Protein Rest Question

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.

BIGTEX

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I am planning on brewing a Raspberry Wheat in a couple of weeks and I have been reading up on protein rests for the wheat malt to get my game plan together. I have never done a protein rest before, so here is the question: Is it smarter to do a protein rest on just the wheat malt and add in the rest of the 2-Row and hot water to bring up to saccrification rest temp or to do the protein rest with all the grains at the same time then bring to mash temp? I'm using 5#Rahr White Wheat Malt and just over 4# Rahr 2-Row and want to get the most out of the mash as possible without compromising body. Cheers!
 
I've never heard of doing a protein rest by splitting the grains. You would mash as normal except at a lower temp for period of time, then raise the temp to your normal mash temp for another period of time. (can you tell I'm at work and don't have my books here? You'll have to look up the temp/times.)
That said.... most people (not all) feel that with today's highly modified grains, even wheat, a protein rest is not needed and MOST people (again, not all) would not be able to tell the difference between a well made beer using either method. A lot of REALLY GOOD homebrewers don't feel the extra effort of a step mash is worth it.

That said, ;) Go for it and see what it does for your beer. Let us know how it goes.
 
I've done split grain additions where I add extra grains after a protein rest. The only tricky part is the mash will cool a bit when you add the extra grain.

Me personally, am part of the minority that still likes to do protein rests. We've all heard that too long of a protein rest can result in a thin beer. So that really does tell us that protein is very important to the body of a beer yet most people don't fiddle with it. My analogy is that that would be the equivalent to adjusting the sound of your stereo with just the bass knob (starch conversion temp) and ignoring the treble knob (messing with protein too). Sure it works, but you can do more when you mess with both
 
pjj2bs, what temp do you typically do your protein rests at? I've heard that with today's highly modified malts, you should do it up around 130º as opposed to 122º. Do you just do it for 15 minutes?
 
For pilsner malt heavy beer I like to do 20 min. at 122. A number of people will do low 130's.

I am going to try 132 with some pale malt soon and see what I get. No rest, just mash in at 132 and then ramp up to my final temp. Just trying to tweak a little more body out of the malt.
 
This brings up another more generic step mash question. I was reading an old brewing techniques article and the author talked about putting hot tap water in the mash tun then douging in and turning on heat until you get to your first rest temp (protien rest in this case). What is the disadvantage of doing this? Will you lose more body and end up with thin beer? With an automated system it would remove the strike temp calculation from the process and simplify things a little bit. It would also remove the issue of starting out too hot if you miss the strike temp.

PS - don't mean to hijack the OP's thread....
 
This brings up another more generic step mash question. I was reading an old brewing techniques article and the author talked about putting hot tap water in the mash tun then douging in and turning on heat until you get to your first rest temp (protien rest in this case). What is the disadvantage of doing this? Will you lose more body and end up with thin beer? With an automated system it would remove the strike temp calculation from the process and simplify things a little bit. It would also remove the issue of starting out too hot if you miss the strike temp.

PS - don't mean to hijack the OP's thread....

Take a look at this "enzyme chart" from John Palmer: http://howtobrew.com/section3/chapter14-1.html

I'm not sure why the phytase rest is no longer done, and I never do an acid rest myself. I do occasionally do protein rests, especially with pilsner malt, and I do them on the high end- at 131-133F.
 
Splitting the grains might be an option, if you so choose, but I have personally never tried it. I have always had good success/flavor/body using a protein rest @ 122-125 for 15-20 min (Beersmith has the step for 30, but I don't mash at this temp for that long). Splitting your grains sounds like splitting hairs, and sounds like you're just adding more work to the process. Stick with the basic protein rest and step up to your normal mash temp and you should be good to go!
 
Thanks for your feedback. I am going to be brewing this morning and I will have the entire grain bill in for both the protein rest and sacc rest. I don't want to add extra work if I don't have to. Pre-boil gravity readings should be able to tell me if this was effective or not. That being said, however, although this time around I am doing a raspberry wheat, I plan to use the base recipe again for an American Hefe in the future. I can try a split grain protein rest on that one and see if there is any difference in the final product. After all, much of this common hobby of ours is experimenting to find what works best. I will, of course, let y'all know how this mornings brew session went to see if it paid off. Cheers!
 
I was reading Gordon Strong's book recently. He talked about using a rest at 133 when you use adjuncts . My grain bill had pilsner and wheat malt plus flaked oats and wheat. It was a 20 minute rest.

I liked the results. It upped my efficiency a few points (usually drops with adjuncts, not this time!). What I like most is that the mouthfeel seems better (it's a Belgian wit).

