Step Mash vs. Single Infusion | exBEERiment Results!

[wort-h.o.g]

When I said that I didn’t necessarily notice a difference in my helles in terms of the step mash, that’s off of memories of the last helles I brewed - over a year and a half ago. In other words, there’s no way I can say that accurately. I want to try to do a double brew day this year to assess side by side, single for one, step the other. Probably a simple, clean recipe like this helles would be as good as any to eval. May as well do it right.

Thought it and I didn’t say it…knew you were at least thinking it Jon. Precisely how I went about it with my pils.

[beersk]

@klickitat_jim

@erockrph

@beersk

I have not done blind tests, but I don’t really feel the need to. Enzymes work best at different temperatures and a 150F rest isn’t doing the best for beta and alpha enzymes. Separate rests are best. But I guess if you don’t care to spend a little extra time then don’t. That’s why this hobby is great, we can put into it what we want to get out of it.

A 150F rest isn’t doing the best what? Separate rests are best at what? Why?

I get that the enzymes do different things, but none work in a vacuum. Why is it better to have alpha and beta active separately, rather than together? And how are you sure that alpha isn’t having a significant effect down at beta rest range before you ramp up? Modern malts have a crap-ton of enzymatic activity, and even if it’s at a lower rate there’s a good chance that alpha-amylase is still gobbling away well enough just by sheer enzymatic content at beta rest temps. And frankly, alpha amylase activity will certainly improve beta amylase’s effectiveness, by exposing more 1-4 bonds for beta to act on.

I think you have to be really cautious to start extrapolating scientific facts, given how complex the chemistry of wort and beer production is. You can make all the claims you want, but they are really just unproven hypotheses until you back it up with data.

I have to agree on Eric’s point about the complex dynamic nature of the mash, especially with high DP malts. We like to compartmentalize and simplify things, but that’s only happening on paper for our linear ability to consciously think of one thing at a time. To consciously think of the mash in reality would sound like a room full of people all talking at the same time. In studying Troester’s work, the part of decoction that made sense was the breaking down of more starch trapped in matrix, and then introducing those starches back to a now hotter mash so they can be converted to long chain sugars. You convert short chain in a beta rest, then decotion, then convert the new exposed starches to long chain. But I’m not very convinced that its happening very effectively, if at all, in a step mash where trapped starches aren’t really exposed to the rigors of boiling and stiring.

Personally, im not experiencing much difference in my single infusion mashes between 148-152. I need to be up around 156 before I see a distinct measurable change in final gravity. (When I brew two near-identical beers with just mash temps different) I’ve done a grand total of two step mashes, so Im not an expert, but I didnt find that the high temp A rest did anything for residual sugars/body. Its possible if not likely that I held the B rest too long.

Problem here is body does not equal residual sugars. Most German beers finish at 1.010 or below and they are full bodied. The thing with doing long Beta then a long Alpha rest is you get the attenuation profile and the body profile both together. I find my single infused at 150F lagers to be thin tasting. They should be dry yet full, that’s what I feel a step mash, properly executed, does for the beer. But, as Eric said, I’m not wanting to go around purporting things that I can’t necessarily back up with all kinds of scientific data.

Also, as was said, you can’t really argue with perception. If you taste graham cracker, but I don’t and taste bread crust instead, in the same beer…well you can’t really argue that.

And I agree, Ken and Jon, doing a complete side-by-side would be a great way to do it. I wish I had the fermentation space for 10 gallons of lager. My fridge doesn’t fit 2 buckets.

[jonhughey_att.net (HoosierBrew)]

When I said that I didn’t necessarily notice a difference in my helles in terms of the step mash, that’s off of memories of the last helles I brewed - over a year and a half ago. In other words, there’s no way I can say that accurately. I want to try to do a double brew day this year to assess side by side, single for one, step the other. Probably a simple, clean recipe like this helles would be as good as any to eval. May as well do it right.

Thought it and I didn’t say it…knew you were at least thinking it Jon. Precisely how I went about it with my pils.

Cool. I figured you did. Kinda makes sense.

[wort-h.o.g]

Yeah and samples bottled  for each batch helps. Keep going back for comps…many times.

[wort-h.o.g]

@beersk

@klickitat_jim

@erockrph

@beersk

I have not done blind tests, but I don’t really feel the need to. Enzymes work best at different temperatures and a 150F rest isn’t doing the best for beta and alpha enzymes. Separate rests are best. But I guess if you don’t care to spend a little extra time then don’t. That’s why this hobby is great, we can put into it what we want to get out of it.

