Mash Schedule for Pilsner-Heavy Lager?

[Clint Yeastwood]

It's not really German-style, but all the information is appreciated.

 

[Dland]

I've brewed a few batches with 100% Dingleman's pilsner, it makes for some tasty beer. What I generally do is mash in at 150F, let it sit for 50-60 minutes, vorlauf (recirculate) 10 minutes and sparge. At rate of 20#s grain for 10-11 gallon batch, it makes for a full and flavorful lager despite being all pilsner malt. Works down to around 1.010 with a 6+%ABV.

 

[kevin58]

I would try a Hochkurz mash for a Czech pilsner. 144° 30+ minutes and 160° for another 30+ minutes then mashout at 170°. However a Brulosophy exbeeriment did a side by side test making a Helles with one getting a single infusion mash and the other using the Hochkurz mash schedule. Out of 26 taste testers only 7 could distinguish between the two. I still do the Hochkurz method just because I like doing it even though it might not make any difference at all.

 

[SanPancho]

Agree totally. The only use I have for crystal malts these days would be American Pale Ales and American IPAs. Even British beers I will brew with adjuncts such as Lyle's syrup or an occasional CaraRed in Irish ales. Virtually everything else, especially German lagers (and also Kolsch and Alt) as well as all other Continental lagers receive only traditional base malts with lesser amounts of Munich or Vienna malts.

Occasionally I might play with times and temperatures for Alpha and Beta amylase rests, depending on whether I wish to enhance fermentability or body, still doughing in @ 60C and mashing out @ 76C. I seldom do single infusion mashes since my equipment does all the hard work for me. Likewise I avoid the complexity of detoction mashes since my beers present sufficient maltiness as is. If I feel the need for greater maltiness, I use the standard "cheat" of a small addition of melanoidin malt to the grist bill, sacrificing authenticity for convenience.

But my "every-day, go-to" mash profile is the modified Hoch-Kurz step mash I mentioned earlier. Overall it gives me reliable and repeatedly consistent results for both fermentability and mouthfeel. It must be working since my last competition entry (non-BJCP sanctioned, but judged by a panel of professional brewers) won a Blue Ribbon for Czech Lager and took overall Best of Show. Also winning Blue in the same comp were my Helles Maibock and Vienna lager, none of which were detoction mashes. Were any of them equal to the Paulaner or Weihenstephaner export beers in my beer fridge? Of course not, but they are more than adequate stand-ins for everyday enjoyment!

if you had to give a TL;DR/ BLUF answer- the reason you stick with hochkurz?

 

[Clint Yeastwood]

That's almost exactly what I did, as described above.

 

[eliastheodosis]

Out of 26 taste testers only 7 could distinguish between the two. I still do the Hochkurz method just because I like doing it even though it might not make any difference at all.

if you had to give a TL;DR/ BLUF answer- the reason you stick with hochkurz?

Not Broothru and I'm interested to hear what they have to say too. Here's how I feel about why I do it, though. I think for some subtle techniques experiments like this aren't necessarily the best way to determine if there is a difference. Tasters come in blind. In some ways that's great and in other ways it's not. They are unbiased but they are also inexperienced. Potentially as a taster. Definitely in terms of familiarity with the beer. Trying to pick out a subtle difference in a scenario like that could be pretty hard.

Then there's also the potential variance across brewhouses and palates. Maybe it has more of an effect for some than for others based on either two variables, or both. I have definitely noticed a difference when I did it and I like that difference. Also, it's not much harder for me to do at all and brewing doesn't feel like work so an extra few minutes is no big deal. It's an easy way for me to make an impact that I notice. If it's the placebo effect then those extra few minutes are worth tricking my mind into enjoying the beer more. I could accept that.

 

[Broothru]

if you had to give a TL;DR/ BLUF answer- the reason you stick with hochkurz?

To paraphrase Sir Edmund Hilary, "Because I can."

 

[SanPancho]

To paraphrase Sir Edmund Hilary, "Because I can."

I have no words.

Not Broothru and I'm interested to hear what they have to say too. Here's how I feel about why I do it, though. I think for some subtle techniques experiments like this aren't necessarily the best way to determine if there is a difference. Tasters come in blind. In some ways that's great and in other ways it's not. They are unbiased but they are also inexperienced. Potentially as a taster. Definitely in terms of familiarity with the beer. Trying to pick out a subtle difference in a scenario like that could be pretty hard.

