Protein rest blunder

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

sictransit701

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
215
Reaction score
43
Tried a protein rest on my spike 15 gallon system yesterday. The recipe called for it, so I went for it. I did a 15 minute rest at 122. I spent maybe 30 minutes or more trying to ramp up the mash from 122 to 152. Once I got to 152, I stayed there for another 30 minutes. I’m just worried I am going to have a thin bodied dry Irish stout. Any one with this system to multi step mashes? Tips?
 
You will need to try the beer and report back! The low rests are tricky as scorching can come into play as well because the elements are on so long and the temperature is below gel temps. Infusion from the 122F rest to the 152F rest is a workaround.
 
I think it’s going to be just fine. I used to ‘dough in’ at 48C and rest for 15 minutes before rising to mash temperature and it always worked. It’s quite a bit below optimal beta amylase temperature. Relax.
 
I think it’s going to be just fine. I used to ‘dough in’ at 48C and rest for 15 minutes before rising to mash temperature and it always worked. It’s quite a bit below optimal beta amylase temperature. Relax.
What does being well below the optimal beta amylase activity temp have to do with a protein rest or ramp-up therefrom?

Brew on :mug:
 
What does being well below the optimal beta amylase activity temp have to do with a protein rest or ramp-up therefrom?

Brew on :mug:
I was referring to the OP’s concern about producing a thin beer, which is his main concern. Did you read his post? 🤭
 
I was referring to the OP’s concern about producing a thin beer, which is his main concern. Did you read his post? 🤭
Yes I read OP's post. Whether or not OP ends up with an overly thin beer depends more on the rate of the temp ramp, and how much time the mash spends in the temp range where gelatinization occurs at a significant rate and limit dextrinase can act on any starch that has been gelatinized. The higher fermentability from a lower temp mash ("beta" rest temp) is more about activity of limit dextrinase than beta amylase. The "beta rest" is really a misnomer.

Brew on :mug:
 

Attachments

  • Limit-Dextrinase.pdf
    818.2 KB · Views: 0
Yes I read OP's post. Whether or not OP ends up with an overly thin beer depends more on the rate of the temp ramp, and how much time the mash spends in the temp range where gelatinization occurs at a significant rate and limit dextrinase can act on any starch that has been gelatinized. The higher fermentability from a lower temp mash ("beta" rest temp) is more about activity of limit dextrinase than beta amylase. The "beta rest" is really a misnomer.

Brew on :mug:
I think it’s going to be just fine. I used to ‘dough in’ at 48C and rest for 15 minutes before rising to mash temperature and it always worked. It’s quite a bit below optimal beta amylase temperature. Relax.
 
@McMullan what was the point of your most recent response to my previous post? You didn't address anything that I wrote.

Brew on :mug:
 
@McMullan what was the point of your most recent response to my previous post? You didn't address anything that I wrote.

Brew on :mug:
I used to routinely dough in at 48*C, rest for 15min then rise to my set mash temperature, >66*C and I never ended up with a thin beer. I mashed at 52*C once - following a recipe - and ended up with an overly thin beer. I think the effect of mash temperature is pretty well documented, Doug. I think that was probably my point.
 
I used to routinely dough in at 48*C, rest for 15min then rise to my set mash temperature, >66*C and I never ended up with a thin beer.
But OP's question is really about the slow rate of his rise. If your ramp up from 48 to 66 took 30 minutes or more then your experience addresses his concern, but if you got to 66 significantly faster then it really doesn't.
 
But OP's question is really about the slow rate of his rise. If your ramp up from 48 to 66 took 30 minutes or more then your experience addresses his concern, but if you got to 66 significantly faster then it really doesn't.
My point exactly.

Brew on :mug:
 
But OP's question is really about the slow rate of his rise. If your ramp up from 48 to 66 took 30 minutes or more then your experience addresses his concern, but if you got to 66 significantly faster then it really doesn't.
Definitely >20 minutes, given the Braumeister 20L has a ‘sensibly’ rated heating element. Doughed in like that for 2-3 years, before trying to shorten brew day, so no shortages of brews to be pretty sure that I can offer the OP some reassurance his beer is most likely to turn out just fine and not be overly thin at all. You?
 
Definitely >20 minutes, given the Braumeister 20L has a ‘sensibly’ rated heating element. Doughed in like that for 2-3 years, before trying to shorted brew day, so no shortages of brews to be pretty sure that I can offer the OP some reassurance his beer is most likely to turn out just fine and not be overly thin at all. You?
Just wanted to know how long your ramp up took. You know, so that the OP could actually know whether he should be reassured by your experience. That's all.
 
as Bobby stated. ingredients play a lot in mouthfeel. A dry Irish stout like Guiness Draught which is a very thin beer with almost no mouth feel. those beers go down the hatch faster than a pilsner since it is using nitro instead of co2.

i will be making a stout soon although might be a heavy one for storage.

For process's sake on ingredients, I dough in with my 40% wheat beer around 130 which drops the temp a fair amount (never recorded the temp of actual starting grain mash but probably close to the 120). recirc until 152 and hold for 45 minutes. last 15 minutes raise to 168 then mash out. It is a gambit of temps but produces a fantastic beer. the wheat still provides the slight slickness for what becomes a very dry and crisp summer beer.

certain ingredients play a large role in mouthfeel and texture of beer.
 
