Proteins/Aminos, protein rests, and beer body

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

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

SpanishCastleAle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
4,339
Reaction score
45
Location
Central Florida
I have a very basic understanding of this but there are gaping holes so I'll just start at square one on this topic.

What exactly does a protein rest do? And how?

Most say that a protein rest is not necessary with today's malts...why is this so? What's the harm in doing one anyway?

I've read some (Kaiser?) say that they believe the proteins have a greater effect on beer body (and mouthfeel?...and head retention?) than previously thought. Any comments on that? What would be a good experiment to test this?
 

menschmaschine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
3,259
Reaction score
51
Location
Delaware
I'll take a stab at it, but this is a rudimentary explanation and I'm not necessarily confident in it:)... without texts to reference.

Proteins come in all different sizes. The large ones cause haze, the small ones may add some mouthfeel, etc., but without the presence of medium-sized protein molecules, your head retention suffers. The proteins in this size-range are small enough to be carried to the surface by CO2 coming out of solution, but not too big to cause haze.

In a protein rest, enzymes break down proteins to smaller proteins. In well-modified malt with a high SNR, these are already broken down. So, leaving them alone will result in a better head retention. Giving them a protein rest in the temperatures that are ideal for the enzymes that break them down will break them down to be too small to get carried to the surface by CO2.

I humbly submit this explanation knowing that I may be off on some of it. If I am, feel free to tear me a new one.:)
 
OP
SpanishCastleAle

SpanishCastleAle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
4,339
Reaction score
45
Location
Central Florida
Thanks. But I didn't quite get this:
Giving them a protein rest in the temperatures that are ideal for the enzymes that break them down will break them down to be too small to get carried to the surface by CO2.
Seems if small proteins get carried to the surface by CO2 then breaking them down to smaller ones they would still get carried to the surface.

In a protein rest, enzymes break down proteins to smaller proteins. In well-modified malt with a high SNR, these are already broken down.
Would it be pertinent to this topic to describe the relationship between SNR (soluble nitrogen ratio) and proteins? I've seen this written before but it's written just like you did...without any real correlation between them.
 

menschmaschine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
3,259
Reaction score
51
Location
Delaware
Thanks. But I didn't quite get this:
Sorry, I just meant that the proteins get broken down to be too small. So in the finished beer, they don't get carried to the surface as easily by CO2 coming out of solution and rising to the top (i.e., they don't create as much of a head).

Seems if small proteins get carried to the surface by CO2 then breaking them down to smaller ones they would still get carried to the surface..
Well, if if they get broken down so small, they may get carried to the surface, but aren't substantial enough to contribute to the head. That might be one of the parts I'm off about.:cross:

Would it be pertinent to this topic to describe the relationship between SNR (soluble nitrogen ratio) and proteins? I've seen this written before but it's written just like you did...without any real correlation between them.
Noonan does a much better job explaining it than I could.
 

remilard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
3,654
Reaction score
55
Location
Kansas City
I would say that large molecular weight proteins contribute to haze, medium molecular weight proteins are foam positive, low molecular weight proteins (free amino nitrogen) is foam negative but a certain amount is required.

Breaking down high to medium will increase clarity and improve foam.

Breaking down medium to low will harm foam (assuming the FAN level of the wort is otherwise adequate). So protein breakdown is a balancing act. SNR or the Kohlbach index will provide you an indication of how much protein breakdown took place in malting. Conventional wisdom is that for most modern malts (SNR > 40) protein breakdown sufficient for clear beer with good foam has already taken place during malting and that further protein breakdown in mashing will do more harm than good.
 

GilaMinumBeer

Half-fast Prattlarian
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
65,433
Reaction score
10,788
This is the general concensus on the topic of preteins and it all makes sense until you read the likes of Fix and Horst (??, IIRC) who claim that even with well modified malts a protein rest has the "perceived" contributary effect on head retention and malt character.

I am not yet convinced that the science and perceived effect agree on this topic yet. At the least, I have noticed a considerable increase in clarity in my beers with no "perceived" degredation in heading ability by utilizing a short 10 to 20 minute rest at ~113*F to 120*F.

In this, I have also realized that less fining is needed and that cold conditioning is most effective at obtaining that Kristal quality.
 
OP
SpanishCastleAle

SpanishCastleAle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
4,339
Reaction score
45
Location
Central Florida
This is the general concensus on the topic of preteins and it all makes sense until you read the likes of Fix and Horst (??, IIRC) who claim that even with well modified malts a protein rest has the "perceived" contributary effect on head retention and malt character.

