I've had very similar results. The crushed conditioned malt feels so fluffy. The downsides I've found are that crushing requires a bit more pressure, the rollers need to be cleaned afterwards since some grain will stick, and the grain bed doesn't filter as well, though. I've not noticed any astringency either way.
That doesn't seem right. Victory (as well as Sierra Nevada, Deschutes, and New Belgium) has a wet mill and spends A LOT of money on it for the purposes of improved lautering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victory
the malt is wetted very carefully so that the husk gets wet and soft, but not the kernel. This way, when the malt hits the rollers -- which are set quite tightly -- the kernel cracks as always, but the husk is not broken up, like it is in a dry mill. This makes for a better filter bed, and less tannins from the husk
I dont think I will have a problem with particles in my wort after 90 minutes of recircualting. We will see! But I am completely blown away by the results, I have never seen such a nice crush and such whole husks!!!
Can't wait to here about the results. Won't be able to watch live though.
__________________
Primary: Cascadian APA (BBR/BYO Experiment)
Lagering:
Kegged: American Nut Brown Ale, Dusseldorf Alt
Bottled: Blonde Ale
Next Up: Belgian Golden?, Coconut Porter, Saison, Some kind of fruit beer, more delicious Stout, more IPA, more Blonde Ale, more Stout, Cascadian APA
Can't wait to here about the results. Won't be able to watch live though.
It will be recorded, and I will post the links for ya. I have a ton of rice hulls now too that Bad_Coffee sent to me, but I will leave them out and just condition the malt this time.
In the crush that was DRY milled, some husks are sorta intact, but most are broken into slivers. The WET milled grain is just about 90% intact husks at a BC setting of .035". Crazzyyyy
do you get increased efficiency doing this? If so im just curious how much
and if so, which efficiency?
Does it help with conversion efficiency (seems it might - with "fluffier" grain), or lauter efficiency (seems it might, since the grain bed acts differently).
Does it help with conversion efficiency (seems it might - with "fluffier" grain), or lauter efficiency (seems it might, since the grain bed acts differently).
So maybe both?
It depends...
It will let you crush finer if you are looking to get a finer crush without sticking the mash, since it keeps the husks intact. My conversion eff. is about 97%, so that is not a factor for me. But for some, it would improve conv. eff. and allow them to keep a good filter bed at the same time.
It could definately improve lauter eff. since you are creating a less compacted grain bed. If your grain bed becomes too compacted, the water will flow by the path of least resistance... along the wall of the cooler or MLT. Keep a nice light grain bed and you will promote more even sparging of the bed. Again, in my case my lauter eff. is about 91% so this isnt a factor for me.
What is a factor for me is being able to get the MOST free flowing grain bed possible without sacrificing the crush that has come to allow me 97% conversion eff. The intact husks will allow me to maintain the eff. I have while allowing me to recirculate faster, which when running a HERMS, is of great value.
do you get increased efficiency doing this? If so im just curious how much
I would think you MAY get better lauter eff. as stated above, but to what degree? I dunno. This is not to boost my eff. I am actually in the process of trying to lower my own eff. by 8%
Linear Mode
