Homebrewers Association | AHA Forum

General Category => General Homebrew Discussion => Topic started by: wobdee on August 16, 2015, 06:19:06 PM

Title: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: wobdee on August 16, 2015, 06:19:06 PM
Since I've stopped my protein rests with my step mash lagers I've seen a consistent efficiency drop of 5%. This is 3 batches in a row, same recipes as previous brews with a protein rest. Not a big deal to me, I'll just add a pinch more malt when I do this but was wondering if anyone else has seen this?
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: narvin on August 16, 2015, 06:21:40 PM
Could be lower mash efficiency due to a shorter mash?  Try extending your single infusion to 90 minutes... sometimes I find that I get a few more points out of the longer mash.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: cascadesrunner on August 16, 2015, 07:00:26 PM
Aside from gaining a few points in efficiency what are the other pros and cons of a longer mash?  What would be the upper limit of mast times and does that change depending on malt?
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: narvin on August 16, 2015, 07:03:35 PM
If you want a highly attenuatable wort, a long mash at a low temp is the way to go.  Otherwise, a longer mash just seems to work around other issues that crop up at homebrew scale like bad crush, insufficient mixing, or sub optimal pH.

I know people have done 2 hour mashes with no ill effects, but it's going to vary with recipe.  I haven't gone past 90 for a single infusion.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: HoosierBrew on August 16, 2015, 07:24:48 PM
Could be lower mash efficiency due to a shorter mash?  Try extending your single infusion to 90 minutes... sometimes I find that I get a few more points out of the longer mash.

+1.  I do a lot of single infusion mashes @ 75 mins now (except obviously for the sub 150F ones, 90+ mins for those) - I noticed a slight bump moving from 60 to 75 mins.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: wobdee on August 16, 2015, 08:04:01 PM
Lately I've been doing a Hockurz mash, 30 min at 145 and 45 min at 160. This is direct heat on an induction plate burner. Usually takes 15-20 min to raise from 145 to 160.

I guess adding the protein rest gives even a longer mash time but I wonder if those lower temps also help efficiency in another way?

I'm trying different mash schedules with the same recipes to see if there's any differences. Cant tell much difference on flavor between different mash schedules but my head retention could be a bit better. I get good head but it falls pretty quickly and the lacing isn't there. (keep it clean fellas) Maybe its more of a lager thing or yeast thing?
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: dunngood on August 16, 2015, 11:09:09 PM
One of the most common problems with doing a step mash with the modern grains is poor foam retention. If you are holding your mash at 145f the grains are mostly all converted at 30 mins. Raising the temp then does just a little clean up.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: rabeb25 on August 17, 2015, 02:00:46 AM
As does you ramping from your protein rest, hence the extra eff%.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: hopfenundmalz on August 17, 2015, 02:08:26 PM
Try 45 or even 60 min for the beta rest, the conversion is done quickly, but more fermentable sugars are still being created. Then keep the longer Alpha rest, as it does help body and head retention.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: wobdee on August 17, 2015, 05:19:13 PM
One of the most common problems with doing a step mash with the modern grains is poor foam retention. If you are holding your mash at 145f the grains are mostly all converted at 30 mins. Raising the temp then does just a little clean up.
Why do you believe step mashing modern grains leads to poor foam retention?
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: wobdee on September 09, 2015, 02:52:20 PM
Latest Helles shows no difference in head retention or lacing compared to previous same recipe with a protein rest in the 130's. I have a couple more lagers in the pipe line with the same mash schedule to compare yet.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: denny on September 09, 2015, 04:13:21 PM
One of the most common problems with doing a step mash with the modern grains is poor foam retention. If you are holding your mash at 145f the grains are mostly all converted at 30 mins. Raising the temp then does just a little clean up.
Why do you believe step mashing modern grains leads to poor foam retention?

