Dialing in the Millet Mash

Due to the fact that my last several beers have severely over-attenuated and come out lacking good malt flavor, I've decided to go back to the drawing board and try to dial my mash in more scientifically. This is also to figure out what mashing process is optimal so that we can avoid adding unnecessary features to the brewhouse at Ghostfish.

I'm planning a bunch of small-scale trials and have already done three 0.5-gallon-size mashes, and I already have gotten some puzzling results.

Initially I am trying to definitively rule out the possibility of a single-infusion mash. I did two trials using about 12.37 oz of pale millet malt from Grouse in 0.53 gallons of water. Both were mashed at 160°F for 60 minutes on the stove, with frequent re-application of heat to keep the temps up. The only difference between the two was Trial 1 had no additional enzymes added, whereas Trial 2 had 1/8 tsp of EC Kraus Diatase added at the start of the mash. Water was RO with no modifications. After the mash, a 5-minute mash-out at 175°F was conducted, and the grains were strained out using a fine-mesh BIAB bag.

Here's the first point where I'm confused: after I mashed, strained, cooled, and labelled the worts, I checked the SG, tasted them, evaluated the appearance. Both trials went super-dark black when I first added 1/8 tsp of Iodophor, but rapidly lightened to a pale pink color (over the course of 60 seconds or so). What's up with THAT? How do I tell if that's a weak pass or a major fail of the starch test? Do I go by the initial color, or what it finally settled out to be?

Here's the second point where I'm confused: Trial 1 tasted starchy and did not clarify well during the mash at all. Trial 2 tasted very sweet and during the mash a nice clear wort collected on top as the solids settled out. HOWEVER, the SG of Trial 1 was 1.044 at 65°F, while the SG of Trial 2 was 1.033 at 65°F. WHAT is going on there? I've scoured everywhere for an explanation of how SG changes during a mash as starches convert, and come up empty-handed.

To add another data point, I did a 3rd trial, which used the same grain and water volume, the same enzyme amount as Trial 2, but split the mash into two steps: 30 minutes at 150, 30 minutes at 163 (the reported gel temp of the malt, according to the maltstress). This produced nearly identical results to Trial 1, more or less, with a slight difference in appearance and an SG of 1.042. Taste was also starchy and a little thin.

It seems like trial 2 had the best conversion, by why is the SG 10 points lower? Why are the starch tests identical, despite the obvious differences in flavor and gravity? Just to make sure it's not the iodophor, I did some "control" starch tests using sugar-water (solution did not change color), dry rice extract dissolved in water (solution did not change color) and rice flour dissolved in water (solution turned blue-black instantly).

On my partial mashes, the starch tests always showed black no matter how long I left the rests. I figured I was either doing the starch test wrong or the fact that I use a little buckwheat in every mash somehow left starch no matter what.

The gravity reading cannot distinguish between starch and sugar, right. The gravity reading only tells the difference in density so maybe your results make sense. You get a bunch of starch in the wart and the gravity goes up, you convert some and the gravity goes down a bit but the sugar content is much better. Maybe we just have trouble converting a high enough percentage of starches and we always fail the simple starch test. Attenuation is probably the better indicator of how much sugar is actually in the wart.

If no one knows how conversion amount affects hydrometer readings, my next test will be just straight gelatinize some malt in solution at temperature above saccharification, collect the starchy wort, split it in half, and add enzymes to one half, and then chill both to the same temperature and see if the gravities differ.

What I really need to figure out is a way to conduct several simultaneous small mashes in a manner that allows for good temperature stability. Maybe in the oven?

Do you use a pH meter to monitor your test mash?

Palmer and others talk about the importance of mash pH and controlling water chemistry for good beer. I was considering getting a meter but they are pricey and a PITA to use and maintain. Since all of the literature out there is on barley mash, I wasn't really sure that the extra cost and pain would add that much value. I don't really know what I should be controlling to. For your brewery, you will probably be using a pH meter so you may have access to equipment that most of us don't. I for one, would be really interested in your results.

Millet has extremely low diastatic power, iirc. Batch 1 didn't convert, therefore the SG is meaningless on batch 1. Who takes gravity readings in the middle of a mash? No one. There's no purpose in correlating that number to anything.

Nothing in these trials is meaningless. If unconverted starch pushes up the SG compared to wort that has achieved close to full conversion, then that tells me something important, namely that I can gauge conversion roughly by SG. Most people don't take SG in the middle of a mash because most people are not trying to do what I'm trying to do (optimize a mash process for a grain that has no established convention to follow). I cannot afford to leave any avenue unexplored or any variable uncontrolled here.

A hydrometer measures the relative density of a liquid in comparison to water. As brewers, we use a saccharometer which measures the amount of sugar in solution. Starch is mostly insoluble. If you had no conversion, your hydrometer would sit fairly low. Did you double check your readings with a refractometer?

I'm not a huge fan of chemical conversion tests. I like the ol' "if it tastes starchy then it is" test. Honestly, we don't have enough data. Both of these tests could be outliers. At that small of a scale, small variations in process could have drastic results. I would also include pH. Your best bet is to conduct this same test many more times to reduce error. Plot and graph results then take an average. Scientific method is your friend.

You could also include things like varying the time of mash and pH conditions. I might also do a mash of 163F to 150F. Gelatanization to conversion. Man I wish I could personally be there to give you a hand. This is the kinda thing I can sink my teeth into.

This is some good stuff. We just need more data. It could really help everyone with their chronic low efficiency. Keep up the good work!

Osedax said:

A hydrometer measures the relative density of a liquid in comparison to water. As brewers, we use a saccharometer which measures the amount of sugar in solution. Starch is mostly insoluble. If you had no conversion, your hydrometer would sit fairly low. Did you double check your readings with a refractometer?

Click to expand...

Guess I should get a refractometer. But I did check and re-check each batch of wort multiple times to confirm that it was not just me misreading the damn thing.

I know starch is insoluble, but what about dextrins? I'm entirely sure I didn't simply get *no* conversion, because there was some sweetness to all the samples.

I'm not a huge fan of chemical conversion tests. I like the ol' "if it tastes starchy then it is" test.

Click to expand...

Sure, but what if it doesn't taste starchy?

Honestly, we don't have enough data. Both of these tests could be outliers. At that small of a scale, small variations in process could have drastic results. I would also include pH. Your best bet is to conduct this same test many more times to reduce error. Plot and graph results then take an average. Scientific method is your friend.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm well aware of this. I know heat loss and vessel size are two other variables here that were not adequately controlled; the next test is going to be done in vessels of nearly identical size, and held in a warm oven to prevent heat loss.

You could also include things like varying the time of mash and pH conditions.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm getting there. First I want to optimize temperature, and then start tweaking these other variables. Mineral content, mash thickness, grind fineness, time length, enzyme quantity, etc. etc. are all factors. I only wish I had an actual lab with better equipment to control and measure things.

I might also do a mash of 163F to 150F. Gelatanization to conversion. Man I wish I could personally be there to give you a hand. This is the kinda thing I can sink my teeth into.

Click to expand...

Well, if you want to run some trials yourself that would be just as useful as you helping me out here!

This is some good stuff. We just need more data. It could really help everyone with their chronic low efficiency. Keep up the good work!

Click to expand...

In point of fact, I have at least established a mash process that yields very high efficiency and attenuation; the problem is that the attenuation is excessive and the malt flavor is lost, and the mash is very complicated. I'm trying to start from scratch to find something that is simpler and yields good extraction but less extreme attenuation and better malt flavor.

It's going to be a long journey, because once I figure it out with all pale malt, I'll start adding roast malts and that's gonna throw the whole thing off.

Things were so much simpler when I was just steeping roasted grains and adding syrups and extracts, lol. So far I've yet to produce an all-grain stout or IPA as balanced and drinkable as old mostly-extract recipes. Blondes, belgians, wits, and browns, though...those have been better than anything I could accomplish with extract.

I certanly dont have the answers to your questions, but I wonder if the results you are seeing could be due to the enzyme product you used?

The diatase contains both a-amylase and glucoamylase... what if the a-amylase in your bottle is not working well, so those long chain starches in your wort are not bieng cleaved up into dextrines...but the glucoamylase is working fine, so any dextrines already in your wort are bieng converted to sugar.
This sort of scenario might explain how the enzyme spiked batch could be sweet, but also low gravity and fail the starch test.

furthur experiments with these 2 enzymes used seperately might help to pinpoint weather this is the problem. I have ordered powdered a-amylase and glucoamylase (seperately, not mixed) from brewhaus.com.

I am not sure this explains your results, just a thought.

Theorhetically, mash temperatures only effect the enzymatic processes, not the grains. If the grains are already malted, we need only focus on extracting and converting those starches. If you add alpha amylase, but take it out of its optimal range, what is the point? At 160, you are at the very end of the alpha range, very close to beta. I know that Grouse recommends 163, but this doesn't really make sense to me for this reason. If you are going to use enzymes, why not try them in a normal mash schedule? Or have you already done this? Or maybe I am wrong on this?


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

Dextrins are water soluble unfermentable sugars. You can also have long chain dextrins which are less soluble. So yes, they will effect the hydrometer reading. That is why a full bodied beer and a low body beer can have the same OG with the same grain bill. There are other factors that create body (proteins help a lot) but, dextrins are a big part and can be measured with a hydrometer. Long chain dextrins can set off an iodine test.

The problem with iodine tests are that the results can be skewed. A little bit of grain husk in the sample will make the test read a false positive. I, personally, don't have the experience with iodine testing to conduct them with a 100% success rate. From my understanding the best results come from a small drop on a piece of chalk. If it tastes right and ferments correctly then it's good for me but, I also don't brew for a small scale brewery.

The point of my post was that this test needs to be completed a few times under the same conditions to really draw any conclusion out of it. Accurate measures of pH, time, temperature, weight, volumes, etc will help repeat-ability. I actually have conducted tests of my own but, because I have never used proper scientific method, the results don't mean much. To me they do but, to others they won't.

I just tried my idea for the 163F to 150F test yesterday. Saison with juniper, grapefruit peel, seeds of paradise, and white tea. 5 gallons Belle Saison yeast and 5 gallons US-05. Apparently, everyone got their hands in the cookie jar on that one. I had great conversion. Tasted much sweeter than normal and got an increase of around 17% efficiency. However, I had a stuck sparge 3/4 of the way through lautering. Problem is; I can draw almost no conclusions off of this until I try it at least 4-5 more times.

I have the complete opposite problem that you have. I have poor attenuation and efficiency (well semi-poor efficiency) but, a decent malt flavor and backbone. I just created a coffee stout that some are saying is too thick. :smack:

Here's to it being a long journey indeed. Keep these trials updated!

Another posibility that could explain your thin highly modified beers of late, is that your enzymes may not denature at boiling temps. Some of the synthetic fungal enzymes are not denatured at boiling temperatures (I dont know about the one you are using). If you have residual amylase activity going on during your fermentation, that could also explain a low final gravity and a not so malty outcome... even if you have pleanty of dextrines left at the end of your mash they might be getting chewed up and fermented out later.

Just to throw some numbers in the heap, I brewed tonight and here are the results.
10 lbs pale malt produced 5 G of 1.032 wort post boil. No enzymes tonight.
Used a 50-60-70 mash. Lautered at 170.
This was really just an experiment similar to Igliashons, but we are doing them at a larger scale to try and avoid outliers. Went ahead and added northern brewer and fuggle to make a bitter.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

Cainepolo12,

what was the gravity of the collected wart before you began the boil? Without knowing how much boil off there was, it is hard to draw any conclusions from numbers, correct?

Igliashon,

I may have come up against what you were concerned with in the beginning of this thread.
I used the same mash process on two partial mashes, one with pale white millet and one with pale red millet. I got much higher ppg on the mash with pale white millet. Others have discussed the different potential yields, but I have now demonstrated it for myself. One interesting thing that came out of this was the beer made with the pale white millet mash (the best ppg) also seemed to have less than stellar malt flavor. Was not a perfect test as I was only investigating mash procedure and not flavor, so after the mash I brewed very different beers. Remain interested in what comes out of your experiments.

Chris-
Preboil was 5.5 g at 1.028. I boiled inside so only had about 10% loss from boil. The beer blazed it's way through fermentation but only attenuated to 1.014. Tastes amazing though.

I did another 10 lb batch tonight with the same mash with the exception of sacchirification at 150. Same mash out. Pitched on to the yeast cake 20 minutes ago and it's bubbling away already. Amazing. Ppg yield was the same at 1.028. I'm not using any enzymes so I think that will be boosted but were just trying to learn. Theorhetically, my lower sac rest should finish at around 1.006-8, but we will see. I am going to keep posting each test. I would love to see others post their mash schedules with grain weights, OG and FG, ppg, etc. we can only brew individually according to our schedules, but collectively we can garner much more info. Let's hear what you're doing gents!


