Malt Conditioning... WOW it rocks!

CornyKegs 728
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.
:off:

i though tannins were only extracted from the grain hulls if you sparged to hot.
am i missing something , can someone point me towards that thread?
 
beerocd said:
Don't say efficiency aroung The Pol. It makes him crazy. Like the 3Stooges episode with Niagara Falls. Slowly he turns.....step by step ......

Pol -So your brew tomorrow isn't going over 2qts/lb is it? I notice you want to sparge less [in order to reduce the chance of extracting tannins :) ], but still need the same number of gallons in the pot - so that's more water up front. I thought 2qt was some magic threshold - you gonna bust that myth too? If you mentioned it before, sorry - but you're ~9,000 posts ahead of me. I haven't read em all.

-OCD
Click to expand...


What magic threshold is 2qt/lb?

I am mashing at 2.5qt/lb tomorrow
 
Just in case anyone is as stupid as I am, you need to convert the LBS of malt you have to ounces in order to calculate 2% water by weight. I was trying to figure out how the hell Pol got 3.2 oz as 2% of 10lbs. Its really 10X16=160. 160*.02=3.2!
 
JVD_X said:
Pol, why don't you use less grain rather than trying to reduce efficiency?
Click to expand...

My take on this is that there is X amount of FLAVOR associated with a given amount of grain, just as there is Y amount of starch/sugars. Starches and sugars gives the alcohol, and some body (limit dextins), but not flavor (other than alcohol). Now, the stronger the ABV, the more flavors you need to balance it out. If one were to use less grain, your have even less FLAVOR to balance out the higher ABV that one potentially can get with a really high brewhouse efficiency.

Tannins is pH. I recently did an experimental brew where I boiled All 9 lbs of my grain bill, and THEN vorlauf and drained (and chilled) into my fermentor. NO TANNINS in this beer.
 
The Pol said:
What magic threshold is 2qt/lb?

I am mashing at 2.5qt/lb tomorrow
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. :rockin:

I guess It's kinda been defacto measurement (the thicker mashes) perpetuated through printed literature and recipe books too.
I've read plenty of times that 2qt was kinda on the high side. "Famous" brewers usually put you around 1.3qt or something like that.
(Yes, seen Kaiser's work - I'm talking about other famous people).

-OCD
 
High lauter eff. means you are stripping the buffering power of the grain, it is oversparging. Higher pH.

I am reducing my lauter eff. Reducing the grain bill, wont change the sparge issue.
 
I want to sing the praises for conditioning! I decided to give it a go for my 10-10-10 after reading this thread. I wasn't necessarily trying to gain efficiency (and I didn't). Since it is a large grain bill, and its supposed to finish dry, I wanted to give it a good crush and not shred the husks.

I don't have pictures, but it looked a lot like Pol's. The husks were a lot more in tact than when I dry mill. If anyone is thinking about it, go ahead and do it! Its very easy and gives a killer crush.
 
It is incredible... like a completely different mill, isnt it?
 
yea sure is. I'd recommend anyone with a Barley Crusher to do it. Make sure you have a low speed drill though. My drill crapped out early on, and I had to mill 18 lbs by hand. That sucked.
 
I agree! It rocks!!!

However, I have just found out the hard way that My motorized corona mill can't turn it. I can't find the right allen wrench to get the wheel off to finish it by hand, so I am now waiting on 14# of grain to dry out in a warm oven. Dammit! LOL

The few hand turns I did do by turning the belt wheel though looked terrific! :D


Edit: I just milled the re-dried grain and it still looks better than milled completely dry. I think I need to experiment with 1% for my motorized corona.
 
I conditioned my grain for the first time last weekend. I did notive the husks stay more intact for sure. Whether or not it makes better beer (the whole point is to make better beer, right?), I can't say yet. It was fun to add a little step and say, "This is the same process I saw at New Belgiam
 
Brewme said:
I conditioned my grain for the first time last weekend. I did notive the husks stay more intact for sure. Whether or not it makes better beer (the whole point is to make better beer, right?), I can't say yet. It was fun to add a little step and say, "This is the same process I saw at New Belgiam
Click to expand...

Well, no.

The point is to produce a better filter bed mainly. The benefit of reduced tannin extraction may not be realized unless one is oversparging anyway.
 
The Pol said:
High lauter eff. means you are stripping the buffering power of the grain, it is oversparging. Higher pH.