I am not yet convinced that the science and perceived effect agree on this topic yet. At the least, I have noticed a considerable increase in clarity in my beers with no "perceived" degredation in heading ability by utilizing a short 10 to 20 minute rest at ~113*F to 120*F.
This is exactly my perception but I haven't really tested it. And at the time I think I was more bummed about poor clarity than I was worried about head retention...so I may have just noticed improved clarity (which may or not be due to the protein rest) and not noticed reduced head retention. Then again...I often do use a little Carapils in many grain bills (maybe this is why).
 

remilard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
3,654
Reaction score
55
Location
Kansas City
Fix was a big proponent of no protein rest for SNR > 40 in the current editions of his books and in some posts made on HBD.

He did 40-60-70 for SNR > 40 and 50-60-70 otherwise. In the former schedule, he emphasized using boiling water infusion so that no or minimal time was spent around 50.

I recall him saying something like "I now agree with Narziss and others..." in Principles of Brewing Science which indicates that he previously held a different position. I have not read the first edition of that book.
 

menschmaschine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
3,259
Reaction score
51
Location
Delaware
remilard, great post. You said it much more eloquently than I.

GilaMinumBeer, interesting. I have brewed a couple batches early on in my brewing career with a protein rest around 120°F and with well-modified continental pilsner malt. The results were low to medium head formation/retention. Since I've switched to higher temp. protein rests, my head formation/retention has improved a lot.

Perhaps the best head formation/retention comes from brewing with under-modified malt and conducting true protein rests. That's what Moortgat does and look at Duvel.
 

pjj2ba

Look under the recliner
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
232
Location
State College
I'm testing a protein rest in my current lagers. I can only compare to my memory of last years lagers unfortunately. Last year I did a 5 min rest for all my lagers. This year I'm doing 20 min. (20,20,20 - 122F, 148F, 158F, then 168 mashout, drain immediately) My main goal is to improve body. We'll see what happens to head retention. Just based on foaming at the various steps prior to kegging, the head will be very good on these.

My take on the statement "today's well-modified malts" is that this statement is largely directed at having to worry less about chill haze. I also find that when the statement is made that "a protein rest can actually harm head formation in today's malts", that the time frame is rarely given. I think therefore many people take this to mean ANY protein rest. I did read somehwere recently (Dornbusch Helles book?) that the time was OVER 30 min. for this to happen.

I was planning on a two brew weekend (lagers) sometime soon to compare the same recipe with step mash vs decoction. Maybe I'll switch that to protein rest vs no protein rest. This gets a little tricky as there will be some starch conversion during the protein rest. I'll have to go by conversion rate, not strictly time for the steps to avoid any influence there. I'll check the brix after my 148F rest with the p-rest version and then for the no p-rest version, do the step to 158F when the brix reaches the same level as after the 20 min. at 148F for the p-rest version.
 

menschmaschine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
3,259
Reaction score
51
Location
Delaware
I also find that when the statement is made that "a protein rest can actually harm head formation in today's malts", that the time frame is rarely given. I think therefore many people take this to mean ANY protein rest. I did read somehwere recently (Dornbusch Helles book?) that the time was OVER 30 min. for this to happen.
I think it's more a temperature issue due to the fact that specific enzyme activity is temperature-dependent. But that's not to say that time wouldn't be an issue as well. I guess the main question is, what are you trying to achieve from the protein rest and is it worth taking the time to do it, whether it be 20 min. or 30 min.

I have Dornbusch's Helles book (also Altbier). I'll have to check them to see what he says. It's Noonan's NBLB book that introduced me to SNR and protein rest temps. IIRC, he states that only malt with an SNR of below 36 should get an actual protein rest and malt with an SNR of 36-40 should get a protein/sacch rest of 131°F(?). But I don't think he discusses in detail malt with an SNR over 40, which implies they shouldn't be done at all... I think he does mention definitely NOT doing them on Marris Otter, for example. Since today's malts (even pilsner) are usually over 40 SNR, it explains Kaiser being a proponent of the Hochkurz mash schedule (140-146°F and 158-162°F).
 

Kaiser

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
3,895
Reaction score
168
Location
Pepperell, MA
I’m planning to make a similar series of experiments in the future where I want to compare mashing w/ low and high protein rests. w/o protein rest and single infusion. It will be an interesting one to compare notes on but also a rather long series and I’m not sure if I may split it into a few batch pairs instead of the same recipe 4 times.

