyone else reading, I find my Dubbel (on tap now) absolutely phenominal. It'll change over time, but if you follow my recipe and brewing process and use my recommended setup it's excellent within a week or two (and will certainly change over time after that).
Joined: 21 Sep 2011 Posts: 198 Location: Central Florida
Link Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:21 pm Post subject:
kal wrote:
Enjoy! Good luck on brewing it again. 2003 is a long time ago!
For anyone else reading, I find my Dubbel (on tap now) absolutely phenominal. It'll change over time, but if you follow my recipe and brewing process and use my recommended setup it's excellent within a week or two (and will certainly change over time after that).
Kal
Excellent, that is good to know that it also is very good young. Thanks Kal for posting this recipe!
John _________________ "Perfection is unobtainable, but if you chase perfection you can catch excellence"- Vince Lombardi
Joined: 12 Dec 2010 Posts: 10940 Location: Ottawa, Canada
Drinking: Pub Ale, Electric Creamsicle, Mild, Pliny the Younger, Belgian Dark Strong, Weizen, Russian Imperial Stout, Black Butte Porter
Link Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:47 pm Post subject:
You're welcome! For what it's worth I also found the Tripel recipe I posted really goof fairly young. I think it has to do with proper pitch rates whch ensures that the yeast doesn't throw off flavours and have to clean up after itself.
Link Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2019 10:50 pm Post subject:
kal wrote:
Remember that there are multiple "parts" to some step mashes, including this one here which has 4 temperatures.
The low protein rest temp is probably the one that most people will drop. That's what people tend to talk about when they say "step mashes aren't required because the malt is already fully modified".
The next two steps in the in the beta and alpha ranges will definitely help with conversion/fermentation as they hit those two separate temp ranges. Conversion of those sugars happen differently at different temps so by doing two different temps (one optimized for beta, the other for alpha) that maximizes fermentability. That has nothing to do with how modified malt already is (or isn't).
I find this interesting here. I've done multiple step mashes and other times I haven't. I never really paid attention to attenuation differences or if it correlated. Have you actually noticed a significant difference? For example, if you did a single infusion mash at 149 for this beer, would you expect worse attenuation? If so, how significant? I ask because I've made many higher gravity Belgian beers and my attenuation varies a good bit. Now, I'm wondering if it's the variation in mash steps that's doing it and not something else.
I know there is a million other variables here, but consider them all equal for this question.
Joined: 12 Dec 2010 Posts: 10940 Location: Ottawa, Canada
Drinking: Pub Ale, Electric Creamsicle, Mild, Pliny the Younger, Belgian Dark Strong, Weizen, Russian Imperial Stout, Black Butte Porter
Link Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:30 am Post subject:
Fal wrote:
I've done multiple step mashes and other times I haven't. I never really paid attention to attenuation differences or if it correlated. Have you actually noticed a significant difference?
I've never done a direct comparison of (say) a 2-step in the beta and alpha ranges and then a single step somewhere in the middle to see how they compared because it's well known that holding at the 2 temps that favour beta/alpha separately will maximize fermentability. So when that's what I'm aiming for in a recipe (I do it in a few of my beers listed on the site) that's simply what I've always done. It's what's recommended from all my reading, and what other pro brewers have done. If you can hit your attenuation since a single "compromise" temp then that works too, no need for 2 steps, but since it's dead simple to do on my setup it's what I've done. Try some tests yourself and see who difference it makes. It'll depend on the temps used and the grist of course.
Quote:
For example, if you did a single infusion mash at 149 for this beer, would you expect worse attenuation? If so, how significant?
I would expect attenuation to not be as optimized if going a single rest at 149F (high end of the beta range) as compared to choosing different temps that maximize beta followed by something the alpha range. Again, depends on the beer/recipe/etc.
Quote:
I ask because I've made many higher gravity Belgian beers and my attenuation varies a good bit. Now, I'm wondering if it's the variation in mash steps that's doing it and not something else.
Varies from batch to batch with nothing else changed? Or varied between beers where mash schedule and recipe changes? If the ingredients change that will also affect the outcome. The only way to really be sure is to only change one thing at a time and see what the results are. But that said, if you notice no change from doing something different on "beer X" that doesn't mean that it has no change across all beers. This is something I consistently see many brewers assuming: They read about one experiment and assume it means that it holds true all the time across everything.
Link Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:41 pm Post subject:
kal wrote:
Varies from batch to batch with nothing els changed? Or varied between beers where mash schedule and recipe changes? If the ingredients change that will also affect the outcome.
Kal
It's all the same: recipe, OG (+/- 2 points), pitch rate, O2, yeast, fermentation schedule. It's a Belgian Strong Dark. I can post the recipe, if you want. I know I did a step mash at least once and I know I hit my expected FG of 1.011 only once. The other times, the final gravity ranged from 1.016-1.024. I guess I should have kept better notes. I'm just trying to verify that: 1) I'm an idiot for not seeing something so simple 2) You'd expect another say 5-10% attenuation in a step mash vs a single in a big beer (1.090).
Joined: 12 Dec 2010 Posts: 10940 Location: Ottawa, Canada
Drinking: Pub Ale, Electric Creamsicle, Mild, Pliny the Younger, Belgian Dark Strong, Weizen, Russian Imperial Stout, Black Butte Porter
Link Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:35 pm Post subject:
Fal wrote:
I know I did a step mash at least once and I know I hit my expected FG of 1.011 only once. The other times, the final gravity ranged from 1.016-1.024. I guess I should have kept better notes.
That's the first step. Without seeing exactly what changed from one batch to the next so that you can look at cause & effect, you're just guessing.
That said, you mentioned FG ranging from 1.016 to 1.024. That's a pretty huge range. Would be interesting to see what realy changed between (say) the 1.016 batch and the 1.024 batch.
Quote:
I'm just trying to verify that .... 2) You'd expect another say 5-10% attenuation in a step mash vs a single in a big beer (1.090).
Not sure, but not necessarily. Every beer/grist is different. Depends on what's really done too, and I also haven't done direct comparisons between trying to maximize alpha/beta conversion with 2 steps vs. simply doing a single step because I don't want to "waste" a beer with a single step if it's generally accepted that that hitting 2 temps to maximize fermentability works.
I do mention in the recipe what single temp to use that I feel would probably get you close. Every setup is different and everyone brews slightly differently, so recipes are always just a starting point. Recipes and process do need to be tweaked sometimes based on how someone brews. There are rarely any black and white answers in brewing such as "do X and the result will always be Y".
Link Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 3:21 pm Post subject:
Hi Kal,
Brewed this Belgian Dubbel and it's now done fermenting. Took a sip when I pulled a sample for gravity measurement and it sure does taste good. Thanks for this recipe!
Since I have a 10-gallon batch was looking to keg half and bottle the other half. I see that in the Recipe section you mention using gelatin to help clear it out. I've done this before and I like the results but I've always kegged everything. My understanding is that if I were to pitch the gelatin and let it do it's thing for 2-3 days that this would not really be ideal for bottling as it would strip the yeast and there would not be enough there for bottling. Do you happen to know if that is the case?
I should mention that I ferment in a large conical fermenter. I was thinking that maybe what I should do is pull out what I want to bottle now, add priming sugar and bottle. Then to the remaining beer in fermenter, do the clearing with the gelatin and keg that in a few days.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Log in
Register
User Control Panel
Private Messages
Club Memberships
Search
Memberlist
Photo Albums
Forum FAQ
Link
See: 
- I've been reading and listening to loads of podcasts by now and almost everyone claims that there is't really a need because of the "quality" of the malt these days. So every time I read or hear people say they do step I always ask in hope to find the reason I should start doing it. I brew on a clone of your system and I just love it, so thanks for that. I also tried most of your recipes and like them all as well - Thumbs up 
I forgot all the details in your last reply so thank you for refreshing my memory. I'll probably ask you again next time I forget in a few years. Cheers
