[BrewBama]

So...is anyone still debating the potential benefits of a multi-step mash vs. single step vs. decoction?
As Weyermann gave advice on the multi-step (see post #83), we will continue with that when using Weyermann Floor Malted Bohemian Pils.
Does it add time to the brew day? Yes. Is it painful? No.

I think the malt you’re using benefits from the multi-step mash. I am normally using American standard pale or pale ale base malt. If I were using a malt variety that would benefit from temp steps I imagine my process would adapt for that grain bill.

Also, my HERMS PID controller is not programmable. To make temp change I had to change the temp myself. If I had a programmable PID controller I would be more inclined to consider using steps.  Sounds lazy but the constant interaction was a PITA for little if any benefit.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bel Air Brewing]

So...is anyone still debating the potential benefits of a multi-step mash vs. single step vs. decoction?
As Weyermann gave advice on the multi-step (see post #83), we will continue with that when using Weyermann Floor Malted Bohemian Pils.
Does it add time to the brew day? Yes. Is it painful? No.

I think the malt you’re using benefits from the multi-step mash. I am normally using American standard pale or pale ale base malt. If I were using a malt variety that would benefit from temp steps I imagine my process would adapt for that grain bill.

Also, my HERMS PID controller is not programmable. To make temp change I had to change the temp myself. If I had a programmable PID controller I would be more inclined to consider using steps.  Sounds lazy but the constant interaction was a PITA for little if any benefit.

Doing the temp steps is a manual procedure for us. Requires very close monitoring. It is easy to overshoot if you do not keep your eyes on it!
Brew day for us is a dedicated event. No other items on the schedule...just beer!

[denny]

So...is anyone still debating the potential benefits of a multi-step mash vs. single step vs. decoction?
As Weyermann gave advice on the multi-step (see post #83), we will continue with that when using Weyermann Floor Malted Bohemian Pils.
Does it add time to the brew day? Yes. Is it painful? No.

I think the malt you’re using benefits from the multi-step mash. I am normally using American standard pale or pale ale base malt. If I were using a malt variety that would benefit from temp steps I imagine my process would adapt for that grain bill.

Also, my HERMS PID controller is not programmable. To make temp change I had to change the temp myself. If I had a programmable PID controller I would be more inclined to consider using steps.  Sounds lazy but the constant interaction was a PITA for little if any benefit.

Doing the temp steps is a manual procedure for us. Requires very close monitoring. It is easy to overshoot if you do not keep your eyes on it!
Brew day for us is a dedicated event. No other items on the schedule...just beer!

Yeah, me, too, but I don't see that as a reason to make things more  difficult than they have to be.

[wesbrew]

I am asking those of you here if you have found a good step mashing procedure that will create a bit drier finish.  I have no problem hearing from those who have tried step mashing and found no difference.   Cheers.

This is a question i had as well but for any beer style. Big Monk touched on beta rests a couple pages back to create a more fermentable wort.  Im looking for a drier finish but software won’t reflect a lower FG when a 144f beta rest is added

[denny]

I am asking those of you here if you have found a good step mashing procedure that will create a bit drier finish.  I have no problem hearing from those who have tried step mashing and found no difference.   Cheers.

This is a question i had as well but for any beer style. Big Monk touched on beta rests a couple pages back to create a more fermentable wort.  Im looking for a drier finish but software won’t reflect a lower FG when a 144f beta rest is added

I have never seen any software that could do more than guess at FG. I can do that myself. I have been doing a lot of step mashes lately because I have several bags of lower modified malt. I have yet to really feel like it changes the outcome of the beer.