A 150F rest isn’t doing the best what? Separate rests are best at what? Why?

I get that the enzymes do different things, but none work in a vacuum. Why is it better to have alpha and beta active separately, rather than together? And how are you sure that alpha isn’t having a significant effect down at beta rest range before you ramp up? Modern malts have a crap-ton of enzymatic activity, and even if it’s at a lower rate there’s a good chance that alpha-amylase is still gobbling away well enough just by sheer enzymatic content at beta rest temps. And frankly, alpha amylase activity will certainly improve beta amylase’s effectiveness, by exposing more 1-4 bonds for beta to act on.

I think you have to be really cautious to start extrapolating scientific facts, given how complex the chemistry of wort and beer production is. You can make all the claims you want, but they are really just unproven hypotheses until you back it up with data.

I have to agree on Eric’s point about the complex dynamic nature of the mash, especially with high DP malts. We like to compartmentalize and simplify things, but that’s only happening on paper for our linear ability to consciously think of one thing at a time. To consciously think of the mash in reality would sound like a room full of people all talking at the same time. In studying Troester’s work, the part of decoction that made sense was the breaking down of more starch trapped in matrix, and then introducing those starches back to a now hotter mash so they can be converted to long chain sugars. You convert short chain in a beta rest, then decotion, then convert the new exposed starches to long chain. But I’m not very convinced that its happening very effectively, if at all, in a step mash where trapped starches aren’t really exposed to the rigors of boiling and stiring.

Personally, im not experiencing much difference in my single infusion mashes between 148-152. I need to be up around 156 before I see a distinct measurable change in final gravity. (When I brew two near-identical beers with just mash temps different) I’ve done a grand total of two step mashes, so Im not an expert, but I didnt find that the high temp A rest did anything for residual sugars/body. Its possible if not likely that I held the B rest too long.

Problem here is body does not equal residual sugars. Most German beers finish at 1.010 or below and they are full bodied. The thing with doing long Beta then a long Alpha rest is you get the attenuation profile and the body profile both together. I find my single infused at 150F lagers to be thin tasting. They should be dry yet full, that’s what I feel a step mash, properly executed, does for the beer. But, as Eric said, I’m not wanting to go around purporting things that I can’t necessarily back up with all kinds of scientific data.

Also, as was said, you can’t really argue with perception. If you taste graham cracker, but I don’t and taste bread crust instead, in the same beer…well you can’t really argue that.

And I agree, Ken and Jon, doing a complete side-by-side would be a great way to do it. I wish I had the fermentation space for 10 gallons of lager. My fridge doesn’t fit 2 buckets.

That’s one conclusion I’m locked in on Jesse. I’ve blind tasted 1.008-009 single infusion at 148f vs 1.008-009 step and without question the step beer always jumps out as more body,  higher OG or whatever you want to call it. It’s feels fuller in mouthfeel without the residual sugar.

[system]

Once I automate my Waring Pro electric burner I think I’m going to direct fire and use my 8 qt. pot  as a mash tun. Much easier to step with an Auber unit ll

[klickitat_jim]

I figured the purported extra body created by step mashing would be from unfermentable sugars. If its not that, does anyone know what it is? And how the step mash creates it but single infusion doesn’t?

[skatz (Stevie)]

Total SWAG. Maybe the increased body is the result of long chain unfermentables, but the step mash also created a large amount of easily fermented sugars.

[klickitat_jim]

Maybe I worded it wrong. Suppose two identical beers. One single infusion at 152F. The other with a step mash. If the step mash beer has more body, how is that happening if its not residual unfermented sugars?

[narcout]

@klickitat_jim

I figured the purported extra body created by step mashing would be from unfermentable sugars. If its not that, does anyone know what it is? And how the step mash creates it but single infusion doesn’t?

Look up glycoproteins, supposedly released at mash temps around 160.  Kai touches on them briefly, and they are mentioned in some other sources I have seen.

Edit: Below is the relevant page from Kai’s site.

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Decoction_Mashing

“Narziss [Narziss, 2005] and Fix [Fix, 1999] suggest, that a rest at 158 - 162 *F (70 - 72 *C) benefits head retention and body of the beer though glycoproteides that are extracted from the malt but not degraded by enzymatic activity. Because of that Narziss suggests holding this rest up to 60 min.”

[skatz (Stevie)]

@klickitat_jim

Maybe I worded it wrong. Suppose two identical beers. One single infusion at 152F. The other with a step mash. If the step mash beer has more body, how is that happening if its not residual unfermented sugars?

You worded it right. I meant two beers same OG and FG But the step mash has more body.

[klickitat_jim]

@narcout

@klickitat_jim

I figured the purported extra body created by step mashing would be from unfermentable sugars. If its not that, does anyone know what it is? And how the step mash creates it but single infusion doesn’t?

Look up glycoproteins, supposedly released at mash temps around 160.  Kai touches on them briefly, and they are mentioned in some other sources I have seen.

Edit: Below is the relevant page from Kai’s site.

Decoction Mashing - German brewing and more

“Narziss [Narziss, 2005] and Fix [Fix, 1999] suggest, that a rest at 158 - 162 *F (70 - 72 *C) benefits head retention and body of the beer though glycoproteides that are extracted from the malt but not degraded by enzymatic activity. Because of that Narziss suggests holding this rest up to 60 min.”

Interesting!  I’d read that before and purged it lol. I think my take away originally was that the higher temp step was for body. So apparently glycoproteides are not considered a sugar and would not be measurable with a hydrometer?

[beersk]

@klickitat_jim

@narcout

@klickitat_jim

I figured the purported extra body created by step mashing would be from unfermentable sugars. If its not that, does anyone know what it is? And how the step mash creates it but single infusion doesn’t?

Look up glycoproteins, supposedly released at mash temps around 160.  Kai touches on them briefly, and they are mentioned in some other sources I have seen.

Edit: Below is the relevant page from Kai’s site.

Decoction Mashing - German brewing and more

“Narziss [Narziss, 2005] and Fix [Fix, 1999] suggest, that a rest at 158 - 162 *F (70 - 72 *C) benefits head retention and body of the beer though glycoproteides that are extracted from the malt but not degraded by enzymatic activity. Because of that Narziss suggests holding this rest up to 60 min.”

So apparently glycoproteides are not considered a sugar and would not be measurable with a hydrometer?

Indeedydoobly, my good chum. This is complex chemistry sh*t!

[kramerog]

@klickitat_jim

@narcout

@klickitat_jim

I figured the purported extra body created by step mashing would be from unfermentable sugars. If its not that, does anyone know what it is? And how the step mash creates it but single infusion doesn’t?

Look up glycoproteins, supposedly released at mash temps around 160.  Kai touches on them briefly, and they are mentioned in some other sources I have seen.

Edit: Below is the relevant page from Kai’s site.

Decoction Mashing - German brewing and more

“Narziss [Narziss, 2005] and Fix [Fix, 1999] suggest, that a rest at 158 - 162 *F (70 - 72 *C) benefits head retention and body of the beer though glycoproteides that are extracted from the malt but not degraded by enzymatic activity. Because of that Narziss suggests holding this rest up to 60 min.”

Interesting!  I’d read that before and purged it lol. I think my take away originally was that the higher temp step was for body. So apparently glycoproteides are not considered a sugar and would not be measurable with a hydrometer?

Glycoproteins could measurably affect gravity if there was enough of them.  It sounds like they have high molecular weights so a small amount of them can affect mouthfeel.

@erockrph

@beersk

I have not done blind tests, but I don’t really feel the need to. Enzymes work best at different temperatures and a 150F rest isn’t doing the best for beta and alpha enzymes. Separate rests are best. But I guess if you don’t care to spend a little extra time then don’t. That’s why this hobby is great, we can put into it what we want to get out of it.

A 150F rest isn’t doing the best what? Separate rests are best at what? Why?

I get that the enzymes do different things, but none work in a vacuum. Why is it better to have alpha and beta active separately, rather than together? And how are you sure that alpha isn’t having a significant effect down at beta rest range before you ramp up? Modern malts have a crap-ton of enzymatic activity, and even if it’s at a lower rate there’s a good chance that alpha-amylase is still gobbling away well enough just by sheer enzymatic content at beta rest temps. And frankly, alpha amylase activity will certainly improve beta amylase’s effectiveness, by exposing more 1-4 bonds for beta to act on.

