• • SVA Brewer With Over 20 Brews From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

• • SVA Brewer With Over 20 Brews From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

ShorePoints wrote:chlehb, Using Section W and sparging once seemed to me to be a means of getting more extracted material into the brew kettle. That would then give me a greater ’yield’ shown as GIB, and higher efficiency from mashing.
I tried to go against the advice given in other places on this forum. I believed that I could recover more good stuff by rinsing the grains after lifting the bag so I used Section W and I sparged. I usually taste a sample at each step (except for hop pellets!) and found that the rinse from the sparge step collected in a separate pot had very little flavor and color. I tried the full volume mash without sparging and compared results. Now, if I do a good job of squeezing the suspended bag after mashout and the liquid returns directly to the kettle, there might be 150 ml (5 oz) less into packaging for 19 L (5 US gal). That amount is subject to trub & transfer differences, measuring errors, recipe differences, weather conditions (boil off rate) and more. The spent grains have nothing left to give; they taste like wet cardboard - I dump them on a large rock in the woods and the animals no longer eat all of it. That is a good indicator that my mash was efficient, even if it doesn't give me a number.
I became a convert to full volume mashing (with squeezing). It takes less time & handling, the yield (VIP) is not really different, it involves less equipment and clean-up and it stays true to the BIAB concept. Amen.
Of course, you can do as you please and still use Section W. There are some brews where it is great to have it.
And thanks, Rick, for the info in post #4 above.

You're welcome.

Completely agree with all of this. I'll never tell anyone it's wrong to sparge, but it's certainly one more task that can break a brewers focus. Let's face it, we have a lot on our plate on a brew day ... especially for a beginner. The fewer tasks at hand, the easier it is to track your checklist ... and prep for upcoming tasks. Especially if you're drinking while brewing.

• • SVA Brewer With Over 20 Brews From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

Okay just a few corrections here on the sparging side of things.

This info is very hard to take on board as there is so much misinformation about it on the net and The BIABacus is the only software that can actually handle sparging calculations properly, let alone estimate them very well.

The basic rule is, you should not sparge if you can fit all your water into the kettle. The reality is the same as, it makes no difference if you have your coffee or tea with two sugars; whether you add all the water first or if you add it over two or three times, your mug of coffee or tea will be just as sweet. (This is not a perfect analogy but the end result is as simple as this.)

Other sites, software etc have you thinking that sparging rinses most/all the final sugars out of the grain. This is not correct. In real life, all-grain brewing is a bit like soaking a pair of really dirty jeans in two 10 Litre buckets versus one 20 Litre bucket. You will end up with the same amount of water at the same level of "dirtiness" (original gravity). Less dirty jeans will result in a less dirty water (lower original gravity), but unless you add hundreds more litres, you will not get clear water (approach an original gravity of 1.000

So basically, forget whatever you have read on sparging elsewhere as this is the only site that has actually tested these things out side by side and with the proper tools. Anyone that does report a higher kettle efficiency using sparging will not have done the same recipe side by side or considered the time in which the grain is in contact with the liquor (water). A typical example is someone tries mashing at full-volume for 60 minutes and then, on their next brew, finds that mashing for 60 minutes and then sparging improves their 'yield'. The reason is not because of the two additions of water, it is because the sparging meant the grain had more time in contact with the water. In other words, if they had just done a full-volume 90-minute mash to start with, they would have achieved the same result with zero extra effort. (This is a very simplistic example as it assumes that the brewer is actually using the exact same recipe, water, temps etc, etc).

There is a lot of other info on this site on this subject but it is hard to find. An advanced search showing the oldest of my posts with any of the following search terms, "The Sweet Liquor Shop", "jeans", "coffee", "tea", "sparging", should come up with more info. If you find any well-written links, post them here as it's been a while since we explored this.

Okay, one last thing chlehb, whilst I haven't checked your file, do not over-ride any BIABacus defaults. I saw you mention changing efficiency for example. Don't do it!!!! The BIABacus estimates all that for you and keeps you on safe ground. Out of time but from a quick scan I can see that you are also confused (and rightly so) on efficiency. One of the reasons why this site created Clear Brewing Terminology is because of this. Read this post in the CBT thread.