As for head retention, you may want to look into an extended rest between 70 and 72 C, possibly after a rest in the low 60s (like 63C). I hold this rest for 30-45 min and while I don’t have any experiment done yet to show that this rest does anything there are many sources that claim that it improves head retention and body. The explanation that is given is that at these temperatures glycoproteides are release which are not degraded by enzymes b/c the enzymes necessary are mostly gone at this point.

When it comes to haze and foam stability, I think the same sized proteins are responsible for both and as a brewer you need to strike the balance between clarity and foam stability. But beer can be very clear with good head. However, even Budweiser is not crystal clear. Take a flash light and shine it through a glass of Budweiser from the side in front of a dark background and you will be able to see the light beam. This is a level of haze that is left in b/c taking it all out would result in unacceptable loss of body and head retention.

When experimenting with protein rests, also pay attention to the diacetyl levels of the beer during fermentation. High FAN levels are known to create more diacetyl. But that additional diacetyl may also be removed towards the end of the fermentation.

While not related to mashing, the length of the boil also affects the clarity and head retention as it precipitates proteins. That’s why I don’t advocate boiling for much longer then 90 min. But I haven’t done directed tests to show that. At the end of the boil the wort should stand brilliant between the flocks of proteins and hop bits. I made myself a sight glass to check this I’ll attach a pic later.

Kai

 

pjj2ba

Look under the recliner
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
232
Location
State College
guess the main question is, what are you trying to achieve from the protein rest and is it worth taking the time to do it, whether it be 20 min. or 30 min.
What I'm personally looking for is more body, in a lowish FG beer. I could mash high as they say, but then my FG would likely be too high. Plus I'll take any gain in clarity.

The explanation that is given is that at these temperatures glycoproteides are release which are not degraded by enzymes b/c the enzymes necessary are mostly gone at this point.
Hmmm, I'll do a little digging. Seems plausible. Glycoproteins are largely associated with cell membranes, and in the lab can be a pain to extract and have them remain active which is important in a lab setting, but obviously not in brewing. Has anyone come across any papers (or annecdotal evidence) on high salts and beer head (positive interaction)? In the lab, high salt levels in the extraction buffer are often used to extract membrane bound proteins.
 

Kaiser

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
3,895
Reaction score
168
Location
Pepperell, MA
I too would like to know more about this. I have come across this on occasions but have not seen anything specific that goes into the details of why and how to control it. Looks like you have a head start of knowing where the glycoproteides are coming from. I think that this is largely something that has not seen much attention in home brewing. We seem too much fixed on brewing our beers with a single infusion mash.

Kai
 
OP
SpanishCastleAle

SpanishCastleAle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
4,339
Reaction score
45
Location
Central Florida
...it explains Kaiser being a proponent of the Hochkurz mash schedule (140-146°F and 158-162°F).
This is one reason I asked this question. When I do decoctions I have to pick a temp to rest the mash while I'm resting/boiling the decoction. The protein rest was always the most convenient while not having too much conversion going on.

I'll check my notes but I'm almost sure that I rested my Vienna Lager at 122 F during the entire thick decoction...which I boiled for 30 minutes. The main mash must have stayed at that temp for close to an hour or more. I finally got more kegs yesterday so now I can keg it and soon see if this beer has any head retention issues.
 

pjj2ba

Look under the recliner
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
232
Location
State College
Abstract: Beer contains approximately 500 mg/L protein depending on the brewing procedures employed. This protein is in the form of polypeptides, the majority of which lie within the 10-40 kD size range. Some of these polypeptides are responsible for causing colloidal haze, some enhance foam stability and the remainder appear to have no function in beer except to contribute to mouth-feel. Those polypeptides involved in haze formation were described in a previous paper. To continue these studies, data is presented to show that foam polypeptides are highly glycosylated and that purified foam glycoprotein contains low levels of the amino acid proline. As silica preferentially adsorbs polypeptides rich in proline, it is unlikely to adsorb this material and damage foam stability. The molecular sizes and composition of glycoproteins recovered from untreated beer, purified foam and beer from which the foam component has been removed are presented. These fractions include the polypeptides responsible for foam stability and those that appear to have no role in physical stability.
Just found this abstract, unfortunately the whole article is not on line. I'm checking the later articles that referenced this one, maybe one of them will summarize it in the intro or discussion
 

pjj2ba

Look under the recliner
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
232
Location
State College
Ok, this is a great Introduction from a paper citing the one I posted the abstract above for.

