Author Topic: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest  (Read 1718 times)

Offline wobdee

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
« 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?

Offline narvin

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2255
  • Baltimore
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
« Reply #1 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.
Please do not reply if your[sic] an evil alien!
Thanks

Offline cascadesrunner

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
  • San Diego, CA
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
« Reply #2 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?
Run then beer.

Offline narvin

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2255
  • Baltimore
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
« Reply #3 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.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2015, 07:05:38 PM by narvin »
Please do not reply if your[sic] an evil alien!
Thanks

Offline HoosierBrew

  • Global Moderator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 13030
  • Indianapolis,IN
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
« Reply #4 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.
Jon H.

Offline wobdee

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
« Reply #5 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?

Offline dunngood

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
« Reply #6 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.

rabeb25

  • Guest
Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2015, 02:00:46 AM »
As does you ramping from your protein rest, hence the extra eff%.

Offline hopfenundmalz

  • Global Moderator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 8842
  • Milford, MI
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
« Reply #8 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.
Jeff Rankert
Ann Arbor Brewers Guild
AHA Governing Committee
BJCP National
Home-brewing, not just a hobby, it is a lifestyle!

Offline wobdee

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
« Reply #9 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?

Offline wobdee

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
« Reply #10 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.

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 19385
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
« Reply #11 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. 
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline wobdee

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
« Reply #12 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?

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 19385
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
« Reply #13 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.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline wobdee

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency Loss Without Protein Rest
« Reply #14 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.