which is better? undermodified or fully modified pils malt?

Some of you may have seen my other thread asking about mash steps. If I'm using a fairly complex mash schedule, which would be better? Fully modified pils or under modified pils? My rests will include beta gluconase, protease, beta amylase, and alpha amylase.

I'm no expert and I may be totally missing the point, but if you use fully modified grain, doesn't that eliminate the need for the complex mash schedule?

Yes it would not be required to do the full mash schedule. A protien rest would not be nesessay and in fact could adversly affect head retention in fully modified malts.

I'm not to sure why you are doing this. Are you just after the experience or are you trying to get an end result?

Undermodified malt is lighter in color (important to some brewers), has superior head and body (due to high protein content), and has more starch than more modified malts. Supposedly (and this is just anecdotal for me since I haven't done any comparisons yet) it has a maltier flavor than more modified malts, and perhaps this comes from the decoction mashes that are traditionally used with undermodified malts.

An undermodified malt will definitely benefit (actually, require) a step mash. Certainly some time at a protein rest, and I would guess that a beta glucan rest would be a good idea to help with runoff.

A step mash with a fully modified malt could actually be detrimental to body and foam due to excessive protein breakdown.

US/UK malts tend to be pretty well modified. German and Belgian Pilsner malts may be more moderately modified (check the data sheets) and could probably benefit from a short protein rest. The Breiss malt sold as undermodified seems to be moderately modified to me and could also use a protein rest.

I have a quantity of the Breiss that I hope to do a Bohemian Pilsner with this Spring to see if I can a nice color and maltiness. I might try conning somebody else into doing the same beer with a fully modified Pilsner malt for comparisons.

Like these guys said, your malt should determine your mash profile, not the other way around. I suppose that if you just really wanted to do a complex mash schedule, then the undermodified malt might be a better choice.

Ok, there's a lot more going on with a complex mash schedule than some people might think. Most importantly, no matter if your malt is fully modified or not very modified, you can tune your beta amylase rest(s) and your alpha amylase rest(s). This is what determines fermentability versus body. Beta Amylase rests allow the b.a. enzymes to break starch chains at the end, resulting in very fermentable monosaccharidesl. Alpha Amylase rests allow the a.a. enzymes to break starch chains in the middle, resulting in unfermentable dextrins. Beta amylase enzymes are active at lower temperatures, and Alpha amylase enzymes are active at higher temperatures. That's why a lower temperature single-step mash results in a more fermentable beer, and a higher temperature single-step mash results in a beer with lower alcohol and higher body.

My point is that a complex mash schedule gives you more control. Further, a beta glucanase rest breaks down cellulose within the grain, exposing more starch for the enzymes to convert during saccharification rests. Depending on what you're after, it seems to be really important to know what your mash will do for you in order to achieve some very specific results.

Now, all that being said, I'm still unclear on something specific - if you are going to do a beta glucanase rest, a protease rest, and multiple saccharification rests, do you get better results with undermodified malts than you'd get if you just did multiple saccharification rests with fully modified malts? These questions assume that a beta glucanase rest and a protease rest don't matter too much in fully modified malts, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

There's no need to do a bg rest with fully modified malts...they just don't have as much beta glucan content as an undermodified malt. The protein rest can be detrimental with fully modified malts as outlined above.

I don't really consider separate beta and alpha rests as step mashing, but I suppose technically it is. I really don't see the benefit, though. It can be argued fine tuning the fermentability, but really you can do that with a single infusion mash. 150F will yield a certain fermentability, so will 156F. Even Noonan who has defined step mashing for many homebrewers goes with a single saccharification rest temperature in his brewing procedure following dough-in, acid rest, and protein rest.

I know the Kaiser believes separate beta and alpha rest help lock in a fermentability profile, but I differ here...I think it can be achieved with a single step and it's much more achievable and repeatable, at least for the homebrewer.

I recently brewed a pale ale using a single step infusion at 149F and the FG is at 1.008...that's about as fermentable as I want to get, and I probably won't repeat it. I know that a similar formulation of an APA I brew will stop at 1.012 if I mash at 153 which is preferable to me.

I love doing decoctions, but I wouldn't do one unless I thought it was beneficial, i.e., benefits of acid rests, less modified grains requiring protein rest, etc., and even then I prefer a single saccharification temp (I've tried it both ways now).

I'd also never waste all that time using anything other than wheat or Pilsner malt.