Barley is the most important raw material for beer production. It is a widely grown cereal crop, used for human and animal feed and for brewing, due to the high enzymatic content, that is conversion of starch into fermentable sugars and being a cereal with a husk that protects the embryo during the handling of the grain and is an important aid during the wort filtration. In fact, the aim of the malting process is the production and activation of enzymes. These molecules also contribute to the hydrolysis of β-glucans and hordeins (water insoluble proteins), which would otherwise restrict access of enzymes to the starch granules (Hughes & Baxter, 2001).

Barley grain germination is initiated by the uptake of water. The grain imbibes water during controlled cycles of water spraying, or water immersion, followed by aeration, until the water content of the grain reaches 42–48%. Water enters the grain via the embryo, and after approximately 24 h, the first visible sign of germination is the appearance of the root, as a white ‘chit’. Germination is typically allowed to proceed over a period of around 5 days to obtain green malt, which is then stopped during the Dewatering and Kilning phase by forced flow of hot air. Hydrolases produced during malting are partially inactivated during this process. The malt is stable for storage and has a friable texture suitable for the milling process, which precedes brewing.

Breeders are involved in the development of high-quality value barley cultivars for the malting and brewing industries. Barley selected for use in the brewing industry must meet special quality requirements and be must be approved for malting and beer production. The malt quality of a given barley variety is determined by its genetic background and the physical conditions during growth, harvest and storage. The validation process for brewing includes trials in micro and pilot malting and brewing plants before introduction at production scale (Østergaard, Melchior, Roepstorff, & Svensson, 2002).

Proteins are among the barley components that are essential for the quality of malt and beer. Thus, the total protein quantity in the barley grain is a crucial factor for final beer quality. High protein contents decrease available carbohydrates, with a negative influence on the brewing process ([Fox et al., 2002] and [Peltonen et al., 1994]). The protein content in barley grains represents, approximately, 8–15% of its total mass. Hordeins are the most abundant proteins (40–50%) found in a barley grain (Osman et al., 2002). In addition to hordeins, other proteins have been identified, including albumins, glutelins (globulins), friabilin, enzymes, serpins and other inhibitors, chaperones and other proteins with unknown functions ([Borén et al., 2004], [Finnie et al., 2002], [Fox et al., 2002], [Osman et al., 2003], [Østergaard et al., 2004] and [Østergaard et al., 2002]).

Hordeins, as the main storage protein fraction in barley seeds, accounts for up to half of the total protein in the mature grains, and may be classified into four groups named B, C, D and γ hordeins based on their electrophoretic mobilities. The B (30–45 kDa) and C (45–75 kDa) fractions account for not, vert, similar70–80% and not, vert, similar10–12%, respectively, of the total hordeins, while the D and γ fractions are minor components. Hordeins exist both in monomeric and aggregated forms. ([Brennan et al., 1998], [Fox et al., 2002], [Lookhart et al., 1999], [Molina-Cano et al., 2001], [Peltonen et al., 1994], [Schmitt et al., 1989] and [Shewry et al., 1985]).

Information about albumins, found in the literature, is mainly related to protein Z and lipid transfer protein 1 (LTP1). Protein Z is a 40 kDa hydrophobic glycoprotein, with an isoelectric point of 5.5–5.8 (barley form) or 5.1–5.4 (beer form) ([Curioni et al., 1995], [Hejgaard and Kaersgaard, 1983], [Hejgaard, 1982], [Leiper et al., 2003], [Lusk et al., 1987], [Sørensen et al., 1993] and [Yokoi et al., 1989]). In barley and malt, protein Z can be found in two isoforms: Protein Z4 (80%) and Z7 (20%) (Evans, Nischwitz, Stewart, Cole, & MacLeod, 1999). On the other hand, LTP1, which was initially named probable amylase/protease inhibitor (PAPI) (Leiper et al., 2003), is a 9.7 kDa glycoprotein, with an isoelectric point of 9 ([Jégou et al., 2000], [Jones and Marinac, 1997] and [Vaag et al., 1999]). LTP1 contains 91 amino acid residues (Lindorff-Larsen & Winter, 2001), organized into four α-helix segments, which are stabilized by four disulphide bonds (Bech, Vaag, Heinemann, & Breddam, 1995).

The majority of beer protein lies in the 10–40 kDa size range (Leiper et al., 2003). Mostly, the origin of this protein is malted barley (Hughes & Baxter, 2001). Some beer proteins appear to have no function in beer except their contribution to mouthfeel, flavor, texture, body, color, and nutritional value ([Leiper et al., 2003] and [Osman et al., 2003]). Protein Z, LTP1, and other proteins present in beer have been associated to foam formation and/or stabilization (Evans and Sheehan, 2002 D.E. Evans and M.C. Sheehan, Do not be fobbed off: The substance of beer foam – a review, Journal of American Society of Brewing Chemistry 60 (2002), pp. 47–57. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (22)[Evans and Sheehan, 2002], [Ferreira et al., 2005], [Lusk et al., 1995], [Nierop et al., 2004] and [Perrocheau et al., 2005]). Protein Z has also been related to beer haze (Curioni et al., 1995).

