Malt Conditioning... WOW it rocks!

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

The Pol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
11,390
Reaction score
117
SO, did a little side by side test today with malt conditioning.

Using Kai's information and using 2% water added to the grain before the milling. Wow, here are the photos, unREAL!

Conditioned Malt
Conditioned_Malt_1_.JPG


NON Conditioned Malt
Conditioned_Malt_2_.JPG


Side By Side! (Conditioned on the RIGHT)
Conditioned_Malt.JPG
 
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.
 
I've been thinking about playing with this, did you just spread it out and mist it with a spraybottle or what?
 
I didnt have anything stuck to my rollers...

The grain bed filters WORSE? How is that even possible when you have more intact husks? Isnt that the whole point of conditioning malt, to create a more free flowing grain bed????

The benefit is that the grain bed is supposed to flow more freely.
 
I've been thinking about playing with this, did you just spread it out and mist it with a spraybottle or what?

Put it in a container, misted it, mixed, misted, mixed... I crushed it by hand (crank) too, worked very!!
 
I didnt have anything stuck to my rollers...

The grain bed filters WORSE? How is that even possible when you have more intact husks? Isnt that the whole point of conditioning malt, to create a more free flowing grain bed????

The benefit is that the grain bed is supposed to flow more freely.

I always have some stick.

As for filtering worse, since the hulls are intact, they don't compact as much, and yes, it flows more freely, but small particles make it through at a much higher rate. At least they do in my system.
 
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.

Victory said:
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
 
Just to reiterate, KingBrian is saying it filters worse because it flows better.

So need to recirculate longer perhaps to get the same wort clarity.
 
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!!!
 
Told you. It's freakin crazy.

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).

So maybe both?
 
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).

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%
 
4 sprays was about .1oz ;)

I used .3oz on 1 pound of malt.

Truely, it is amazing, you cannot even fathom the difference, the photos dont do it justice.

THANKS KAI!
 
Does this require a specific mill, an adjustable mill, etc.? The results look incredible and I would like to try this on my Malt Mill, but it is the non-adjustable variety.

Thanks for the pics. That's awesome.
 
Conditioning also helps to keep the dust down.

I measure out my water and then add it while mixing with my other hand. I find that by conditioning, the malt does swell ever so slightly, but enough such that I have to open my gap a smidge to keep the belt drive from slipping. I also now routinely double crush and can get a quite fine crush and still have mostly intact husks. The second crush is with a narrower gap.

I use a pump to do my vorlauf and then to drain the MLT and with the nice big husk pieces, I can drain it fairly fast with no danger of a stuck sparge.
 
Does this require a specific mill, an adjustable mill, etc.? The results look incredible and I would like to try this on my Malt Mill, but it is the non-adjustable variety.

Thanks for the pics. That's awesome.

No, you do not need a special mill, or an adjustable one. If you like the crush you have, this will give you the SAME crush, BUT it will keep the husks INTACT. Yes, that is the only thing that changes.

It will work on your mill. Use 2% by weight of the malt, as your water quantity. So 10 pounds of grain will need 3.2oz of water added.

Try it, it is AMAZING!
 
Hey Pol,

What is your reasoning behind having/wanting such high efficiency? It seems to me that tannins aside, you are getting more than just sugar out the higher the efficiency. Does your beer taste any different than 70-80%? You are a bit far away for a sample and critique, so I have to just go from what you say. Just interested.
 
yeah, that braukaiser.com website just gets better and better!:mug:


Site has always been a great resource and keeps getting better.

Malt conditioning

IT WORKS!

I cant even brew without doing the fast ferment test, its GREAT to know what your FG will be three days after brewing

BTW
It doesnt work the same with Mead ;)
 
Hey Pol,

What is your reasoning behind having/wanting such high efficiency? It seems to me that tannins aside, you are getting more than just sugar out the higher the efficiency. Does your beer taste any different than 70-80%? You are a bit far away for a sample and critique, so I have to just go from what you say. Just interested.

Where did this come from?
I keep hearing it and seeing it...................

Budweiser and BIG TIME commercial German breweries get HUGE efficiency, I've never tasted tannins in their beers.
 
Do you do anything special at the end of milling, like maybe running through some unconditioned malt to dry out the rollers? Without actually having tried this yet, I would be concerned about water on the rollers. Whadday think?

-OCD
 
Do you do anything special at the end of milling, like maybe running through some unconditioned malt to dry out the rollers? Without actually having tried this yet, I would be concerned about water on the rollers. Whadday think?

-OCD

I dont do anything to my rollers but run grain through.

