The case for protein rests

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Brewpastor

Beer, not rocket chemistry
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
4,628
Reaction score
66
Location
Corrales, New Mexico
I'll definitely check them out when I get home. Thanks for the links. I was firmly in the single infusion/well-modified camp, but after reading the better part of Warner's wheat beer book (on the strong recommendations of DRB and the Kaiser) I'm having strong second thoughts, at least with wheat malt.
 
Know what? Too much stupid math for me. Mix hot water with some grain and let it sit. Use more grain if your efficiency is suffering. 2 more pounds of grain sets you back another 2 bucks. Big whoop.

I'm all about improving my beer, but I'm a homebrewer. If I like it, freaking great. Mission accomplished.

Personally I think some of this stuff is crossing the threshold of being too anal retentive for an inexact hobby.

This isn't meant to slam anyone, especially you Brewpastor, just me ranting.
 
Preach on Brother Dude! I think it's all about what you enjoy. I like getting into the details and experimenting (probably my engineering background), so I like reading stuff like this and then deciding if I want to experiment with it. I'm pretty sure in a lot of cases it's not even about the beer any more (for me), just science.

I really like this hobby/obsession/lifestyle because there's a pretty well defined continuum from boiling pure extract on your stove without understanding how or why (other than to make beer), all the way to a semi-pro setup like the good Pastor has. Once you've found your place on that progression, you're good to go!
 
Before I get flamed--I want to clarify my feelings. I love finding ways to improve my beer. But unless you are brewing on a system like Brewpastor or someone else using more hi tech equipment where mash temp control is the key, those of us with coolers and uncalibrated thermometers and the like, it is next to IMPOSSIBLE to get the exact same results every time. No matter if you experiment or not, so many varibales come into play that will decide the beers flavors for you. We simply cannot control it enough.
 
I'm kind of in Dude's camp on this. I might get there some day but not with my current 5g round cooler mash equipment.

If it is a recipe that calls for multiple protein rests I just avoid the recipe. I don't do lagers either because of lack of lagering equipment/environment I live in. Aren't lagers the brews that more often call for rests?

Once I start seeing posts on protein rests I glaze over on the subject. Heck, I don't feel like I'm doing a proper mash out for that matter because I can't increase mash temp; only sparge with 168 water. However, I respect BrewPastors commentary based on his brewing history and equipment and look forward to his commentary on the subject!
 
Well, I'm with the Baron here.

If you like it simple, keep it simple. If you like it complicated, there are many ways of making it more complicated. Mashing is only one of them. Others are grain bills and hop schedules.

I like it simple on the recipe side and may make myself more work on the mashing side. But I don't believe that my beer gets better by doing this. But it gives me more to think about and tinker around with. And I'm also heavily influenced by the German brewing community, which likes their mashes complicated ;).

Ultimately my goal is to master mashing such that I can hit a desired FG for my beer and are able to repeat this FG.

And yes, I'm an engineer too.

Kai
 
Bravo! It is all about doing what brings you joy. I don't imagine there is a single one of us who would waste a moment on any of this if it didn't rock our socks. And as always, different strokes for different folks.

Personally I love reading all this crap over and over, and will pass on what I find that might interest others and know most of it will be glossed over. The reality however is great beer can be made any number of ways.
 
Question on the overall basis on mutli-step mashes. Is it to gain in efficiency or quality of end product? Probably an overly simple question on a complicated topic but what da heck
 
desertBrew said:
Question on the overall basis on mutli-step mashes. Is it to gain in efficiency or quality of end product? Probably an overly simple question on a complicated topic but what da heck

I see justification for a seperate Maltose rest at ~63C and Saccrification rest at ~71C. By doing so the attenuation can be better controlled via the length of the Maltose rest rather than the exact temp of the rest.

I just recently learned that the portions of glucose, maltose, maltotriose and dextrins will be different between a step mash (with multiple saccrification rests) and a single infusion rest with the same attenuation. This may impact the flavor of the beer slightly.

But, as of now, I don't think it is worth the added complexity unless you already doing step mashes for other reason (decoctions to enhance maltiness/color or you have a heated mash-tun).

But even for single infusion mashed I always do a mash-out step since I belive it is easily done by adding boiling water and helps in fixing the wort composition and aids the sparging.