Scarlett and Prestige barleys were two rowed spring varieties. Scarlett has very good brewing quality and is considered a standard variety, by the European Brewery Convention (EBC). Presently, Prestige is also proposed as standard variety for some regions, it presents good agronomic characteristics, including high plague resistance. A comparative study of the protein fractions (hordeins; albumins and other soluble proteins) of Scarlett and Prestige malts is important to contribute to the characterization of these barley varieties. Chromatographic ([Osman et al., 2003] and [Schmitt et al., 1989]) and electrophoretic ([Echart-Almeida and Cavalli-Molina, 2001], [Leisegang and Stahl, 2005], [Molina-Cano et al., 2001] and [Villiers and Laubscher, 1989]) techniques are frequently used to study malt proteins, thus, sodium dodecylsulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) and reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) techniques were chosen for comparison of malt proteins from Scarlett and Prestige varieties. Studies were performed for two different germination times (60 and 120 h).

In a posterior phase, both malts were used to produce beer. Similar industrial brewing conditions were separately applied to Scarlett and Prestige malts. Sodium dodecylsulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) and reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) were used to examine the protein profiles of the worts and beers produced from these two malt varieties.
Electrophoretic and HPLC methods for comparative study of the protein fractions of malts, worts and beers produced from Scarlett and Prestige barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) varieties

It looks like a great list of references for further reading. We'll see how many are available.
 

pjj2ba

Look under the recliner
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
232
Location
State College
OK, this one is a must read. It doesn't talk about mashing specifially, but explains well the role of protein modification during malting and it's role in head formation

The Influence of Barley Malt Protein Modification on Beer Foam Stability and Their Relationship to the Barley Dimeric α-Amylase Inhibitor-I (BDAI-I) as a Possible Foam-Promoting Protein

It has a good easy to read intro. with lots of good info. and a nice concluding summary paragraph at the end. One take home - the loss of head formation due to over-malting is variety dependent - it was not an issue for one variety they used. Now this was malting, not mashing, but interestingly, their standard mash schedule included a 20 min. protein rest

50 °C for 20 min, 65 °C for 40 min, and 73 °C for 3 min. After the wort was boiled for 90 min, the wort was diluted by hot water to a concentration of 10.9–11.1% of extract followed by cooling of the wort. The dissolved oxygen in cooled wort was adjusted to 10 ppm. The fermentation was started by adding 15.0 × 106 cells/mL of lager yeast (brewery collected) to the cooled wort. The fermentation was carried out at 10.5 °C for 8–10 days. The maturation was conducted at 8 °C for 8 days and then at 0 °C for 20–25 days
 

pjj2ba

Look under the recliner
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
232
Location
State College
Ok, I took the day off and did some spring cleaning and beer brewing. It looks like I'll be able to brewing tomorrow as well. Today was a step mash with a 20 min. protein rest and tomorrow I'll skip that step. One question though. I'll keep the grain bill and bittering hops the same, but I'm contemplating changing up the flavor and aroma hops. I've got some Polish hops and like to try out. I don't think changing out the hops will greatly influence the body and head retention I'm looking to compare with the two mashing protocols. Anybody disagree? I do have enough Hallertau to rebrew the exact recipe
 

Kaiser

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
3,895
Reaction score
168
Location
Pepperell, MA
iso alpha acids have a great influence on the foam stability. But I'm not sure if it matters what kind of hops they come from.

Kai
 

pjj2ba

Look under the recliner
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
232
Location
State College
It's in the carboy. I ended up switching yesterday's Hallertau hops out and used Saaz instead (same AA). I was interested in trying some Polish Marynka hops but the AA was twice that of the hallertau, so I ditched that plan. I'll get to them later. It took nearly 40 min at 148 to get to the same 18.2 Plato as I measured at the end of the 148 step ( 20 min) when the protein rest (20 min) was included the day before. There wasn't much time savings since with the p-rest version one can mash in sooner
 

Kaiser

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
3,895
Reaction score
168
Location
Pepperell, MA
It took nearly 40 min at 148 to get to the same 18.2 Plato as I measured at the end of the 148 step ( 20 min) when the protein rest (20 min) was included the day before.
That is an interesting observation. I would have expected that the mash with the protein rest has a head start, but I wouldn't have thought that it would be that much.

