Poll how many step mash

[Brew Cat]

Just wondering how many people step mash and why

 

[J A]

It's a default for me and I'll use it for most styles but I'm happy to do a single infusion for some brews in the interest of maximizing time efficiency. Lagers, definitely.
My typical routine is pretty simple with a short "protein rest" of 122F at dough-in, a long beta rest at 148F and a ramp-up to a158F along with a water addition for alpha rest before raising to mash-out temp of 168F. Recent efforts at mashing for whiskey have shown me that I can and should start conversion even lower in temp than I usually do - somewhere in the 136-140F range.

 

[Semper Sitientum]

The times I’ve done it, I’ve always thought to myself “why am I doing this?”. Emotionally, I feel like I’m doing something good for my beer, but have never experimented to see whether there’s an actual benefit. One of the reasons given for step mashing is when you have a higher level of adjuncts. But, I’ve never seen a number associated with that statement. I guess a NEIPA would qualify with a significant percentage of oats.

 

[Sunfire96]

Control of fermentability and mouthfeel/body

 

[HighVoltageMan!]

I step mash every beer (Hochkurz) because it's easy for me on my system. It improves overall efficiency and it creates beer with a full body, malty and yet still a dry finish (at least I think the beer is better). The efficiency side of it is real for sure.

I never do a protein rest because it's not needed and it increases LOX reactions.

 

[dmtaylor]

Step mash is ye olde brewer's way of getting around undermodified malts. Today undermodified malts barely exist anywhere -- you have to purposely seek them out or do something stupid to benefit much from step mashing. So, like I was originally going to say, step mashing in the 21st century only matters if you know what the hell you're doing... and hardly anyone actually does. Otherwise, it's a placebo effect, as what really matters with today's malts is not so much the exact mash temperature(s) but rather the TOTAL MASH TIME. I say: with today's malts, you can achieve the same results with a longer single infusion as you achieve with step mashing as long as the total mash times are the same.

Also... just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I'll just leave it at that for the moment.

If in doubt, just single infuse at about 152 F for about an hour, and you're almost guaranteed to get great beer every time. One exception might be when using a huge proportion of Munich malt which doesn't have as much enzymes as paler malts, then you might want to mash for 75-90 minutes minimum. And if using a ton of adjunct, then... well, use your brain, if you've got one.

 

[Brew Cat]

Step mash is ye olde brewer's way of getting around undermodified malts. Today undermodified malts barely exist anywhere -- you have to purposely seek them out or do something stupid to benefit much from step mashing. So, like I was originally going to say, step mashing in the 21st century only matters if you know what the hell you're doing... and hardly anyone actually does. Otherwise, it's a placebo effect, as what really matters with today's malts is not so much the exact mash temperature(s) but rather the TOTAL MASH TIME. I say: with today's malts, you can achieve the same results with a longer single infusion as you achieve with step mashing as long as the total mash times are the same.

Also... just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I'll just leave it at that for the moment.

If in doubt, just single infuse at about 152 F for about an hour, and you're almost guaranteed to get great beer every time. One exception might be when using a huge proportion of Munich malt which doesn't have as much enzymes as paler malts, then you might want to mash for 75-90 minutes minimum. And if using a ton of adjunct, then... well, use your brain, if you've got one.

So your saying do a step mash to save time?
I believe some European malts are under modified
So instead of sorting it out just step mash
Of course you can make fine beer doing a single infusion

 

[dmtaylor]

So your saying do a step mash to save time?
I believe some European malts are under modified
So instead of sorting it out just step mash

Exact opposite.

 

[Minbari]

I do quite often. Can control how fermentable the wort ends up. Residual sweetness too

 

[Megary]

I do not step mash, though I may try one someday. I was always under the impression that any benefits I would see from a step mash on my equipment with the malt I use could be replicated by adjusting single step mash times, mash temps and grain bill. I could be wrong.

 

[J A]

Step mash is ye olde brewer's way of getting around undermodified malts. Today undermodified malts barely exist anywhere -- you have to purposely seek them out or do something stupid to benefit much from step mashing. So, like I was originally going to say, step mashing in the 21st century only matters if you know what the hell you're doing... and hardly anyone actually does. Otherwise, it's a placebo effect, as what really matters with today's malts is not so much the exact mash temperature(s) but rather the TOTAL MASH TIME. I say: with today's malts, you can achieve the same results with a longer single infusion as you achieve with step mashing as long as the total mash times are the same.

The efficiency of the malting process in producing enzymatic content in modern malts doesn't change the essential properties of the enzymes, does it? Beta amylase and alpha amylase still have very different (overlapping) temperature ranges at which they're most efficient. You choose a specific temperature for a reason. If you want a more fermentable, dryer wort, you mash at a lower temp, if you want more mouthfeel and percieved sweetness, you mash at higher temp. If there was no difference in the effect of temperatures, you wouldn't bother being specific in you single infusion temp range.
The benefit of controlling temperature (and mash thickness) and holding at lower and then higher temps may be much less evident in modern malts than in undermodified malts but it's not non-existent or placebo. Just because you choose not do it doesn't mean it has no effect or value.

