Author Topic: Malt Conditioning  (Read 563 times)

Offline oginme

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
    • My Farm
Re: Malt Conditioning
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2020, 06:19:19 PM »
When I used my mash tun, it did seem to make a bit of a difference in the ease of flow from the grain bed.  I can't say it did anything for efficiency.  Upgraded to BIAB and it really did not make any difference that I could see, taste, feel, smell, etc. 

Offline ynotbrusum

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3361
Re: Malt Conditioning
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2020, 07:51:00 PM »
Tried it for a couple years, but went to a wider gap and got just as good, if not better results.  If I were to pulverize my grist, I would be concerned about an insufficient filter bed, but not a problem with the wider gap.  Plus, I have gone away from the bag and just use the false bottom most of the time.  I recirc with Herms, usually.  Try things out and get to where you want to be.

Cheers!
Hodge Garage Brewing: "Brew with a glad heart!"

Offline HopDen

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: Malt Conditioning
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2020, 08:17:04 PM »
What specific differences are you guys experiencing?? What benefits are we to expect from doing this? I understand the cons but didn’t really see anyone explain the pros of doing an extra step.

Offline narvin

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2347
  • Baltimore
Re: Malt Conditioning
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2020, 08:27:55 PM »
What specific differences are you guys experiencing?? What benefits are we to expect from doing this? I understand the cons but didn’t really see anyone explain the pros of doing an extra step.

The idea is that you will get a better crush with fewer shredded husks and more easily accessible starch, especially with a small homebrew size (1.5") 2 roller mill.  This can help efficiency, improve lautering, and also reduce grain dust.  The latter two are what I'm trying to use it for now that I have a recirculating system (Anvil foundry).

I also bought a number 14 sieve and will try the 70% "coarse crush" separately.
Please do not reply if your[sic] an evil alien!
Thanks

Offline HopDen

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: Malt Conditioning
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2020, 08:46:59 PM »
What specific differences are you guys experiencing?? What benefits are we to expect from doing this? I understand the cons but didn’t really see anyone explain the pros of doing an extra step.

The idea is that you will get a better crush with fewer shredded husks and more easily accessible starch, especially with a small homebrew size (1.5") 2 roller mill.  This can help efficiency, improve lautering, and also reduce grain dust.  The latter two are what I'm trying to use it for now that I have a recirculating system (Anvil foundry).

I also bought a number 14 sieve and will try the 70% "coarse crush" separately.


Definitely agree with reducing grain dust. Where did you purchase the #14 sieve? I would be interested in one to see how my grind is. My system employs a herms, false bottom and is 30 gallon capacity. I keep my grain mill gap set to the thickness of a debit card and it is tight. I’m just not sure I would see a noticeable increase in efficiency.

Offline narvin

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2347
  • Baltimore
Re: Malt Conditioning
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2020, 05:35:28 PM »
I got the No. 14 version of this (https://www.amazon.com/Cole-Parmer-Testing-Sieve-Brass-Height/dp/B00NG3BT8K/ref=mp_s_a_1_7), but it's out of stock at the moment.  Or maybe Amazon stopped carrying it.

For reference, I tested some Avangard Pilsner malt on a regular 2 roller monster mill set at .039, and got around 73% left in the screen.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2020, 05:38:12 PM by narvin »
Please do not reply if your[sic] an evil alien!
Thanks

Offline Visor

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Malt Conditioning
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2020, 06:16:10 PM »
 I keep my mill set as tight as it will go, a Bock I recently did had a mash efficiency of 85.8% when previous batches were ~94%. I initially blamed it on the Avangard Munich malt, the next time I used the mill however I discovered that the set screws had come loose and the mill had opened to about the thickness of a credit card. I reset the mill and that next beer hit it's normal OG and ME. Sorry Avangard for blaming you. Even milling at the tightest setting, with proper conditioning the husks are normally more intact than not, which does help with lautering.
I spent most of my money on beer, tools and guns, the rest I foolishly squandered on stupid stuff!

Offline Robert

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 4168
Re: Malt Conditioning
« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2020, 06:56:24 PM »
Conditioning, you can set the gap very close, get finely pulverized endosperm, and intact husks.  You will notice a much greater volume of milled grain, and of the mash bed, because the whole husks keep everything loose.  What this does, is improve permeability of the grain bed, no matter your mashing method.  The enzyme bearing and sugar dissolving liquid gets right in -- and the finely milled starchy part is much more readily accessible as well.  The result is usually much higher efficiency, and much better attenuation, because more starch is readily available while beta amylase is still most active.  Lautering is also improved.   Virtually all professional brewers using lauter tuns employ either conditioned dry milling (what we're talking about) or wet milling for these reasons.  But the improvement in permeability and conversion efficiency could still be observed by BIAB brewers.  These brewers already prefer a fine crush, but conditioning could still aid efficiency and attenuation, and also minimize tannin and silicate extraction.   Of course there's more than one way to do anything.
Rob Stein
Akron, Ohio

I'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

Offline Myron Oleson

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Malt Conditioning
« Reply #23 on: February 13, 2020, 10:34:08 PM »
Conditioning, you can set the gap very close, get finely pulverized endosperm, and intact husks.  You will notice a much greater volume of milled grain, and of the mash bed, because the whole husks keep everything loose.  What this does, is improve permeability of the grain bed, no matter your mashing method.  The enzyme bearing and sugar dissolving liquid gets right in -- and the finely milled starchy part is much more readily accessible as well.  The result is usually much higher efficiency, and much better attenuation, because more starch is readily available while beta amylase is still most active.  Lautering is also improved.   Virtually all professional brewers using lauter tuns employ either conditioned dry milling (what we're talking about) or wet milling for these reasons.  But the improvement in permeability and conversion efficiency could still be observed by BIAB brewers.  These brewers already prefer a fine crush, but conditioning could still aid efficiency and attenuation, and also minimize tannin and silicate extraction.   Of course there's more than one way to do anything.