BTW, do you do a fast ferment test for these worts? It would be nice to have that data as it would show the fermentability w/o relying on fermentation results that can be skewed by yeast health and other fermentation conditions.

Kai
 

remilard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
3,654
Reaction score
55
Location
Kansas City
That is an interesting observation. I would have expected that the mash with the protein rest has a head start, but I wouldn't have thought that it would be that much.
That's on par with what Fix reported in An Analysis of Brewing Techniques, for mashes with a rest at 40 or 50 compared to mashes with out. In fact I think he observed an even more dramatic (3-1) increase in conversion time with the rest at 40. He attributed this to "enzymatic preparation" rather than starch conversion occurring during the lower rests.

He had some posts about mashing schedules on HBD where he wrote about this in probably the same level of detail as the book (minus the detailed data and charts on the mashing schedules he experimented with).
 
OP
SpanishCastleAle

SpanishCastleAle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
4,339
Reaction score
45
Location
Central Florida
Related question: When we drink homebrew from Cornelius/Firestone kegs...do the very first pours have high large-protein levels and the last pours have much lower large-protein molecules? The first pours are always hazy and the last ones are crystal clear.

It always seems that when serving my brews from these kegs that there is a certain point where the beer is 'as good as it's gonna get'...and it's usually at the end of the keg but not always. Sometimes it's somewhere in the middle and it actually goes a little downhill from there (regarding flavor...the clarity always seems to improve).

I haven't noticed any head retention differences between the first and last pours but maybe I'm just not paying close enough attention.
 

pjj2ba

Look under the recliner
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
232
Location
State College
That is an interesting observation. I would have expected that the mash with the protein rest has a head start, but I wouldn't have thought that it would be that much.

BTW, do you do a fast ferment test for these worts? It would be nice to have that data as it would show the fermentability w/o relying on fermentation results that can be skewed by yeast health and other fermentation conditions.

Kai
For the p-rest version it took 12 min. to do the step from 122 to 148 so by the end of the 2nd step it was 52 min., vs the 40 min with no step to reach 18.2 P.

I didn't do a FF. Hmm, I have extra wort that I saved for future starters, but it has been sitting in flasks down in the basement and I see there is a little activity in them. I'm planning to bring them into work tomorrow to autoclave them. I could do a FF, but I'm unsure what bugs are currently growing in them and how that might affect the results. Of course the bugs will be dead after a trip through the autoclave.

I do know the OGs are off by 2 pts. I was busy doing housework so I wasn't paying attention to how hard my boil was and the first batch had an extra liter at the end. I didn't want to boil longer as that would mess up the hops, which is really the main point of this pils series I'm brewing.
 

pjj2ba

Look under the recliner
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
232
Location
State College
Another update. It has been a rough summer beer wise. I've been having problems with lactobacillus infections in some of my beers. I've tracked it down to the cooling stage (grain dust) and my procedures have now been changed. That being said, here are my conclusions with regards to body from doing a 20:20:20 min. step mash at 122:148:156 F.

It's great for a Helles, but actually TOO MUCH body for German Pilsner. They tasted great, but just weren't quite crisp enough - even well carbonated. All of the beers finished out around 1.012. I think I'll keep the 20 min @ 122F, but lengthen the 148 F step to at least 30 min. I might even skip the 158F step, at least as another experiment.

Related to the body, I think the more body a beer has, the milder a given amount of bitterness is. Or in other words, take two beers with the same OG's and FG's (at least very close) and the same IBU's, the one with more body (proteins) will taste less bitter - or at least smoother.

Unfortuantely one of the beers that went lambic on me was the no protein rest mash. It is a good thing I like sour beers! I'm actually thinking I might culture the bugs out of one of them for future use. I had some really nice lambics while in Belgium recently.
 

Kaiser

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
3,895
Reaction score
168
Location
Pepperell, MA
Did you do a fast ferment test by any chance and know how much residual fermentable sugars are left in the beer? But a FG if 1.012 seems about right for a 20 min 148F rest. I would't expect the attenuation limit to be much lower.

Kai
 

pjj2ba

Look under the recliner
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
232
Location
State College
Nope I didn't get around to the FF test. I might start bringing some samples in to work to determine their protein levels. I think I have the reagents around. I guess I'm wondering a little if the high body is proteins, or I'm assumming more likely from longer dextrins. I can imagine for any given FG it will be due to the dissolved unfermentables including short and long chain dextrins as well as proteins/peptides, and the ratio of these components can vary, resulting in very different mouthfeels. For a FG of 1.012, these have been some pretty full bodied beers.
 