PP

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

Hold the horses!!!!

chlehb, I spent quite some time writing my last post here, others have spent more and now I have read this thread and the new one, downloaded all the files and this brew was not ready to be brewed.

There are many things that should have been corrected prior to brewing and it is no use starting the new thread until we are sure you understand all the above and reply to and act on all the posts above. Once we are sure you understand the above, then I and others will invest more time in working out the problems you experienced on your first batch.

So, first thing you need to do is read my last post above and let us know whether you sparged or not.

I, for one, have lots more to say on this brew but am not prepared to spend all that time unless I know my answers are being read and absorbed.

I have not time atm but will always spend it here if I know it is making a difference.


PP

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

It's all good Chris and I know how exciting it is to do your first few brews so smack me on the head and send me a PM if I ever am killing your vibe .

Glad to hear the brew is bubbling away and I reckon keep that thread full of the exciting news and use this one to see if we can improve on the next one. I love the chaotic aspect of brewing comment btw. That's great . I also like your comment about reading too much. This is also true .

Here's a few thoughts and old adages from this site for you to keep in mind (some of them you already know I think)...

1. You can't rely on a single reading from a single brew. In fact, you can't rely on the results of a single brew at all.
2. Stick to 90 minute mashes and boils when starting out.
3. Don't change BIABacus defaults for at least three brews as things like evaporation change from day to day.
4. Rather than try and get numbers perfect, a better aim is to make sure you end up with a VAW that needs to be diluted.
5. Small batches like yours are even harder to measure than ordinary size batches.
6. Do not take hot gravity readings. Cover samples and chill them to ambient or at least less than 30C before taking. Temperature adjustment formulas are very dodgy.

Basically Chris, don't analyse this brew too much as there are a lot of things that could have gone wrong. For example, your efficiencies in Section P were all very low. Check out Some Common Reasons for a Low Efficiency Reading.

If your next brew shows the same lack of efficiency, we need to come back to this post. For now, you should not adjust anything, you should just brew again with a 90 minute mash though. (The 90 minute boil is not essential in many brewing situations although it is preferable.)

Good stuff Chris,
Pat

P.S. Keep this thread going for planning your next brew if you like as knowing the history of the first batch makes things easier.

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

First BIAB, recipe feedback request

• • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

Found it! I heard someone say Iodine!

Before the iodine bit, I really like Contrarion's post above . It is strong, sensible advice which I'll only add to or update in the post-script.

I've probably written much better in the past on the validity of iodine tests so I would do an advanced search or my previous posts which contain the word "iodine". I've almost blocked iodine tests from my mind as I know they have no value in brewing and are an urban myth of brewing. Please search my old posts on this but, the long and short of it is that your mash has not finished just because an iodine test has. (If you can find the old post which I think will have a link to the Braukaiser site, please post it.)


PP

P.S. Correct advice on your grain crush can be found in What should my grain crush be like?
P.S.S. Research from a few years ago shows that crystal grains actually affect pH more than the dark grains - go figure! In pure BIAB, stuff like pH and water profiles are far easier to control but, if your water tastes fine, then water adjustment should be given a very low priority.

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

Spent some time researching the "iodine" comment - launching from PP's post here.
Once I left this site I was once again amazed at all the conflicting information. I am reminded of a comment that I read on this site - brewing can be as simple or as complicated as you want.

What I read of the Baukaiser site-

"When the relationship between mash time, fermentability (limit of attenuation) and extract efficiency was examined, 2 trends were observed. The lower of the two mash temperatures (67C / 152F) resulted in a slower initial increase in extraction efficiency and fermentability compared to the higher mash temperature (72C / 162F). This is explained by a lower activity of both the alpha and the beta amylase enzymes at the lower temperature. And in the long run the mash with the lower mash temperature was able to create a more fermentable wort. This is a result of the greater stability of the beta amylase enzymes at the lower temperature. While they are initially not as active as in the higher temperature mash, they are active for a longer time and can therefore produce more maltose which increases the fermentability."

Pete

• • SVA Brewer With Over 20 Brews From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

• • SVA Brewer With Over 20 Brews From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0