[HoosierBrew]

Well, I apologize for any perceived negative input I gave.

Frankly, there is enough turmoil in my world. My Facebook is about dead from having to unfollow so many people. I've deleted all news channels from my TV. Now it's found its way into my beer forum. Fortunately I've learned enough that I can make drinkable beer. Maybe it's just time to call it a day.

Great people, great brewers, great info, used to be a great place to discuss beer 24/7.

Jim, you're a damn good contributor here. I'd hate to see you leave. People seem to sometimes forget that it's ok to agree to disagree....respectfully. But overall it's still a good place hang out and talk beer.

[Joe Sr.]

Skimming over the threads it seemed like needless bickering over a question that had a pretty easy answer.

That sums it up perfectly.  Needless bickering.

When a thread devolves into this, someone should just post "needless bickering" and we should all walk away.

[HoosierBrew]

When a thread devolves into this, someone should just post "needless bickering" and we should all walk away.

I agree. There's a point of diminishing returns to any of it.

[dmtaylor]

Can we just lock this?  We're just babbling now.

[majorvices]

The forum must be balanced yes. But in striving to help beginners we should not abandon advanced topics.

Not disagreeing with you but when it appears that there's only 'one right way" then the tone is imporoper and needs changed.

\

The weirdest thing about using this thread as a platform for helping beginners is that Philbrew isn't a newbie. He's been around here a while, brews low O₂, etc. If we'd provided all this info to someone who'd just joined, yes I'd say we were feeding them from a firehose.

Yep, but if I was a new brewer/non-poster and I had concerns about the clarity of my wort this thread would have given me a lot of discouragement. My apologies to Phil

\

The problem with this thread is that yet again there's a useless debate going on...which I guess I'm contributing to with this post, but f##k it.

Yep, now me too but it has already devolved so we need to try to fix it for future posts so gthat it stops happening. Damage has already been done on this one.

[denny]

When I was learning to brew I found Ken's work and adopted it, yours, and Don Osborn's process as my own. I like the results I get though I have evolved my process some over the years.

Anyway, in my early research I recall someone said "clear" doesn't mean 'see through' in this case, it means 'clear of grain particles'.

Of course, I can't find the phrase quoted now but I always hear the phrase as I am lautering.

Here's Ken's work: http://www.franklinbrew.org/wp/?page_id=139

...and the video I used to start all grain (in it you see opaque wort clear of grain particles): https://youtu.be/JMHLqnWCNjE


My beer turns out pretty clear. Some may say brilliant. LOL


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm the one who made the statement about grain particles.  And while Ken's work was seminal, like many theoretical works, reality diverges a bit.  For instance, when Ken was developing his "grain scale up" factor I was continually overshooting my OG.  I discovered that you didn't need to scale up at all, simply adjust for your system efficiency.  While that's an accepted and obvious concept now, it wasn't back then.

[hopfenundmalz]

Shouldn't batch spargers be pushing down on their grain bed to get every last drop?

Some breweries do this. Alaskan pays such a premium for their ingredients that they need to optimize them as best as possible. They also use their spent grain to generate steam, so having it as dry as possible helps there too.


https://alaskanbeer.com/beerpoweredbeer/

I don't have a thin profit margin to worry about. And the chickens don't care if it's wet. If there is a beer quality increase from bag squeezing it ought to carry over to batch spargers

Alaskan has a mash filter. The grains are hammer milled, and the husks are removed, so no astringency that way.

[majorvices]

Shouldn't batch spargers be pushing down on their grain bed to get every last drop?

Some breweries do this. Alaskan pays such a premium for their ingredients that they need to optimize them as best as possible. They also use their spent grain to generate steam, so having it as dry as possible helps there too.


https://alaskanbeer.com/beerpoweredbeer/

I don't have a thin profit margin to worry about. And the chickens don't care if it's wet. If there is a beer quality increase from bag squeezing it ought to carry over to batch spargers

Alaskan has a mash filter. The grains are hammer milled, and the husks are removed, so no astringency that way.

Yes, if you don't remove the husk the beer is terrible though. I have been to a TN brewery that hammermills and uses a mash filter and the beers were so astringent I could not drink them. All except the wheat and rye beers, and I think ya'll can figure out why that would be.

[hopfenundmalz]

Shouldn't batch spargers be pushing down on their grain bed to get every last drop?

Some breweries do this. Alaskan pays such a premium for their ingredients that they need to optimize them as best as possible. They also use their spent grain to generate steam, so having it as dry as possible helps there too.


https://alaskanbeer.com/beerpoweredbeer/

I don't have a thin profit margin to worry about. And the chickens don't care if it's wet. If there is a beer quality increase from bag squeezing it ought to carry over to batch spargers

Alaskan has a mash filter. The grains are hammer milled, and the husks are removed, so no astringency that way.

Yes, if you don't remove the husk the beer is terrible though. I have been to a TN brewery that hammermills and uses a mash filter and the beers were so astringent I could not drink them. All except the wheat and rye beers, and I think ya'll can figure out why that would be.

Wow. And yes, I know why that would be.

[HoosierBrew]

The grains are hammer milled, and the husks are removed, so no astringency that way.

That seems like a difficult process. I guess the usable part is pretty much pulverized into flour, and is filtered away from the husks? With the payoff being upwards of 100% efficiency. Obviously it works for them.

[denny]

The grains are hammer milled, and the husks are removed, so no astringency that way.

That seems like a difficult process. I guess the usable part is pretty much pulverized into flour, and is filtered away from the husks? With the payoff being upwards of 100% efficiency. Obviously it works for them.

Trumer does pretty much the same thing IIRC.

[hopfenundmalz]

The grains are hammer milled, and the husks are removed, so no astringency that way.

That seems like a difficult process. I guess the usable part is pretty much pulverized into flour, and is filtered away from the husks? With the payoff being upwards of 100% efficiency. Obviously it works for them.

They can exceed 100%. You have it right on the flour part.

[The Beerery]

There are tiny little hard bits of starch, I am sure we have all seen them after a mash. They are the little white rice looking pieces. Those are hard to burst and get access to. There are 2 easy ways, hammer mill, and decoctions. Decoctions will cause those to swell and burst from the boiling pressure, and hammer mills well.. thats pretty self explanatory. Both process can net you more that 100% as they are not accounted for in normal process because of this. 

[stpug]

There are tiny little hard bits of starch, I am sure we have all seen them after a mash. They are the little white rice looking pieces. Those are hard to burst and get access to. There are 2 easy ways, hammer mill, and decoctions. Decoctions will cause those to swell and burst from the boiling pressure, and hammer mills well.. thats pretty self explanatory. Both process can net you more that 100% as they are not accounted for in normal process because of this.

If what you're referring to are the while bits that look like basmati rice, I always thought those were acrospires that were hidden under the husk.  Maybe I'm not thinking of the right bits because those basmati rice bits are usually pretty soft.

[BrewBama]

I'm the one who made the statement about grain particles.  And while Ken's work was seminal, like many theoretical works, reality diverges a bit.  For instance, when Ken was developing his "grain scale up" factor I was continually overshooting my OG.  I discovered that you didn't need to scale up at all, simply adjust for your system efficiency.  While that's an accepted and obvious concept now, it wasn't back then.

I thought you were the source of the grain particle comment but I didn't want to attribute it to you without a reference.  I am 50+ batches all grain now and still think of the comment when I lauter.

I found the same thing: I have to scale down to hit most recipe OG using my system/process.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk