[The Beerery]

Literature says it can harm the enzymes is you step too fast. Because of this the standard is 1c/min raise.

No. I'm going to have to call BS on this one. I can only assume that the references recommend a 1C/min rate to avoid local overheating of the wort. If you have a bottom-fired or jacketed mash tun, then I'll agree that the rate is appropriate. If you run HERMS or RIMS, then the wort can go directly to the targeted step temperature with no detriment. Of course, this assumes that your HERMS or RIMS has proper process controls to avoid overheating the wort. The temperature sensor controlling the heating system must be immediately downstream of the heat source.

My 4500w RIMS wort circuit can step my wort directly to next temperature and I've never observed a problem with conversion or attenuation. However, I can point out that I DID have attenuation problems in my previous RIMS when I didn't have proper PID-control on the wort heating circuit. Created several 'worty' beers during that time. Overheating your wort will create the problems that the 1C/min recommendation is trying to help you avoid.

If you have the right equipment, the rate doesn't matter. Hit your target wort temperature and let the rest of the mash rise as the pulse of hot wort makes its way through the grist.

Not sure why you are disagreeing with me, I didn't write the literature I just quoted it. I then further down said I have never noticed a difference either. 

[The Beerery]

IMHO for a BGSA: Pilsner Malt, Sugar, Saaz hops. 90 min sac rest at 149*F.  90 min boil. 

OG: 1.072 (17.5 °P) FG: 1.007 (1.9 °P) IBU: 32 Color: 3 SRM Alcohol: 8.5% ABV

I get all my info from books and internet searches and I find this works well with T-58 yeast.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Those Monks aren't single infusing. 

If I can achieve 99% of the same result by an easier method, that's what I'm gonna do.

Which is totally cool, doesn't stop what they do though. I would also be interested in the data to back up the 99% similarity as well.

[narcout]

My 4500w RIMS wort circuit can step my wort directly to next temperature and I've never observed a problem with conversion or attenuation.

What temperature do you step up to?

I tried a few step mashes this year but didn't notice any benefit.  However, my second rests were at 70 C.  I later saw in Principles of Brewing Science that Fix states the glycoproteins that contribute to foam stability are formed when the mash falls into the range of 70-74 C with 72 being preferred.

I wonder if my second rests were a little too low.

[The Beerery]

My 4500w RIMS wort circuit can step my wort directly to next temperature and I've never observed a problem with conversion or attenuation.

What temperature do you step up to?

I tried a few step mashes this year but didn't notice any benefit.  However, my second rests were at 70 C.  I later saw in Principles of Brewing Science that Fix states the glycoproteins that contribute to foam stability are formed when the mash falls into the range of 70-74 C with 72 being preferred.

I wonder if my second rests were a little too low.

72 rest to 77 then rest is where I get my head retention from. Cold fermentation with lagers does wonders as well.

[mabrungard]

Not sure why you are disagreeing with me, I didn't write the literature I just quoted it.

Brian, I wasn't pointing the finger at you. It is squarely at the literature that can lead to others misapplying that information without understanding why the recommendation is what it is.  You're good!

[denny]

Which is totally cool, doesn't stop what they do though. I would also be interested in the data to back up the 99% similarity as well.

No reason why they should care what I do.  The data is my taste buds.  Beyond that, I have nothing to prove.

[bboy9000]

So yeah, the original recipe looks good.  I'd use the cheapest granulated sugar instead of syrup as the cheap stuff.  Never used Kazbek hops so I can't comment there but Saaz, EKG, Styrian Goldings or any noble hop would work.

[klickitat jim]

Which is totally cool, doesn't stop what they do though. I would also be interested in the data to back up the 99% similarity as well.

No reason why they should care what I do.  The data is my taste buds.  Beyond that, I have nothing to prove.

I wonder how prolific the idea of "must scientifically prove everything" actually is in the hobby of home brewing. I suspect it's a very tiny portion and if people think it's wide spread maybe that's because their sources are so narrow.

[Big Monk]

Which is totally cool, doesn't stop what they do though. I would also be interested in the data to back up the 99% similarity as well.

No reason why they should care what I do.  The data is my taste buds.  Beyond that, I have nothing to prove.

I wonder how prolific the idea of "must scientifically prove everything" actually is in the hobby of home brewing. I suspect it's a very tiny portion and if people think it's wide spread maybe that's because their sources are so narrow.

IF(empirical data = info from brewing science, TRUE, FALSE)

[klickitat jim]

Lost me

[Big Monk]

I don't think it's a matter of anyone demanding scientific proof of anything but rather a bit of recognition to the fact that if your empirically derived brewing data mirrors the expected outcomes from known sources of hard brewing science then it's true.

 I feel bad for constantly derailing this post. Maybe we need a thread where we can just banter freely about this stuff.

[BrewBama]

...The second paragraph about a single infusion at 146 °F is bad advice as well. That's prime LOX territory and I would want to be sitting there for 60-90 minutes.

The second para is a quote from BLAM. 

I have, at this stage, read a ton of books on brewing, articles, etc.

By far the two most valuable resources for me have been Kunze's text and BLAM. Both are filled with what seems like an inexhaustible amount of good information.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Big Monk]

The second paragraph about a single infusion at 146 °F is bad advice as well. That's prime LOX territory and I would want to be sitting there for 60-90 minutes.

The second para is a quote from BLAM. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I know it is.

I take your edit above to imply that I'm contradicting myself in some way. BLAM can simultaneously be a great source of invaluable information as well as contain some bad information as well.

I have a new thread in all grain for debating brewing science stuff. This way we don't jam up other people's threads.

[BrewBama]

I guess I am perplexed at how a source can be cited as "an inexhaustible amount of good information" and then one that give "bad advice". I guess it's not for me to understand.  To each his own. Cheers!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Big Monk]

I guess I am perplexed at how a source can be cited as "an inexhaustible amount of good information" and then one that give "bad advice". I guess it's not for me to understand.  To each his own. Cheers!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is nothing perplexing about it. It has tons and tons of fantastic information and a few not so good pieces of information. Pretty simple.