[wesbrew]

I guess that is softwares shortcoming. It is typically pretty accurate otherwise.  I had a Common projected to finish at .014 (mash60m @ 150.)I did a 45m rest at 144 then 30m at 153 and got it fermented to a perfect .010. I also let the fermentation freerise 2c at the end.  Not sure which was responsible but I’d like to repeat the result

[fredthecat]

I guess that is softwares shortcoming. It is typically pretty accurate otherwise.  I had a Common projected to finish at .014 (mash60m @ 150.)I did a 45m rest at 144 then 30m at 153 and got it fermented to a perfect .010. I also let the fermentation freerise 2c at the end.  Not sure which was responsible but I’d like to repeat the result

i'd guess do the same process and you will likely end up close.

thats one of the benefits of really getting to know a yeast well. once i have about 4 batches down with one type of yeast, i can go through the processes/grists/temps etc and get a feel for what the attenuation is on a less fermentable grist(my mashes are all the same, 150f infusions) vs. an all base-malt grist or with sugars.

but yeah, as denny said, the software is just guessing based on the not-always even accurate suggestions of online data/yeast manufacturers' estimations on AA.

make your processes repeatable, and go from there

[Bel Air Brewing]

I guess that is softwares shortcoming. It is typically pretty accurate otherwise.  I had a Common projected to finish at .014 (mash60m @ 150.)I did a 45m rest at 144 then 30m at 153 and got it fermented to a perfect .010. I also let the fermentation freerise 2c at the end.  Not sure which was responsible but I’d like to repeat the result

i'd guess do the same process and you will likely end up close.

thats one of the benefits of really getting to know a yeast well. once i have about 4 batches down with one type of yeast, i can go through the processes/grists/temps etc and get a feel for what the attenuation is on a less fermentable grist(my mashes are all the same, 150f infusions) vs. an all base-malt grist or with sugars.

but yeah, as denny said, the software is just guessing based on the not-always even accurate suggestions of online data/yeast manufacturers' estimations on AA.

make your processes repeatable, and go from there

Our step mash technique is pretty standard. In fact, it is the procedure that was given to us by Weyermann. It works well, and not too complicated. The OG and FG normally come in spot on, or very close.

As far as getting to know yeast goes, we are intimately familiar with Diamond. It's strengths, and weakness. The weaker points are most likely due to the head brewer...

[Cliffs]

So...is anyone still debating the potential benefits of a multi-step mash vs. single step vs. decoction?
As Weyermann gave advice on the multi-step (see post #83), we will continue with that when using Weyermann Floor Malted Bohemian Pils.
Does it add time to the brew day? Yes. Is it painful? No.

Because it's easy to do with my system, I have done many comparisons between step mashing and single infusion.  I can't tell you I found a difference. I decided many years ago that decoction made so little difference (none, basically) that it wasn't worth the effort. I still occasionally do one to see if I missed something. So far, no.

I get clear beer faster, and better foam with step mashing. It's not drastic, and if I didnt have an electrical brewing system that made it as easy as a push of a button I'd probably not do it. But for me, its worth the extra time.

[fredthecat]

Our step mash technique is pretty standard. In fact, it is the procedure that was given to us by Weyermann. It works well, and not too complicated.

What is the story behind that?

[denny]

I guess that is softwares shortcoming. It is typically pretty accurate otherwise.  I had a Common projected to finish at .014 (mash60m @ 150.)I did a 45m rest at 144 then 30m at 153 and got it fermented to a perfect .010. I also let the fermentation freerise 2c at the end.  Not sure which was responsible but I’d like to repeat the result

i'd guess do the same process and you will likely end up close.

thats one of the benefits of really getting to know a yeast well. once i have about 4 batches down with one type of yeast, i can go through the processes/grists/temps etc and get a feel for what the attenuation is on a less fermentable grist(my mashes are all the same, 150f infusions) vs. an all base-malt grist or with sugars.

but yeah, as denny said, the software is just guessing based on the not-always even accurate suggestions of online data/yeast manufacturers' estimations on AA.

make your processes repeatable, and go from there

Our step mash technique is pretty standard. In fact, it is the procedure that was given to us by Weyermann. It works well, and not too complicated. The OG and FG normally come in spot on, or very close.

As far as getting to know yeast goes, we are intimately familiar with Diamond. It's strengths, and weakness. The weaker points are most likely due to the head brewer...

I base my decision on the particular malt I use and the lot analysis.

[EnkAMania]

I'll be attempting my first step mash when I make a witbier.