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

Ig-
What is your sac test at? Are you varying it at all to adjust for attenuation?


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

So guys, I've run a series of tests recently, and while I've concluded that I need to improve my equipment setup to achieve proper temp control (mashing 0.5 gallon batches on the stove or in the oven just WILL NOT have enough temp stability to achieve very meaningful results!), I have discovered a few useful data points that are relevant despite my problematic methodology.

1. Starch does indeed affect the gravity. I added some millet malt (12.38 oz) to 0.5 gallons of water at 212°F, which swiftly dropped to 190°F, rested for 30 minutes, and then collected the wort. Cooled to 74°F, it had an SG of 1.040. It failed the iodine test and STAYED failed (color did not change from solid black over the course of 30 minutes). It also tasted starchy and bland and not sweet.

2. Diatase works, in a sense. I split the collected starchy-wort in half and added 5 drops of EC Krause Diatase to one half, and held between 150 and 140°F for 30 minutes. The resulting wort had an SG of 1.046 (possibly raised due to evap loss, the resulting wort had around 4 oz less volume than the "control"), but it *did* pass the iodine test with flying colors. The flavor and clarity however were quite different than trials where the millet was mashed at 163°F or less. See below.

3. Millet can convert itself sufficient pass an iodine test. I mashed the same amount of grain in the same amount of water at 163°F (±at least 10°F, sadly) for 60 minutes, strained out the grist and heated to 175°F to mash out. I then split in half, and added 5 drops of diatase to one half of it, which I rested between 150°F and 140°F for 30 minutes. Both halves were heated to 190°F at the end to achieve a hot break, and allowed to cool "naturally" in the air over four hours. Both halves passed an iodine test with flying colors; the SG was measured at 74°F and was 1.042 for the natural half and 1.045 for the enzyme half. Again, evap could have affected this, as the enzyme batch was held at a higher temperature for longer and resulted in a lower final volume. The enzyme half was noticeably sweeter; both halves of this trial were sweeter and smoother than the enzyme-treated starchy wort from the previous trial, and also clearer.

I also did a third trial replicating the 2nd trial, but adding diatase at the start of the mash. The half that did not have enzymes added again after mash-out failed the starch test (twice). The half that DID have enzymes added after the mash-out PASSED the iodine test (twice) and also had the highest SG of all the samples taken. However, again the volume was not equal to the others and I cannot conclude that it actually had better extraction. It was indeed the sweetest in taste, though.

I am going to replicate these trials using insulated coolers as mash tuns, and make sure to equalize the final volumes of all samples. Then I am going to try varying rest temperatures and water mineralization. I am also going to ferment each sample to see what the attenuation is.

Excellent! Looking forward to the next results!

I see now that my final rest after the mash out has simply been too short and that is probably why I always failed the starch test. That was also what I learned toward the bottom of this thread:
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f164/gf-ag-first-attempt-questions-463175/

Would be nice if we can simplify the step mash in the beginning and just have a longer rest after mash out with Diatase.

I would like to add that the enzyme wort seems to be sweeter to me as well. I believe this is because it more thoroughly breaks down longer chain sugars. I used safbrew HT and L.

I can update you with more information once my first trial is done but, I believe that the beer attenuates further as well. I had no under attenuation issues this batch. I'm watching for over attenuation now.

I will repeat the test with the same rest, pH, mill setting, and similar water treatment. Unfortunately, it will be a different grist (I want different beer) and grist:liquor ratio (I messed up ratios last time). However, I will leave out enzymes this time.

Keep up the info! :beer:

I have some more data on this experiment. I would like to add that I in no way made this scientific but, I did make beer while doing it.

I created 2 10 gallon batches. Each one I split into 2 separate fermenters and pitched different yeast on both. Yeast pitching rate was calibrated the same for each. Both batches received US-05 as a control. (Well a semi-control. I didn't use the same grain bill.)

In both batches I used the same mill gap (within .002"), mash rests, gravities, amounts of adjuncts, and the same pH (I think). In one batch I used enzymes and in the other I did not. I marked down starting and finishing gravities along with attenuation.

Batch #1: Belgian Blackout
Mill: .006" double mill
Mash: 163F for 30 minutes and then dropped to 150F for 30 minutes. Lautered and collected 11.75 gallons wort. Had a stuck sparge but, fixed it and continued.
Grist Ratio: 1.25 qt/lb (I messed up my calculations)
pH: 5.62
Enzymes: Safebrew HT added during the 163F rest. Safebrew L added during the 150F rest.

Measured OG: 10.5 gallons of 1.062 wort
Measured Brewhouse Efficiency: 86.0%
Measured FG - US-05 yeast: 1.012
Measured FG - Belle Saison yeast: 1.004
Measured Attenuation - US-05 yeast: 79.7%
Measured Attenuation - Belle Saison yeast: 93.2%
Clarity - US-05 yeast: Hazy
Clarity - Belle Saision yeast: Very clear. Not crystal but, close.

Overall: Excellent efficiency everywhere. Stuck sparge was a pain but, great overall. The collected wort from the mash was very sweet. Attenuation in both yeast strains were high but, not out of normal. This grain bill was mashed low and had a good dose of simple sugar added. The US-05 was a bit above normal. Belle Saison made an amazing beer! Completely superb without a notice of off flavor. US-05 was good but, was nothing special.

Batch #2: IBA
Mill: .008" double mill
Mash: 163F for 30 minutes and then dropped to 152F for 30 minutes. Lautered and collected 11.50 gallons wort. No stuck sparge. Just slow.
Grist Ratio: 1.5 qt/lb
pH: ? (drinking and brewing) Calculations put it close.
Enzymes: None.

Measured OG: 10 gallons of 1.060 wort
Measured Brewhouse Efficiency: 80.8%
Measured FG - US-05 yeast: 1.012
Measured FG - S-04 yeast: 1.016
Measured Attenuation - US-05 yeast: 79.1%
Measured Attenuation - S-04 yeast: 72.2%
Clarity - US-05 yeast: Very Hazy. May clear in time.
Clarity - S-04 yeast: Murky. Like mud. Have not bottled or cold crashed yet.

Overall: Good efficiency but, not quite as good as with the enzymes. Lower efficiency was partially due to higher hop absorption. Wort was not as sweet or as clear as the previous batch. Attenuation was within norm and, again, the US-05 bordered on the high side. S-04 right within expected range. All my numbers hit right on in this batch. The US-05 made a good batch but, nothing spectacular. Judgement is still out on it. S-04 was a complete fail. Off-flavors present. I am going to pitch some Brett. B. to see what happens. Too early to make final judgement.


Hopefully, all of this helps someone out there. I know it helped me. A good grind means everything. Better results could have been had with a protein rest. Interpret this data as you will. I will say that I was forced to obtain a new hydrometer before I could get an FG on the second batch. Obviously, I need to tighten up the process. I will also need more standard data to reduce error. I can provide any other information deemed relevant. Just ask. Keep experimenting!

Next thing I am going to do is break 1.100 on my system. :fro:

I really want to get the all-grain millet Gfree brewing going at my house. I made an attempt about a year and a half ago using the Andrew Lavery schedule and some CMC malt, and failed, got discouraged and haven't tried since. My brew never fg never got below 1.030, when og was 1.040. The enzyme discussions have got me interested again. Osedax I see in your above post two schedules, the first includes enzymes, could you elaborate on them, like where you purchase, and maybe links to some more information on them. I have read in the forum about using EC Krause diatase, and also am wondering about two enzymes I see available on Annapolis Homebrew" site. They are offering Brewcraft AMG-300lalpha-exo (Beta)amylase, and Brewcraft Teramyl. I am going to find out if these are Gluten free, and wondering how they compare to the EC Kraus diatase. Thanks for any input you have.
Stefan

I too am interested in the info on your safbrew HT & L. I would like to see the recipe for both of the above, just because its fun to see what people are doing and get ideas.

This is right on the lines of a thread I have going (same yeast comparison): https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f164/test-yeast-flavor-471356/

I will reference your test in this thread or maybe you could post again in the above thread with your taste preferences.

I have a 10 gallon batch in my new conical and and am having some issues. My first batch in the conical was a 5 gallon batch and worked out fine. This latest 10 gallon batch was a pretty basic pale ale partial mash with millet and buckwheat in the partial mash. Three departures from previous experience:
1. I forgot to put in the whirlfloc tablets at the end of the boil.
2. I pitched 4 packets of Safale US-05 (twice my normal amount) as I realized that I was under pitching on previous batches.
3. This batch was dry hopped by just adding the pellets to the fermenter rather than using a sanitized muslin bag.