Baron von BeeGee said:

I know the Kaiser believes separate beta and alpha rest help lock in a fermentability profile, but I differ here...I think it can be achieved with a single step and it's much more achievable and repeatable, at least for the homebrewer.

Click to expand...

I used to believe that, until I read some more German brewing literature. A single step saccrification is actually common for decoction mashes or any mash where you would mash in at a pretty low temp and give the enzymes time to dissolve. Multistep saccrification rests are common for direct heated step mashes. The idea is to get the most out of the beta-amylase before it is deactivated (around 149 F). I changed to using a single step saccrification now since I need the 45-60 min to heat my sparge water.

Unless someone has done a side by side experiment with different malts and their appropriate mash schedules, it's hard to say what is better. The literature suggests that highly modified malts are not well suited to the style of German lagers but I don't think that this means the less modified the better. There are also highly modified malts produced in Germany for which it is recommended to dough-in above the protein rest. The idea is to shorten the mash time and allow higher brewhouse throughput.

You will have to find out for yourself. I bought a 55lb bag of Weyermann Boheminan Pilsner and will find out this summer if there is a between this and the regular Pilsner.

Kai

I respect anybody's preferences in brewing, but the data suggests that a temperature of 149F results in a pretty equal balance of fermentables and dextrines. My friend and I will be attempting to clone Duvel, which will consist entirely of Pilsner malt. I believe that we may need to spend more time specifically in the beta amylase temperature zone to achieve a target FG of 1.005. Kaiser also suggested that I'll need to spend some time at a protein rest to generate FAN due to the amount of adjunct sugar that we'll be using - just shy of 4 lbs in our 10 gallon batch.

I think I'm missing something. Is the question which malt is more applicable for a step mash, or how to clone Duvel and achieve a dry finish with adjunct sugars (which I think you already started a thread for)?

The other thread was specific about cloning Duvel, but I was trying to get more info about the amount of "processing" a particular grain went through vs. how you mash, so that's why I started this thread. I was also a bit unclear about doing a protein rest on a fully modified malt.

There is some factual and some not so factual information in this thread about modified and undermodified malts. I can not address them all in one response. Let me address the original question.

Steve973, unless you are malting the grain yourself or work for a malting company, I am not sure you can secure a commercially produced undermodified malt. What particular malt were you considering for undermodified malt? If it domestic malt, its well modified. Even if it European malt, it is well modified. Unless the maltster has taken steps to undermodify it, today's malting barley varieties produce well modified malts.

I see you are making an adjunct beer. Unless you have had problems with run off of this beer in the past, I don't see any reason to do a glucan rest. Beta glucans are generally broken down fairly well in the malting process and again, with todays barley varieties, glucans are not generally a problem. Brewers only see glucan problems in their run off when they use a good portion of unmalted grains Flaked barley, oat, etc) in their recipes. You are adding starch or sugar as adjunct and not unmalted grain so I suggest you skip the glucanase rest unless you just want to do it for the experience.

To determine whether you need a protein rest for your adjunct beer I need a little more information. You say you will be using 4 lbs in a 10 gallon batch. 4lbs of what (sucrose, glucose, starch, ?)? How much base malt (Pilsen, or whatever) is used? Is it 2 row or 6 row base malt? What is you starting target gravity? The way to think of this is that if you are adding 4 lbs of starch with 4 lbs of base malt to make a light beer, you are probalby diluting the FAN sufficiently that you want to do a protein rest. However, if you are adding 4 lbs of starct to 10 lbs of base malt you can skip the protein rest as the FAN will be fine for fermentation.

As far as the 2 saccarifications rest, the information here seems to be in line with the optimum conditions for alpha and beta amylase. I do not have an opinion on step versus infusion mashing to get sugar profiles. I tend to do my mashes at the lower saccharification temperatures if I want a drier crisp beer like in certian lagers and infusion mashes for ales with more body.

One last thing, modification of commerical malts is not related to maltiness. Maltiness comes from the degree of heat applied to the malt in kilning. Thus, higher colored kilned dried malts like Munich malts are more malty in flavor than base malts and Munich 20 is maltier than Munich 10. If you want maltiness, add more Munich malt.

Thanks.

I hope this helps as I have much experience in malts and malting.

Dr Malt

Try them both, work through all the variations over time and see what you discover. It is your beer, your hobby and your opinion.

I presume the reason modern malts are well modified is so the Commercial Brewer does not have to have the complex mash rests to receive the results required. The malt houses in the UK produce for the big boys, they do some product specifically for the home brewer but most of their main production is to the spec of the breweries.