Kai
 
Brewpastor said:
Bravo! It is all about doing what brings you joy. I don't imagine there is a single one of us who would waste a moment on any of this if it didn't rock our socks. And as always, different strokes for different folks.

Personally I love reading all this crap over and over, and will pass on what I find that might interest others and know most of it will be glossed over. The reality however is great beer can be made any number of ways.
Here here! If you're not into all the nit-picky details, don't burn yourself out trying to do the complicated brews. We all know that simple works just fine. On the other hand, if you like being in control of every possible aspect of the brewing process (and a few extras if you like), more power to ya. The plain and simple here is BP was just trying to help out we detail freaks and I appreciate it wholeheartedly. :D Geez, guys... take it easy on him.

Not a flame... but I believe Thumper said it best: "If ya can't say somethin' nice, don't say nuthin at all."
 
DrewsBrews said:
Geez, guys... take it easy on him.

Not a flame... but I believe Thumper said it best: "If ya can't say somethin' nice, don't say nuthin at all."

I REALLY hope you are not talking about my comments.

I apologized in advance for what I said. Further, nothing I said was taken the wrong way by anyone but you, it seems.

For anyone that is mashing in a straight-up cooler and thinks they are improving thier beer by doing these complicated step and decoction mashes--I'd venture a pretty strong guess you are actually A) wasting your time, and B) more than likely making your beer less drinkable. I'll eat crow publicly if someone sends me one and proves me wrong.

There is NO WAY you can regulate temps and get accurate mashes in a cooler (without some means of direct heat or recirculating), IMHO.
 
Baron von BeeGee said:
I'm starting to come of the opinion that a protein rest is beneficial (though not at all essential) with grists with large %'s of wheat. At least from reading GWB.

I agree, one of the rare circumstances where a step mash would be necessary. I did it yesterday because I brewed a wheat.
 
i keep it simple... i enjoy reading the theories behind the science of brewing, however, i can hardly balance a check book, let alone get into complitcating mathamatecal equations. i've seen some of fix's works, and it looks like h.s. chemistry to me, which i got a d- in...;)

i've got my first decoction mashed brew, a kolsh style ale in the secondary for a few weeks of cold storage. i noticed immediately when racking, a richer maltier flavor than with my single infusions, so i'll keep an eye on it for future reference. i forgot to take a gravity reading though, so it's a blind taste test, which suits me fine :mug:
 
Dude said:
I REALLY hope you are not talking about my comments.

I apologized in advance for what I said. Further, nothing I said was taken the wrong way by anyone but you, it seems.

For anyone that is mashing in a straight-up cooler and thinks they are improving thier beer by doing these complicated step and decoction mashes--I'd venture a pretty strong guess you are actually A) wasting your time, and B) more than likely making your beer less drinkable. I'll eat crow publicly if someone sends me one and proves me wrong.

There is NO WAY you can regulate temps and get accurate mashes in a cooler (without some means of direct heat or recirculating), IMHO.
Well, yeah, I was. But since I can't see your facial expression or hear your tone of voice, I don't know your mood. It wasn't an attack, just an opinion, like yours.

My point was that BP was just offering up info to those who are interested in that level of detail. Why post anything opposing it? I posted the Thumper comment, jokingly, to oppose the rant.

Anyways... I'm good and hope you are too. Let's laugh it off and let it go.
 
Nobody is suggesting that better beer is made soley by using a step mashing scheme. I just suggested that there will be noticable differences in flavor. I believe that an english or american ale should be brewed as a single infusion. Because that is what defines most of these styles and it may not taste right if you use a tripple decoction instead.

Dude said:
There is NO WAY you can regulate temps and get accurate mashes in a cooler (without some means of direct heat or recirculating), IMHO.

The only rest, that requires precision temp control to yield repeatable results, is the saccrification rest where alpha and beta amylases work. All the other rests are pretty forgiving since the effects of temperature differences are not as big for these enzymes. And the saccrification rest is the only rest you make with a single infusion mash.

Kai
 
Related to the reality that simple processes can make spectacular beer: Years ago I was judging a Best of Show round. There was a cream ale in it that was amazing and we all agreed whole heartedly it was the winner. To our surprise it was the first brew of a new brewer who simply poured extract from a can into boiling water and added a few hops. It was made with dry yeast, fermented in a bucket, and entered at its peak.

Needless to say, all of us all-grain, decoction snobs had a little crow to eat after that contest. Lesson learned.
 