I am reducing my lauter eff. Reducing the grain bill, wont change the sparge issue.
Click to expand...

Have you actually checked your PH while sparging to see if its the problem?
 
I finally tried this. Works for sure. I am not sure if it changed anything in my process as I was doing some weird stuff that day. Probably will continue to do it as my malt just looked happier after milling.
 
It does rock! I brewed two batches this week and conditioned the malt both times. Great crush, I was able to go tighter with very good results. This will be added to the process for every brew day.
:mug:
Beach
 
I did a 10g recipe today and my crush was so much nicer, no flour, husks were much more intact, and the flow was improved. The BC's rollers were clean, too. I think this will be a regular practice.
 
I conditioned my malt today for a Cascade Blonde Ale but I wasn't impressed. The crush looked incredible but I vorlaufed like a gallon of wort, 1 quart at a time, and it never went clear. Luckily I have a hop screen made out of a paint strainer so I was able to keep the larger pieces of grist out of the wort. I think I'll pass on this until I get a RIMS or HERMS system set up. Usually I vorlauf 1.5 quarts and I'm able to let 'er rip. I was pumped too b/c the crush looked incredible.

If the beer turns out great maybe I'll give it another go.
 
BigJay13 said:
I conditioned my malt today for a Cascade Blonde Ale but I wasn't impressed. The crush looked incredible but I vorlaufed like a gallon of wort, 1 quart at a time, and it never went clear. Luckily I have a hop screen made out of a paint strainer so I was able to keep the larger pieces of grist out of the wort. I think I'll pass on this until I get a RIMS or HERMS system set up. Usually I vorlauf 1.5 quarts and I'm able to let 'er rip. I was pumped too b/c the crush looked incredible.

If the beer turns out great maybe I'll give it another go.
Click to expand...

Did you get any efficiency gains? Just wondering.
 
The Pol said:
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. .
Click to expand...

Palmer say's that a finer crush will only speed up the conversion process not improve the effeciency, as long as your mash time is adequate
 
Wow. Why is this suddenly catching on? I have seen threads like this on the NB and AHA forum as well. But I'm glad it works for you guys. With some time we may also get some side-by-side experiments that evaluate the differences in lauter speed.

A number of breweries use this technique while others don't bother. For some that don't bother the idea of water in the malt house is more hassle than what malt conditioning would buy them.

In the end, even if the crush looks so great, I'd like everyone to remain critical even of this technique. It the wetting of the grain, less somewhat uneven flow through the hopper or the added force necessary may not be wort it.

But I like it a lot.

oldschool said:
Palmer say's that a finer crush will only speed up the conversion process not improve the effeciency, as long as your mash time is adequate
Click to expand...

But what if an adequate mash time with a coarse crush is 3 hrs?

And yes, somehow efficiency crept into this thread as well ;)

Kai
 
is three hours even a possibility? doubt it. i know you just want to give me a hard time so i wont have any further posts in this thread. I was not the one who brought up effeciency
 
oldschool said:
is three hours even a possibility? doubt it. i know you just want to give me a hard time so i wont have any further posts in this thread. I was not the one who brought up effeciency
Click to expand...

I actually pulled this number out of my a$$. I don't know how much longer you have to mash to compensate for a coarse crush. But you can keep testing the mash gravity to see how far away from full conversion you are.

Another problem is fermentability. If it takes too long to convert all the starches, the b-amylase won't be around anymore to make fermentable sugars out of them.

Kai
 
I agree Kai. I am sure you can mash long enough to convert, even with a bad crush, but I have had bad crushes before and a 90 minute mash didnt help that. Id say 2-3 hours would be right... and like you said, this will change the fermentability of the wort.

This is not an eff. gaining technique. This is a way to improve the quality of the crush, not the quantity of your eff. As stated previously I am using this on my HERMS so that I can increase flow, period. The higher my flow rate, the more effective my system runs. This is important to me.
 
Hermit said:
Did you get any efficiency gains? Just wondering.
Click to expand...

This in iteself will not increase eff. in any way. You arent doing anything different to the kernel, you are just leaving the husk intact.
 
oldschool said:
Palmer say's that a finer crush will only speed up the conversion process not improve the effeciency, as long as your mash time is adequate
Click to expand...

Well, if the grain isnt crushed at all, no amount of time will help. If the crush is so poor that it contains some intact kernels, then those wont convert either.