Good luck with the Duvel.

If any one has a "simple" AG recipe, I'd appreciate it.

The recipe is as follows:

18 lbs pils (2 row)
3.8 lbs "sugar" (i'll explain below)
hops
yeast cultured from duvel bottles

We aren't sure about the sugar that we'll specifically be using. I've created homemade "invert" sugar before by boiling table sugar with a certain amount of citric acid powder per pound of sugar. The "Brew Like A Monk" book claims that Duvel uses dextrose in their beer, so we're tempted to use the proper weight of priming sugar. However, I hate beers like Yuengling (and others) that have that corn taste. What I'm not sure about is if we'll get that taste from the priming sugar that is derived from corn or if that taste comes from actual corn in the mash.

Steve973 said:

However, I hate beers like Yuengling (and others) that have that corn taste. What I'm not sure about is if we'll get that taste from the priming sugar that is derived from corn or if that taste comes from actual corn in the mash.

Click to expand...

Oftentimes, this doesn't come from corn, but from DMS which is a different subject. But some of it can actually come from using corn though I doubt that corn sugar has enough corn taste left. It's pretty well refined.

Kai

Orfy:

Your correct and the big brewers are the ones that select the malting barley varieties they will use and thus what is commerically grown. However, the large US brewers who make the light pilsen style lagers (Bud, Miller, Coors) use malt levels along with adjuncts such that they still need to do a protein rest of even 6 row malts to get sufficient FAN for fermentation.

Dr Malt

Kaiser said:

Oftentimes, this doesn't come from corn, but from DMS...

Click to expand...

Personally, I really don't like the taste of Yuengling lager, but I do respect their quality control, and I don't think they'd allow beer with detectable amounts of DMS to leave their brewery. I'm pretty good at detecting the taste of corn in beers, even at lower levels, and Yuengling products are bustin' with corn, along with bud, miller, and coors. I would imagine that those breweries use corn in their mash, and maybe that's where that flavor comes from, but it'd be a shame to make a belgian version of bud light if priming sugar will contribute to that kind of flavor.

Steve973:

Like Kaiser said above, the "corn" or cooked vegetable flavor in some beers is due to the presence of DMS, a compound that originates in the malt. Thus, beers that you taste the corn character in do not have to be made with anything from corn to have that character. You can safely use the priming sugar if you wish. If you do get any corn character, it will not be from the sugar (dextrose).

Looking at your recipe, the adjunct (sugar) content of your grain bill is only about 17.5% of the total. Thus, I do not think you need a protein rest to get the FAN levels you need for fermentation. If this was in the range of 30% or more, I would suggest a protein rest.

I hope this helps.

Dr Malt

Doesn't DMS boil off with a decent boil?

Steve973 said:

Personally, I really don't like the taste of Yuengling lager, but I do respect their quality control, and I don't think they'd allow beer with detectable amounts of DMS to leave their brewery.

Click to expand...

There are a few beers in which DMS is actually part of the chacteristic flavor/aroma. Rolling Rock or Cream Ales are just two examples. But I don't care for that smell/taste at all.

Kai

Steve973 said:

Yuengling products are bustin' with corn, along with bud

Click to expand...

Budweiser uses rice.

Check out Rolling Rock's BA page for info on DMS. Dimethyl sulfide is produced from s-methyl methionine in hot wort, then quickly volatalized by the boil. People say you can get DMS character from an insufficient boil (perhaps also with the kettle lid left on), and from not using a wort chiller. In practice, it's fairly easy to avoid even at home.

If you cannot taste corn in the raw corn sugar, then it will probably not contribute any corn flavor to the finished product. Sugar refineries are big business, and I doubt you're getting significant amounts of anything besides D-glucose (dextrose) when you buy corn sugar.

Another point to keep in mind -- maltose is hydrolyzed to two glucoses as soon as it enters a yeast. I haven't done a rigorous comparison, but you are safe to assume that different purified sugars will contribute fuel and no flavor. Some recommend hydrolyzing sucrose to glucose and fructose (inverting), as you have done in the past, but others don't bother. Make sure to calculate weight correctly, as part of corn sugar's weight is water.

You may want to add a small amount of wheat to help you achieve Duvel's head.

And make sure to propagate in stages from the Duvel bottle to produce 7.5*10^5 cells/(mL*Plato), or spring for the same in bottles of WLP570 (about 100 billion cells/bottle) or Wyeast 1388. You will also want to control temperature to get what you want out of the Duvel yeast.