Protein rest for a dry stout?

[chemman14]

I want to brew the dry stout recipe from Brewing classic styles. The malt bill is as follows:
7 lbs British pale
2 lbs flaked barely
1 lb black roasted barely
This if the first recipe in this book that I have seen call for a 15 minute protein rest (120F) then a sacchrification rest at 150.
The problem I have is that I do batch sparging, so performing a protein rest would mean I have to start at a thick 1 qt/lb to end up at 1.8 qt/lb(still high) in sacchrification rest.
Is it necessary to do this rest because of the flaked barely? Or would I be fine doing my normal single infusion mash?

 

[hercher]

No, there is no need to do the protein rest. Most pale malts are sufficiently modified that anything beyond a single infusion really isn't needed, and in my opinion, doesn't accomplish much other than lengthen your brew day.

 

[jnacey]

Agreed. Not needed. I've found a protein rest to be helpful on a hefe, but IMO its a waste of time for almost every other style unless you're trying to brew to historical procedures.

 

[chemman14]

Thanks guys. I wasnt sure with the flaked barley if it was necessary.

 

[VladOfTrub]

Whether, a protein rest is needed or not, is based on the Kolbach number or the SNR number found on most malt data sheets. The numbers help a brewer to determine what the rest temp should be during the protein rest. Some malsters producing pale malt have on the market, malt that has a low Kolbach number. Generally, malt with Kolbach 45 and above shouldn't have a protein rest. The beer will be very stable but insipid if a protein rest is employed. The other part that comes into play is something called beta glucan. Between 120 and 131F proteolytic enzymes not only will produce albuminus proteins responsible for body and head, the enzymes will also convert beta glucan into glucose. In some malts produced, beta glucanase isn't kilned out. In that case a rest at 105F will reduce beta glucans. I'm not sure if flaked barley gets gummy, if it does, a 120-125F rest wouldn't hurt. The idea that modern malt doesn't require a protein rest went out the window when Gambrinus malting did tests. The whole idea that modern malt didn't require a protein rest started in the late 70's by a grade school teacher that tried to make a name in brewing. After Gambrinus proved his idea was wrong, the guy wandered off into obscurity. Somehow, the idea stuck around and became gospel. Historical brewing has nothing to do with a protein rest. It has to do with the modification of the malt and viscosity. Going from belly to boiler in 4 or 5 weeks, why care about product stability or quality or anything except for a conversion rest? At times, there is more than just dumping hot water on malt when it comes to making certain styles of beer. It might be better to follow Daniel's recipe. He may know more about brewing than brewers telling you not to follow the process. Dough in at 1 qt/lb at 130-135F water to hit the 120F rest. Then infuse to reach 150F with enough hot water to get to the 1.8 qt/lb for whatever you do to sparge. It's not a good idea to begin mashing if the pH is above 6. The black malt might be enough to get the pH in the park. The pH of certain pale malt can be around 5.6 pH. The 120F rest will stabilize pH. It's a good idea to get the data sheet off the malt being used. There are certain numbers on it that are beneficial to a brewer.

 

[ph0ngwh0ng]

Whether, a protein rest is needed or not, is based on the Kolbach number or the SNR number found on most malt data sheets. The numbers help a brewer to determine what the rest temp should be during the protein rest. Some malsters producing pale malt have on the market, malt that has a low Kolbach number. Generally, malt with Kolbach 45 and above shouldn't have a protein rest. The beer will be very stable but insipid if a protein rest is employed. The other part that comes into play is something called beta glucan. Between 120 and 131F proteolytic enzymes not only will produce albuminus proteins responsible for body and head, the enzymes will also convert beta glucan into glucose. In some malts produced, beta glucanase isn't kilned out. In that case a rest at 105F will reduce beta glucans. I'm not sure if flaked barley gets gummy, if it does, a 120-125F rest wouldn't hurt. The idea that modern malt doesn't require a protein rest went out the window when Gambrinus malting did tests. The whole idea that modern malt didn't require a protein rest started in the late 70's by a grade school teacher that tried to make a name in brewing. After Gambrinus proved his idea was wrong, the guy wandered off into obscurity. Somehow, the idea stuck around and became gospel. Historical brewing has nothing to do with a protein rest. It has to do with the modification of the malt and viscosity. Going from belly to boiler in 4 or 5 weeks, why care about product stability or quality or anything except for a conversion rest? At times, there is more than just dumping hot water on malt when it comes to making certain styles of beer. It might be better to follow Daniel's recipe. He may know more about brewing than brewers telling you not to follow the process. Dough in at 1 qt/lb at 130-135F water to hit the 120F rest. Then infuse to reach 150F with enough hot water to get to the 1.8 qt/lb for whatever you do to sparge. It's not a good idea to begin mashing if the pH is above 6. The black malt might be enough to get the pH in the park. The pH of certain pale malt can be around 5.6 pH. The 120F rest will stabilize pH. It's a good idea to get the data sheet off the malt being used. There are certain numbers on it that are beneficial to a brewer.

Well that was a hard read. Debunking the thing and then telling the guy to do the thing...

Really, I think you (OP) should brew like you want it, knowing a protein rest is less than necessary, compare to other classic dry stouts and decide whether or not you should brew that one again using a protein rest.

 

[invictusbrew]

Well that was a hard read. Debunking the thing and then telling the guy to do the thing...

Really, I think you (OP) should brew like you want it, knowing a protein rest is less than necessary, compare to other classic dry stouts and decide whether or not you should brew that one again using a protein rest.

I didn't take any of that as "debunking" unless you were referring to the thread as a whole. Quite the opposite I saw only a detailed description of when and why it would be a good idea to perform different rests or not to perform those rests depending on the malt used. I do however agree with your latter statement, and the previous poster's comment, on just doing the recipe the way it's written first and see what the OP thinks of the end product, then go from there. I would say this is often the way to go when you don't have the knowledge to make a decision to do something different (no offense to the OP, I certainly don't know everything about brewing).

At the end of the day, the answer really is up to you, either way will make beer, probably even good to great beer. One way may be better than the other, or it may make no noticeable difference at all. The joy is in the testing, try it one way or the other, if you like it, try it the other way next time.