Should i bother with multi-rest?

[ishkabibble]

I'm making the transition from 5G to 2.5G batches because I've found that I actually like the process more than the product.

Instead of my usual cooler-mash tun infusion method, I am going to use the reduced grain bill to my advantage, and do a multi-rest mash on the stovetop.

I used to just do stuff and accept my failures. Now I come here first to ask for your critiques, and skip the hard lessons. My intended method is below...

1) In a 4G pot, bring 1.5G water to 104F
2) add 5# grist (or whatever amt) to water, stir constantly, hold at 104F for 30min
3) Turn up heat on burner to raise temp to 140F, hold for 30min
4) Turn up heat to [target mash temp for infusion], hold for 30min
5) Turn up heat until it hits 170...
6) ...immediately dump into cooler lauter tun, drain as fast as possible
7) Add another 2.5G of 170F water, drain rapidly

- Is it safe to put a flame directly on the bottom of a pot holding grain? (It's obviously not an insulated 7BBL brew kettle, but a regular stainless stock pot.) How high can I crank the heat?

- Is this truly any more advantageous than single-step infusion?

 

[brycelarson]

My question for projects like this is two parts:

1. Is there a problem you're trying to solve? ie missing FG, low efficiency etc.
2. If there is an identified problem - what are each of those steps looking to solve?

I'm usually an advocate for simplicity. Your plan seems workable - but I guess other than the fun of doing complicated brewery things - what are you looking to acheive?

 

[ishkabibble]

My question for projects like this is two parts:

1. Is there a problem you're trying to solve? ie missing FG, low efficiency etc.
2. If there is an identified problem - what are each of those steps looking to solve?

I'm usually an advocate for simplicity. Your plan seems workable - but I guess other than the fun of doing complicated brewery things - what are you looking to acheive?

It seems to me that the multi-rest method is really the most efficient, as it most closely resembles brewery functions. Single-step is a compromise to save on time and hassle. I guess I'd rather do something as well as I can, rather than be fast. Cleaning/bottling half the bottles with a move from 5G to 2.5G is enough time saved.

But never having done a multi-rest, I don't know if I'm chasing geese here or not.

My probs:
Extraction--I've never gotten 30ppg from my rig, and lately I can't even get 1040. I've messed with every variable, and there's still room for improvement.
Psychological--I know that 150sF is a compromise for alpha and beta, so I obsess about what these enzymes would do given the proper temperatures.

 

[EarlyAmateurZymurgist]

If you are happy with the process, you should stick with it. However, most modern base malts work well in a single infusion mash. The only other type of mash that I perform is a mash-out single-decoction mash when brewing lagers.

 

[brycelarson]

If you are happy with the process, you should stick with it. However, most modern base malts work well in a single infusion mash.

Totally agree. I was somewhat talking around your point - but we're coming from the same place.

When I first moved to all grain I had these images of complex tempterature profiles. Later I started simplifying - and the beers are still getting better. Modern malts are perfect with single infusions nearly all the time.

 

[VladOfTrub]

George Fix created the step mash method to mimic the tri-decoction method. However, he said that even though the method mimics the decoction method, it will never create the beer produced by the decoction method. The 104F rest without some sort of means to check the pH is playing horse shoes blind folded. Depending on the malt, it may only reduce pH to 5.6-5.8, depending on the brewing water. Phytin is inverted in high modified malt during the high temps the malt is kilned at. Then, a rest of 140F, the mash pH won't be optimum for beta activity. Then, to a conversion rest of whatever temp. Again, mash pH out of the optimum range. The step mash is limiting because temperature rests start low and increase, during the time that mash pH is out of the optimum ranges of the diastatic enzymes being employed. Tri decoction gives the brewer the ability to work within the optimum temps and pH of diastatic enzymes when the mash is in the decoction kettle and in the mash tun and takes advantage of what takes place during boiling of the mash. There are two enzymes, other than beta and alpha that create sugar. In the infusion method, both enzymes are destroyed. Your schedule doesn't use a protein rest. Proteinase is inverted during the kilning of high modified malt. You are batch sparging, moving everything the grain bed would catch, down the line. Like the brewer said. High modified malt suits the infusion method. It can be used in the step mash and decoction methods, but without the same results that a more suitable malt for those methods will produce. With 5 lbs. of grain, skip the step mash and do a tri-decoction. It is easy to do on a stove with a small grain bill. Use low modified malt next time. Leave the high modified malt for baggery and infuser method. Pay attention to Ph. Becareful you don't scorch the mash.....Brew on, experiment, have fun....You will do fine.