Single infusion or Double infusion for weyermann grains?

Hi All
After reading John.P:
http://www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter14-4.html
and:
http://morebeer.com/brewingtechniques/bmg/noonan.html
and looked at the weyermann grains specifications.

I still don't understand if I need single or double infusion.
my recipe for a Paulaner Clone will be (All weyermann):
Caramunich Malt
Munich II Malt
Pilsner (2 Row)
Wheat Malt

Can you please give me some guidelines how to decide if Single or Double is needed (For this recipe and also general as for other recipes I will do in the future)?
Because as I understand if I do Double and the grains are Fully Modified it can Harm this type of Beer and all the reading didn't helped me get some guidelines.
Thanks

Very few malts in North America are under-modified so a single infusion is all that is needed.

RM-MN said:

Very few malts in North America are under-modified so a single infusion is all that is needed.

Click to expand...

Thanks but I use Weyermann do you have any idea about them?
I download their specifications but didn't managed to understand what is the modification.
Here is the link:
http://www.weyermann.de/downloads/spezifikationen/Weyermann®_Spezification_Crop_2012.zip

You can do a single infusion with Weyermann malts. You can also do a step mash if you want- but it's not needed.

I used their malts in a similar style beer. One was done with single infusion, one with a step, couldn't really tell the difference between the two so to simplify things just go with a single infusion and you'll be fine.

I once asked someone at Weyermann this specific question.

His response was simple,
"Weyermann malts work with all common mashing regimens"

OK thanks a lot all
I think it will be a nice experiment to do both and try to taste any differences

duboman except taste did you noticed any difference in the OG, Efficiency etc....?.

ramgeva said:

OK thanks a lot all
I think it will be a nice experiment to do both and try to taste any differences

duboman except taste did you noticed any difference in the OG, Efficiency etc....?.

Click to expand...

No, everything in both batches went according to plan but I've been using my system for several years and it's pretty dialed in and I get great consistency regardless of the beer. YMMV.

duboman said:

No, everything in both batches went according to plan but I've been using my system for several years and it's pretty dialed in and I get great consistency regardless of the beer. YMMV.

Click to expand...

OK, thanks a lot

Click on Weyermanns website for their recipes using their malt. Most recipes use a double infusion, some a triple infusion, some decoction. Weyermanns has a new malt out called recipe grade. I think they're going to produce 2 varieties. Standard modified and low modified. The low modified will be less modified than their Boh Pils light and dark floor malt.

VladOfTrub said:

Click on Weyermanns website for their recipes using their malt. Most recipes use a double infusion, some a triple infusion, some decoction. Weyermanns has a new malt out called recipe grade. I think they're going to produce 2 varieties. Standard modified and low modified. The low modified will be less modified than their Boh Pils light and dark floor malt.

Click to expand...

Thanks Vlad
But now I'm totally confused what to do
Some recipes in their site have only single infusion also.

So what should I do?
10x

I use Weyermann primarily, especially the floor malted bohemian pils. I've mashed all ways and don't see much difference. You *might* see a couple points more attenuation with multi-step mash, but that's not even a certainty in my experience. But for sure, it doesn't need a protein rest. Look at the specs and you'll see it's fully modified. I'd suggest doing a simple infusion, then evaluating the final beer to see if a multi-step would improve something (attenuation, clarity, head, etc.). I can't justify the added effort.

Thanks speedyellow
I contact weyermann and also asked them and their answer was that most of there grains are highly modified (so I was decided ok so single infusion it is) but they also added that it depends on the beer style? I thought it is only depends on the modification level??!!
So I asked what is their recommendation for wit and they send me an example recipe with a 5 step mash!!!!! WTF????
I guess experimenting will be the best option and I will start with the easy one.

Well, given that a German wheat or Belgian wit is mostly wheat, I'd say they gave you more of a recommendation on mashing wheat, not barley.

SpeedYellow said:

Well, given that a German wheat or Belgian wit is mostly wheat, I'd say they gave you more of a recommendation on mashing wheat, not barley.

Click to expand...

Yes but 5 steps? I never read it anywhere.