Just passing that along. It was my first step mash. It wasn't that difficult and didn't take a lot more time.

Cheers
 
I'll be brewing a cream ale this weekend, with 2 lbs of flaked maize in the grain bill. Sounds like something I might incorporate into my mash procedure, thanks for sharing the info!
 
Thanks for the insight, kcpup. I might try that next time around to see if it changes anything.

This morning I did not do the protein rest like I said I was going to do. It was a last second decision, but I mashed at 153 and said forget the protein rest. My efficiency was 72%, and I was estimating 70%. I verified this by running the preboil gravity through the hydrometer calculator on qbrew, which compensated for the temp difference. My OG was a couple points higher than what I was estimating too. All in all, it looks like the no protein rest route didn't really affect much. We will see how it turns out in a few weeks. I will use this as a baseline and compare some new methods when I do this recipe again. I'll be looking forward to it.
 
This morning I did not do the protein rest like I said I was going to do. It was a last second decision, but I mashed at 153 and said forget the protein rest. My efficiency was 72%, and I was estimating 70%. I verified this by running the preboil gravity through the hydrometer calculator on qbrew, which compensated for the temp difference. My OG was a couple points higher than what I was estimating too. All in all, it looks like the no protein rest route didn't really affect much. We will see how it turns out in a few weeks. I will use this as a baseline and compare some new methods when I do this recipe again. I'll be looking forward to it.

Keep in mind that the purpose of doing a step mash is not so much brewhouse or mash efficiency but rather the taste and mouthfeel of the finished beer (and perhaps getting to a lower final gravity).

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the purpose of a step mash is to affect efficiency.
 
Keep in mind that the purpose of doing a step mash is not so much brewhouse or mash efficiency but rather the taste and mouthfeel of the finished beer (and perhaps getting to a lower final gravity).

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the purpose of a step mash is to affect efficiency.

I agree with you Patrick. I think that it is possible that some modification is taking place here that could lead to more conversion later but I feel that the main reason to do this step anyway is to affect mouthfeel by getting more proteins into the mash. I don't think that I would go to the trouble of doing a protein step if it was just for another gravity point or two.
 
This brings up another more generic step mash question. I was reading an old brewing techniques article and the author talked about putting hot tap water in the mash tun then douging in and turning on heat until you get to your first rest temp (protien rest in this case). What is the disadvantage of doing this? Will you lose more body and end up with thin beer? With an automated system it would remove the strike temp calculation from the process and simplify things a little bit. It would also remove the issue of starting out too hot if you miss the strike temp.

PS - don't mean to hijack the OP's thread....

Late responding, but I would never use hot tap water, even if it's filtered. No telling how long your water was in the tank, the evils that lurk in there, etc. My rule of thumb is to only use filtered cold tap water (after letting it run a minute or two) or buy my water.
 
graybabe said:
I agree with you Patrick. I think that it is possible that some modification is taking place here that could lead to more conversion later but I feel that the main reason to do this step anyway is to affect mouthfeel by getting more proteins into the mash. I don't think that I would go to the trouble of doing a protein step if it was just for another gravity point or two.

John palmer describes the protein rest as allowing enzymes to break down the larger proteins that are in moderately modified malts which cause haze and reduce head retention. That sounds to me like it will mostly affect appearance and body.

To me splitting your less modified malts from your full mod malts seems like a great idea. That way you break down the large proteins while still leaving in tact the smaller ones that act as nutrients for your yeast. Just takes a bit of care to dough in the rest of your grain and still hit your sacc temp.
 
+1 to this perspective. Only exception I've encountered is for adjuncts. The lower temp rest does aid in conversion of those. (Flaked oats, etc) Well modified malts it's mainly to prevent chill haze.
 
John palmer describes the protein rest as allowing enzymes to break down the larger proteins that are in moderately modified malts which cause haze and reduce head retention. That sounds to me like it will mostly affect appearance and body.

To me splitting your less modified malts from your full mod malts seems like a great idea. That way you break down the large proteins while still leaving in tact the smaller ones that act as nutrients for your yeast. Just takes a bit of care to dough in the rest of your grain and still hit your sacc temp.


Except that nearly every malt out there is so modified that a protein rest is not only unnecessary, it can be detrimental.
 
Denny said:
Except that nearly every malt out there is so modified that a protein rest is not only unnecessary, it can be detrimental.

True...unmalted grains, i.e. flaked, would benefit from the protein rest the most. Also all the more reason to do a separate step mash on the unmalted grains.
 
Except that nearly every malt out there is so modified that a protein rest is not only unnecessary, it can be detrimental.

