Now I can, but should I?

[BeardedBrews]

I am finally comfortable enough with my ability to step and hold mash temperature in my 15g BIABasket kettle. Obviously my first thought is "Hooooooray! Time for an 8 hour multi-step mash-a-palooza!!" The question I have is, should I?

There is no shortage of curiosity around step mashing, probably because it's been around basically forever. I will pick Braukaiser as my example for what I see as the spectrum of step mash profiles omitting decoction for my question here and instead focus on the HotFast approach.

There seems to be evidence that it can provide a perceptible change in the beer character in some systems, and other tests showing that some stepped approaches may not be preferred by tasters. There is also evidence suggesting some systems might show almost no difference when using steps, even when using the more aggressive decoction approach.

Most sources will cite the modification of modern malts as a reason to skip the steps entirely but then also include a nod to the notion of sticking with traditional steps if you want to be sure to get the absolute best product. My hope is that some of you could share your experiences on step mashes, ideally times where you felt like including a stepped mash measurably improved or degraded a recipe that you have some experience with. I'd like to avoid the "I've never done a step mash and my beer always scores a 49.5 at BJCP events" as that's not really my question.

 

[Yooper]

I have a few recipes that I do a decoction with; but I honestly can't tell the difference.

Now the only time I do a temperature step mash (ie no decoction) is when I use a ton of sticky adjuncts, and I do a higher protease rest (131F) and make it very short, to avoid excess degradation of the proteins that help form the head retention and body.

 

[BigEd]

I am finally comfortable enough with my ability to step and hold mash temperature in my 15g BIABasket kettle. Obviously my first thought is "Hooooooray! Time for an 8 hour multi-step mash-a-palooza!!" The question I have is, should I?

There is no shortage of curiosity around step mashing, probably because it's been around basically forever. I will pick Braukaiser as my example for what I see as the spectrum of step mash profiles omitting decoction for my question here and instead focus on the HotFast approach.

There seems to be evidence that it can provide a perceptible change in the beer character in some systems, and other tests showing that some stepped approaches may not be preferred by tasters. There is also evidence suggesting some systems might show almost no difference when using steps, even when using the more aggressive decoction approach.

Most sources will cite the modification of modern malts as a reason to skip the steps entirely but then also include a nod to the notion of sticking with traditional steps if you want to be sure to get the absolute best product. My hope is that some of you could share your experiences on step mashes, ideally times where you felt like including a stepped mash measurably improved or degraded a recipe that you have some experience with. I'd like to avoid the "I've never done a step mash and my beer always scores a 49.5 at BJCP events" as that's not really my question.

Is there a specific reason besides curiosity for you to do a step mash? Other than a ferulic acid rest for Weiss-bier, a step infusion mash isn't going to change the flavor and/or color of the beer. Various added temperature steps can be incorporated into the mash profile to increase conversion efficiency or adjust the final beer's body if that is your goal. Decoction mashes will bring the subtle additions in flavor and color from the boiling of the pulled grains but unless you are brewing one of the styles where a decoction fits the bill it's not something you would want to do for other beers.

I'm a fan of decoctions for Old World style traditional lagers and if you brew those beers I'd suggest trying the decoction method at least once. You will only get an abundance of both yeas and nays by asking what you should do. Try it sometime and then make up your own mind.

 

[kevin58]

With modern malts a simple infusion mash is all you really need. But I guess there are some things you need to try for yourself.

 

[cubalz]

The way grain now days are processed, there is no actual need to do a decoction in any form for any reason other than to say you did it, to mimic an old method or insanity sets in and you want to make your brew day excessively long for no good reason. The starch converts so easily to fermentable sugars in the mash due to techniques no employed by the maltsters. I have had beers from friends that were triple decocted and I really could not discern any real difference from single infusion technique.

 

[ancientmariner52]

IIRC, the historical reason for step mashing and decoctions was the tax man. Brewery taxes were sometimes based on the size of the largest kettle.