SpeedYellow said:

Well, given that a German wheat or Belgian wit is mostly wheat, I'd say they gave you more of a recommendation on mashing wheat, not barley.

Click to expand...

Yes but 5 step mash? I never read it anywhere.

Keep in mind it's a German company, and step/decoction mashing is much more common in Germany than single infusions, which is more of an English concept. That's why the recipes call for multiple steps - tradition, not because the malts can't handle single infusions.

ArcaneXor said:

Keep in mind it's a German company, and step/decoction mashing is much more common in Germany than single infusions, which is more of an English concept. That's why the recipes call for multiple steps - tradition, not because the malts can't handle single infusions.

Click to expand...

OK, Thank you, it is more clear now.
I read somewhere that multi step for highly modified grain is not so good or I understand it incorrectly?

The few recipes from Weyermann that use the English method are designed by Ray Daniels. The German guys writing the recipes use the step or decoction method. For ease, use the English method first. Later, try the step method, then as you gain experience, try decoction method. The step mash and decoction methods produce certain minerals and nutrients that are needed for, aging, stability and shelf life. If you're going from boiler to belly in 4 weeks, aging, stability and shelf life don't matter. A beer made with high modified malt can be thinned out with a long protein rest. Siebel mentions it takes about two hours using Continental malt. Weyermann is Continental. You'll read that protein rest temp is between 122F and 131F. However, each temp works the best with a certain final conversion temp. At a 122F protein rest, it's best to convert at 145-149F. At 131F, 158 works best. The reason being is at 131F, Beta is already starting to convert certain starches to maltose. Going to 158F counteracts the thinning taking place at 131F. A rest at 125F and conversion at 152-155F works good. They're the target temps for most German Pils and lagers. There's things like long chain proteins, etc.. That's part of it, too. Protein isn't the main thing that is needed for head retention and body, it's albumin. Albumin is created during the protein rest. If using high modified British malt, none of the above applies. Weyermann recommends to use the traditional method, to take full advantage of what their malt can produce. Paulaner is decoctioned. They may use a five step process. Doughing in with cold water to solubilize starch, a 95F acid rest, a 122-131F albumin/conversion rest, a 145-160F final conversion rest and a 170F mash out. Brew on. You'll do fine.

Thanks a lot Vlad for the very detailed explanation.
So as i understand Weyermann Malts can work with single and Multi step.
If I'm going to keep it more than 4 weeks it is better to do Multistep?
If so 3 step will be enough or better to do the 5 step as recommended?
And as I understand Multistep process will eliminate the thinning issue, right?
Sorry that I'm such a nag

I don't think step versus single infusion make a big difference in terms of storability

I always do step mashes because it is easy for me, and I also always use pilsner malt. I mash in at 122, then do a step at 146 and then a step at 160 and a final mash out at 170F. I vary the times at each step. If I want full bodied I go shorter at 146, and longer at 160. If I want something crisp and light I go longer at 146 and shorter at 160. The times depend on how fast you can ramp temperatures between the steps. The idea is to get a bunch of maltose via Beta-amylase activity and then ramp it up to keep some dextrins around for body - so long as you don't go too long at the beta rest. I like this approach as compared to simply mashing high as I will get a more fermentable wort and a lower FG - it is a way to keep a rich beer from being too "thick"

A protein rest is not needed, but I like to do one. I think it helps me to eek out a little more body, and helps with conversion efficiency.

Protein of the right size and properties are what helps head retention. Albumins are a class of proteins, typical small globular, and importantly water soluble. There are other classes of protein in barley as well, including some that are not readily soluble. During a protein rest (and during malting!), some of these are partially broken down into polypeptides that are now water soluble and add to beer body

Ultimately do what you want. Any of the mash regimes will work just fine. As you get more experience and feel you have the process down and are making consistent beers, then try it a different way. What I bolded is important as many folks mistakenly believe some process they try makes better beer, when in fact what made the beer better was just the fact that they had more experience. Ok I made a graph to better illustrate this - I hope

Thanks a lot pj for the deeply informed thread, I think I got it now, thanks to all helpers.