A dry Irish stout like Guiness Draught which is a very thin beer with almost no mouth feel. those beers go down the hatch faster than a pilsner since it is using nitro instead of co2.

It uses nitrogen in addition to CO2, though the CO2 level is lower than in most beers. Perhaps that's what you meant, but I'm adding just in case anyone would take it too literally.
 
Tried a protein rest on my spike 15 gallon system yesterday. The recipe called for it, so I went for it. I did a 15 minute rest at 122. I spent maybe 30 minutes or more trying to ramp up the mash from 122 to 152. Once I got to 152, I stayed there for another 30 minutes. I’m just worried I am going to have a thin bodied dry Irish stout. Any one with this system to multi step mashes? Tips?

Your beer should be fine. I can't address specific questions re your Spike equipment but am curious to see the actual recipe. Calling for a multi-step mash in this beer style strikes me as odd. Beyond the style itself the preferred malts for an Irish stout are made for and work perfectly well in a simple, single temperature mash.
 
Tried a protein rest on my spike 15 gallon system yesterday. The recipe called for it, so I went for it. I did a 15 minute rest at 122. I spent maybe 30 minutes or more trying to ramp up the mash from 122 to 152. Once I got to 152, I stayed there for another 30 minutes. I’m just worried I am going to have a thin bodied dry Irish stout. Any one with this system to multi step mashes? Tips?
What was done after the 152?
 
Your beer should be fine. I can't address specific questions re your Spike equipment but am curious to see the actual recipe. Calling for a multi-step mash in this beer style strikes me as odd. Beyond the style itself the preferred malts for an Irish stout are made for and work perfectly well in a simple, single temperature mash.
Recipe from “Brewing Classic Styles” by Palmer and Zainasheff
Calls for a protein rest. Just following the recipe.
 
I'll just add that the reason a protein rest with a slow ramp-up can make a beer thin(ner) might have about as much (maybe more) to do directly with the increased breakdown of proteins as it does an unintentional increase in fermentability.
 
Tried a protein rest on my spike 15 gallon system yesterday. The recipe called for it, so I went for it. I did a 15 minute rest at 122. I spent maybe 30 minutes or more trying to ramp up the mash from 122 to 152. Once I got to 152, I stayed there for another 30 minutes. I’m just worried I am going to have a thin bodied dry Irish stout. Any one with this system to multi step mashes? Tips?

Try not to worry about worts already brewed. If your process is sound and you used good ingredients, the beer is almost guaranteed to taste good, even if it does not taste the same as intended recipe.

This is how we learn.
 
So…thanks for all of your replies! I am happy to announce that this beer turned out fantastic! I was worried the long rise time during the mash would have greatly impacted the wort fermentability and beer body, but this is actually perfect.

Now. Another question. Is the protein rest absolutely necessary? Is flaked barley a necessity?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1203.jpeg
    IMG_1203.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 0
My two cents and personal opinion: from a sensory standpoint, anything you do in the mash, from changing saccharification temperatures to complicated step mashes to decoctions, has a relatively minor impact on your beer. I’m not saying zero impact, and there can be fairly dramatic changes in things like efficiency and attenuation. But in terms of the sensory properties of the beer, the effects are small. Small, as in, Brulosophy can’t reject the null hypothesis. (Whatever you might think of Brulosophy, it’s hard to argue that an effect is OMG HUGE when most average drinkers can’t tell the difference side-by-side.)

Recipe changes, on the other hand, can make a major difference — that flaked barley will absolutely change the mouthfeel in a way that will be obvious.

To me, it just makes sense for a beginning brewer (and many expert ones) to keep the process simple while they’re figuring out what their ingredients do. I suspect that for the OP, this translates to “no, the protein rest isn’t necessary at all, but the flaked barley really is.”
 
glad it turned out to your liking. asking the questions of protein rest and flake barley are probably questions only you can answer through your taste preference and what you are searching for. meaning try it and find out.
 
My two cents and personal opinion: from a sensory standpoint, anything you do in the mash, from changing saccharification temperatures to complicated step mashes to decoctions, has a relatively minor impact on your beer. I’m not saying zero impact, and there can be fairly dramatic changes in things like efficiency and attenuation. But in terms of the sensory properties of the beer, the effects are small. Small, as in, Brulosophy can’t reject the null hypothesis. (Whatever you might think of Brulosophy, it’s hard to argue that an effect is OMG HUGE when most average drinkers can’t tell the difference side-by-side.)

Recipe changes, on the other hand, can make a major difference — that flaked barley will absolutely change the mouthfeel in a way that will be obvious.

To me, it just makes sense for a beginning brewer (and many expert ones) to keep the process simple while they’re figuring out what their ingredients do. I suspect that for the OP, this translates to “no, the protein rest isn’t necessary at all, but the flaked barley really is.”
In my experience, it's directly the opposite. Flaked barley has minor impact and mash temperature changes have a bigger impact.
 
Gathering links for those who want to look for themselves:

Mash parameters produced distinguishable beers:
https://brulosophy.com/2022/10/31/exbeeriment-impact-mash-length-has-on-an-american-brown-ale/
https://brulosophy.com/2017/10/02/t...on-vs-rising-temperature-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2016/08/29/mash-methods-pt-2-batch-sparge-vs-no-sparge-exbeeriment-results/

Mash parameters were not shown to produce distinguishable beers:
https://brulosophy.com/2023/12/04/e...recirculation-of-the-mash-has-on-a-cream-ale/
https://brulosophy.com/2022/05/16/exbeeriment-impact-reduced-mash-length-has-on-a-blonde-ale/
https://brulosophy.com/2020/01/13/m...in-a-high-og-belgian-ale-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2019/08/12/the-mashout-effect-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2019/06/17/the-ferulic-acid-rest-effect-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2018/09/10/the-mash-protein-rest-vs-single-infusion-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2018/08/13/mash-temperature-147f-64c-vs-164-73c-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2018/01/08/mash-length-overnight-vs-60-minutes-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2017/08/14/t...on-vs-hochkurz-step-mash-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2016/12/12/m...ction-vs-single-infusion-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2015/10/12/the-mash-high-vs-low-temperature-exbeeriment-results/

Note that these are all p<0.05, so 1 time in 20 you'd expect to get a false positive (beers were distinguished by chance as opposed to actual differences.) Also, just because a beer can be picked out a statistically significant number of times on a triangle test, doesn't mean that the differences allowing it to be distinguished are meaningful. On the flip side, just because a particular test didn't distinguish two beers, it's possible that another test with more or more discriminating tasters could do so.
 
Gathering links for those who want to look for themselves:

Mash parameters produced distinguishable beers:
https://brulosophy.com/2022/10/31/exbeeriment-impact-mash-length-has-on-an-american-brown-ale/
https://brulosophy.com/2017/10/02/t...on-vs-rising-temperature-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2016/08/29/mash-methods-pt-2-batch-sparge-vs-no-sparge-exbeeriment-results/

Mash parameters were not shown to produce distinguishable beers:
https://brulosophy.com/2023/12/04/e...recirculation-of-the-mash-has-on-a-cream-ale/
https://brulosophy.com/2022/05/16/exbeeriment-impact-reduced-mash-length-has-on-a-blonde-ale/
https://brulosophy.com/2020/01/13/m...in-a-high-og-belgian-ale-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2019/08/12/the-mashout-effect-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2019/06/17/the-ferulic-acid-rest-effect-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2018/09/10/the-mash-protein-rest-vs-single-infusion-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2018/08/13/mash-temperature-147f-64c-vs-164-73c-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2018/01/08/mash-length-overnight-vs-60-minutes-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2017/08/14/t...on-vs-hochkurz-step-mash-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2016/12/12/m...ction-vs-single-infusion-exbeeriment-results/
https://brulosophy.com/2015/10/12/the-mash-high-vs-low-temperature-exbeeriment-results/

Note that these are all p<0.05, so 1 time in 20 you'd expect to get a false positive (beers were distinguished by chance as opposed to actual differences.) Also, just because a beer can be picked out a statistically significant number of times on a triangle test, doesn't mean that the differences allowing it to be distinguished are meaningful. On the flip side, just because a particular test didn't distinguish two beers, it's possible that another test with more or more discriminating tasters could do so.
These guys didn't manage to taste a difference between a 1.008 fg and a 1.023 fg helles....

That's enough data for me tbh.
 
These guys didn't manage to taste a difference between a 1.008 fg and a 1.023 fg helles....

That's enough data for me tbh.
This is in line with what I said earlier: changing the process can radically change the numbers, but the sensory impact is much smaller than you’d expect it to be. Everyone thinks they’d have no problem telling the difference between 50% and 80+% attenuation. Many people cannot.
 
This is in line with what I said earlier: changing the process can radically change the numbers, but the sensory impact is much smaller than you’d expect it to be. Everyone thinks they’d have no problem telling the difference between 50% and 80+% attenuation. Many people cannot.
I know that I can and that these people cannot (or whatever "statistical significance" means to them), hence I do not trust their results unless they overwhelmingly taste a difference. Fun read though!
 
You … know? As in, you’ve made the same recipe with different mash temperatures and tasted them back to back? If not, what is the basis for this knowledge?
 
Yes, I did an awfull lot of experiments!
Fair enough. My experience is that even with wildly different attenuation, the sensory differences are subtle. I did it, and I was surprised how little difference there was. Based on this, I’d suggest to everyone who only thinks they know that they’d be able to tell the difference, that they too might end up being surprised.
 
Fair enough. My experience is that even with wildly different attenuation, the sensory differences are subtle. I did it, and I was surprised how little difference there was. Based on this, I’d suggest to everyone who only thinks they know that they’d be able to tell the difference, that they too might end up being surprised.
The most strinking thing for me was that I literally tasted ZERO differnce between about 20% flaked barley + base malt vs. 100% base malt. I do not know what went wrong there :D.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top