[goose]

A lot of really good information, Derek!  Thanks for sharing your insight!

[Big Monk]

I think the big takeaway from Derek's info that everyone needs to remember is "mash the malt not the country or style".  That's a lesson I learned and what I've always done since my first unsuccessful step mash.

How does one mash a country or a style?  What train of thought goes into that?

I think what I mean, and what Denny re-iterated, is that you can't/shouldn't take advice from anyone telling you to "mash a lager like X" or "mash a Belgian beer like Y", etc.

You shouldn't base your mash regimen on beer styles, etc.

[HabeasCorpus]

I think what I mean, and what Denny re-iterated, is that you can't/shouldn't take advice from anyone telling you to "mash a lager like X" or "mash a Belgian beer like Y", etc.

You shouldn't base your mash regimen on beer styles, etc.

Thanks for explaining, I didn't know people did that!

[Big Monk]

A lot of really good information, Derek!  Thanks for sharing your insight!

Always glad to help.

[hopfenundmalz]

Looked into a few things.

Undermodified grain will have a steely end, as the modification didn't happen along the full length. Those hard carbohydrates will be broken down through boiling. The decoctions schedule takes the grains through the enzymatic ranges several times, which helps, as undermodified malts have less enzyme development.

In "Malt" by John Mallett he states that The Kohlbach index, S/T, doesn't tell the whole story. One variety with an S/T of 38 may perform as well as on with a S/T approaching 50. Know your Malt variety. A high S/T can give an indication of better enzyme development.

Enzymes are proteins, and the Alpha and Beta dissolve into the mash liquid, hence they are in the S of S/T. That Briess Pils with a DP of 170 has plenty of enzymes. The S/T of 37 doesn't mean it is undermodified.

[BrewBama]

   While I certainly don’t disagree, as I stated in post #4 above I don’t use step mashes because I don’t use grain that requires it.

I was simply replying to Denny’s statement: “From Palmer's "What to Expect When You're Extracting" article in Zymurgy...

The most common indicator of malt modification is the Soluble to Total Protein Ratio (S/T ratio), also known as the Kolbach Index. To generalize, a ratio of 36 to 40 percent is a less-modified malt...”

Based on that statement, the malts I pointed out from Briess fit the definition of ‘less modified’.

However, like many things in life, and in brewing in particular, 1+1 rarely = 2. It depends, it’s more complex, except for .... (fill in the blank) is more the norm.  In light of this, the Palmer definition cited by Denny is incomplete at best.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HabeasCorpus]

Looked into a few things.

Undermodified grain will have a steely end, as the modification didn't happen along the full length. Those hard carbohydrates will be broken down through boiling. The decoctions schedule takes the grains through the enzymatic ranges several times, which helps, as undermodified malts have less enzyme development.

In "Malt" by John Mallett he states that The Kohlbach index, S/T, doesn't tell the whole story. One variety with an S/T of 38 may perform as well as on with a S/T approaching 50. Know your Malt variety. A high S/T can give an indication of better enzyme development.

Enzymes are proteins, and the Alpha and Beta dissolve into the mash liquid, hence they are in the S of S/T. That Briess Pils with a DP of 170 has plenty of enzymes. The S/T of 37 doesn't mean it is undermodified.

Correct!

Also see Malts and Malting by Briggs, et. al. pg. 682 section 14.17 and pg. 701 section 15.2 for more information on chit and short grow malts.  Which includes a table comparing an analyses of chit, short grow and normal malts.

[Big Monk]

Here’s the deal: No one should really care about modification. As I’ve stated, I don’t think undermodified malts even exist anymore in the technical sense. Even if they did/do, it doesn’t matter anyway. I think what happens sometimes, especially when step mashing is brought up, is someone thinks of a protein rest and then modification enters the picture. It’s a non issue because there just isn’t a malt available to us with a value of modification so low that it would be an issue.

In my opinion there are only two reasons to entertain mashing below beta rest temps:

1.) A ferulic acid rest for a Wiezen;
2.) Dough in low to allow for a live Sauergut culture to utilize its redox properties.

Step mashing, for me at least, is about beta, alpha and mashout rests, period. I feel it maximizes extract content (amount), fermentability, body, and foam. That may not be the case for others. That’s fine as well.

One thing it has nothing to do with as far as I’m concerned, however, is modification and therefore protein rests.

[HabeasCorpus]

Here%u2019s the deal: No one should really care about modification. As I%u2019ve stated, I don%u2019t think undermodified malts even exist anymore in the technical sense. Even if they did/do, it doesn%u2019t matter anyway. I think what happens sometimes, especially when step mashing is brought up, is someone thinks of a protein rest and then modification enters the picture. It%u2019s a non issue because there just isn%u2019t a malt available to us with a value of modification so low that it would be an issue.

In my opinion there are only two reasons to entertain mashing below beta rest temps:

1.) A ferulic acid rest for a Wiezen;
2.) Dough in low to allow for a live Sauergut culture to utilize its redox properties.

