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

I think doing larger batches will definitely make it more realistic Joshua.

There are so many ways you could go with this experiment though, but I don't know which would be valuable.
The main aim of it was to see if you could mash for a short period and get as a good beer as a normal mash. (which I haven't done yet).

The problem I now face is that to go larger will require equipment that I don't have for a side-by-side experiment. So do I stay small volume or go larger but not side-by-side?
Do I do the same beers again but with the blitzed grain pulled at 20 mins, the other at 60 mins, both at the same time?

Any discussion on the next best step?
Bear in mind, I do not want to spend too much time (& grain) on this, so a concise method would be preferable.

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Great Britain
  • 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 Canada
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

Thanks Joshua - I have had a quick look on Amazon and it seems I can get 11L SS pots for about £15 each, so 2 will cost me about $80 USD.

I don't think I am THAT dedicated to this experiment

I have a ton of voile, so am not worried about that. In fact, after my first experiment I am thinking that it would be better/easier for these small volume experiments to not use a bag at all until mashout, whereby I would just filter it through a voile cloth/bag.
One of the problems with a brew bag/voile in these small pots is that it is easier to "wick" out the wort, and they tend to get in the way when stirring/agitating.

Lumpy5oh - I tend to agree with you, but thought it better to have the discussion with my peers at this stage, rather than have disagreements further down the line.

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Great Britain
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

mally wrote:There are so many ways you could go with this experiment though, but I don't know which would be valuable.

The main aim of it was to see if you could mash for a short period and get as a good beer as a normal mash. (which I haven't done yet).

Your first sentence above nails it mally and until anyone else has time or is prepared to help, then you have to accept that you cannot do all the necessary experiments.

Your first experiment indicated no important/significant difference between a fine crush and a normal crush time-wise.

If other brewers could repeat what you have done and report it as well as you have, that would be very cool. You don't have the time and/or resources to repeat that experiment over and over again so you'll have to just pretend ow that your first experiment is correct and that a fine grind does not make that much of a difference. (Your graph in post #8 actually exaggerates the difference I think.

Assuming there is No Difference in Kettle Efficiency between a Fine and Normal Grind...

Anyone repeating your experiment above should really focus on, not only the 'Kettle to Fermentor Loss (KFL)' but also the 'Fermentor to Packaging Loss (FPL)'. When testing a fine grind versus a normal grind, 'Efficiency into Packaging (EIP)' is something I deleted from the BIABacus but maybe should re-introduce? On a fine grind, kettle and fermentor trub need close examination.

Mash Time/Quality

Well, assuming crush size makes no difference in quality (on one style and in one water at least) then what you would have to do here, is ask a whole lot of experienced home brewers to brew their house beer (the one they know really well) with a mash time of 20 minutes but using 15% more grain and see if they notice a difference? Basic Brewing Radio might be a good source to test/propose the experiment, Hopefully it would get a good enough sample size .

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

Briess Blog

This is about mashing for distilling but could be relevant. It seems to indicate an increase in efficiency and a reduction of mash volume. Unfortunately there are no mash times mentioned.

I found it interesting that the first 2 paragraphs mentioned clear run off and efficient lautering, something that traditional methods consider important. My wort after lifting the bag is no where near clear, I'm only interested in getting it clear going into the cube and even then some of the last runnings spoil that for me.

For me the issue to concentrate on is beer quality and trub issues, perhaps guys who cube and store there wort for a long time will have an advantage here as they could achieve maximum settling/compaction of the trub in the cube. Could finings be added to the cube ?? to solidify the trub ?



Gonna get back to work as I can see another can of worms opening

I'll catch up with this later.

Yeasty

• • SVA Brewer With Over 50 Brews From Great Britain
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

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

Yeasty

Interesting Briess Blog Yeasty. Something is not sitting right with it for me though. Maybe it is just the very small gain? I've only read through it once completely though. I think there is something else bugging me there???

As for storing cubes for a very long time (12 months) there is almost no trub at that stage BUT... I've got four cubes here 12 months old and found two of them infected, one I'm unsure of and one I haven't opened the last one yet. All four cubes were used previously to no-chill for twelve months and had no problems. I suspect that on the second use, the cap an seal have become compromised. In other words, the first no-chill batch sat for a year with constant pressure so I think the rubber in the seal become compressed and un-malleable. The wort was also much darker which I have never noticed before. James Spencer saud the darkening of the wort can be caused by oxidisation.

BobBrews will be proud of me though. I tasted all three crappy worts despite the botulism risk and am stil

MODNOTE: We are hoping it is just PP's internet connection that has gone down

Joshua

Trub in the kettle (and to some extent, the fermentor) is not a problem but you know that already.

Not too sure about your first two paragraphs - need more detail Josh. mally, myself and many others have already measured mash gravity increases a billion times. From this we know, single readings are not reliable but the average of the single readings shows a steady increase in gravity over time.

I'm guessing on your second bit about the 85% of OG. Two things. Firstly, you can't really on a single reading so acting on a single measurement that tells you that you have reached 85% of OG is going to cause problems for many reasons whether you use a refractometer or hydrometer. Secondly, I'm guessing but am not sure that when you say 85% of OG, you are assuming that the brewer is going to get an evaporation rate of 15% of their Volume into Boil. This site has shown that working on a percentage evaporation rate is very primitive even though most brewing software uses it. (BeerSmith made a volume per hour rate an option after input from BIABrewer.)

