Author: Jake Huolihan

In traditional step mashing, the grains were doughed in at a relatively low temperature (113°F/45°C) and brought up through a series of steps to encourage enzymatic activity that made up for poorly modified malts. However, in this day and age of highly modified malts, such low temperature rests are no longer necessary and, as John Palmer notes, can actually result in a beer that’s thin and watery. While some brewers continue to use the more traditional approach, those who see value in mashing at different steps yet don’t want to risk a making a pallid beer can rely on an alternative method. Purportedly used by many German breweries today, the Hochkurz mash is a somewhat simplified step mash method that involves doughing in at a warmer temperature (hoch translates to high) and performing fewer steps that result in faster conversion (kurz translates to short). A typical Hochkurz mash might involve an initial beta amylase (or maltose) rest at approximately 144°F/62°C, a step up to about 158°F/70°C for an alpha amylase (or dextrinization) rest, then finally raising them temperature to 170°F/77°F or so for a mash out step.

For all that exists online about step mashing and the praise this particular version receives, I was surprised with the paucity of documented benefits of using a Hochkurz mash schedule. Most of what I could find focused on how each step assists with conversion of under-modified malts, which really isn’t an issue with today’s modern malts. As far as beer quality goes, it seems proponents of this method laud it most for improving malt character and head retention.

As a lover of German lager who sought to make the most stylistically appropriate versions of Pilsner, Helles, and Vienna Lager, I used a traditional step mashing method numerous times. Eventually, I ditched step mashing and settled on the common single infusion mash, partially because it didn’t seem to be having much of a noticeable impact on the quality of my beers, but I’ll admit it was also somewhat out of laziness– I was using a converted cooler MLT, which required adding boiling water to hit each step temperature, and that got really annoying. Still, I remained unconvinced that step mashing served no purpose and, once I converted my brewery to electric, was excited to see how a Hochkurz mash compared to single infusion.

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between a beer made using a standard single infusion mash method and the same beer made using the Hochkurz step mash method.

| METHODS |

I designed a Helles for this xBmt in order to let any subtle differences between the beers shine through. Plus, I was craving a simple yellow beer to crush in the Denver summer heat.

High & Short Helles

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 6 gal 60 min 20.3 IBUs 3.5 SRM 1.050 1.012 5.0 % Actuals 1.05 1.013 4.9 % Fermentables Name Amount % Weyermann Pilsner Malt 10 lbs 85.47 Weyermann Vienna 1.2 lbs 10.26 Acid Malt 8 oz 4.27 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Hallertau Magnum 10 g 60 min Boil Pellet 11.5 Hallertauer 15 g 30 min Boil Pellet 4.8 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature Harvest (L17) Imperial Yeast 72% 50°F - 60°F Notes Water Profile: Yellow Balanced in Bru’n Water

I whipped up a large starter of Imperial Organic L17 Harvest yeast a few days ahead of time.

The night before brewing, I weighed out my grains then collected and RO water, which was adjusted to my target profile.

Since my parents were in town, I was able to introduce my Dad to this hobby by having him help out with brew day tasks, it was awesome! We started by turning the heat on the brewing liquor for the single infusion before milling the 2 sets of grist.

With the grain milled, we began heating the Hochkurz brewing liquor to the proper strike temperature to hit the first step. For the single infusion batch, I opted for a mash temperature of 150°F/66°C, which we nailed.

The Hochkurz mash rested at 143°F/62°C for 30 minutes before I raised the temperature to 158°F/70°C and let it sit for another 30 minutes. Finally, the temperature was raised to 168°F/76°C for a mash out step.

Both batches were continuously recirculated the entire duration of the mash. At the completion of each, the grain bags were hoisted out and allowed to drain as the sweet wort was being heated.

Both worts were boiled for 60 minutes with hops added as noted in the recipe..

After the boils were complete, the worts were quickly chilled to slightly warmer than my groundwater temperature before being racked to carboys that were placed in my cool fermentation chamber to finish chilling to my desired fermentation temperature. Hydrometer readings showed the single infusion mash produced a wort of slightly lower OG than the Hochkurz mash, consistent with the last step mash xBmt.

The following morning, both batches stabilized at 48°F/9°C, I evenly split the yeast starter between the batches then hit them both with an equal dose of pure oxygen. I returned 24 hours later to find both fermenting with a seemingly identical level of activity.

After 10 days, I ramped the temperature up to 60°F/16°C for a diacetyl rest. With activity all but absent a couple days later, I took hydrometer measurements confirming both beers had reached nearly the same exact FG.

I proceeded to cold crash over a couple nights then keg the beers.

After a couple weeks of lagering on gas in my keezer, both beers were clear and ready to serve to participants!

| RESULTS |

A total of 26 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was served 1 sample of the beer made using a Hochkurz step mash and 2 samples of the beer made with a single infusion mash then asked to identify the sample that was unique. While 14 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to correctly identify the unique sample in order to reach statistical significance, only 7 (p=0.81) picked the odd-beer-out, indicating participants in this xBmt were unable to reliably distinguish a Helles made using a Hochkurz step mash from one made using a 150°F/66°C single infusion mash

My Impressions: I’ll admit I resorted to guessing on the numerous triangle tests I attempted and I chose wrongly more often than not. The beers tasted so similar that if served one after the other and told they were the same, I’m certain I wouldn’t think twice about it. As to the beer itself, it was good though had what I perceived as a grainy and hay-like character, which isn’t something I find insanely enjoyable. Going forward, I plan to keep the same recipe but explore Pilsner malt from different maltsters.

| DISCUSSION |

Back in the early days of brewing, when both technology and knowledge were extremely limited compared to today, brewers were forced to develop methods that allowed them to accomplish the task of making drinkable beer. Necessity being the mother of invention, brewers of yore who had only malt of poor modification to rely on ingeniously discovered that by mashing in a series of temperature steps, they were able to achieve the conversion required to produce the beer they desired. As time marched on, our understanding advanced rapidly as people began to scientifically explore the many different aspects of brewing, ultimately leading to malting practices that drastically improved modification that resulted in easier and quicker conversion of starches to fermentable sugar. Many accepted step mashing as it was originally designed as largely unnecessary, though some remained convinced there was something to the warmer temperature steps, and so was born the Hochkurz method.

I’ll admit, as much as I’ve researched step mashing and particularly Hochkurz, the argument that less temperature steps leads to improved quality while either more or a single infusion doesn’t seems flimsy. Moreover, I can’t help but wonder what the brewers who had to rely on step mashing would think about being able to use malts that didn’t require all the hassle. Did they view this necessary step with such romantic fervor as brewers like me? Despite coming to question the merits of step mashing, I’ll admit the fact so few tasters were able to distinguish the single infusion beer from the Hochkurz beer in this xBmt was pretty surprising. Then I recalled the mash temperature xBmt where tasters couldn’t tell apart beers mashed at either 147°F/64°C or 161°F/72°C, which isn’t too far off from the temperature steps used in the present xBmt. While this certainly isn’t enough for me to accept the Hochkurz method has no impact, whatever impact it might have isn’t enough to pull me away from the more simple approach of a single infusion.

If you have any thoughts on this xBmt, please share them in the comments section below!

Support Brülosophy In Style!

All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!

Follow Brülosophy on:

If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support Us page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!

Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

Email



Like this: Like Loading...