I think you have to be really cautious to start extrapolating scientific facts, given how complex the chemistry of wort and beer production is. You can make all the claims you want, but they are really just unproven hypotheses until you back it up with data.

[zwiller]

That’s one conclusion I’m locked in on Jesse. I’ve blind tasted 1.008-009 single infusion at 148f vs 1.008-009 step and without question the step beer always jumps out as more body,  higher OG or whatever you want to call it. It’s feels fuller in mouthfeel without the residual sugar.

Same here.  In addition, I think foam is enhanced and has a higher sheen.  I notice this even in my uber hochkurz 15m rests.  Very interesting to read of the chemistry that might be behind it.

[beersk]

@zwiller

That’s one conclusion I’m locked in on Jesse. I’ve blind tasted 1.008-009 single infusion at 148f vs 1.008-009 step and without question the step beer always jumps out as more body,  higher OG or whatever you want to call it. It’s feels fuller in mouthfeel without the residual sugar.

Same here.  In addition, I think foam is enhanced and has a higher sheen.  I notice this even in my uber hochkurz 15m rests.  Very interesting to read of the chemistry that might be behind it.

Agreed. It’s like saying gravity is the same in the upper atmosphere, because it’s still in the Earth’s atmosphere, as it is on the surface. That might be exaggerating a bit…
But I don’t know, some people honestly can’t taste it. The thing about those blind tests with all those people is, sure, you get a wide range of palates, but most of them probably wouldn’t tell the difference if it slapped them in the face anyway. Just because you have BJCP judge by your name doesn’t make you an expert. So you took a class and passed a test, cool, good for you.

[denny]

@narvin

@beersk

Well, I think the Belgian yeast covers up anything you’ll be able to reliably tell, although 66 tastes could tell, which I thought was staggering.

Maybe, maybe not.  Most Belgian breweries step mash, and they think it makes a difference.

Now, the amount of crystal malt used in the recipe might mask any potential differences.  I think it’s a bit of a busy grain bill for a blonde.

Or maybe that’s just the way they’ve always done it.

[system]

@denny

@narvin

@beersk

Well, I think the Belgian yeast covers up anything you’ll be able to reliably tell, although 66 tastes could tell, which I thought was staggering.

Maybe, maybe not.  Most Belgian breweries step mash, and they think it makes a difference.

Now, the amount of crystal malt used in the recipe might mask any potential differences.  I think it’s a bit of a busy grain bill for a blonde.

Or maybe that’s just the way they’ve always done it.

Yeah, I personally have no opinion of whether it’s worth it.  But every Belgian brewer I’ve talked to thinks it does make a difference, regardless of why they do it.  It is definitely tradition, though.

But I disagree that you can’t taste subtle malt complexities in a Belgian beer.  If you can’t, you’re doing it wrong (like many American takes on the styles).

[klickitat_jim]

@narvin

@denny

@narvin

@beersk

Well, I think the Belgian yeast covers up anything you’ll be able to reliably tell, although 66 tastes could tell, which I thought was staggering.

Maybe, maybe not.  Most Belgian breweries step mash, and they think it makes a difference.

Now, the amount of crystal malt used in the recipe might mask any potential differences.  I think it’s a bit of a busy grain bill for a blonde.

Or maybe that’s just the way they’ve always done it.

Yeah, I personally have no opinion of whether it’s worth it.  But every Belgian brewer I’ve talked to thinks it does make a difference, regardless of why they do it.  It is definitely tradition, though.

But I disagree that you can’t taste subtle malt complexities in a Belgian beer.  If you can’t, you’re doing it wrong (like many American takes on the styles).

Doing it wrong, LOL.

Its true though. When I first tasted Pilsner Urquell I was familiar with pale lagers but PU had something different. That clean crackery pils malt flavor. Then the first time I tried Leffe Blond all I got was clovey phenolic,  but one day I tried the Blond next to PU and dang if I wasnt able to pick out the pils malt in the Blond. That was a step toward learning how to see past the dominant feature.

[beersk]

@narvin

Yeah, I personally have no opinion of whether it’s worth it.  But every Belgian brewer I’ve talked to thinks it does make a difference, regardless of why they do it.  It is definitely tradition, though.

But I disagree that you can’t taste subtle malt complexities in a Belgian beer.  If you can’t, you’re doing it wrong (like many American takes on the styles).

Quite true there. This is how I feel about most American versions of German styles as well, particularly the lighter styles.