Has anyone else tried this? It seems like it should work, but they found detectable flavor difference (or at least detectable by 14/22 people).
Totally regardless of what Brulosophy tasters found (ugh, please don’t get me started on that), why bother doing this?
I think the guy stated his reasons in the second paragraph, no? Can he simplify his brew day by saving some time?
It didn’t work, but I thought it was pretty interesting. I’m always looking to cut corners, especially if going all the way around the corner isn’t necessary.
Simplification of the brew day: Combining three steps (heating to strike, mashing, heating again to boil) into one (continuous heat from room temp to boil).
I don’t see why it wouldn’t work. Step mashes make great beer. (Edit; caveats in post # 10)
Give it a shot and tell us how it turns out. If time is a factor and it works for you that’s all that really matters.
As far as step mashes go: I did not see a huge difference that wow-ed me to the point of adopting the technique.
If I were using a less modified malt variety that would benefit from temp steps (a bunch of raw wheat in a Wit or something) I imagine my process would adapt for that grain bill. But I am normally using well modified malts so single infusion works great.
Also, my RIMS PID controller is not programmable. To make temp change I had to change the temp myself.
If I had a programmable PID controller I would be more inclined to consider using steps. Sounds lazy but the constant interaction was in PITA territory for little if any benefit.
My temperature controller is me. So right now, watching the thermometer to make sure I don’t overshoot my strike temp is the most PITA part of my brewday. My thought was that as long as I set the burner low enough that I stay in each “step” range long enough, I could just pull and drain the brewbag when I hit a temp that I know all the enzymes are done. Then crank the burner to hit a vigorous boil.
It does seem like it would make a more fermentable wort since i’d rise through the beta amylase “rest” first; so I might have to include some dextrin malt or lactose in the recipe to build body back in.
I dunno: I’ll try it with a small batch and see what happens.
It would be so malt dependent that a single test is useless.
Unless you have an all-in-one system like a Grainfather, you’d have to constantly be stirring the mash to homogenize the temp and prevent scorching. IMO, this is the opposite of simplifying the brew day.
Yep. Additional effort for no benefit is not simplifying.
Any recirculating system would do the trick. RIMS, HERMS, etc (see article cited for one example). If you are heating the MLT directly do it gradually so you don’t scorch the grain bed. I recommend a false bottom or some way to keep the grain off the bottom of the MLT sitting directly on a heat source. If you use a direct heat source you could probably use just a pump throttled back to recirculate. As long as there’s recirculation to eliminate the need to constantly stir manually. [emoji106]
…and there’s this:
…which is one reason I don’t do step mashes (see post #5).
Not the same thing but I once doughed in a mash at around 150°ish and covered it with aluminum foil and set it in a hot oven set at 170° and went to bed, woke up 6 or 7 hours later and proceeded with brewday as normal and made an awesome beer. If you are trying to save time that’;s one way to do it. Nice to wake up, have coffee and start sparging.
I’ve done the same.
Overnight mashing is on my list to try, too.