I guess where I'm still confused is when is it preferred / makes no difference to do step mashing. It depends on the grain right? For instance, I have a simple american lawn mower wheat I've only made once which comprised of 5# 2-row and 4# wheat malt. Is this one where it would have been better suited to step (noting the wheat comments earlier). I liked the end result brew "ok" yet did in fact hit lower on efficiency than my norm at 64%. Was step mashing the potential reason why?

With the highly modified statements out there its difficult for me to grasp this. Do "step mashers" step everything you brew? An AG class I went to taught by a rather large southern AZ brewer (Nimbus) we discussed items to improve our product. Pretty much was dme -> dme + steep -> AG -> AG + water / PH management. But never commented on step mash but pretty sure the old highly modified comment was made. Maybe it's because that'd be the "advanced class (didn't exist)".

Drews, I'm not trying to talk myself or others out of multi-rests but to learn the nuances and advantages in doing so or if its just something some people do to be more true to the old school process. Or; it really does take your end product that next notch up which I'm always interested in learning within reason (time & funding). I think those obsessed with the art, everyone would like to identify where their comfort level is in the process and where that next step is and if they feel they want to go there.
 
Here's a few stabs at why you may want to do a step mash with wheat:
- Will break down the larger protein chains (reduces haze...some is good in a wheat, but you don't want chunks of break).
- Will reduce the viscosity of the wort - easier lautering.
- Results in better efficiency (can't remember why offhand...perhaps a combo of these reasons).
- In a hefe it will free up a type of acid (can't remember right now) that is one of the main contributors to the 'hefe' flavor.

That's off the top of my head, so somebody may correct me (or I may correct myself in a bit)...there are a few other reasons, as well. Based on what I've been reading lately I will probably not do a single infusion in a grist with 50% wheat or more. As far as whether an infusion is as good as a decoction, I say that they both raise the temperature to saccharification temps, but the resulting flavor profile will be different (but I won't say one profile is better than the other...:cool:)
 
DesertBrew, all,

This is exactly the kind of discussion we want to have in this thread and I'm thankful that it came up because I have run into this many times already.

How do we justify step mashes?

First of all, lets be generic and consider all the other possible rests that you can have in a mash. So far the focus was on protein rests (as the title suggests)

Dough-In at room temp: Enzymes go into solution
some sources suggest that there is a benefit to this. But I don't think that it should be done unless you have a mash system where this can easily be done

40C (105F) - Acid rest: acidification of the mash if necessary. and BetaGlucanase which helps breaking down cell walls
The acidification can be utilized if you don't want to use artificial acidifiers or acid malt. The BetaGlucanase will be important if your are using a significant amount of adjuncts (unmalted grain). But many of us are not using enough adjuncts to justify a BetaGlucanase rest.

50C (122F) - Protein rest: Proteolytic enzymes break down long and medium long chained proteins.
This is the most debated rest. Extending it for to long can be detrimental for head retention due to the degradation of medium long proteins. Even passing this range during heating the mash could be to long. This is why some brewers suggest mashing in above this rest or skipping this temp range by raising the temp with a hot-water infusion.
It should be employed if you use lot's of adjuncts and/or the soluble nitrogen ratio is below 40% (according to Noonan). Most British and American malts should be modified enough to have a SNR of >40%.

60-63C (140F - 146F) - Maltose rest: Since mostly the beta-amylase is working, mostly maltose will be produced. This is a rest that you can find in many German mash schedules for maltier beers. Since there is little alpha-amylase activity, the beta amylase will run out of dextrines/starches to convert before all the starch is converted. The amount of maltose generated is usually controlled by the length of this rest.

64-68C (148-155F) - combined alpha/beta amylase rest:
This is the single rest that you use for single infusion mashes. Both amylases work. Their activity can be controlled by the temp and the fermentability of the wort will be determined by rest temp and time. But the fermentability is fairly sensitive to the temp. This makes hitting a targeted FG with just one rest difficult as you need to be very precise with hitting the temp of the mash.

70-72C (158-162F) - Saccrification rest:
This rest is used in combination with the Maltose and/or combined alpha/beta rest if these rests did not result in the complete conversion of the mash. Especially in higher bodied beers this is intended. Only the alpha amylase works here and it will convert all the starches to dextrines. It may also produce glucose, maltose or matotriose if left at this rest for to long.

75C (168F) - Mash-out:
All enzymatic activity ceases and the fermentability of the mash is fixed. The Mash is less viscous which improves lauterting.

As you can see, not all of these rests are necessary or even desired. For English and American ales A single infusion mash with mash-out is the desired mash schedule. Everything else is neither authentic nor necessary.

German Lagers (with German malts) benefit from a step mash, but one has to be careful in not overdoing this with the highly modified malts that are available these days. But they should also be fine with a single infusion mash.

This said, don't make you mashing more complicated unless you know what is happening at the steps and why you think you should be doing this. There is definitely a difference in acquiring knowledge about the mashing process and actually getting a chance to use this knowledge in your own mashes.

I also have to ask Weyermann (my maltster for German malts) for an average lot analysis of their mats in order to keep the justification for a protein rest.

It looks like as if these days you will have to find a compromise between authentic/historic mash schedules and modern malts. BeeGee once pointed out that some HBSs sell undermodified pilsner malt. This is definately an indication that regular Pilsen malt may not be well suited for some mashed. E.G if you want to do use a decoction mash for flavor, you need to find some rests that you can decoct to. And these days you almost have to eliminate the protein rest.

Kai
 
Baron von BeeGee said:
Here's a few stabs at why you may want to do a step mash with wheat:
- Will break down the larger protein chains (reduces haze...some is good in a wheat, but you don't want chunks of break).
- Will reduce the viscosity of the wort - easier lautering.
- Results in better efficiency (can't remember why offhand...perhaps a combo of these reasons).
- In a hefe it will free up a type of acid (can't remember right now) that is one of the main contributors to the 'hefe' flavor.

IMHO, Good points.

I have a fondness for wits and like to experiment with unmalted wheat as an ajdunct.
Doing a beta-glucan rest and a modest protein rest is pretty important or lautering will be heck.
Now when I do simple partial mash beers with a good amount of LME, then simple infusion or even steeping is the way to go.
Multi-step, decocotion or infusion, they're all tools that make sense depending on what you have for grist and what you want to accomplish.

Finally, notice a lot of deutchelich screen id's?
I'm starting to feel like an auslander ;)

Greyhair
 
Kaiser said:
DesertBrew, all,

This is exactly the kind of discussion we want to have in this thread and I'm thankful that it came up because I have run into this many times already.

How do we justify step mashes?

First of all, lets be generic and consider all the other possible rests that you can have in a mash. So far the focus was on protein rests (as the title suggests)

Dough-In at room temp: Enzymes go into solution
some sources suggest that there is a benefit to this. But I don't think that it should be done unless you have a mash system where this can easily be done

40C (105F) - Acid rest: acidification of the mash if necessary. and BetaGlucanase which helps breaking down cell walls
The acidification can be utilized if you don't want to use artificial acidifiers or acid malt. The BetaGlucanase will be important if your are using a significant amount of adjuncts (unmalted grain). But many of us are not using enough adjuncts to justify a BetaGlucanase rest.

50C (122F) - Protein rest: Proteolytic enzymes break down long and medium long chained proteins.
This is the most debated rest. Extending it for to long can be detrimental for head retention due to the degradation of medium long proteins. Even passing this range during heating the mash could be to long. This is why some brewers suggest mashing in above this rest or skipping this temp range by raising the temp with a hot-water infusion.
It should be employed if you use lot's of adjuncts and/or the soluble nitrogen ratio is below 40% (according to Noonan). Most British and American malts should be modified enough to have a SNR of >40%.

60-63C (140F - 146F) - Maltose rest: Since mostly the beta-amylase is working, mostly maltose will be produced. This is a rest that you can find in many German mash schedules for maltier beers. Since there is little alpha-amylase activity, the beta amylase will run out of dextrines/starches to convert before all the starch is converted. The amount of maltose generated is usually controlled by the length of this rest.

64-68C (148-155F) - combined alpha/beta amylase rest:
This is the single rest that you use for single infusion mashes. Both amylases work. Their activity can be controlled by the temp and the fermentability of the wort will be determined by rest temp and time. But the fermentability is fairly sensitive to the temp. This makes hitting a targeted FG with just one rest difficult as you need to be very precise with hitting the temp of the mash.

