[beersk]

How important are the ramp curves between rests? I'd imagine a more vertical line is better, but how much of an impact would a slow ramp vs. a fast ramp have on the final outcome?

I'd test this myself, but my system is only capable of a "slow" ramp, otherwise I end up with scorching.

Interesting question and the difference between using infusions and direct heat. I'd imagine maybe a little more conversion with a slow ramp, perhaps better attenuation as well. Not sure about flavor contribution though, that's probably negligible. Both are probably negligible actually.

[Phil_M]

My concern has more to do with how it would affect attenuation in the end.

I've been doing extract beer this year, I've only fired up my all grain system once or twice. After comparing some numbers, many of my Hochkurz mashed AG beers ended up with FGs much lower than expected. I'm wondering if the ramp time is what's causing that, or if there's another factor I have not yet identified.

[dmtaylor]

My concern has more to do with how it would affect attenuation in the end.

I've been doing extract beer this year, I've only fired up my all grain system once or twice. After comparing some numbers, many of my Hochkurz mashed AG beers ended up with FGs much lower than expected. I'm wondering if the ramp time is what's causing that, or if there's another factor I have not yet identified.

I don't think ramp time has much to do with it.  However... What were your decoction boil times?  When I decoct, I only boil the thick mash for 10 minutes at a time, not the 30+ minutes that most schedules recommend.  Still converts and attenuates just beautifully with just 10-minute rests.  This applies to both my double or triple decoction schedules, doesn't matter.  Now when I decoct (rarely), I just do a double.  I don't ever do a protein rest anymore, after it ruined the body and head of an otherwise delicious lager.  Anyway.... bottom line, my point is that longer boil/rest times are of course going to increase your attenuation.  If you want more reasonable attenuation, only boil/rest for 10 minutes each -- for me these would be in the low 140s F and mid-upper 150s F or something like that.

[AmandaK]

Any plans to present the beers to blind tasters?

Yes and maybe - I think. 

I haven't yet devised a final plan for getting feedback on these beers. You have said before that knowing the nature of the experiment does not have an effect on the responses, so I don't know that I will hide the variable being tested. I want to have scoresheets filled out for both beers, so people can see what (if any) difference there was.

So maybe I just give each judge a beer (with them knowing the nature of the experiment) without telling them which one it is, and have them write their comments down. Then ask them if they noted a difference. Or do a blind triangle first and then have those that "pass" write scoresheets about the difference, not telling them which one is which.

Thoughts?

[beersk]

My concern has more to do with how it would affect attenuation in the end.

I've been doing extract beer this year, I've only fired up my all grain system once or twice. After comparing some numbers, many of my Hochkurz mashed AG beers ended up with FGs much lower than expected. I'm wondering if the ramp time is what's causing that, or if there's another factor I have not yet identified.

I don't think ramp time has much to do with it.  However... What were your decoction boil times?  When I decoct, I only boil the thick mash for 10 minutes at a time, not the 30+ minutes that most schedules recommend.  Still converts and attenuates just beautifully with just 10-minute rests.  This applies to both my double or triple decoction schedules, doesn't matter.  Now when I decoct (rarely), I just do a double.  I don't ever do a protein rest anymore, after it ruined the body and head of an otherwise delicious lager.  Anyway.... bottom line, my point is that longer boil/rest times are of course going to increase your attenuation.  If you want more reasonable attenuation, only boil/rest for 10 minutes each -- for me these would be in the low 140s F and mid-upper 150s F or something like that.

I was assuming he was doing a Hochkurz step mash and not a decoction mash. I think the topic at hand is about Hochkurz step mashing.
The increase in attenuation is probably due to that lower Beta sacc rest, Phil.


Amanda, I like the idea of not disclosing the nature of the experiment and doing the blind triangle test.

[pete b]

Any plans to present the beers to blind tasters?

Yes and maybe - I think. 

I haven't yet devised a final plan for getting feedback on these beers. You have said before that knowing the nature of the experiment does not have an effect on the responses, so I don't know that I will hide the variable being tested. I want to have scoresheets filled out for both beers, so people can see what (if any) difference there was.

So maybe I just give each judge a beer (with them knowing the nature of the experiment) without telling them which one it is, and have them write their comments down. Then ask them if they noted a difference. Or do a blind triangle first and then have those that "pass" write scoresheets about the difference, not telling them which one is which.

Thoughts?

I really think completely blind is better. How about blind first, then have them try again knowing the nature of the experiment but not which is which?

[narcout]

Some have mentioned pH changes in adding untreated water for the infusion. Not sure sure how much a gallon of RO would change it.

I did a step mash last weekend where I used 2 gallons of near boiling distilled water for the 2nd infusion. 

The initial mash pH was 5.37.  After the infusion, I measured it at 5.45.

[coolman26]

I had all but abandoned my HERMS setup because of the slow ramp times. I thought that the ramps need to be quick. Sounds like that is wrong. I may do a single infusion and try another with the HERMS and stepping the mash. I also quit using it because I didn't think it was making better beer, not that I did a side by side. Beers would usually have differences as in recipe tweets. I like this test. 

[dmtaylor]

I was assuming he was doing a Hochkurz step mash and not a decoction mash. I think the topic at hand is about Hochkurz step mashing.
The increase in attenuation is probably due to that lower Beta sacc rest, Phil.

Hmm.  Guess I'm not all that familiar with fancy German last names or techniques.  Even so, if there is an extended rest for 30-90 minutes at any temperature lower than say 145 F, my comments remain valid.  Low and slow guarantees high attenuation.  If you don't like high attenuation, then don't do low & slow!  This is not a ramp thing, it's an OVERALL time thing (probably).

[denny]

...At this point, I'm probably going to bump that amount of reserved sparging water up (less of the calculated sparging water will go into the tun) and just live with the reduced system efficiency. I think better beer is made with lower efficiency. So Dave's comment to worry less about efficiency and more about attenuation is exactly the way I feel too.

I've implemented nearly the exact same process changes for the exact same reasons to the betterment of the beer and detriment of my brewhouse/system efficiency. Less of my sparge water actually sees the grain and ends up directly in the boil kettle instead.  I've taken it a step further in that I will pick a method of sparging and amount to sparge with based on grainbill size and water:grist ratio, and while it may sound more complicated it's actually a faster and easier process in the end.

I'm happy to see some reasonably credible anecdotal evidence supporting my theory!

As I shall always say... more experiments are needed!  Don't take anybody's word as gospel, even mine.

As usual, I'll be the contrarian...I have found no correlation between efficiency and beer flavor in my own brewing.  I don't know what you guys are doing wrong!    Look, Sierra Nevada hit s 100% on pretty much every brew....as do other breweries.  Are Sierra Nevada beers thin or astringent?

[dmtaylor]

As usual, I'll be the contrarian...I have found no correlation between efficiency and beer flavor in my own brewing.  I don't know what you guys are doing wrong!    Look, Sierra Nevada hit s 100% on pretty much every brew....as do other breweries.  Are Sierra Nevada beers thin or astringent?

Metric buttloads of hops can cover all up kinds of problems. 

[Phil_M]

I was assuming he was doing a Hochkurz step mash and not a decoction mash. I think the topic at hand is about Hochkurz step mashing.
The increase in attenuation is probably due to that lower Beta sacc rest, Phil.

Hmm.  Guess I'm not all that familiar with fancy German last names or techniques.  Even so, if there is an extended rest for 30-90 minutes at any temperature lower than say 145 F, my comments remain valid.  Low and slow guarantees high attenuation.  If you don't like high attenuation, then don't do low & slow!  This is not a ramp thing, it's an OVERALL time thing (probably).

Correct, Hochkurz step mash, no decocting. (Would love to though, just don't have the gear yet.)

I guess my question then becomes how do you build body back into the beer? Munich malt or something similar? I know commercial beers brewed with a step mash aren't as thin as the ones I have made.

(Sorry for the side track, but I think this all still pertains to the experiment at hand.)

[stpug]

...At this point, I'm probably going to bump that amount of reserved sparging water up (less of the calculated sparging water will go into the tun) and just live with the reduced system efficiency. I think better beer is made with lower efficiency. So Dave's comment to worry less about efficiency and more about attenuation is exactly the way I feel too.

I've implemented nearly the exact same process changes for the exact same reasons to the betterment of the beer and detriment of my brewhouse/system efficiency. Less of my sparge water actually sees the grain and ends up directly in the boil kettle instead.  I've taken it a step further in that I will pick a method of sparging and amount to sparge with based on grainbill size and water:grist ratio, and while it may sound more complicated it's actually a faster and easier process in the end.

I'm happy to see some reasonably credible anecdotal evidence supporting my theory!

As I shall always say... more experiments are needed!  Don't take anybody's word as gospel, even mine.

As usual, I'll be the contrarian...I have found no correlation between efficiency and beer flavor in my own brewing.  I don't know what you guys are doing wrong!    Look, Sierra Nevada hit s 100% on pretty much every brew....as do other breweries.  Are Sierra Nevada beers thin or astringent?

As we are all well aware, commercial brewing practices and processes should not be used as a guide for homebrewing practices/processes. If they were, then you've been brewing wrong since the beginning

[dmtaylor]

how do you build body back into the beer? Munich malt or something similar? I know commercial beers brewed with a step mash aren't as thin as the ones I have made.

(Sorry for the side track, but I think this all still pertains to the experiment at hand.)

Are you incorporating a protein rest!?  If so, don't do a protein rest!  It is sure to ruin the body of your beer!  Not needed with the well modified malts of the 21st century, and in fact, quite the opposite -- it is detrimental.

If you're already skipping the protein rest, then consider reducing the mash time below 145 F.  To like 10-15 minutes tops.  Malt selection isn't going to fix this for you.  It's a mash time thing.

[Phil_M]

how do you build body back into the beer? Munich malt or something similar? I know commercial beers brewed with a step mash aren't as thin as the ones I have made.

(Sorry for the side track, but I think this all still pertains to the experiment at hand.)

Are you incorporating a protein rest!?  If so, don't do a protein rest!  It is sure to ruin the body of your beer!  Not needed with the well modified malts of the 21st century, and in fact, quite the opposite -- it is detrimental.

If you're already skipping the protein rest, then consider reducing the mash time below 145 F.  To like 10-15 minutes tops.  Malt selection isn't going to fix this for you.  It's a mash time thing.

That's probably it. I'll skip that and see what happens next time.