Carapils is cheating . . . isn't it?

[The-Baron-of-Charnwood]

The key wording is too long a protein rest. As long as you are shorter then the point of "maximum head retention" your are improving the head. Go too long, and you lose body (which highlights the importance of protein in the body of a beer, which many folks neglect).

Mass produced malt is a bit of a compromise to produce a malt that can successfully be used with a wide range of brewing system. The result is there is still some room for us the brewer to do a little tweaking - if we want.

Again, this is what I have found holds true for pilsner malt.

So, how long of a protein rest would you recommend? At what temp?

 

[pjj2ba]

Well, the key is the last part---for highly modified malts, any protein rest may be too long.

I haven't found this to be the case. When I used to use pale malt more regularly (at least with Optic & Golden Promise), I would use a 5 -10 min rest, or simply mash in at 122 and then ramp it up to my saccharification temp(s). No problems with body or head retention. I liked the results better than mashing in higher. Now this is on my system. someone else might find different results on their system

It wouldn't make sense from the maltsters point of view to push the proteins all the way to the edge. That leaves no room for error on the part of the brewer. If you accidently mash in too cool you could get a really thin beer, and likely wouldn't buy that particular malt again. The malster leaves a little room in there so when people do make a mistake, the beer still turns out good, and the people go back and buy that malt again

 

[pjj2ba]

So, how long of a protein rest would you recommend? At what temp?

I have had good luck with 20 min. at 122 F. This is with Best Malz, Franco-Belges, Weyerman, and Canada Malting Pilsner malts. I can ramp my mash at a fairly decent rate (1.5 degree/min. - I direct fire) If your ramping rate is slower, then I would shorten the time. If you are adding hot water to increase the temp, then you could go a little longer

 

[Yooper]

I don't do many step mashes, but when I do I tend to go "shorter, higher". I mean, a very short protein rest (15 minutes) and at 131-133. Then I go up to saccrification rest temp.

I normally don't use wheat or carapils, but since I make a lot of pale ales and IPAs, and due to the hops (and/or crystal malt), I get crazy good head and foam retention anyway.

For pilsners, my grain bill is always continental pilsner malt and carapils, though!

 

[The-Baron-of-Charnwood]

Thanks pjj2ba! I mash in a cooler so I'm thinking I might add a protein rest for 20-30 minutes at about 1 qt water/lb grain and then add hot water to bring the mash temp up and about 1.5 qt/lb. Currently, I do a single-infusion mash (usually around 1.5 qt/lb) and a mash-out to bring the temp to ~165

 

[Randar]

I don't do many step mashes, but when I do I tend to go "shorter, higher". I mean, a very short protein rest (15 minutes) and at 131-133. Then I go up to saccrification rest temp.

This is my typical process as well. 15 min at ~131

 

[Painty]

Use whatever works...

 

[GinSlinger]

So it seems something is missing in my process.

Doing BIAB, I have experimented with thick and thin mashes, but only done one step infusion mash. That's my BGSA on week three in primary. So, eventually we'll see if a protein rest and two-stage saccrification rest has any effect.

I wonder if in pulling the grains out before a proper mash out I'm doing myself a disservice by missing a dextrinization mash. Definitely something to consider. May start working something closer to a mash-tun schedule.

Thanks everyone for your input.

 

[JRems]

Has anyone tried propylene glycol alginate as a head improving agent? It is supposedly used by some macro brewers.

 

[E-Mursed]

I could be wrong.....

But this just sounds like another engineer complaining about not getting enough head.


:fro:

 

[BreezyBrew]

I could be wrong.....

But this just sounds like another engineer complaining about not getting enough head.

:fro:

Bahah. Comment of the day.

Seems like the consensus is carapils is not cheating. So what are the thoughts on flaked barley?

 

[robcj]

Has anyone tried propylene glycol alginate as a head improving agent? It is supposedly used by some macro brewers.

A friend and I tried it once. Muntons makes a priming pack for bottling that is a mix of dextrose, DME and propylene glycol alginate. I didn't like it. The head was almost too creamy. It didn't just cling to the side of the glass, it tried to climb right out.

 

[julioardz]

Cheating would be to empty a DFH IPA into an unlabeled bottle, capping it, and trying to pass it off as your own in a competition. I fail to see how using carapils or dextrin malts is cheating and why it's considered an adjunct. It's malted barley. Would you consider the use of other crystal malts to adjust taste and color cheating as well?

If adjusting your brew process isn't producing the head you want, and you're certain that soap, sanitizer, or other solvents aren't the cause, then try giving it a good pour into your glass. Not down the side of the glass, but right down the middle and create lots of foam. Let it settle and finish pouring your bottle. A vigorous pour shouldn't be necessary, but it helps to produce a great head and lacing. If you're still not happy then try your next batch with 5% Carapils and then decide if it really is that important to you if it's cheating or not.

 

[atreid]

Didn't you read the first messages? It's only about knowing what old schoolers were doing before science improved brewing... Carapils are part of modern brewing now, but when compared to very old school brewing, it's kind of an adjunct...

It's just a figure of speech and the OP is not actually implying it's cheating, it's also just a figure of speech and he's just curious...