The beer has been in the conical for 3 weeks. I have dumped the trub 3 times now and the sample line still comes in very cloudy! I have had this issue with Nottingham but have never had this issue before with Safale US-05. Anybody have thoughts on what I did to cause this?

Just going to let it sit another week and see if it clears.

Chris

glutarded-chris said:

I have a 10 gallon batch in my new conical and and am having some issues. My first batch in the conical was a 5 gallon batch and worked out fine. This latest 10 gallon batch was a pretty basic pale ale partial mash with millet and buckwheat in the partial mash. Three departures from previous experience:
1. I forgot to put in the whirlfloc tablets at the end of the boil.
2. I pitched 4 packets of Safale US-05 (twice my normal amount) as I realized that I was under pitching on previous batches.
3. This batch was dry hopped by just adding the pellets to the fermenter rather than using a sanitized muslin bag.

The beer has been in the conical for 3 weeks. I have dumped the trub 3 times now and the sample line still comes in very cloudy! I have had this issue with Nottingham but have never had this issue before with Safale US-05. Anybody have thoughts on what I did to cause this?

Just going to let it sit another week and see if it clears.

Chris

Click to expand...

Chris, forgive me if you've already figured this out (its an old post and I was reviewing Igs' mash evolution, wondering if single infusion is a reality or a false hope). In my experience all my GF batches are very cloudy. I always use whirlfloc and I think that although the practice is debated around I think racking to secondary is going to be a mandatory step going forward for me. I am a lazy brewer and I forwent the secondary on a Flower Power clone and racked from primary to keg. I also skipped the muslin bag on the dry hops (3oz of pellets too!) and I'm pretty sure this is going to be a cloudy IPA until the last drop. Its pretty nice, just cloudy and a little gritty in the first few glasses. Did yours ever clear? Do you remember that far back?

There were a couple of things going on with that batch. Lack of whirlfloc tab on a partial mash was the first thing. One was the dry hopping without a bag. A lot of debris just stayed in suspension. The last was the position of the racking tube. My conical is Blichmann and their directions were to aim the tube slightly downward so the dropping yeast does no collect in the tube. However this puts the tube opening close to the wall. Gluten free brews produce a lot of trub and the dumping process seems to pull it mostly from the center of the mass, so when I took a sample it always sucked some from the wall. That is my theory anyway so now I just point it straight up and it works better.

The brew cleared just fine after conditioning in the keg for a few weeks.

I do about half of my batches in the conical and half in 5 gallon better bottles. Up until recently I always racked to a secondary on the 5 gallon batches. I recently purchased a wide mouth bubbler so the last couple batches I just left it in the primary for the full 3 weeks. Seemed just fine. There is a lot of controversy over racking. I think it does help with the clarity, but you waste less beer if you don't rack and the dry hop bag can stay in longer. I am not convinced it is worth the extra effort to rack to a secondary especially if you keg the beer as it seems to clear up in the keg anyway.

glutarded-chris said:

There were a couple of things going on with that batch. Lack of whirlfloc tab on a partial mash was the first thing. One was the dry hopping without a bag. A lot of debris just stayed in suspension. The last was the position of the racking tube. My conical is Blichmann and their directions were to aim the tube slightly downward so the dropping yeast does no collect in the tube. However this puts the tube opening close to the wall. Gluten free brews produce a lot of trub and the dumping process seems to pull it mostly from the center of the mass, so when I took a sample it always sucked some from the wall. That is my theory anyway so now I just point it straight up and it works better.

The brew cleared just fine after conditioning in the keg for a few weeks.

I do about half of my batches in the conical and half in 5 gallon better bottles. Up until recently I always racked to a secondary on the 5 gallon batches. I recently purchased a wide mouth bubbler so the last couple batches I just left it in the primary for the full 3 weeks. Seemed just fine. There is a lot of controversy over racking. I think it does help with the clarity, but you waste less beer if you don't rack and the dry hop bag can stay in longer. I am not convinced it is worth the extra effort to rack to a secondary especially if you keg the beer as it seems to clear up in the keg anyway.

Click to expand...

Yeah... I'm wavering back and forth too on it. My last batch is keg (never racked to secondary) for about 7 days now and it may be clearing up a bit. Now if I can just leave it alone for 2 more I'll have some to drink when its clear (but its one of my best IPAs and its hard to not sip away at it)!

Thanks as always for the insight. You always give me good things to think about.