70-72C (158-162F) - Saccrification rest:
This rest is used in combination with the Maltose and/or combined alpha/beta rest if these rests did not result in the complete conversion of the mash. Especially in higher bodied beers this is intended. Only the alpha amylase works here and it will convert all the starches to dextrines. It may also produce glucose, maltose or matotriose if left at this rest for to long.

75C (168F) - Mash-out:
All enzymatic activity ceases and the fermentability of the mash is fixed. The Mash is less viscous which improves lauterting.

As you can see, not all of these rests are necessary or even desired. For English and American ales A single infusion mash with mash-out is the desired mash schedule. Everything else is neither authentic nor necessary.

German Lagers (with German malts) benefit from a step mash, but one has to be careful in not overdoing this with the highly modified malts that are available these days. But they should also be fine with a single infusion mash.

This said, don't make you mashing more complicated unless you know what is happening at the steps and why you think you should be doing this. There is definitely a difference in acquiring knowledge about the mashing process and actually getting a chance to use this knowledge in your own mashes.

I also have to ask Weyermann (my maltster for German malts) for an average lot analysis of their mats in order to keep the justification for a protein rest.

It looks like as if these days you will have to find a compromise between authentic/historic mash schedules and modern malts. BeeGee once pointed out that some HBSs sell undermodified pilsner malt. This is definately an indication that regular Pilsen malt may not be well suited for some mashed. E.G if you want to do use a decoction mash for flavor, you need to find some rests that you can decoct to. And these days you almost have to eliminate the protein rest.

Kai


Excellent posting! Thank you for the time and effort.
 
So to summarize this thread, We've talked about a couple of things that are benefitted by step mashes. A protein rest for wheat. Gotcha, makes sense. I totally agree. What does decoction mashing add to a beer? The only two advantages I can summarize is more malty flavor and better extract efficiency. Okay, I'm pretty sure I can do both of those without messing with a decoction. For maltier flavor, I can add a maltier adjunct (aromatic malt, vienna malt, etc.) to my recipe, and for better efficiency I can add more grain to my recipe. Minimal cost for either scenario and much less of a hassle.

To me, decoction mashing is the "flavor of the week" in the homebrewing world right now. All of a sudden everyone is doing it to see if it really has a benefit. Personally, I believe the tried and true authors/books I've read that incur a step mash/decoction mash is for certain styles or for under-modified malts, which are also rare.

Without sounding obtuse, for most of us it is a waste of time IMHO. Especially for those of us without the ability to recirculate and direct heat.


:rockin:
 
Brewpastor said:
Excellent posting! Thank you for the time and effort.
\
I agree with my Pastor. That was damn fine writing ! I've never seen it layed out so simply with clear reasons for each rest before.
I have yet to lose my AG virginity yet, but I'm of the opinion that simpler must be better. It's cool to know that I could tweak the recipe closer and closer to the line if I wanted to through these steps . Thanks for sharing that with us.
 
I agree with dude on this one. As an AGer with a minimal setup, just hitting the target temp for saccrification can be enough work. Without a source of direct heat, I don't even have the space for multi-step mashes. Would I like to try a step mash, yes. Triple decoction, yes. I know that it's all good information, I just can't quite do anything with it right now. Now if I can just convince my wife that I need a 25 gallon recirculating system...;)
 
In another article that I read sometime, also by George Fix, he talked about how he had pretty much stopped doing decotions because he found he could make great beer without the hassle. He continued to encourage steps when possible and practical, but really only with particular beers. With ales using highly modified grain, why bother.

Again, if your beer ain't broke, why worry. However, there is always that next beer...
 
sudsmonkey said:
I agree with my Pastor. That was damn fine writing ! I've never seen it layed out so simply with clear reasons for each rest before.
I have yet to lose my AG virginity yet, but I'm of the opinion that simpler must be better. It's cool to know that I could tweak the recipe closer and closer to the line if I wanted to through these steps . Thanks for sharing that with us.
I'll third that. I sure appreciate the wealth of knowledge on this board.

I don't know why, but I'm just dying to try it once I have the AG setup built (if I can ever come up with the money to build the frame for the kegs). I'm part Czech, so I'll have to do an authentic three-decoction Pilz just for that reason alone. That will probably be the one that hooks me or puts me off the idea forever. :D
 
BTW, if you are interested in step mashes, read Noonan's "New Brewing Lager Beer". But as it has been said in this thread many times, many of the steps are not really necessary or may even hurt with modern malts.

