Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Pricelessbrewing

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12
31
All Grain Brewing / Re: No Sparge Single Infusion Efficiency
« on: March 20, 2017, 02:20:31 PM »
I agree with you on the consistency thing.   I'm just still surprised by how my efficiency has dropped from 80% for  fly sparging to mid-60's for no sparge.   If this is what it's going to be, then fine, I'll adjust my recipes.   I'm just wondering why such a drop.    Is it a solubility thing?  Don't know.

It's not about solubility, it's about dilution. Solubility limit of sugar solutions are around 1.300, so it's definitely not that.

When you mash, the starches are converted into sugars and that sugar dissolves into the wort. The resultant wort volume is higher than the original strike water volume by approximately

WortVolume=Strike + (0.0016 * GrainPotential*GrainWeight)

Then the run off volume is Strike Volume - absorption rate, leaving behind a known volume in the grain, and grain bed. When you sparge (batch), you're diluting this reminding wort volume with the new sparged wort volume (retained wort volume + sparge volume). It's all 100% dilution based.

Fly sparging is unique since it relies more on even water dispersion and should exceed the lauter efficiency of a batch sparge process when done properly, in equipment suited to fly sparging

Again, if you check out my calculator above you can see how a batch sparge and no sparge should go. Something I'm learning recently is that, for whatever reason, recirculation seems to improve lauter efficiency in some way similar to fly sparging. Haven't quite figured out how yet.

32
All Grain Brewing / Re: No Sparge Single Infusion Efficiency
« on: March 19, 2017, 02:58:01 PM »
Depending on your conversion efficiency (crush, pH, dough in), and how much wort you leave behind in the kettle, it should be ~67% mash/brewhouse efficiency for a typical 12lb grain bill.

https://pricelessbrewing.github.io/BiabCalc/#EfficiencyEvaluation my mash calculator has a pretty nifty new feature, it will graph your expected efficiencies from your user inputs to define your equipment and mash/sparge procedure. Check it out

33
Equipment and Software / Re: Induction Heater for SS BrewKettle
« on: March 18, 2017, 02:59:02 PM »
Avantco 3500w would be my suggestion.

34
All Grain Brewing / Re: Crushed grain powder
« on: March 13, 2017, 01:24:33 AM »
You can filter it out if you would like. Whether it matters much will depend on whether you vorlauf, and how you mash. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Again, how you brew, how often, and how much cash you have will help slim down your mill choices.

Popular options include

Corona mill $25~. Great low budget mill, especially for biabers. There's some claims that it will produce a greater chance of astringency due to shredding the grain husk, I don't buy it though. I haven't had any issues as long as pH is managed properly.

Barley crusher $~125. Decent intro mill, tends to break down after awhile though. Warranty is a joke. I would not recommend buying unless you can get it in writing that the retailer you purchase through will take care of the warranty for you if the manufacturer ignores or says it's normal wear and tear.

Cereal killer $~90: Knock off version of barley crusher, slightly better longevity.

After that there's the monster mill and larger/more expensive mills. >$250

35
All Grain Brewing / Re: Is a 90 Min boil needed?
« on: March 08, 2017, 04:43:58 PM »
.

OK we had our monthly meeting last night and the RAW beer was very well received...  people could not believe that it never was boiled.  A few members are BJCP judges and one is a national ranked judge and they all found no off flavors and thought it was a good example of NEIPA.


I've had some raw ales as well, and while some have had some subtley strange flavor component I couldn't nail down. I wasn't sure if it was just a higher protein content due to no hot/cold break, or if it was some dms just above threshold..

How did he get the necessary bitterness? Did he use a hop tea or a >180F non-boil whirlpool?

36
Now I'm not an installer, but I have sold stone countertops (quartz mostly). I would not be able to guarantee or warranty a countertop that had 4 small screw holes placed beside a faucet or 4" hole. I would instead recommend adhering the tap tower via another method, silicone or something, or screwing it into a plate that can be attached beneath the countertop via an adhesive.

37
Ingredients / Re: Brewing Additions/ Adjuncts
« on: March 03, 2017, 03:33:09 AM »
I use cold brew in my coffee stouts regularly, and have drank that cold brew before. It's good, I would have no qualms with using it. Although I'm not sure it adheres to LODO procedure  ;)

38
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Fullers - WLP 002
« on: March 03, 2017, 03:25:53 AM »
Felt the need to resurrect this puppy.... I just figured this out.... If you get Zymurgy magazine, take a look at issue March/April 2017. Right there on page 18, Fuller's themselves are endorsing Danstar/Lallemand London ESB yeast. So if you're looking for WLP002/1968, then look no further than the new London ESB yeast from Lallemand.

Cheers.

IDK dave, they perform completely differently. Something is up with the dry yeast, it doesn't seem to be able to attenuate as much. I know enough organic chemistry to know that whatever I would say would be technically incorrect, but I suspect that there's some part of the typical carbohydrate metabolism that London ESB dry just can't ferment, maybe maltotriose?