So, I'm a bit lost on this Josh. as always, more details mate!!!!!

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

The wort was also much darker which I have never noticed before. James Spencer said the darkening of the wort can be caused by oxidization.

My beer from my 8 month storage was much lighter than the 4 month and 2 day storage. I guess my "new" no-chill container sealed better and I was careful on the long term, to have very little trub in storage. Normally I don't worry about trub but for the long term I thought it made more sense to remove most of the trub.

I hope James Spencer got a email with this news to report on during the next podcast?

http://www.basicbrewing.com/index.php?page=radio

July 31, 2014 - No Chill Aging Experiment

Homebrewer Bob Stempski shares his experiment comparing beers brewed with no-chill worts aged for eight and four months with a fresh batch.

Bot-ul-ism.jpg

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 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

mally and milan37

I haven't received a reply to either of my last two posts above from either of you. What are you guys doing???

In case you are still interested , and hit me over the head because I already knew this, we already have a heap of information that tells us that there is very little difference between a fine grind and a coarse grind. Just look up any malt specification sheet and you'll see it is only about 1.5% usually. (Correct me if I am wrong.). That confirms mally's experiment from about 30 minutes on.

I can't believe I never thought of the malt spec sheets before.

If I am right, please go back to post #31 above.

BobBrews

Bob, for some reason, I thought Bot was the youngest . I did tell James about my experience and I did ask himn if he noticed anything majorly different between your beers and he said, "No." I reckon you email him because it is possble that James also thoughth that your lightest beer was the youngest. We are all drunkards I fear!!!!

joshua

I fear we are talking at cross-purposes or something sorry mate . Anything we can work out (distill) offline, always adds a lot of value online so let's you and I deal with this one offline.


PP

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

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

BobBrews wrote:I just started to listen your terminology pod cast. I will move it to my MP3 player...

No, no, no! You will fall asleep and drive off the road. I don't think I did a good job on that one . So many analogies etc I didn't include. Live and learn I suppose. You take it easy fella .

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

Fine versus Normal Crush Experiment

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

[I must say that some days I am very tempted to close this forum down to a very few brewers. I get a little confused on why I should be writing (giving) answers that take an hour or many more to write and then, when I do, some people just ask for more with no thanks or contribution. That never bothers me. Laziness does though ]

Milan37 wrote:On the malt specification sheets, what is 'coarse' and what is 'fine'? And how do those compare to typical homebrew crushes?

Fine is not used by commercial breweries. Coarse is the typical brewery grind. Google and study. You'll find info on this buried on this site. But, here is a typical spec sheet.

Milan37 wrote:Mally's experiment is ok, but all it tells us is what HE gets on HIS system. I don't think it's safe to conclude anything else.

Ha! You need to do a lot more reading here milan because this site has a mantra. "Never trust a single reading on a single brew, let alone a single experiment." mally, Rick, any experienced reader on this site knows this.

Whilst mally knows his experiment isn't okay, mally himself, is okay because he actually put his hand up and said. "I'll get the ball rolling." Has anyone else put their hand up to duplicate his first trial?



Anyway, the coarse/fine grind point is moot if you care to read through the above posts and the links and the below...

Mad_Scientist wrote:On the malt specification sheets, what is 'coarse' and what is 'fine'? Not following this bit, can you explain?

Such a nice, non-arrogant, question MS. Josh's links above explain it in one manner but behind the scenes here, we have taken a very different approach. You are a Donor/Enthusiast, so you will see, within the next week, our attempt at making understanding 'extract potential' easy.


PP

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
  • 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

Had a long day yesterday. 12 hours work and then 3 hours forum stuff and then I wrote my last post here. Very rarely, usually after a lot of work etc, I might do a crappy post or two here on BIABrewer. When I do do that, I'll usually edit the post and make an apology asap. The best thing about my last post here is that I see that there is absolutely no need to waste time on an apology or an edit.



[center]Let's Get Back on Track[/center]
What We Do Know

1. Laboratory Tests for extract potential (Congress Mash) show that there is only approximately 1.0% gain in extract potential between a fine and coarse grind. Considering that your kettle efficiency on an average brew might be about 80% then the difference will be about 0.8%.

Read: This and This. Hard stuff to get your head around.

2. We know from collecting many brewer's numbers, that kettle efficiency rises over time for many malts. So, doing less than a 90 minute mash can sometimes cause a significant loss in kettle efficiency. In some malts though, very little difference will be noted between say 60 and 90 minutes.

What We Don't Know

1. Does a fine grind significantly speed up extraction?

2. More importantly, does a fine grind significantly increase 'Kettle to Fermentor Loss (KFL)' and/or 'Fermentor to Packaging Loss (FPL)'? If so, it will also be reducing the amount of beer you end up with at the end of the day.

3. Does a short mash time (regardless of grind) affect any parameters such as attenuation?

4. More importantly, does a short mash time (regardless of grind) affect quality?

I think that summarises it ,
PP

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