Not sure why you are disagreeing with me, I didn’t write the literature I just quoted it. I then further down said I have never noticed a difference either. :-\
Which is totally cool, doesn’t stop what they do though. I would also be interested in the data to back up the 99% similarity as well.
What temperature do you step up to?
I tried a few step mashes this year but didn’t notice any benefit. However, my second rests were at 70 C. I later saw in Principles of Brewing Science that Fix states the glycoproteins that contribute to foam stability are formed when the mash falls into the range of 70-74 C with 72 being preferred.
I wonder if my second rests were a little too low.
72 rest to 77 then rest is where I get my head retention from. Cold fermentation with lagers does wonders as well.
Brian, I wasn’t pointing the finger at you. It is squarely at the literature that can lead to others misapplying that information without understanding why the recommendation is what it is. You’re good!
No reason why they should care what I do. The data is my taste buds. Beyond that, I have nothing to prove.
So yeah, the original recipe looks good. I’d use the cheapest granulated sugar instead of syrup as the cheap stuff. Never used Kazbek hops so I can’t comment there but Saaz, EKG, Styrian Goldings or any noble hop would work.
I wonder how prolific the idea of “must scientifically prove everything” actually is in the hobby of home brewing. I suspect it’s a very tiny portion and if people think it’s wide spread maybe that’s because their sources are so narrow.
Lost me
I don’t think it’s a matter of anyone demanding scientific proof of anything but rather a bit of recognition to the fact that if your empirically derived brewing data mirrors the expected outcomes from known sources of hard brewing science then it’s true.
I feel bad for constantly derailing this post. Maybe we need a thread where we can just banter freely about this stuff.
The second para is a quote from BLAM.
I know it is.
I take your edit above to imply that I’m contradicting myself in some way. BLAM can simultaneously be a great source of invaluable information as well as contain some bad information as well.
I have a new thread in all grain for debating brewing science stuff. This way we don’t jam up other people’s threads.
I guess I am perplexed at how a source can be cited as “an inexhaustible amount of good information” and then one that give “bad advice”. I guess it’s not for me to understand. To each his own. Cheers!
There is nothing perplexing about it. It has tons and tons of fantastic information and a few not so good pieces of information. Pretty simple.
A single-infusion at 149F seems like a good idea to me. Both alpha and beta enzymes are active and I read this is the temperature where LOX is inactivated. I’ve made great Belgian Golden Strong Ales at this temperature.
Ar you defining “bad info” as info that contradicts other lit, or info that causes you to make bad beer?
Info that would contradict something in other brewing science literature.
And I’m not saying at all that single infusion makes bad beer but just that sitting at a single infusion temperature that may be in the prime band for LOX has other detrimental downstream effects when taking the whole picture into consideration.
This may be outside of what people care about or worry about which was a main driver in making this thread. This way debate on these subjects stays out of other threads so that people The aren’t interested don’t have to suffer through the spirited conversation.
Then what happens when our own experience contradicts what we read in brewing lit? I found that happening early on in my hobby and have spent nearly 20 years investigating it. What about if I do something that the lit says is bad for my beer, but I don’t experience those effects?
Okay now I’m confused. Isn’t his the Belgian Golden Strong thread?