Then there's also the potential variance across brewhouses and palates. Maybe it has more of an effect for some than for others based on either two variables, or both. I have definitely noticed a difference when I did it and I like that difference. Also, it's not much harder for me to do at all and brewing doesn't feel like work so an extra few minutes is no big deal. It's an easy way for me to make an impact that I notice. If it's the placebo effect then those extra few minutes are worth tricking my mind into enjoying the beer more. I could accept that.

Ok, but if you had to summarize( few words, one sentence,etc) , what is the “difference” you refer to? What is it you feel you get in the beer that doesn’t happen with a single temp mash?

 

[Yesfan]

I have no words.

Ok, but if you had to summarize( few words, one sentence,etc) , what is the “difference” you refer to? What is it you feel you get in the beer that doesn’t happen with a single temp mash?

Great question.

 

[eliastheodosis]

Ok, but if you had to summarize( few words, one sentence,etc) , what is the “difference” you refer to? What is it you feel you get in the beer that doesn’t happen with a single temp mash?

Great question

Fair question, I see what you mean. To my palate it feels somehow lighter, more malt forward, and drier/cleaner all while still not compromising the body.

One word would be maybe "quenching" or "satisfying" though that second word feels like garbage to me. I would say "German" but that would probably get me some

I'd be curious to see what others that have used it more have to say because I am certainly not the authority on it. Have mostly only used it on my German lagers so far and find it hard to put words to the effect.

 

[day_trippr]

One word would be maybe "quenching" or "satisfying" though that second word feels like garbage to me. I would say "German" but that would probably get me some

"Hmm, yes....Can we see your papers, please?"

[Wait - can I say that without catching some of that ? ]

 

[Bassman2003]

Nuance is in the eye/palate of the beholder. The main thing for me is how long one stays in beta as to how attenuated the beer is. If you do a single infusion you have compromised beta unless you stay at 148F, then you compromise alpha. That is the mashing theory put in place by years of mashing and brewing texts. If you want to question the brewing texts, then that is a tall order imho.

Brulosophy is fine, but I would rather go by personal experience. If you do not have any personal experience with both, then please do not question one alone. Firsthand knowledge is very important when discussing these matters and even then, limited to the setup, brewing technique and skills of the speaker.

Seriously, it takes some brewing skill to make beers that show the difference. They need to be without homebrew flabbiness otherwise that covers a lot of stuff up. Some beer style lens themselves to single infusion, others will be less dimensional without more attenuation. One style for me is WC IPA. I think single infusion can be great with IPA as the focus is on the hops more than malt complexity. You mainly just want a backbone to push against. Belgian blonde or German lager benefit from as much attenuation as you can throw at them in many ways. Just my opinions.

 

[Clint Yeastwood]

My first brew was an IPA not unlike SNPA. Later on, I started making a lager with pretty similar grain. The hops were different. I generally prefer ales, but oddly, when I tried the lager, I said it was like an IPA, only way better. I used Wyeast 2206, and I fermented at low temperature. Probably did a step mash, but I don't recall.

Just thought I'd toss that out there.

 

[SanPancho]

"quenching"

this is enough for me to give it a go.

have never done step mashes. but for as long as i've been brewing its one of those things that's a never ending debate. some folks swear by it, most dont know/dont care/dont bother, and the rest say its not worth it.

but the reasons "why" are various, and i've never really paid attention to it, just always assumed its really about folks having predilection towards tradition/old fashioned. but now that i brew for solely for myself, its like 75% lagers, some lighter tropical/hoppy ales, and sours. so if there's one thing that fits perfectly with that lineup its the basic quest for refreshment/ thirst quenching- that's definitely on the nose.

 

[eliastheodosis]

this is enough for me to give it a go.

If it's easiest enough on your system I would say give it a try. I'm having my helles right now and it's just...it's like when you're really, really thirsty and all you want is cold water. You take a drink and it's so satisfying. It's that to me, except with the malt flavor and body I want too.