Because so much of what the step mashing does has already been done by the maltster.  Malts today are far more modified than they used to be, when step mashes were necessary for full conversion.  Malt is not produced for homebrewers, but for commercial brewers.  For them, step mashing means time and energy, which equates to expenses they don't want. 
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: wobdee on September 09, 2015, 04:23:37 PM
One of the most common problems with doing a step mash with the modern grains is poor foam retention. If you are holding your mash at 145f the grains are mostly all converted at 30 mins. Raising the temp then does just a little clean up.
Why do you believe step mashing modern grains leads to poor foam retention?

Because so much of what the step mashing does has already been done by the maltster.  Malts today are far more modified than they used to be, when step mashes were necessary for full conversion.  Malt is not produced for homebrewers, but for commercial brewers.  For them, step mashing means time and energy, which equates to expenses they don't want.
That makes sense in N America but what about Germany? I've read the Germans are pretty much all step or decoction brewers. Is German Pils malt a little less modified?
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: denny on September 09, 2015, 04:27:30 PM
That makes sense in N America but what about Germany? I've read the Germans are pretty much all step or decoction brewers. Is German Pils malt a little less modified?

Nope most of them are as highly modified as N American malts.  I've used Weyermann, Durst, Best, Castle, MFB and a few other continental pils malts in a single infusion and they worked great.  Your info that says "pretty much all" is at odds with what I've learned.  Few of them do decoctions and only a portion of them do step mashes.  That's i the past.  Energy and labor costs are too high to do that in general.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: wobdee on September 09, 2015, 04:45:47 PM
That makes sense in N America but what about Germany? I've read the Germans are pretty much all step or decoction brewers. Is German Pils malt a little less modified?

Nope most of them are as highly modified as N American malts.  I've used Weyermann, Durst, Best, Castle, MFB and a few other continental pils malts in a single infusion and they worked great.  Your info that says "pretty much all" is at odds with what I've learned.  Few of them do decoctions and only a portion of them do step mashes.  That's i the past.  Energy and labor costs are too high to do that in general.
So Denny, if one could find under modified malt do you think it would make better beer? Seems like highly modified is another short cut to make money and not quality. I've also read that many breweries have their own maltings especially the ones that decoct. I suppose they malt according to how their set up to brew.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: rabeb25 on September 09, 2015, 05:25:51 PM
Your 130 rest all depends on your Kolbach, above 40 no rest is needed.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: denny on September 09, 2015, 05:50:24 PM
So Denny, if one could find under modified malt do you think it would make better beer? Seems like highly modified is another short cut to make money and not quality. I've also read that many breweries have their own maltings especially the ones that decoct. I suppose they malt according to how their set up to brew.

I don't know how undermodified malt would make better beer.  I also don't know why you would see highly modified malts to make lower quality beer.  Do you think that a horse and buggy is "better" than a car?  :)  I don't know that "many" breweries malt their own grain, but there are a few that do.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: denny on September 09, 2015, 05:50:59 PM
Your 130 rest all depends on your Kolbach, above 40 no rest is needed.

THIS^^^^ and if it's much above 40, the rest can be detrimental.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: wobdee on September 09, 2015, 06:05:55 PM
Best says the kolbach is 36-45?
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: ynotbrusum on September 09, 2015, 06:21:30 PM
Best says the kolbach is 36-45?

So on average, 40.5;  that tells me no protein rest is needed.  I have done Best Malz all sorts of ways, but I settled on single infusion out of ease and the fact that I found no discernible difference between all methods (decoction producing a somewhat darker wort in side by side examples - but not significantly darker and that could be adjusted by a Melanoiden malt addition to the single infusion grist, if I was concerned).
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: wobdee on September 09, 2015, 06:35:31 PM
So Denny, if one could find under modified malt do you think it would make better beer? Seems like highly modified is another short cut to make money and not quality. I've also read that many breweries have their own maltings especially the ones that decoct. I suppose they malt according to how their set up to brew.