I've heard this on here but two of my best beers had a protein rest. One used a lot of wheat malt (Weizenbock) which did very well in a homebrew competition last week and the other was an ESB which had great mouth feel and very good head retention - I didn't enter it into a competition. It may have nothing to do with the protein rest and maybe has more to do with me paying more attention during the brewing process but it certainly helped my beers.

For the Weizenbock I did a 15 minute rest at 133. The ESB was almost 4 years ago but I probably did the same thing. Next time I do the Weizenbock (so many beers to brew and so little time) I'll probably try a decoction for the fun of it.
 
Except that nearly every malt out there is so modified that a protein rest is not only unnecessary, it can be detrimental.

Not sure how it can be detrimental, maybe you could elaborate. Every batch that I have used a protein rest has turned out really good, so I can't agree with that notion without some data to support it.
 
Not sure how it can be detrimental, maybe you could elaborate. Every batch that I have used a protein rest has turned out really good, so I can't agree with that notion without some data to support it.

Kind of hard to have data to support mouth feel and head retention, no?

Of course as I stated in my post, maybe it has something to do with paying more attention to the brewing process but don't just throw it at because someone said it doesn't help. Give it a shot. Obviously people make great beer without it but maybe you could make better beer with it.

I will probably continue to do it for maltier beers since I've had good (not scientific) success.
 
Kind of hard to have data to support mouth feel and head retention, no?

Of course as I stated in my post, maybe it has something to do with paying more attention to the brewing process but don't just throw it at because someone said it doesn't help. Give it a shot. Obviously people make great beer without it but maybe you could make better beer with it.

I will probably continue to do it for maltier beers since I've had good (not scientific) success.

True, but I agree that it has helped my beers, so I'm not knocking anything you said. I pln to continue using it in my brewing process, I was just wondering what Denny ment by the protein rest possibly being detrimental, maybe data was a poor choice of words.
 
frankieboy007 said:
True, but I agree that it has helped my beers, so I'm not knocking anything you said. I pln to continue using it in my brewing process, I was just wondering what Denny ment by the protein rest possibly being detrimental, maybe data was a poor choice of words.

Have been doing some additional research and this is what i came up with. The two active enzymes in the protein rest are peptidase and protease. Protease is responsible for the break down of large proteins that cause haze and reduce head retention. In modified malts (which is most malts), these large proteins are ALREADY broken down in the malting process into smaller amino acid chains which aid in head retention and body. The peptidase will break these guys down further into nutes for your yeast. So in short....you end up losing beneficial proteins when you do a protein rest on modified malts, but get healthier yeast...i guess

http://www.winning-homebrew.com/enzymes.html

Of course...there are so many factors in brewing that it might take a professional to notice the difference. But hey...the science is there. Only real way to know is to brew the same beer twice, one with a protein rest and one without, and do a side by side comparison. I dunno if i care enough to do that haha...
 
I read somewhere that when using high wheat content (such as wit/weiss) that the protein rest helps with preventing stuck sparges. Do I have my info mixed up.
 
I use a 20 minute 133 degree protein rest on my American Style lagers and Ales that use 6-Row as a base malt with a bunch of flaked corn. I also do a 15 minute 122 degree protein rest for my dark German lagers (Dunkel and Schwarzbier) with large bills of Munich and Pilsen malts. I'm not sure where I got the temps and times from, but put them together from reading award winning recipes across the interweb.

I don't bother with my normal Rahr 2-Row pale malt though, for the exact reasons mentioned before.
 
Have been doing some additional research and this is what i came up with. The two active enzymes in the protein rest are peptidase and protease. Protease is responsible for the break down of large proteins that cause haze and reduce head retention. In modified malts (which is most malts), these large proteins are ALREADY broken down in the malting process into smaller amino acid chains which aid in head retention and body. The peptidase will break these guys down further into nutes for your yeast. So in short....you end up losing beneficial proteins when you do a protein rest on modified malts, but get healthier yeast...i guess

http://www.winning-homebrew.com/enzymes.html

Of course...there are so many factors in brewing that it might take a professional to notice the difference. But hey...the science is there. Only real way to know is to brew the same beer twice, one with a protein rest and one without, and do a side by side comparison. I dunno if i care enough to do that haha...

It is not quite as exacting as this makes it sound. A lot of the protein is broken down, but not all of it. If that were the case, than doing any sort of protein rest would result in thinner beers and this is not always the case.

In the intact seed, the various hydrolytic enzymes are not uniformly dispersed throughout the seed so it is highly unlikely that all of the storage proteins have been uniformly chewed up. Yes, a lot is, but not all. Once the grain is milled, THEN we can get uniform exposure of proteins to the hydrolytic enzymes - same for starch and the amylases. There is still some room for tweaking if that is what you want to do.