... bleh

 

[bleme]

No Carapils here. Still trying to figure out what's going on

 

[RM-MN]

No Carapils here. Still trying to figure out what's going on

I've had beer pour like that. I fixed it by using a calculator to decide how much priming sugar to use. I had been overcarbing mine.

 

[progmac]

i've read through this thread, and now i know that to help with head retention i should skip the protein rest. also i've learned that to help with head retention i should do a protein rest. another way is to add carapils/wheat. of course another way is to not add carapils/wheat.

i'm glad we were able to come together and clear this up



personally, my method is to put my hand on top of the pint glass after pouring and *shake* *shake* *shake*

 

[atreid]

No Carapils here. Still trying to figure out what's going on

If I were you I'd clean that glass with oxyclean, rinse it only once, pour my beer. Residual soap will kill head retention...

Wasn't that a good advice...!

 

[GinSlinger]

i've read through this thread, and now i know that to help with head retention i should skip the protein rest. also i've learned that to help with head retention i should do a protein rest. another way is to add carapils/wheat. of course another way is to not add carapils/wheat.

i'm glad we were able to come together and clear this up

Interesting that you say this, as I was coming back to paraphrase what I thought we had actually kind of agreed on.

First, for those of you still upset with my thread title, let me point out that this is the longest thread I've seen on head formation/retention. Maybe the title had to tweak a few noses to get a good discussion.

Now, on to what I'm seeing as a kind of consensus. With under modified and "fully" modified grains, a short (say 10 minute) protein rest at the higher end of the band (say 128 for undermodified and 133 for modified) will break down the longer protein chains and aid in head formation. Using these grains (pilsner and possibly [based on the fact that Yooper loves Marris Otter] British pale ale malts), Carapils might be, if not a cheat, a shortcut. The use of overmodified grains, and this appears to be another way of saying "American 2 Row," is not benefited by a protein rest, and may even be harmed. The only mash step that may aid in head formation with overmodified malts is a dextrinization step (158-172) of at least mash-out length (seems to be no harm in longer). That may be captured by the mash out, but if mash out is short (as it may be for BIAB brewers who "pull out the bag and turn up the heat") this step will be less effective. Even so, the dextrinization step is not a proven winner and the combination of something like Carapils with overemodified grains is [or may be] necessary for a dense head atop the beer.

Another option for American 2 Row may be to use a slightly higher mash temperature, a little more crystal than the commonly held 10% and an over-attenuating yeast. This appears to be the "industry" practice in the US (see SNPA's 12+% C60 or Rogue's reported higher mash temps).

So, to answer my question: No, Carapils (or even wheat) is not "cheating" at all, but it may be possible to replicate the results using more "traditional" ingredients and processes.

Flame on.

 

[stratslinger]

Please tell me I'm not the only one reading this who didn't know WTF a euphonium is?

I didn't - and I was just in a production of "The Music Man" last year, where the Euphonium is mentioned once or twice and - now that I see pictures, it turns out there was a Euphonium player (Euphoniumist?) in the pit orchestra. Go figure.

But on the topic of the thread - I'm kind of in the camp that the notion of "cheating" is a little silly. Sure, it's cool to look for more traditional methods to get a given result, but there's nothing inherently wrong with using those tools and ingredients we have available to us to get that same result.

 

[julioardz]

Didn't you read the first messages? It's only about knowing what old schoolers were doing before science improved brewing... Carapils are part of modern brewing now, but when compared to very old school brewing, it's kind of an adjunct...

It's just a figure of speech and the OP is not actually implying it's cheating, it's also just a figure of speech and he's just curious...

... bleh

Thanks for clearing that up for me professor, even though the first part of my response was simply rhetorical. You know, just another figure a speech.

GinSlinger, it sounds like you got the discussion and answer you were looking for. You also asked, "How is it "suppose" to be done?". That's just as rhetorical, but I'll answer. Whichever way you like. Brewing with traditional methods is just as fun as brewing with all the modern hops, grains, and technology we have available. It's fun to change things up a bit from time to time.

 

[zeg]

Whichever way you like. Brewing with traditional methods is just as fun as brewing with all the modern hops, grains, and technology we have available. It's fun to change things up a bit from time to time.

Exactly. If you're brewing to make good beer, then any method that works is a correct method. If you're trying to challenge yourself or replicate traditional methods, then cara-pils may be inappropriate almost by definition.

Undoubtedly, even if cara-pils helps with head retention, it'll be somehow different from a similar foam achieved the other way. However, there's nothing special about "tradition" unless you value it for its own sake. Aside from that, if you like it better, stick to it. If you like the result with cara-pils better, then do that. If you don't care, do whatever's cheaper, easier, whatever. But try not to buy into the "great-grandpa knew best" hype.

 

[bleme]

Don't let my great grandpa hear you say that!!'

 

[kombat]

Pictured below is a Kolsch I brewed 6 weeks ago. [...]
That is Steven Mead, International Euphonium soloist who was visiting from the UK, whose visit the beer was brewed in honor of

Pardon me for asking the obvious question, but shouldn't you have brewed a Mead, rather than a Kolsch?

 

[pjj2ba]

Pardon me for asking the obvious question, but shouldn't you have brewed a Mead, rather than a Kolsch?

That would have been far to predictable! I put an American twist on an German style for a British musician, who then named it after a Frenchwoman!