I don't know how undermodified malt would make better beer.  I also don't know why you would see highly modified malts to make lower quality beer.  Do you think that a horse and buggy is "better" than a car?  :)  I don't know that "many" breweries malt their own grain, but there are a few that do.
John Palmers book says some feel less modified malts taste fuller and maltier. I don't know for sure but I'd like to get my hands on some and see.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: wobdee on September 09, 2015, 06:39:42 PM
Best says the kolbach is 36-45?

So on average, 40.5;  that tells me no protein rest is needed.  I have done Best Malz all sorts of ways, but I settled on single infusion out of ease and the fact that I found no discernible difference between all methods (decoction producing a somewhat darker wort in side by side examples - but not significantly darker and that could be adjusted by a Melanoiden malt addition to the single infusion grist, if I was concerned).
I don't know if you can go by the average? I guess it can change from year to year and its my understanding the info is on the sack for that particular crop. Anyone have a new sack of Best Pils?
Title: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: Stevie on September 09, 2015, 06:51:54 PM
So Denny, if one could find under modified malt do you think it would make better beer? Seems like highly modified is another short cut to make money and not quality. I've also read that many breweries have their own maltings especially the ones that decoct. I suppose they malt according to how their set up to brew.

I don't know how undermodified malt would make better beer.  I also don't know why you would see highly modified malts to make lower quality beer.  Do you think that a horse and buggy is "better" than a car?  :)  I don't know that "many" breweries malt their own grain, but there are a few that do.
John Palmers book says some feel less modified malts taste fuller and maltier. I don't know for sure but I'd like to get my hands on some and see.

Weyermann Floor Malted Bohemian Pilsner is slightly lower. I think it's average is 35-38
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: narvin on September 09, 2015, 07:18:17 PM
Best says the kolbach is 36-45?

So on average, 40.5;  that tells me no protein rest is needed.  I have done Best Malz all sorts of ways, but I settled on single infusion out of ease and the fact that I found no discernible difference between all methods (decoction producing a somewhat darker wort in side by side examples - but not significantly darker and that could be adjusted by a Melanoiden malt addition to the single infusion grist, if I was concerned).
I don't know if you can go by the average? I guess it can change from year to year and its my understanding the info is on the sack for that particular crop. Anyone have a new sack of Best Pils?

http://coa.countrymaltgroup.com/maltlot.asp

Starting typing bzpils in the box and a list of lot numbers will appear.  After choosing a few randomly, they all seem to be > 40.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: wobdee on September 09, 2015, 07:45:39 PM
Thanks narvin
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: hopfenundmalz on September 09, 2015, 09:02:32 PM
So Denny, if one could find under modified malt do you think it would make better beer? Seems like highly modified is another short cut to make money and not quality. I've also read that many breweries have their own maltings especially the ones that decoct. I suppose they malt according to how their set up to brew.

I don't know how undermodified malt would make better beer.  I also don't know why you would see highly modified malts to make lower quality beer.  Do you think that a horse and buggy is "better" than a car?  :)  I don't know that "many" breweries malt their own grain, but there are a few that do.
John Palmers book says some feel less modified malts taste fuller and maltier. I don't know for sure but I'd like to get my hands on some and see.

Weyermann Floor Malted Bohemian Pilsner is slightly lower. I think it's average is 35-38
Once I found a Weyermann document that said 38.4.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: rabeb25 on September 10, 2015, 12:31:46 AM
http://www.weyermann.de/pdf_analyses/q019-001960-01.pdf


This is my current bag of floor malted pils.  41.2.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: wobdee on September 10, 2015, 12:16:05 PM
http://www.weyermann.de/pdf_analyses/q019-001960-01.pdf


This is my current bag of floor malted pils.  41.2.
That's kind a surprising, most people say this malt is slightly under modified.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: wobdee on September 10, 2015, 12:19:32 PM
Here's the response from Best Malz when I asked them whether  I need a protein rest or not for their Pils malt.
actually there it is no problem to skip the protein rest, the malt is modified enough. If there should be some problems anyway or if you brew a stronger beer, I would recommend to mash in at lower temperatures (38° Celsius) and rise temperature directly to the first rest (64°Celsius). This time of rising up should be enough to solve some more proteins and also to reduce the ß- Glucans. 
 