The differences between p-rest and no p-rest can be subtle, but that can be the difference between a great beer, and a phenomenal beer
 
I read somewhere that when using high wheat content (such as wit/weiss) that the protein rest helps with preventing stuck sparges. Do I have my info mixed up.

I think you are referring to the beta rest, which is at a lower temp around 110F. Unmalted grains like wheat and oats have beta-glucans that cause stickiness in the mash if they arent broken down ahead of time.
 
Have been doing some additional research and this is what i came up with. The two active enzymes in the protein rest are peptidase and protease. Protease is responsible for the break down of large proteins that cause haze and reduce head retention. In modified malts (which is most malts), these large proteins are ALREADY broken down in the malting process into smaller amino acid chains which aid in head retention and body. The peptidase will break these guys down further into nutes for your yeast. So in short....you end up losing beneficial proteins when you do a protein rest on modified malts, but get healthier yeast...i guess

http://www.winning-homebrew.com/enzymes.html

Of course...there are so many factors in brewing that it might take a professional to notice the difference. But hey...the science is there. Only real way to know is to brew the same beer twice, one with a protein rest and one without, and do a side by side comparison. I dunno if i care enough to do that haha...

Thanks for that. I hadn't had a chance to get back to this yet. In addition ti the science, I'll offer as evidence the beers I've ruined by doing a 122 protein rest with highly modified malts. And it's pretty darn difficult to find any other kind!
 
After adding my 2 cents, Sarge went to Maifest at Frnaconia Brewery in McKinney, TX for the tapping of a Maibock. He was told by the owner, Dennis, that protein rests aren't necessary, as you so stated. Great information from everyone's inputs!!

So how does this affect the use of adjuncts like flaked oats or maize?? Just throw them into the normal mash?? Do a separate cereal mash (heard of them, but never actually tried it)? What are you thoughts or suggestions about those??
 
Didnt really see an answer to the original question about doing a separate protein rest on just the unmalted grain ? seems easy enough to me to just throw that into a saucepan or your mash tun with a bit of hot water and do a protein rest on that first since that is the only part of the grain that really needs a protein rest. then just mash in the other malted grain at sach temp and throw in the unmalted portion now already protein rested.

This seems to me much easier than having a separate step for the entire volume/grain. You dont have to worry about degrading the head retention proteins in the malted grain then.
 
Sounds like a good idea, but it also makes me think about water volumes for the separate mash, then adding it into the main mash. Maybe Beersmith will calculate this, but I haven't had a chance to sit down with it and run any numbers. FWIW, my grain bill for the cream ale I brewed over the weekend:

4 lbs Pale (6 row US)
3 lbs Pale (2 row US)
2 lbs Flaked Maize
1 lbs Carapils
1 lbs Crystal 10

.5 oz Cascade 60 min
.5 oz Willamette 20 min
.5 oz Cascade 5 min
.5 oz Willamette 5 min

White Labs California Ale, WLP001, harvested from a previous batch of American Amber Ale.

Did a protein rest @ 124 for 20 min, stepped up to 155 for 45, then mashed out @ 168 for 10 min, also sparged at 168. Predicted OG 1.055, actual 1.063, had to add a little more water (half gal) to bring the gravity closer to target, which ended @ 1.059, slightly over for the style. Sample tasted good, clean, no off flavors, but its early, so we'll see. Any thoughts/comments are appreciated.
 
After adding my 2 cents, Sarge went to Maifest at Frnaconia Brewery in McKinney, TX for the tapping of a Maibock. He was told by the owner, Dennis, that protein rests aren't necessary, as you so stated. Great information from everyone's inputs!!

So how does this affect the use of adjuncts like flaked oats or maize?? Just throw them into the normal mash?? Do a separate cereal mash (heard of them, but never actually tried it)? What are you thoughts or suggestions about those??

Again, absolutely unnecessary.
 
After adding my 2 cents, Sarge went to Maifest at Frnaconia Brewery in McKinney, TX for the tapping of a Maibock. He was told by the owner, Dennis, that protein rests aren't necessary, as you so stated. Great information from everyone's inputs!!

So how does this affect the use of adjuncts like flaked oats or maize?? Just throw them into the normal mash?? Do a separate cereal mash (heard of them, but never actually tried it)? What are you thoughts or suggestions about those??

My only thought is...would this even do anything if you tried to mash only the flaked grains. Do flaked grains even HAVE any active enzymes? They haven't been malted.

So maybe you would want to throw in a few malted grains just so you could increase the enzyme action.
 
Back
Top