Palmer is right, to a degree, but it depends on what a "bad" crush is. And who is going to mash for hours? Really.

Isnt this the same guy that tells people to add water to grain?
 
My lauter eff. is pushing 91%, I need to back that off so that I can maintain wort quality.
Click to expand...

I don't get it?
91% is only 91% of the 80-82% extraction the lab got for analysis purposes. Why would your wort quality deminish? As long as your ph doesn't rise over 5.8-9 and your gravity doesn't go under 1.008 you shouldn't have any problems.

Every lot of malt has an analysis tag or paperwork from the lab giving their extraction plus/minus crush specs and figures are included.
Some malts are up around 39 points, were others may be 33 points. This is all done using highly accurate scales and weighing everything. They do not use volumes.

When you are figuring your efficiency, are you using certified scales and using scaled weight on all componets, or are you using a combo of volumes and weights? Do you use a generic number when calculating your efficiency, or are you using the analysis specs for that/those specific malting(s?

why do you think you need to back off?
 
OLDBREW said:
I don't get it?
91% is only 91% of the 80-82% extraction the lab got for analysis purposes. Why would your wort quality deminish? As long as your ph doesn't rise ove 5.8-9 and your gravity doesn't go under 1.008 you shouldn't have any problems.

Every lot of malt has an analysis tag or paperwork from the lab giving their extraction plus/minus crush specs and figures are included.
Some malts are up around 39 points, were others may be 33 points. This is all done using highly accurate scales and weighing everything. They do not use volumes.

When you are figuring your efficiency, are you using certified scales and using scaled weight on all componets, or are you using a combo of volumes and weights? Do you use a generic number when calculating your efficiency, or are you using the analysis specs for that/those specific malting(s?

why do you think you need to back off?
Click to expand...

To my knowlege, if your pH is high, the gravity wont really matter. Maybe I am wrong.

I do have the specific malt analysis for the malts that I use. This # has been calculated over a series of brews, where my brewhouse has also matched the 83% eff. that I have achieved for the past year on my HERMS. I also have a digital pH meter so that I can verify my pH.

I want to sparge less. Doesnt make sense to me that brewers sparge with more water, the smaller thier grain bill gets. That seems, counter intuitive.

My system has been very well dialed in, so much so that volumes and gravity readings never waver from 82-83% brewhouse eff. and 5.5 gallons post boil volume. In fact, I drain both my MLT and HLT dry to reach my pre-boil gravity.

This being said, I personally want to strike a balance between grain bill size and sparge water volume. This is why I have begun to predicate my sparge water volume on the grain bill size. The larger the grain bill, the more I sparge, the smaller the grain bill, the less I sparge. Exactly opposite of what is conventionally done.

But, this thread isnt about efficiency people, it is about malt conditioning. Just saying, we can start another thread if you like.

Malt conditioning rocks, that is all. And malt conditioning doesnt affect eff. in any way... soooo
 
Kaiser said:
Wow. Why is this suddenly catching on?
Click to expand...

I've seen things like this happen with hobby after hobby. Not sure why, but it always goes in streaks, where everyone catches on to one thing, it gets talked about constantly for a while, then it falls away (talking about it, not doing it).

Personally, I use a corona style mill, and find this to be invaluable. With the corona's tendency to shred the husks, conditioning works wonders.
 
Scimmia said:
I've seen things like this happen with hobby after hobby. Not sure why, but it always goes in streaks, where everyone catches on to one thing, it gets talked about constantly for a while, then it falls away (talking about it, not doing it).

Personally, I use a corona style mill, and find this to be invaluable. With the corona's tendency to shred the husks, conditioning works wonders.
Click to expand...

I am glad that the Corona users can use this too... it is not s discriminatory technique ;)

It DID make a marked difference in my grain bed flow.
 

Similar threads

A
RO Water - starting with lower pH
Replies
30
Views
1K
jerrylotto
jerrylotto
mosstradamus
Arizona Electric Brewery - Parting it out....Local Pickup
Replies
3
Views
633
mosstradamus
mosstradamus
_Keven
Had the bottle conditioning on its side, Is this all yeast of something else?
Replies
10
Views
798
MikeCo
M
Jack Arandir
Malt Conditioning
Replies
15
Views
2K
TLaffey
TLaffey
B
Malts…. Can I store them?
Replies
10
Views
574
OakIslandBrewery
OakIslandBrewery
Williams Brewing 300

Latest posts

Back
Top