I hope this will support you,
 
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: rabeb25 on September 10, 2015, 03:13:07 PM
http://www.weyermann.de/pdf_analyses/q019-001960-01.pdf


This is my current bag of floor malted pils.  41.2.
That's kind a surprising, most people say this malt is slightly under modified.

I am assuming most people don't care to actually read the malt analysis ;)
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: rabeb25 on September 10, 2015, 03:24:58 PM
Todd, add me on Facebook as a friend. I have something you may like. Bryan Rabe.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: denny on September 10, 2015, 04:27:27 PM
http://www.weyermann.de/pdf_analyses/q019-001960-01.pdf


This is my current bag of floor malted pils.  41.2.
That's kind a surprising, most people say this malt is slightly under modified.

There is often a large difference between "what people say" and reality.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: denny on September 10, 2015, 04:28:33 PM
http://www.weyermann.de/pdf_analyses/q019-001960-01.pdf


This is my current bag of floor malted pils.  41.2.
That's kind a surprising, most people say this malt is slightly under modified.

I am assuming most people don't care to actually read the malt analysis ;)

THIS^^^^  It's so much easier to parrot the conventional wisdom and have other people do your thinking for you!
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: hopfenundmalz on September 10, 2015, 07:28:32 PM
http://www.weyermann.de/pdf_analyses/q019-001960-01.pdf


This is my current bag of floor malted pils.  41.2.
That's kind a surprising, most people say this malt is slightly under modified.

I am assuming most people don't care to actually read the malt analysis ;)

THIS^^^^  It's so much easier to parrot the conventional wisdom and have other people do your thinking for you!
Then again, not everyone knows how to read a malt analysis sheet.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: denny on September 10, 2015, 08:02:00 PM
Then again, not everyone knows how to read a malt analysis sheet.

How hard is it to learn?
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: Stevie on September 10, 2015, 08:12:46 PM
Not everybody has access to the malt analysis sheet. If not buying by the sack or the shop doesn't have the batch number, all they can do is make an assumption.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: rabeb25 on September 10, 2015, 08:41:23 PM
http://www.weyermann.de/pdf_analyses/q019-001960-01.pdf


This is my current bag of floor malted pils.  41.2.
That's kind a surprising, most people say this malt is slightly under modified.

I am assuming most people don't care to actually read the malt analysis ;)

THIS^^^^  It's so much easier to parrot the conventional wisdom and have other people do your thinking for you!
Then again, not everyone knows how to read a malt analysis sheet.

I would argue this being a necessity for AG brewers.
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: hopfenundmalz on September 10, 2015, 09:27:54 PM
Then again, not everyone knows how to read a malt analysis sheet.

How hard is it to learn?
Not hard, but some don't bother. There is the Malt book by Mallett. I read Noonan's write up years ago.

http://morebeer.com/brewingtechniques/bmg/noonan.html
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: ynotbrusum on September 10, 2015, 09:56:09 PM
But Jeff and Denny - where do you find the information to do the analysis?  I find fewer and fewer tags on grain bags anymore.  Does the maltster post them in a databank that is accessible by the lot number or some other such means?
Title: Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
Post by: hopfenundmalz on September 11, 2015, 02:30:24 AM
But Jeff and Denny - where do you find the information to do the analysis?  I find fewer and fewer tags on grain bags anymore.  Does the maltster post them in a databank that is accessible by the lot number or some other such means?
There are lot numbers on the bag you can enter online.
https://bsgcraftbrewing.com/MaltAnalysis

http://coa.countrymaltgroup.com/maltlot.asp