39
All Grain Brewing / Re: ASBC Hot Steep Method.
« on: March 03, 2017, 03:16:55 AM »
Completely agree on all of this.

I didn't found out about it until last week, when I started researching some malt specs that I haven't seen posted yet. I'll contact that company for some more detailed spec sheet information, maybe they'll actually respond. (so far no malster has even responded :/ )

Astringency is likely due to the thin mash and lack of any water chemistry and so it's out of the pH range we want.

@mabrungard I'm uncertain how much of the flavor profile (besides the obvious sweet flavors, and abv) comes from the conversion process, and how much comes from the kilned husk. I tend to think in flavor contributions as LB of grain per gallon of batch size, and not as a % of the grain bill as a result. I don't think conversion really matters that much for malt flavor, especially for specialty grains and not base malts. Also because it's being ground so finely, gelatanization likely happens quickly.

40
All Grain Brewing / Re: Is my BIAB approach faulty?
« on: March 02, 2017, 04:53:47 PM »
Having described my process, now I'm confused as to what I choose as my mash profile in Beersmith.  I do sparge, so the BIAB profile with full mash volume may be wrong?  Cripes...

I've long since given up on beersmiths mash profiles, since the sparge volume will need to be adjusted for every single brew I just don't see how it makes sense to have standardized "profiles". Make the initial step temperature a variable on the recipe page, and calculate the sparge volume based on a mash thickness input on the recipe page. Then you would only need like 5 "profiles" and not 50... /endrant

I use my own mash calculator for volumes, temps and efficiency calculations. Google priceless biabcalc if you're interested in it.


41
All Grain Brewing / Re: Mash efficiency- equipment
« on: March 01, 2017, 09:23:18 PM »

I probably screwed up the math.  For a 3.5 gallon batch (4.6 in boil) of Irish Red I used 8.3 lbs. of grain.  After mash and squeeze the wet grain weighed 9.4 lbs.  Of course, the dry weight of the grain after sugar extraction would be less than 8.3 lbs.  Maybe that's the mistake?

Would need to know the total water volume used between strike and sparging.

Weighting the grain bag after squeezing doesn't work very well, as it'll vary with the gravity as well as the absorption rate, it's a formula I haven't seen derived or used before and while I'm sure it's not all that difficult to derive, I don't really care to.

Apparent grain absorption rate ~= (Volume_Used - Preboil_Volume + Mashtun_deadspace) / Lb_of_grain

42
Kegging and Bottling / Re: Trimmed Dip Tube when Spunding?
« on: March 01, 2017, 08:23:56 PM »
I don't spund, but I do ferment in kegs. During fermentation, I take my dip tube out and don't put it back in until fermentation is complete. I'm not a LODO guy though so YMMV.

43
All Grain Brewing / Re: Mash efficiency- equipment
« on: March 01, 2017, 08:15:38 PM »
I know this sounds crazy but, I've been able to get wort left in grain down to 0.015 gal./lb. by squeezing the bag and not worrying about clear wort.  Hope the beer doesn't taste harsh.  :'(

I don't believe it. I've stood on my grain bag while placed on a stainless perforated colander and barely got lower than 0.07 gal/lb. Can you provide the measurements from this baffling experiment?

44
All Grain Brewing / Re: Mash efficiency- equipment
« on: March 01, 2017, 07:19:57 PM »
I've lowered my absorption number to .1 gal/lb (from
.12) to compensate. Volumes are spot on now.

Thought that might be the case :) Good explanation for your lauter efficiency increase.

45
All Grain Brewing / Re: Mash efficiency- equipment
« on: March 01, 2017, 07:11:26 PM »
Some general disclaimers for stuff that I see all the time...

If step mashing improves your efficiency, then you weren't getting good conversion. Check your mill gap, and mash pH. Likewise if you're benefiting from a mash duration longer than an hour. Likewise if mashouts.

Batch sparging works via dilution, there's a hard limit on efficiency due to the laws of physics. I just don't see how it's possible for a mashtun brewer that batch sparges to get more than the mid to high 80s. It's just not possible for a 12 lb 1.050-1.060 5.5 gal brew, with no deadspace or mashtun losses other than grain absorption, to get that high without fly sparging or having a lower absorption rate than 0.125 gal/lb.

@Hoisierbrew, have you measured to see if your lifting the grain bag lowers your absorption rate at all? 

If your changing your mash process, and want to see how it changes your efficiency, you should be looking exclusively at conversion efficiency, and not mash/brewhouse as that will vary with different recipes and sparging process. Conversion isolates those out, and just looks at how well your gelatinization, extraction, and conversion (ie the mash) went.

There's no way to get a single brewhouse efficiency for every recipe. You can have a typical brewhouse, for a typical brew (11-13 lbs for example), but a session brew will always have a higher %, and a big 1.090 brew will always have a lower %. This is unavoidable.

- Brew on.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12