• Welcome to the new forum! We upgraded our forum software with a host of new boards, capabilities and features. It is also more secure.
    Jump in and join the conversation! You can learn more about the upgrade and new features here.

How modified are my grains?

W

Wildrover

Grandmaster Brewer
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
480
Reaction score
0
I've been reading John Palmer's How to Brew and I never realized that giving a protein rest to well modified grains can actually ruin the body of the beer.  But, giving this same rest to unmodifed grains will help with extraction.

So how do you know?  The book says that most of today's grains are fairly well modified but you can still get less modified grains from Germany.  Is this a good rule of thumb, should I assume that unless I'm using some sort of German grain I should avoid the protein rest?
 
Hi,
  Almost all modern grains are well modified.  In general, you have to order undermodified grains as a specialty item since they are seldom used by homebrewers.

Cheers,
Brad
 
Thanks Brad,

Looks like I'll be skipping the protein rest from now on.

This of course provoked another question but it's more of a mash ph thing than a modified grain thing so I'll start another thread.

WR
 
So how do I add "Undermodified" to the grain data base in BeerSmith2?  I ordered it special but I see no way to add it to inventory.
 
Wildrover said:
I've been reading John Palmer's How to Brew and I never realized that giving a protein rest to well modified grains can actually ruin the body of the beer.
Click to expand...

John Palmer is writing: In fact, using a protein rest on fully modified malts tends to remove most of the body of a beer, leaving it thin and watery.

My question: Next to this, other things that could happen?

Regards,
Slurk
 
I ordered some "Less-Modified Pilsner" from I've-forgotten-where and used a protein rest. It came out very light-bodied. Good flavor, but not what I consider "very malty" as described on the seller's web site. Apparently "Less-Modified" is not the same as "Under-Modified". It's clearly a very subjective comparison. I'm still trying to get that maltiness I discovered in Germany, but I've given up using a protein rest. I've also given up worrying much about efficiency - I've found I prefer the flavor I get by giving up sparging and otherwise trying to squeeze out every molecule of fermentable sugar.

Please let us know how your grain works out if you do a protein rest.
 
durrettd said:
Please let us know how your grain works out if you do a protein rest.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I like the German pilsners too :p

For my pilsners I use standard grains and always do a protein rest. I focus on crispiness in my pilsners though keeping it tastefull (not the Budweiser style). Based on both feed back received from my friends and my own observations I feel that my pilsners are doing so.
Last year I made a pilsner following a single infusion mashing scheme. To our opinion this was not a big success. We missed the clean taste in this pilsner.

You gave up sparging and describe that you prefer the flavor. This sounds interesting for me. Could you describe what is different?

R, Slurk
 
Supposedly the decoction process results in caramelization that brings out the malt flavor. I do a single step decoction with good results. I imagine a multi-step decoction with a protein rest, Pilsner Urquel style, would result in an even more malty beer. I don't do it because I don't want to add any more time to the process, and I'm happy with what I've got.
 
No-sparge batches seem (to me) to have more malt flavor. I usually mash at about 154 F (68 C) which also makes for a more full-bodied beer and adds to my perception of maltiness. To pile the maltiness a little deeper, I often add a 1/4 pound of melanoiden malt for more caramelization and mouth feel.

Some very experienced brewers, including Denny Conn, say they don't perceive any difference between a full-volume mash/no-sparge beer and one that has been sparged.

Maybe some day I'll try decoction again and see if that gives me what I'm looking for, but for now I agree with Maine - it's just too time-consuming.
 
Tried my first no sparge for the first time last weekend.  For the heck of it I tasted the grain bed after draining to see what I was losing and I was glad I didnt sparge, and may not ever again.  That taste has got to come thru in the beer.  Was glad though there was no sweetness left.  You may want to try tasting the grain bed before sparging and decide for yourself what you want in your wort.

I am coming to the conclusion that decoctions (the difference they make) seem to depend on the brewer, the technique,  the equipment, and the taster. 

Ive used the same recipe triple decocted & single infusion and they were different.  Better? I dunno.
 
durrettd said:
Maybe some day I'll try decoction again and see if that gives me what I'm looking for, but for now I agree with Maine - it's just too time-consuming.
Click to expand...

I agree, decoction is time consuming. Thanks for your other informatio.
I have even experimented with 2 parallel batches with different temperatures in order to get max alpha- and beta-amylase activity for each of these 2 batches. You could consider this as a kind of a pre-step before mixing the batches back together and doing the next mash step.
R, Slurk
 
KernelCrush said:
Tried my first no sparge for the first time last weekend.  You may want to try tasting the grain bed before sparging and decide for yourself what you want in your wort.
Click to expand...

Tomorrow brew day! I will taste the grain bed :p
My next pilsner I will consider no sparge ;)
R, Slurk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top