Your adding VERY little water , only enough to toughen up the husks.
Kai explained it really well at his house
you want the husks to feel leathery

2-3 oz of water sprayed with a hand held sprayer (bottle type) per 10 lbs of grain is a good place to start.
Best part is you can do this the night before and the grains are ready to crush in the AM
 
Hey Pol,

What is your reasoning behind having/wanting such high efficiency? It seems to me that tannins aside, you are getting more than just sugar out the higher the efficiency. Does your beer taste any different than 70-80%? You are a bit far away for a sample and critique, so I have to just go from what you say. Just interested.

It's not really about efficiency but rather having a really good crush without shredding the hell out of the husks. In fact, I'd argue there's less of a chance of tanins because the husks are more intact.
 
Hey Pol,

What is your reasoning behind having/wanting such high efficiency? It seems to me that tannins aside, you are getting more than just sugar out the higher the efficiency. Does your beer taste any different than 70-80%? You are a bit far away for a sample and critique, so I have to just go from what you say. Just interested.

Malt conditioning is not a way to increase eff., and the only eff. that a crush will increase is converison eff, and mine is already nearly 100%.

Malt conditioning is ONLY used to keep the husks intact, and since my E-HERMS lives and breathes based on having a nice free flowing grain bed, it fits.

Go back and read what I have written, and you will see that I am actually in the process of reducing my eff. by at least 8%.

There is a difference between conversion eff. and lauter eff. My conversion eff. is 97%, so even if my lauter eff. is only 80%, I am still getting 80% eff.

A guy only converting 70% of his sugars in the mash will lauter 90% eff. and get 63%? He is oversparging and I am not... so his tannin extraction is much worse.

Eff. to the kettle means nothing in terms of tannin extraction, period. If I convert 100% of my mash and leave 20% behind in the grain, I am still at 80% eff. That is A LOT left in the grain.

If you convert 80% of your sugars and lauter 90% efficiently, you are getting 72% eff. to the kettle and sparging MUCH more than I am. So who has more tannin extraction?

Again, I am not doing this to increase eff, read the thread and you will see where this is stated. The purpose of malt conditioning is to help my grain bed run free. I do strive to have excellent conversion eff, because that allows me to sparge much less, creating better wort in the end. It is really simple.

It is really easy to reduce your lauter eff. and I am in the process of doing just this, as this is the ONLY place in the process where extracting tannins takes place. Tannin extraction is not tied at all to eff. but it IS tied directly to pH and therefore your sparge volume. You can have poor eff. to the kettle and easily oversparge. I am sparging with 3 gallons to reach 7.8 in my kettle... I sparge very little

Lets say you mash with 1.25qt/lb and sparge to reach your boil volume. Say you need 7.8 gallons in the kettle, you are only getting 2.125 (on a 10lb grain bill) from the mash, you are sparging with 5.675 gallons?? What? And then you claim that since you have 70% eff. that your beer is better than mine because I get 80%? But I am sparging HALF as much as you...

Again, tannin extraction has NOTHING to do with eff. to the kettle.(regardless of what anyone wants to say) Sparge temp, volume, husk condition and pH are the only things. Since I sparge less than anyone I personally know, I laugh when I hear that my wort is of lesser quality than thiers just because they have 65-70% eff. Obviously they dont understand mashing or sparging, they are making oatmeal and hoping it turns out OK

And as BobbyM said, there is much LESS tannin extraction because the husks are literally WHOLE.
 
Do you do anything special at the end of milling, like maybe running through some unconditioned malt to dry out the rollers? Without actually having tried this yet, I would be concerned about water on the rollers. Whadday think?

-OCD

As Kaiser states, if you use too much water, you MAY get some grain sticking. I used 2% by weight... and there was no grain sticking to the rollers. It worked just as Kai said it would. The grain is dry, you are adding a very MINUTE amount of water to make the husk more resilient.
 
Was that just to keep your post count at an even number? Cuz otherwise it would be .... odd.

-OCD

I was about to go on a rant :D About how even in a thread that has nothing to do with eff... the eff. monster and wort quality comes up... WTF?
 
2007 Malt Conditioning WIKI by KAI

Usually everyone is quick to slap you with a URL; What Monday night football or something?

-OCD

Disregard that fact that I am not changing my mill setting, or that I stated in this thread that I am trying to REDUCE my eff. I just think it is funny... as if tannins have anything to do with eff... my god ppl

I dont think that I ever stated I was trying to increase my eff... just funny how that monster always comes out, even AFTER you say you are working to reduce your eff. LOL

For the average Joe, getting a grain bed to run at 3qts/min is not even desireable... for me, it is great, recirculating systems lose eff. when they cannot turn over wort quickly.
 
Back
Top