So nobody likes taxes. They used small kettles and heated water or mash, which they then dumped into a big wooden mash tun, thus raising temps in discrete steps. Any effect on flavor was a side effect.

Or maybe I just made all this up. Try it and see how it works for you.

 

[BeardedBrews]

Other than a ferulic acid rest for Weiss-bier, a step infusion mash isn't going to change the flavor and/or color of the beer. Various added temperature steps can be incorporated into the mash profile to increase conversion efficiency or adjust the final beer's body if that is your goal. Decoction mashes will bring the subtle additions in flavor and color from the boiling of the pulled grains but unless you are brewing one of the styles where a decoction fits the bill it's not something you would want to do for other beers.

I suppose your three statements are the entire point of the question. Is it actually possible to achieve any of these goals with a stepped mash, or has the advance in malting made the difference negligible?

I am absolutely going to try the step mash because other than some time it costs me nothing. I was hoping to understand if there were any versions of a step that people found good or bad so that at least I could limit my experimentation.

 

[ancientmariner52]

I didn't make up the bit about taxes, just can't recall where I read it, so can't cite a source. My experience is similar to Yooper's. I've made Dunkels by decoction and by single temp infusion. Neither I nor my blind tasting panel (a roofing crew) could tell the difference. They drank 'em all, but then, they were a roofing crew.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Now the only time I do a temperature step mash (ie no decoction) is when I use a ton of sticky adjuncts, and I do a higher protease rest (131F) and make it very short, to avoid excess degradation of the proteins that help form the head retention and body.

Would "sticky adjuncts" include things like flaked barley, flaked oats, etc...? How many minutes do you hold at 131F?

 

[Yooper]

Would "sticky adjuncts" include things like flaked barley, flaked oats, etc...? How many minutes do you hold at 131F?

Yes, oats would be sticky but so is unmalted wheat, and even malted wheat can be sticky. Rye malt is also a sticky mess. It's a very short rest- under 20 minutes.

 

[Dcpcooks]

I suppose your three statements are the entire point of the question. Is it actually possible to achieve any of these goals with a stepped mash, or has the advance in malting made the difference negligible?

I am absolutely going to try the step mash because other than some time it costs me nothing. I was hoping to understand if there were any versions of a step that people found good or bad so that at least I could limit my experimentation.

I find a nice compromise and easy benefit can come from a smaller step mash that can be very fruitful for IPA’s or when you want to hit both Alpha and Beta points for a beer that finishes dry but still has a nice body.

I have had great results from a mash that starts at 145 for 45-60 min and then ramp to 155 for 15-20 min before ramping to 168 to lock in the profile.

I first read about it in Mitch Steele’s IPA and I believe it was referring to Firestone Walkers IPA.

 

[ESBrewer]

I am going to try decoction and protein/ferulic rest when I brew my first Weißbier. Decoction may be good for the taste of some other Bavarian beers, too. I guess British ales and most other beers will be perfect using single step infusion only.

 

[madscientist451]

The experimental brewing podcast recently had a discussion about traditional methods and why decoction mashing makes a difference. Not the same as your question about step mashing, but well worth the time:

https://www.experimentalbrew.com/podcast/brew-files-episode-23-traditional-traditions-jeff

So the original question was about is it worth doing step mashes?

Brulosophy did an exbeeriment and the results indicated that tasters couldn't tell the difference between a step mashed Helles and the same beer with an infusion mash:

http://brulosophy.com/2017/08/14/the-mash-single-infusion-vs-hochkurz-step-mash-exbeeriment-results/

So maybe in a beer like a Helles it doesn't matter? What about other styles?
If you have lots of free time and like fussing about over a batch of beer, I'd say why not? Dark lagers supposedly benefit from decoction mashing, and I'm sure other styles do as well. The topic is also discussed in Randy Mosher's book Radical Brewing.