Step mashing, for me at least, is about beta, alpha and mashout rests, period. I feel it maximizes extract content (amount), fermentability, body, and foam. That may not be the case for others. That%u2019s fine as well.

One thing it has nothing to do with as far as I%u2019m concerned, however, is modification and therefore protein rests.

If you're looking for a short grow malt you probably have to make it yourself or use commercial chit malt, as my previous post indicates.

Commercial chit and short grow malts are used in a similar fashion to flaked, have a better yield during malting and are cheaper to use at a commercial level for increasing mash yields.

Malt analyses sheets don't indicate steep and grow times - a malt labeled as "under-modified" should really be called "chit" or "short grow" and specify the barley variety, steep and grow times for that barley's "short grow" vs. it's normal steep and grow times.  (i.e. short grow - 25 hr. steep, 30% moisture content, 2 day germination @ 56F vs. normal - 40 hr. steep, 42% moisture content, 5 day germination @ 54F).  Of course those formulas may be considered trade secrets by the maltsters.

If chit or short-grow malts are used in the mash a protein rest will be a definite concern.

[HabeasCorpus]

Some interesting quotes from Malts and Malting, by Briggs, et. al. that back some of the previous statements/posts in this thread:

1.2 Malting in Outline - pg. 7:

During germination the grain undergoes 'modification'.  Modification is an imprecise term that signifies all the desirable changes that occur when grain is converted into malt.

2.7 Physical changes occurring in malting barley - pg. 60:

The extent of acrospire growth and, less usually, rootlet growth are traditional guides to the progress of malting.  Lengths of acrospires are noted, each as a fraction of the grain's length.  Length may be judged by eye, or with the aid of grids mounted on glass or on a magnifying lens.  Thus when the top of the acrospire is 50% of the way 'up the back' its length is 1/2; when it reaches the apex it is 1; if it exceeds the length of the grain it is 1+ (overshot, overgrown, bolter, huzzar).  Traditionally, in the UK, malt was kilned when the average length of the acrospires was between 3/4 and 7/8.  To make the acrospires more easily seen, the grains may be cut or peeled or they may be boiled in a solution of copper sulphate (Chapter 13).

4.2.5 The Embryo - pg. 140:

The acrospire is retained in finished barley malt, but the rootlets are removed and so, in a sense, are 'lost'.

5.2.4 Temperature-programmed mashing - pg. 232:

A more recent innovation in brewing is temperature-programmed mashing ('rising-temperature infusion mashing')... For example, a mash made with an under-modified malt or with adjuncts in the grist might be mashed in at 95F and after a 30 min hold it might be warmed to 122F and then after another 30 min hold, to 149F.  After a further 30-45 min, the mash might be warmed to 158F, held for 30 min, then be warmed to 167F for 30 min before transfer to the lauter tun...

For well-modified malt grists, a shorter programme may be employed: for example, with mashing-in at 122F and rests at 122F, 149F and 167F...

5.3 Some aspects of mashing biochemistry - pg. 237:

The pH values of mashes are adjusted to be the 'best compromise' for the various processes that are going on.

5.3 Some aspects of mashing biochemistry - pg. 239:

The optimum pH for starch conversion, at mashing temperatures, is about 5.3.

5.3 Some aspects of mashing biochemistry - pg. 242:

Usually a mash pH of about 5.3 (at mashing temperatures) is desired... The best pH value of a mash is a compromise among optima for the different biochemical processes that occur.

[jeffy]

The acrospire is retained in finished barley malt, but the rootlets are removed and so, in a sense, are 'lost'.

So I stand corrected.  I have confused the acrospire with the rootlet.

[Silver_Is_Money]

I'm trying to muster up enough courage/enthusiasm/motivation/desire... to revert to doing a step mash of ~144 degrees followed by ~162 degrees in my cooler/tun.  I was doing step mashes in the early 90's, but got lazy at some juncture and switched to single infusion.  I recall that my beers from back then had better mouthfeel and more maltiness.  But perhaps a good part of that is due to being younger.  I've lost a lot of my sense of smell and taste over the years.

I've written myself a spreadsheet with "solver" assist so I can perform a two step mash in my cooler with any weight of grist at any input of two target "step" temperatures.  Now I need to see if I can develop a spreadsheet that will accomplish a three tier step mash with solver assist.

[denny]

The acrospire is retained in finished barley malt, but the rootlets are removed and so, in a sense, are 'lost'.

So I stand corrected.  I have confused the acrospire with the rootlet.

Which doesn't change the fact that I have almost never seen an acrospire in any malt I've gotten.

[Big Monk]

The acrospire is retained in finished barley malt, but the rootlets are removed and so, in a sense, are 'lost'.

So I stand corrected.  I have confused the acrospire with the rootlet.

Which doesn't change the fact that I have almost never seen an acrospire in any malt I've gotten.

It’s certainly there under the husk.

[BrewBama]

If those little ‘shards’ laying on top of the mash after the MLT is drained are the acrospire, I’ve seen them in every mash I’ve done. I circled one from the photo posted by  HabeusCorpus in post # 35  (above).






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk