[beersk]

And then there's the decoction advocates....

I think that would be an experiment to do side by side by side.

Well, you likely won't get Denny to do that experiment. He's deadset against decoction having any affect on the finished beer. And I tend to agree, taste-wise. I think the benefits, body-wise, can be achieved with step mashing.

I'd still like to try skimming the braunhefe from the top of my next helles to see how that affects flavor and clarity. I feel it's helped on a couple other beers I've done, namely a Belgian blond and a Special Bitter. They just taste smoother, rounder, and fuller.

[denny]

And then there's the decoction advocates....

I think that would be an experiment to do side by side by side.

Well, you likely won't get Denny to do that experiment. He's deadset against decoction having any affect on the finished beer. And I tend to agree, taste-wise. I think the benefits, body-wise, can be achieved with step mashing.

I'd still like to try skimming the braunhefe from the top of my next helles to see how that affects flavor and clarity. I feel it's helped on a couple other beers I've done, namely a Belgian blond and a Special Bitter. They just taste smoother, rounder, and fuller.

Actually, I do decoctions once or twice a year just to see if I've changed my mind.

[dmtaylor]

I ran the decoction vs. infusion experiment once.  Unfortunately, one of the two batches got contaminated, so I got no results.  Rats.

Kind of similar to Denny, I do decoctions once in a while for fun and because I find it easy, not because I'm convinced that it really improves beer flavor.  I've posted my detailed process previously on this forum and it basically takes no extra time over a standard single infusion... but of course that's probably also because I only brew small batches so it takes no time at all to bring anything up to a boil.   

[beersk]

And then there's the decoction advocates....

I think that would be an experiment to do side by side by side.

Well, you likely won't get Denny to do that experiment. He's deadset against decoction having any affect on the finished beer. And I tend to agree, taste-wise. I think the benefits, body-wise, can be achieved with step mashing.

I'd still like to try skimming the braunhefe from the top of my next helles to see how that affects flavor and clarity. I feel it's helped on a couple other beers I've done, namely a Belgian blond and a Special Bitter. They just taste smoother, rounder, and fuller.

Actually, I do decoctions once or twice a year just to see if I've changed my mind.

Yeah, I do about one a year too. All lagers are now step infused though. Haven't had the issue of thin/watery beer since *knock on wood*

[denny]

Yeah, I do about one a year too. All lagers are now step infused though. Haven't had the issue of thin/watery beer since *knock on wood*

Wonder why I don't have that issue without a step mash?

[mpietropaoli]

we tried the hochkurz via recirc last time.  Had numerous pump issues, then a clogged coil issue (turned out our false bottom was dented to the point of concavity!). 

Infusion would be a lot simpler if we were to do it again.  Braunhefe is definitely getting skimmed on the helles and likely the maibock.  Starting a separate thread for my head retention issue.

[beersk]

Yeah, I do about one a year too. All lagers are now step infused though. Haven't had the issue of thin/watery beer since *knock on wood*

Wonder why I don't have that issue without a step mash?

Your palate is terrible, lol. Just kidding. I don't know. Life is a dream and we're just an imagination of ourselves...

[Wort-H.O.G.]

I cant say if there's a difference for a kolsch..haven't done it.  I will say I'm picking up differences in my pils doing a step. There is something related to mouthfeel that I perceive a fuller body without the residual sweetness one might expect with fuller body. I'm even perceiving something different in the nose-related to the attributes of the malt..more bready and gram cracker aroma.  I had my wife take my single infusion pils and my two step pils and pour into two solo cups. I tasted both beers, and just wrote down my perceptions. They are identical recipes and hop schedules-only difference is the mash schedule. As noted, the step beer was perceived different to me. I like both beers very much, but they were different to me.

Doesn't make a case either way, just noting my perceptions. I'm planning to continue to step and gather the data from my perspective. No extra work IMO to step...just a few minutes here or there. I am interested to see my o'fest and how that turns out vs my single infusion, and then some additional beers down the road.

[denny]

Yeah, I do about one a year too. All lagers are now step infused though. Haven't had the issue of thin/watery beer since *knock on wood*

Wonder why I don't have that issue without a step mash?

Your palate is terrible, lol. Just kidding. I don't know. Life is a dream and we're just an imagination of ourselves...

Heavy, man.....

[lenphallock]

Ditto.  And, for only 40 minutes. 

Why only 40 minutes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dmtaylor]

Ditto.  And, for only 40 minutes. 

Why only 40 minutes?