I never messed with step mashes until I read about this method. It made the most sense to me and I had just moved to my current 220 AIO that makes it very easy.

now that i brew for solely for myself, its like 75% lagers, some lighter tropical/hoppy ales, and sours. so if there's one thing that fits perfectly with that lineup its the basic quest for refreshment/ thirst quenching

Yeah, I'm with you there. My first five beers ever were saison, saison, lager, lager, lager. It even shocked me a little. I brew the IPAs to break things up, not the other way around. For me, for my own palate, this seemed to make a difference. Hopefully it's the same for you

 

[jerrylotto]

I brew a lot of these and always do a double decoction mash. I start at 125F and pull the first decoction after about 30 minutes. I then raise both to 143F and hold the decoction for 30 minutes, then 153F for 30 minutes (decoction only) then boil for 10 minutes. Including heating time that's usually about an hour later when I return the decoction to the mash and stir my mash target is 153F. I pull decoction number two and heat it right to a boil for 10 min and finally mash out at 165F after returning the second decoction. It takes a long time to do this but it makes a superior lager in my opinion.

 

[Miraculix]

I brew a lot of these and always do a double decoction mash. I start at 125F and pull the first decoction after about 30 minutes. I then raise both to 143F and hold the decoction for 30 minutes, then 153F for 30 minutes (decoction only) then boil for 10 minutes. Including heating time that's usually about an hour later when I return the decoction to the mash and stir my mash target is 153F. I pull decoction number two and heat it right to a boil for 10 min and finally mash out at 165F after returning the second decoction. It takes a long time to do this but it makes a superior lager in my opinion.

One day I will try this myself.

 

[Protos]

I'd chime in with my heretical thought (based on consistently repeated personal experience) that Crystal malt in modest quantities has much less impact on the body than it's commonly believed on the brewing forums. I've made Lagers with different amounts of Crystal (up to 20% Carapils in a Helles, as Herr Dornbusch suggests in his Helles book) and never found its impact to be too much significant. If anything, the impact of 10% Light Crystal malt in a single-infusion mash was less than the impact of a triple decoction on a no-Crystal grist.

An hour-and-half-long infusion mash at 62C will produce a highly attenuable wort and a very dry beer, Crystal or no Crystal.

 

[dmtaylor]

I'd chime in with my heretical thought (based on consistently repeated personal experience) that Crystal malt in modest quantities has much less impact on the body that it's commonly believed on the brewing forums. I've made Lagers with different amounts of Crystal (up to 20% Carapils in a Helles, as Herr Dornbusch suggests in his Helles book) and never found its impact to be too much significant. If anything, the impact of 10% Light Crystal malt in a single-infusion mash was less than the impact of a triple decoction on a no-Crystal grist.

An hour-and-half-long infusion mash at 62C will produce a highly attenuable wort and a very dry beer, Crystal or no Crystal.

Great points. I do think the key here is to mash much cooler than the 158 F mentioned in the OP. When in doubt, I aim for 150 F (65-65.5 C). In a case like this where the desire is higher attenuation / lower FG, go even lower than that default.

 

[Protos]

I do think the key here is to mash much cooler than the 158 F mentioned in the OP.

158F (70C) is definitely a wrong way to go. You use this for a single-infusion mash only when you need a really chewy beer, and it works that way.

The OP already has some Crystal in the grist, which is enough to prevent the beer from going completely Saisonish-dry. He also performs a kind of multistepped Hochkurz mash, which even further ensures he'd have some body remaining.
Low-temp mashing and some Crystal would surely produce exactly what he wants: a well-attenuated beer with some residual body.

A double decoction sans Crystal would be a nobler and more elegant way to get there but it's not what the OP aims for.

 

[bwible]

158F (70C) is definitely a wrong way to go. You use this for a single-infusion mash only when you need a really chewy beer, and it works that way.

The OP already has some Crystal in the grist, which is enough to prevent the beer from going completely Saisonish-dry. He also performs a kind of multistepped Hochkurz mash, which even further ensures he'd have some body remaining.
Low-temp mashing and some Crystal would surely produce exactly what he wants: a well-attenuated beer with some residual body.

A double decoction sans Crystal would be a nobler and more elegant way to get there but it's not what the OP aims for.

When somebody says “a well attenuated beer with some residual body” I tend to think of Vienna lager. Just switch out the crystal in the recipe for munich and vienna and its basically the same thing. So I guess this recipe could fall into sort of a vienna lager style, just not with the traditional ingredients. We have a local brewery that does a light amber lager that is one of my favorites. They say its 4% so I’m guessing the og must start around 1.040 and that one doesn’t lack anything. Look at some vienna lager recipes and what their mash schedules say.

 

[Clint Yeastwood]

I used this mash on an ale today. Nine pounds Maris Otter, two pounds 10L crystal malt. I got a ton of wort. I had to pour out at least three pints, and I'm afraid the fermenting keg is too full. My OG was very high.

Now to see how well it ferments.