This is a topic that I am still working towards grasping, so I probably have a false sense of reality but wanted to explore further with this community.
I've been reading that modern malts are highly efficient at converting starches to sugars and that modern barley has been bred with relatively high amounts of enzymes present to further aid in this conversion.
I've also heard John Palmer say that approximately 90% of starches are fully converted in approximately 15-20 minutes using these modern malts.
So my question is, could this be perceived as a negative by a brewer that wants to step mash and achieve different amounts of different sugars in their end product? If conversion happens that quickly at the first step in a step mash (let's say at 150F/65c), then is there even a point in adding a second step at a higher temperature?
I know this is a complex subject and I'm over simplifying it here, but I'm wondering what others might think of this theory that brewers interested in step mashing might actually be better off without modern malts.
In my limited personal experience, I've found that single infusion mashed beers are generally boring relative the the brews that I have decocted once or twice. My theory here is that this is the best way to avoid the problem I'm outlining above. My reasoning is that the decoction process physically breaks down additional starches that the enzymes cannot access otherwise, and when added back to the mash, instantly increases the temperature of the mash and the enzymes related to that new higher temperature. In theory, this would suggest that one would actually achieve a brew that contains distinctly different sugars; those converted by the enzymes at the lower mash temperature, and then those that were only accessible after the decoction.
I'm sure I'm mostly wrong here, but the more I brew, the more I want to do decoctions. The beers I've been making that way continue to be superior and I'm trying to figure out why that might be.
I've been reading that modern malts are highly efficient at converting starches to sugars and that modern barley has been bred with relatively high amounts of enzymes present to further aid in this conversion.
I've also heard John Palmer say that approximately 90% of starches are fully converted in approximately 15-20 minutes using these modern malts.
So my question is, could this be perceived as a negative by a brewer that wants to step mash and achieve different amounts of different sugars in their end product? If conversion happens that quickly at the first step in a step mash (let's say at 150F/65c), then is there even a point in adding a second step at a higher temperature?
I know this is a complex subject and I'm over simplifying it here, but I'm wondering what others might think of this theory that brewers interested in step mashing might actually be better off without modern malts.
In my limited personal experience, I've found that single infusion mashed beers are generally boring relative the the brews that I have decocted once or twice. My theory here is that this is the best way to avoid the problem I'm outlining above. My reasoning is that the decoction process physically breaks down additional starches that the enzymes cannot access otherwise, and when added back to the mash, instantly increases the temperature of the mash and the enzymes related to that new higher temperature. In theory, this would suggest that one would actually achieve a brew that contains distinctly different sugars; those converted by the enzymes at the lower mash temperature, and then those that were only accessible after the decoction.
I'm sure I'm mostly wrong here, but the more I brew, the more I want to do decoctions. The beers I've been making that way continue to be superior and I'm trying to figure out why that might be.