Yes, more than one way. But for all of the above reasons, we will do it this way.

Offline HopDen

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: Malt Conditioning
« Reply #24 on: February 13, 2020, 10:37:35 PM »
I got the No. 14 version of this (https://www.amazon.com/Cole-Parmer-Testing-Sieve-Brass-Height/dp/B00NG3BT8K/ref=mp_s_a_1_7), but it's out of stock at the moment.  Or maybe Amazon stopped carrying it.

For reference, I tested some Avangard Pilsner malt on a regular 2 roller monster mill set at .039, and got around 73% left in the screen.

Thanks for the link! 2 left
Ordered!

Offline narvin

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2347
  • Baltimore
Re: Malt Conditioning
« Reply #25 on: February 13, 2020, 11:43:16 PM »
I got the No. 14 version of this (https://www.amazon.com/Cole-Parmer-Testing-Sieve-Brass-Height/dp/B00NG3BT8K/ref=mp_s_a_1_7), but it's out of stock at the moment.  Or maybe Amazon stopped carrying it.

For reference, I tested some Avangard Pilsner malt on a regular 2 roller monster mill set at .039, and got around 73% left in the screen.

Thanks for the link! 2 left
Ordered!

This is the wrong size. I was just linking to it as a reference because the No. 14 wasn't on Amazon prime at the moment.
Please do not reply if your[sic] an evil alien!
Thanks

Offline HopDen

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: Malt Conditioning
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2020, 12:04:01 AM »
I got the No. 14 version of this (https://www.amazon.com/Cole-Parmer-Testing-Sieve-Brass-Height/dp/B00NG3BT8K/ref=mp_s_a_1_7), but it's out of stock at the moment.  Or maybe Amazon stopped carrying it.

For reference, I tested some Avangard Pilsner malt on a regular 2 roller monster mill set at .039, and got around 73% left in the screen.

Thanks for the link! 2 left
Ordered!

This is the wrong size. I was just linking to it as a reference because the No. 14 wasn't on Amazon prime at the moment.

Welp, I guess if I had read the description more closely I would have noticed!! LOL! No worries, cancelled.
Thanks for pointing that out.
I should lay off of the beer!!

Offline narvin

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2347
  • Baltimore
Re: Malt Conditioning
« Reply #27 on: February 14, 2020, 01:22:07 AM »
I got the No. 14 version of this (https://www.amazon.com/Cole-Parmer-Testing-Sieve-Brass-Height/dp/B00NG3BT8K/ref=mp_s_a_1_7), but it's out of stock at the moment.  Or maybe Amazon stopped carrying it.

For reference, I tested some Avangard Pilsner malt on a regular 2 roller monster mill set at .039, and got around 73% left in the screen.

Thanks for the link! 2 left
Ordered!

This is the wrong size. I was just linking to it as a reference because the No. 14 wasn't on Amazon prime at the moment.

Welp, I guess if I had read the description more closely I would have noticed!! LOL! No worries, cancelled.
Thanks for pointing that out.
I should lay off of the beer!!

Haha.  No need to lay off the beer.  Just wanted to let you know while you could still cancel.
Please do not reply if your[sic] an evil alien!
Thanks

Offline Visor

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Malt Conditioning
« Reply #28 on: February 15, 2020, 04:57:39 PM »
   One thing I want to add for those trying conditioning for the 1st time just in case it didn't occur to you, you only want to wet grains with husks, flaked grains, wheat ,rye and dehusked barley do not benefit from wetting and therefore shouldn't be conditioned, otherwise your liable to wind up with your mill all gummed up. I wet the husked stuff and let it set for 5 or 10 minutes while I set up the mill, then add and mix in the other grains just before milling.
I spent most of my money on beer, tools and guns, the rest I foolishly squandered on stupid stuff!

Offline Robert

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 4168
Re: Malt Conditioning
« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2020, 05:22:30 PM »
Good point.  I've read that the bran layer on huskless grains can prevent the endosperm getting moistened, but I'm not sure there's any advantage to combining them in the conditioning process.  And it doesn't even take 10 minutes, in my experience, for the husks to be hydrated and to risk excess moisture penetrating to the endosperm.   I use about 1.5% of the grist weight in water (the recommended range is 1-2% and I find the middle works) and only leave it a couple of minutes.

Regarding wheat and such, a great advantage of conditioning your base malt is that you won't need the rice hulls you might otherwise use with wheat or rye.  The intact husks serve the same purpose in any mash.
Rob Stein
Akron, Ohio

I'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.