Smellyglove

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
2,807
Reaction score
801
Another update. It has been a rough summer beer wise. I've been having problems with lactobacillus infections in some of my beers. I've tracked it down to the cooling stage (grain dust) and my procedures have now been changed. That being said, here are my conclusions with regards to body from doing a 20:20:20 min. step mash at 122:148:156 F.

It's great for a Helles, but actually TOO MUCH body for German Pilsner. They tasted great, but just weren't quite crisp enough - even well carbonated. All of the beers finished out around 1.012. I think I'll keep the 20 min @ 122F, but lengthen the 148 F step to at least 30 min. I might even skip the 158F step, at least as another experiment.

Related to the body, I think the more body a beer has, the milder a given amount of bitterness is. Or in other words, take two beers with the same OG's and FG's (at least very close) and the same IBU's, the one with more body (proteins) will taste less bitter - or at least smoother.

Unfortuantely one of the beers that went lambic on me was the no protein rest mash. It is a good thing I like sour beers! I'm actually thinking I might culture the bugs out of one of them for future use. I had some really nice lambics while in Belgium recently.
This is an old thread, but still relevant to what I'm lacking in my hefes, body/full mouthfeel.

I am currently just skipping past the proteolytic range as fast as I can with a herms, up to the first sacc rest at 63c, because of what I've read in How To Brew.

Reading the post I quoted, should I stop at 50c, hold it for 15 minutes ish and ramp temps again?

Anyone have some more experiences or references backing this up?
 

rabeb25

HE of who can not be spoken of.
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
694
Reaction score
145
Location
IDB
This is an old thread, but still relevant to what I'm lacking in my hefes, body/full mouthfeel.

I am currently just skipping past the proteolytic range as fast as I can with a herms, up to the first sacc rest at 63c, because of what I've read in How To Brew.

Reading the post I quoted, should I stop at 50c, hold it for 15 minutes ish and ramp temps again?

Anyone have some more experiences or references backing this up?

The problem was not the mash regimen, it was he was either below gelatinization temps or too short on time, or both. Thereby not getting all the beta, and leaving the beer sweet. It's telling when he talks about crispness.

In regards to your beer, can I get some more info like recipe and malts, etc?
 

Smellyglove

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
2,807
Reaction score
801
The problem was not the mash regimen, it was he was either below gelatinization temps or too short on time, or both. Thereby not getting all the beta, and leaving the beer sweet. It's telling when he talks about crispness.

In regards to your beer, can I get some more info like recipe and malts, etc?
Its 70% wheat, 27% pilsner, both from Castle Malting, and 3% Caramunich 3, from Weyermann.

I do a herrmann-mash, a maltase mash.. I use a herms which ramps temps with about 1.25C/min. I step past the proteolytic range.

Dough in 43, hold for 15 min, step up to 63, hold for 50ish, step to 72, hold for 30. then comes the herrmann mash which is basically the same but it starts at 38C. I use 1/2 of my water the first round, with 1/3 of the grist. Second rounds i add rest of water and malt.

Last batch i just did a plain mash like most people do, strike to acheive 50, hold for 15, then the 63, 72, mashout.

sulfate chloride about 21PPM of each, last batch hade 21/34, adding phosforic acid to reach about 5.5 pH. Last ones were boiled for 120 minutes. Mashing takes about 2.5-4 hours, cant remember.

I thought he said that the beer was to full in one beer, etc.. because of the mash.
 

rabeb25

HE of who can not be spoken of.
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
694
Reaction score
145
Location
IDB
Ah yes, the infamous Herrmann Maischverfahrens
Don't acidify your hefe's, especially in the 4VG rest area, 4VG likes higher pH.

I have to ask, are you brewing low oxygen? Before low oxygen all my beers were thin.

My hefe weissbier is pretty simple like your as well. 50% wheat, 45% pils, and 5% carahell.



I don't Herrmann, its not very low oxygen friendly, but I do dough in at 45c and hold for about 45 minutes (again high pH), then ramp though at 1c/min to 62 for 20, 64-20, 66-20, 72-30, then 77-10. I shoot for 13p.

I don't add sulfate either, 40ppm ca, a dash of nacl, and thats it. I use the same water for all styles.

The key is to mash the beer (every beer for that matter) that will finish lower than what you want to, say I want my hefe to finish at 2.5p. I will mash it to finsih at 1.5p but stop it before it gets there. This leaves a little residual extract to "back sweeten" the beer and give it the proper amount of crisp finish, but a little body and sweetness. The key here is matching the remaining extract to the style of beer as it will vary. Which is not the same as mashing for the beer to finish at 2.5, and no residual sugar, as it will be too dry.

