[charles1968]

I can recognise WLP029 in the fermenter and like to think I can recognise it in the glass, but I've never tried blind tasting it. I don't get a "chardonnay" flavour from it. I would describe it as having an exaggerated lager flavour, even more lager-like than W34/70, which I think is pretty bland.

Back in January I had a brief chat with a scientist at the Weihenstephan Research Center in Germany about the origins of the ale yeast strain that hybridized with S. eubayanus to form modern lager yeasts. He said the scientists at Weihenstephan think the hydbridization took place in Germany and involved either a S. cerevisiae Alt or Kolsch yeast. If so, that would explain why the taste of Kolsch and Alt is so similar to lagers - modern lager yeasts inherited half or more of their genomes from those particular strains. There's a paper on the genetics of German yeast strains that shows one of the Alt strains (W184) has a very similar fingerprint to lagers - can dig it out if anyone is interested. Apparently a team of scientists in Portugal are currently sequencing lager genomes & hope to pinpoint which strain was the ale parent in the next year or two.

[AmandaK]

Since this thread has been one giant derail anyway, I'll say that the fact that 029 is so mild (and dare say sort of lager like) is exactly why I prefer 2565 for kolsch. It's just a better kolsch strain IMO, aside from being a PITA to clear.

I agree. I poured my WLP029/WY2565 side by side for my neighbor and he came back with the same response... but then followed it up with "I still like Wyeast Kolsch II better."  Hahaha. Guess I'm off to do another! 

[rabeb25]

I'm just surprised that the subject of decoction as being necessary to a true Helles has not been raised - 

Don't wake them back up from their slumbers. They just calmed down about it.

First off, posts like this wake me back up. As YOU could have left it well enough alone yourself, there Mr. pompous engineer. Guess what, there are other engineers in the world, shocking I know. The problem though is almost all of them come off just as you do.

Secondly, as I sit here and happen to be brewing a Helles, which I happen to be decocting. I will tell you its not the answer to a true Helles...A part? Ehh, maybe. There are breweries in Munich (and else where) that no longer decoction mash. I will say with almost certainty a single infusion mash (ala the English method) won't get you there. But there are those who are fine with that, and those who aren't, and thats cool too. Add in the 80/20 rule and all that.

[beersk]

I'm just surprised that the subject of decoction as being necessary to a true Helles has not been raised - 

Don't wake them back up from their slumbers. They just calmed down about it.

First off, posts like this wake me back up. As YOU could have left it well enough alone yourself, there Mr. pompous engineer. Guess what, there are other engineers in the world, shocking I know. The problem though is almost all of them come off just as you do.

Secondly, as I sit here and happen to be brewing a Helles, which I happen to be decocting. I will tell you its not the answer to a true Helles...A part? Ehh, maybe. There are breweries in Munich (and else where) that no longer decoction mash. I will say with almost certainty a single infusion mash (ala the English method) won't get you there. But there are those who are fine with that, and those who aren't, and thats cool too. Add in the 80/20 rule and all that.

I'm not sure even a step mash makes a difference over a single infusion in all the beers I've brewed with both methods. I certainly can't tell a difference, but then again, I haven't done a blind triangle test on it either. But I didn't get that elusive flavor. Well, actually I kinda did once... have to see if that was step mashed. I think it might've been actually.
But a Hochkurz step infusion mash is so easy to do, I do them all the time. Lately, I've been single infusing and not noticing much difference. I think a step mash might boost the efficiency a tad though.

[rabeb25]

As does decoction! Because the only way to bust the hard starches is by boil, and then you can often achieve over 100% mash efficiencies. If you do not boil you leave those hard little white bits, in the tun. I won't get into too much here, but the mash is at the bottom of the list when it comes to "it". However mashing with the English method, just doesn't work for the attenuation levels you need for the beers. Because you are looking for high attenuation with mouthfeel/other and a single infusion can't get you there. Its a trade off. A step mash will also wring out more sugars as you are targeting more specific enzymes in their proper wheel house. Yeast nutrients and health also benefit from a step mash as well. This is not just a German thing, it transends pretty much the world. There are really only 2 groups of people who use the English method...The English and the US english That said, to each your own.

[AmandaK]

But a Hochkurz step infusion mash is so easy to do, I do them all the time. Lately, I've been single infusing and not noticing much difference. I think a step mash might boost the efficiency a tad though.

Can confirm. Don't have enough data points to give a definitive % boost, but I'm eyeballing around 4-6% increase with a step Hochkurz over a single infusion.

[narcout]

But a Hochkurz step infusion mash is so easy to do, I do them all the time.

I'm going to try one on my next lager (ironically, one of rabeb25's recipes; need to order that chit malt).  Are you just adding boiling water or do you have a more elaborate setup?

[mchrispen]

Can confirm. Don't have enough data points to give a definitive % boost, but I'm eyeballing around 4-6% increase with a step Hochkurz over a single infusion.

Ditto. Usually see around a 4-5% bump in extract efficiency with a step mash. (but without a protein rest).

[Wort-H.O.G.]

What kind of efficiency numbers we talking about....from what to what %?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mchrispen]

In my case, from 81% base efficiency with standard infusion rests and my average base malts. A step mash results in usually a 5-ish% bump.

To be fair - it could also be the extended mash time required, rather than the stepping specifically. I do, however, love the resulting body and headstand I get.

I am using a RIMS system, with a relatively coarse crush.

[denny]

Can confirm. Don't have enough data points to give a definitive % boost, but I'm eyeballing around 4-6% increase with a step Hochkurz over a single infusion.

Ditto. Usually see around a 4-5% bump in extract efficiency with a step mash. (but without a protein rest).

Do you mean (for instance) from say 70 to 75% or do you mean 5% of 70%?

[ynotbrusum]

Sounds like another XBmt to be undertaken....Marshall???

[Wort-H.O.G.]

Sounds like another XBmt to be undertaken....Marshall???

you must invoke Marshalls name like "Bueller...Bueller...Bueller" for it to work 

[mchrispen]

Do you mean (for instance) from say 70 to 75% or do you mean 5% of 70%?

From 81% to roughly 86% extract efficiency. As I mentioned... it maybe the extended mash time rather than stepping from an infusion at 148F to 158F to 168F mash out. That procedure puts me just north of a 90 minute mash taking in consideration the ramp times between rests.

I should do a normal infusion mash at 90 minutes and compare. Just haven't gotten around to it.

AND down we have derailed from the derail...

[dilluh98]

Do you mean (for instance) from say 70 to 75% or do you mean 5% of 70%?

From 81% to roughly 86% extract efficiency. As I mentioned... it maybe the extended mash time rather than stepping from an infusion at 148F to 158F to 168F mash out. That procedure puts me just north of a 90 minute mash taking in consideration the ramp times between rests.

I should do a normal infusion mash at 90 minutes and compare. Just haven't gotten around to it.

AND down we have derailed from the derail...

To further derail... For the curious, do you know the equations (or have a link to them) for calculating boiling water additions for such a step mash?