Yes, decoction-mashing is work and there might be a pretty low return on investment. And I agree with the Dude that it might be a flavor of the day thing and doesn't really give you much more for all the time you put into it.

I did a triple decocted Oktoberfest today and think that this was overkill. But it was fun and pretty instructional. I pulled from the Protein rest at 55C after 5 min, so there wasn't much of a protein rest for the decocted part. I had much less trouble hitting the rests this time since I always pulled about 20% more than BeerSmith told me to. I'll most likely get away from the triple decoctions (except for the Doppelbock) but may keep double and single decoctions for Bavarian style beers if I feel like it (especially for Weizens and Bocks). I still have to make more single infusion or infusion stepped lagers to see if there is actually a taste benefit to decoctions. Right now I'm in an phase of my home brewing career where I constantly learn new things and want to try them. But discussions like this one are good to have, they make me question what I do and make me justify the added work.

I still believe that 2 saccrification rests (Maltose and Dextrins) makes it easier to hit a desired attenuation. So I plan to keep this for German style lagers(especially Bavarian where a high FG is desired).

Man, I can't wait until I can build myself a temp controlled and motor-stirred mash tun. I hope the malts don't become even more modified and easier to handle until then. ;)

Kai
 
Kaiser said:
BTW, if you are interested in step mashes, read Noonan's "New Brewing Lager Beer". But as it has been said in this thread many times, many of the steps are not really necessary or may even hurt with modern malts.
I burned through that one a month or so ago - got it as a birthday present. Man, is that dry reading, but there's a ton of info there. I remember his comments about avoiding the more complicated decoctions with modified malt. I also remember parts about how some styles, such as Pilsners and Dunkels (I think?) benefit from decoction mashing because it gives the finished beer a richer, "maltier" flavor more like they were back before modified malts came into play.

I'm working through "Radical Brewing" by Randy Mosher and just finished the part about decoction mashing. His thoughts seem to be similar to Noonan's. Although I get the impression that Mosher feels single and double decoctions are worth the effort if the original style called for it. He also suggests work-arounds that will result in somewhat similar properties if you choose to go that route.

I'm hooked on the hobby as a whole. I got into it for sh_ts and giggles, but now I want to try everything time permits me. That's the biggest driver behind doing decoctions even if they are more work. Well, when I get AG going anyway.
 
I didn't see anyone really touch this issue but protein rests are (IMHO) pretty much a thing of the past. Today's modified malts (with the exception of wheat and a few others) do not require the rests that are outlined above.

I know I've read this in a number of places.. I just can't seem to cite any of them currently.
 
I have done decoctions and enjoyed the results. The degree to which it made a big difference is hard to say. I think it did, but that could be wishful tasting after all that effort. I do know that I have judged a series of contests lagers in which a guy who always does decoction brewing consistantly lost to the same step masher. Each used top quality ingredients and really knew what they were doing.

It is up to you to figure what you want to do I suppose.
 
Coming back to the protein rest and how it lead to the discussion about deoctions. There are mash schedules that allow you to do decoctions w/o having a protein rest. The one option that I have in mind is this:

dough in at 63C (Maltose rest)
wait a desired amout of time
pull thick decoction
return decoction to hit 71C (Saccrification rest)
wait for negative starch test
pull think decoction
return decoction to hit 75C (mash-out)

The latter decoction can be substitured with a hot-water infusion.

This way you can do the decoctions for flavor and/or being able to step the mash and don't have to worry about the ill effects of a protein rest wit highly modified malts.

Kai
 
Mindflux said:
I didn't see anyone really touch this issue but protein rests are (IMHO) pretty much a thing of the past. Today's modified malts (with the exception of wheat and a few others) do not require the rests that are outlined above.

I know I've read this in a number of places.. I just can't seem to cite any of them currently.

Did you read the whole thread? Seems we've been through that already....
 
Mindflux said:
No, summarize. I don't feel like going through 3 pages of thread.

My feelings (and some others here too) are that step mashes aren't necessary but for a few styles.

I'll do a protein rest for a wheat but that is about it.

The rest of the thread is a good read though, lots of info.
 
One of the problems with modified grains is that in some cases, for some beer styles, the malt is over modified. I would simply add Euro lagers to the brews I do protein rests with, but then again, I have taken Fix's advice and use a less modified Moravian malt. If you aren't using an less modified malt, screw the rest!
 
Back
Top