Skip to main content

Kitchen Brewing Part 4: Multi-Step Mashing

Up until now, I've employed a simple single-infusion mash for my stove-top brews. It's the technique I demonstrated in Part 2 of this series. I heat the water to a set temp, add the grains, stir things up and let the mash perform a Saccharification Rest for 60-90 minutes. Outside of the occasional stir and temperature check, that's pretty much it.

For many beers, this works really well, especially with English and American Ales. However, I was getting poor extraction rates from wheat malts. My efficiency on wheat beers was dropping around 10% versus my all barley brews. What to do? Take a shot at a multi-step mash and see what happens.

The only real difference between my multi-step mash and a single-infusion one is the introduction of a Protein Rest at the beginning of the mash. For the Protein Rest, I heat my water to around 130F. I then mash in the grains, which drops the temperature to around 124F. After mashing in, I pull the pot from the stove, cover it and wrapped it in blankets for 20-25 minutes. When the Protein Rest is done, I unwrap the pot and return it to the stove.

The Saccharification Rest is up next. Since I use a pot instead of an insulated Mash Tun, I can heat up the mash using direct heat rather than by introducing additional hot water.  I do this by applying medium-high heat to the pot while constantly stirring the grains. Keeping the grains moving does two things: it prevents the scorching of the grain and helps evenly distribute the heat in the pot. When the appropriate temp is reached, the pot is again pulled from the stove, covered and wrapped in blankets or stuck in the oven on Warm for an additional 60 minutes. When the Saccharification Rest is complete, I Sparge and Boil in the same manner as I always do.

That's it for now. Up next in this series, I'll cover a stove-top Decoction Mash.

Update 8/27/13:

I've been experimenting with using an infusion mash for Multi-Step Mashing as an alternative to applying direct heat. The technique has advantages and disadvantages. With the infusion method, you don't dough in with all of your water at once. Instead, you shoot for around 1 quart of water per pound of grain. The Infusion creates a very thick Mash for the Protein Rest, which allows protease to be more effective. It also eliminates the possibility of scorched grains from direct heating. On the flip-side, a Mash that has more than two steps is harder to pull off. Unless you're extremely accurate with your infusion water temps and quantities, it's quite easy to wind up with a very thin final Rest. Controlling the rate at which the Mash temperature rises is also more difficult (I liken applying direct heat to slowly climbing a hill, while an Infusion is more like using a staircase). In the end, it's all about tradeoffs.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In the Fermentor: Bohemian Kölsch

Being a brewer on a budget, I don't have an extra fridge to lager in. That poses a bit of a problem, because I love a good Pilsener on a hot Summer day. To my palate, the closest style to Pilsener in the ale department is a German Kölsch . To that end, I've wedded a Bohemian Pilsener influenced recipe with a Kölsch yeast strain to create my Bohemian Kölsch pseudo-lager. I realize that the finished product won't be as clean, crisp and clear as a traditional Pils, but I'm hoping to come close. I want a full five gallons of this beer. Since my kitchen setup isn't conducive to five gallon all-grain batches, I've taken the partial-mash approach. I've also thrown in a bit of Irish Moss toward the end of the boil to help with clarity. Here's the five-gallon recipe: Grains: 3.5 lbs German Pilsener 8 oz Munich 8 oz Crystal 10L 4 oz CaraPils Hops: 1 oz Saaz: First Wort Hopping 0.5 oz Merkur: 60 min 1 oz Saaz: 7 min Extras: 3 lbs Pilsen ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Out of the Bottle: Insert clever use of the word Wit here

My latest Wit was a hit at my friend's birthday party. He especially liked the beer's citrus components. Others found it to be light and refreshing. I heard no Blue Moon comparisons, which actually made me quite happy. Compared to My Wit's End , this beer is much closer to style. Unmalted Wheat is part of the reason, as there's much less grainy sweetness at work. Instead, the beer is crisp and dry. The bitter orange peel really does its thing. The peel's sharp flavor melds nicely with the sweet orange peel I also used. Coriander pushes the beer's spicy character along. If I were to change anything, it would be to dial it back a notch or two. Some light sourdough aromas round out the flavor and aroma. Despite the relatively low ABV of right around 5.0%, the beer sports a fairly hefty body. Overall, I'm quite happy with this Wit. Next time, I'll hold back on the coriander. Maybe I will even take a shot at a Turbid Mash, which sounds like a great sub...
Post a Comment
Read more

Out of the Bottle: Porter vs Porter

My Beer My attempt to clone Samuel Smith Taddy Porter is ready to pour. For a change of pace, I've picked up a 4-pack of the real deal to compare and contrast against my efforts. Since I'm not exactly an impartial judge, my girlfriend agreed to blind taste test the two beers side by side in identical, unmarked glasses. I've mixed her notes in with mine. First off, I must say that the beers look remarkably similar. Taddy pours with a slightly larger head, but the beers share the same deep garnet hue. Mine has a bit more carbonation going on. Both beers have good head retention and leave some lace behind. My girlfriend's first comment was that my beer was very similar, but finished quicker than the Samuel Smith. She also noted that the Samuel Smith is slightly more bitter, with more depth of flavor. The first thing I noticed was that my beer has a more roasted edge and is a bit nuttier. It also lacks the unique dark fruit esters that I sense in all of the Samuel...
Post a Comment
Read more