Ah, yes.  Experience wonderful time savings without losing any efficiency or attenuation.  Many long years ago, I ran a long series of mash time experiments and found that while conversion happens very fast within about 20 minutes, and thus, mash time has very little effect on efficiency, short mash times do have a very significant impact on fermentability/attenuation.  In order to achieve full attenuation, 40 minutes is the magic mark.  30 minutes is long enough sometimes with fully crushed enzymatic malts, maybe 50% of the time.  35 minutes is a little better.  40 minutes is always long enough in my experience with all base malts.  I will confess some concern however with Munich based beers where there's more than about 50% Munich malt as your base malt -- in cases like that I would still mash for at least 60 minutes just to be safe.  More experiments may be needed for the Munich.  But for anything and everything else -- 2-row, 6-row, Pilsner malt, Maris Otter -- 40 minutes is plenty, here in the 21st century.  Maybe save some time on brew day, if you like, with zero ill effects.

Happy brewing.   

[thelastdamnbatch]

Ditto.  And, for only 40 minutes. 

Why only 40 minutes?

Ah, yes.  Experience wonderful time savings without losing any efficiency or attenuation.  Many long years ago, I ran a long series of mash time experiments and found that while conversion happens very fast within about 20 minutes, and thus, mash time has very little effect on efficiency, short mash times do have a very significant impact on fermentability/attenuation.  In order to achieve full attenuation, 40 minutes is the magic mark.  30 minutes is long enough sometimes with fully crushed enzymatic malts, maybe 50% of the time.  35 minutes is a little better.  40 minutes is always long enough in my experience with all base malts.  I will confess some concern however with Munich based beers where there's more than about 50% Munich malt as your base malt -- in cases like that I would still mash for at least 60 minutes just to be safe.  More experiments may be needed for the Munich.  But for anything and everything else -- 2-row, 6-row, Pilsner malt, Maris Otter -- 40 minutes is plenty, here in the 21st century.  Maybe save some time on brew day, if you like, with zero ill effects.

Happy brewing.   

If you're mashing for 40 minutes, then run off @ mash temp into kettle then rinse the grain again and add that to the kettle when does temperature of all run off actually exceed 170F?  Even if you're continuously heating during run off there must be an additional 5 - 15 minutes where the enzymes are still chewing away.  That lag time would be different for each setup but in effect aren't you still mashing for 45 - 60 minutes?

[BrodyR]

Ditto.  And, for only 40 minutes. 

Why only 40 minutes?

Ah, yes.  Experience wonderful time savings without losing any efficiency or attenuation.  Many long years ago, I ran a long series of mash time experiments and found that while conversion happens very fast within about 20 minutes, and thus, mash time has very little effect on efficiency, short mash times do have a very significant impact on fermentability/attenuation.  In order to achieve full attenuation, 40 minutes is the magic mark.  30 minutes is long enough sometimes with fully crushed enzymatic malts, maybe 50% of the time.  35 minutes is a little better.  40 minutes is always long enough in my experience with all base malts.  I will confess some concern however with Munich based beers where there's more than about 50% Munich malt as your base malt -- in cases like that I would still mash for at least 60 minutes just to be safe.  More experiments may be needed for the Munich.  But for anything and everything else -- 2-row, 6-row, Pilsner malt, Maris Otter -- 40 minutes is plenty, here in the 21st century.  Maybe save some time on brew day, if you like, with zero ill effects.

Happy brewing.   

I've had a different experience personally. I took gravity readings throughout the brewday with a hockhurz mashed pils recently at 15m, 50m, and 120m and saw an increase (1.027 @ 15, 1.036 @ 50m, 1.042 at 120m).

I definitely get the argument that who cares about a conversion efficiency bump on the homebrew scale but I;ve been happy with the benefits of consistency, more control over attenuation, and better foam.

[dmtaylor]

If you're mashing for 40 minutes, then run off @ mash temp into kettle then rinse the grain again and add that to the kettle when does temperature of all run off actually exceed 170F?  Even if you're continuously heating during run off there must be an additional 5 - 15 minutes where the enzymes are still chewing away.  That lag time would be different for each setup but in effect aren't you still mashing for 45 - 60 minutes?

You are very correct.  Bingo.  There are a few differences in setup and process from homebrewer to homebrewer but by & large I think we can all get away with way less mash time than conventional wisdom would have us believe, and I have a desire to find the most efficient point of diminishing returns so I'm not wasting time or effort on things of little or no value.

And @BrodyR, my process does inherently assume a good fine crush of all the grains, proper mash pH between 5.2-5.5, etc.  Having achieved efficiencies of 90% or more on 40-minute mashes with my process and equipment, I find no need to dork around any longer than the 40.  Matter of fact, I opened the gap on my mill to reduce my efficiency some.  But that is a story for another time! 

[ynotbrusum]

I have likewise been advised that a proper Helles should be single decocted, at least, with a final temperature rest at 168F.  Using German Pils malt, a bit of Carafoam and a teaspoon of Wyeast yeast nutrient fermented at 50F with a healthy pitch of Wyeast 2206 for a bit short of 2 weeks - aerated well!  I can say the beer I tasted that was made this way was pretty darn tasty.