 

[Dave Y]

Step mash is ye olde brewer's way of getting around undermodified malts. Today undermodified malts barely exist anywhere -- you have to purposely seek them out or do something stupid to benefit much from step mashing. So, like I was originally going to say, step mashing in the 21st century only matters if you know what the hell you're doing... and hardly anyone actually does. Otherwise, it's a placebo effect, as what really matters with today's malts is not so much the exact mash temperature(s) but rather the TOTAL MASH TIME. I say: with today's malts, you can achieve the same results with a longer single infusion as you achieve with step mashing as long as the total mash times are the same.

Also... just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I'll just leave it at that for the moment.

If in doubt, just single infuse at about 152 F for about an hour, and you're almost guaranteed to get great beer every time. One exception might be when using a huge proportion of Munich malt which doesn't have as much enzymes as paler malts, then you might want to mash for 75-90 minutes minimum. And if using a ton of adjunct, then... well, use your brain, if you've got one.

In my last year's brewing with high rye percentages, I did both and for the beers I did at higher than 20% rye, I did not see an appreciable difference. I did one roggenbier and step mashed that beer, as well as used beta glucanase and a generous amount of rice hulls. I was well over 70% efficiency in the mash, and ended up sparging until my pre-boil gravity dropped enough to meet my recipe. I ended up with about 7.25 gallons in the fermenter.

I made a bunch of rookie brewing with rye mistakes the last time I tried the recipe. It did not come out well, efficiency/extraction was very low and it tasted like it. So, was it the step mash that helped get me over the hurdle or did it just help or was it happenstance?

My inclination based on about 5 other brews with a high rye percentage from the past year, is that it was mostly placebo. Could I have gotten a few more percentage points on the extraction? Yes, maybe, but I don't think it was a major contributor. I did a couple other beers at 25% and 30% rye last year that were single infusion and came out well.

That said, when I go to do a roggenbier again, I will follow the recipe again to the letter, down to the minute because my first attempt kicked my ass. The 2nd one is a neighbor favorite.

 

[Minbari]

Step mash is ye olde brewer's way of getting around undermodified malts. Today undermodified malts barely exist anywhere -- you have to purposely seek them out or do something stupid to benefit much from step mashing. So, like I was originally going to say, step mashing in the 21st century only matters if you know what the hell you're doing... and hardly anyone actually does. Otherwise, it's a placebo effect, as what really matters with today's malts is not so much the exact mash temperature(s) but rather the TOTAL MASH TIME. I say: with today's malts, you can achieve the same results with a longer single infusion as you achieve with step mashing as long as the total mash times are the same.

Also... just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I'll just leave it at that for the moment.

If in doubt, just single infuse at about 152 F for about an hour, and you're almost guaranteed to get great beer every time. One exception might be when using a huge proportion of Munich malt which doesn't have as much enzymes as paler malts, then you might want to mash for 75-90 minutes minimum. And if using a ton of adjunct, then... well, use your brain, if you've got one.

There is some truth to what your are saying. BUT.... If you are looking to utilize certain enzymes more than others for specific amounts of time. Then temp is important.

Personally have seen different batches of the same recipe f8nish fermenting at different FG with only difference being single infusion, single temp vs stepping

 

[J A]

Those who are disinclined to use the step-mashing or Hochkurz method seem to want to find reasons that it actually has no effect on wort or beer quality.
It's not necessary for homebrewing, I'll grant you that, but to claim that there's zero effect or benefit just goes against the basic science of it.

 

[Ozarks Mountain Brewery]

I start at 145 and slowly ramp up to 155 all the time but not on purpose, with my herms using 22 pounds of grain I'm constantly hitting my starting temp wrong, I just go with it, it usually works out

 

[Megary]

Those who are disinclined to use the step-mashing or Hochkurz method seem to want to find reasons that it actually has no effect on wort or beer quality.
It's not necessary for homebrewing, I'll grant you that, but to claim that there's zero effect or benefit just goes against the basic science of it.

I don’t claim that a step mash has zero effect or benefit. I just believe that I can get the same results with a single step mash by making other adjustments. Maybe I’m wrong.

 

[J A]

I don’t claim that a step mash has zero effect or benefit. I just believe that I can get the same results with a single step mash by making other adjustments. Maybe I’m wrong.

Yeah, without pretty strenuous control, there are more variables in the process than we can account for. We can get good results either way - beer that fits our desired parameters but to say it's the same might be a push.
Since any 2 batches brewed exactly the same way may turn out to be slightly different (and we've all experienced that), then to say that we can get exactly the same result in beers brewed with different mash temperature profiles would be over-simplifying.

 

[HighVoltageMan!]

Those who are disinclined to use the step-mashing or Hochkurz method seem to want to find reasons that it actually has no effect on wort or beer quality.
It's not necessary for homebrewing, I'll grant you that, but to claim that there's zero effect or benefit just goes against the basic science of it.

I think it does have a place in home brewing. Targeting enzymes with temperature and pH are relative to the quality of beer despite the size of the brewery. Blindly step mashing is a waste of time, but for doing for specific reasons can have a positive effect on the outcome; mainly high quality beer.

Whether you decide to or not, step mashing is another tool available to brewers. It is important to know what you're doing it for, but it's not difficult to understand.

 

[Donoroto]

I tried it with and without a step mash, snd the difference was obvious to me.

 

[Zefram]

My setup isn't really conducive to step mashing (batch sparge), so I stay away from recipes that mention it. Maybe some day...