Hopping is important, as is a nice soft boil to preserve those lovely fresh malt characters. So low hops (NO late hops) and a soft boil (target under 8%).

Lastly no force carbing.

A lot of this is probably not worth mentioning if you are cunning enough to know what the Herrmann Maischverfahrens is. :):):mug:
 

Smellyglove

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
2,807
Reaction score
801
Ah yes, the infamous Herrmann Maischverfahrens
Don't acidify your hefe's, especially in the 4VG rest area, 4VG likes higher pH.

I have to ask, are you brewing low oxygen? Before low oxygen all my beers were thin.

My hefe weissbier is pretty simple like your as well. 50% wheat, 45% pils, and 5% carahell.



I don't Herrmann, its not very low oxygen friendly, but I do dough in at 45c and hold for about 45 minutes (again high pH), then ramp though at 1c/min to 62 for 20, 64-20, 66-20, 72-30, then 77-10. I shoot for 13p.

I don't add sulfate either, 40ppm ca, a dash of nacl, and thats it. I use the same water for all styles.

The key is to mash the beer (every beer for that matter) that will finish lower than what you want to, say I want my hefe to finish at 2.5p. I will mash it to finsih at 1.5p but stop it before it gets there. This leaves a little residual extract to "back sweeten" the beer and give it the proper amount of crisp finish, but a little body and sweetness. The key here is matching the remaining extract to the style of beer as it will vary. Which is not the same as mashing for the beer to finish at 2.5, and no residual sugar, as it will be too dry.

Hopping is important, as is a nice soft boil to preserve those lovely fresh malt characters. So low hops (NO late hops) and a soft boil (target under 8%).

Lastly no force carbing.

A lot of this is probably not worth mentioning if you are cunning enough to know what the Herrmann Maischverfahrens is. :):):mug:
I don't do any water adjustments until im almost up to 63C on the second round, so the whole first round and the maltase-rest is high-pH.

I don't do LoDo. I felt it just was to much for me. But the only time my wort is being "splashed" is when i run it off into my BK through the spigot, so it is in the open until the level rises above the spigot. I don't add SMB, or use a mash cap, or preboil, even though I heat it up way beyond strike temp, but often the night before.. maybe not much help there. But I know this is not where the problem lies. I can perfectly do a full beer, but I don't want to "cheat". I want to challenge myself into making as good hefe as I can with that water profile. There's a lot to it in the mash (which I'm trying to figure out), but half of it is in the packaging. You need the perfect amount of yeast into bottles, too much and the beer gets too thick, to little, and the beer ends up to thin. I feel I got the yeast-thing down, but that I'm lacking in the mash.

I do the same mash for every hefe, unless I'm expermimenting. I know bang on where they will end up. (I do SG, not plato), so 1.012 for first and second gen, and 1.013 for third gen. I need to get a microcope.

My boil off is at about 8.8% on this beer, nice mellow boil, I add speise directly to the bottles, no secondary of any kind what so ever, targeting 7g/l co2.

I've edited this a few times now, if you have read, pls read it again.
 

rabeb25

HE of who can not be spoken of.
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
694
Reaction score
145
Location
IDB
I just circle back to my original question of low oxygen. I will say again that my beers always came our thinner than the real German counter parts. All problems solved when I changed that.

You really need to get that beer dryer, if you test any commercial (German) examples they will always be 1.010 or below.

Good luck.
 

Smellyglove

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
2,807
Reaction score
801
I just circle back to my original question of low oxygen. I will say again that my beers always came our thinner than the real German counter parts. All problems solved when I changed that.

You really need to get that beer dryer, if you test any commercial (German) examples they will always be 1.010 or below.

Good luck.
I just tasted another one... Second batch with a tad differenct grist and finally a proper carbonation.. After tasting the last batch a few days ago, after altering a few stuff to enhance mouthfeel, and it still felt thin-ish, I got pretty bummed. The beer it self tasted awful, took is as bad yeast management, and it felt not much fuller than previous batches.. Also bought beer tasted pretty off right after I finished work...

Hear this.. I'd been eating a load of cheap over-salted popcorn the last few hours during work. My palate was WAY off.

Popped another one just recently, and I'm getting there. Not bad. I think I need more time in the bottle, even though hefe is supposed to be fresh, but I package pretty early so I feel it just needs som more time in the bottle.
 
Top