- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 4,302
- Reaction score
- 5,123
this could maybe go in the 'funny things' thread
If those brewing models were based on dollars, I would agree. But when talking about no-sparge, "it results in a richer and more-intense malt flavor, with less harshness compared to other methods, according to (Gordon) Strong."Regardless of method and mash parameters including rest times, temperatures of the rests and crush quality. Near 100% conversion efficiency is an obtainable objective. It is the basis all brewing models I have read about.
If those brewing models were based on dollars, I would agree. But when talking about no-sparge, "it results in a richer and more-intense malt flavor, with less harshness compared to other methods, according to (Gordon) Strong."
This quote was made in regard to the advantages of lower efficiency from doing a traditional no-sparge. It might be wrong, but to me, crushing fine and/or using a very thin mash puts you in the same place you'd be using any method to maximize efficiency much beyond 70-75% (random numbers, but you get the idea). Not necessarily bad beer, but not the absolute best it could be.
If those brewing models were based on dollars, I would agree. But when talking about no-sparge, "it results in a richer and more-intense malt flavor, with less harshness compared to other methods, according to (Gordon) Strong."
This quote was made in regard to the advantages of lower efficiency from doing a traditional no-sparge. It might be wrong, but to me, crushing fine and/or using a very thin mash puts you in the same place you'd be using any method to maximize efficiency much beyond 70-75% (random numbers, but you get the idea). Not necessarily bad beer, but not the absolute best it could be.
Hassle Sparge...I like that, I also did a biab sparge...once. Full volume since. (I also use my ZapPap pail to drain the bag + a "mofo" squeeze!)A hassle sparge is just not worth it.
I totally see your point and am nowhere near experienced enough to have explored this in detail myself. My evidence base is weak no doubt.
I'm only really trying to disconnect crush quality and final efficiency with my earlier rambling post.
ie: "I can't get those numbers because I don't crush as fine"
The conversion in the mash should be complete or negligably close to it regardless of crush size.
I'm not suggesting that targeting higher efficiency numbers should be an end in and of itself but merely suggesting that managing the physical properties of the mash to achive full conversion makes sense if residual starches are to be avoided. It's something we all try to do.
Crush fatter and mash longer or do something else to achieve this near complete conversion and eliminate starch in the wort.
The difference allowing the bump in efficiency with a bag manifold over other types of no sparge brewing is the increased lautering efficiency. With a conventional setup this I suppose would equate with potentially over-sparging which I think is the crux of the too high an efficiency debate.
I could lower my efficiency by not squeezing as much to bring me down to 75% with minimal extra grain or no change at all for a 1.06 beer where the grain bill is higher and lautering efficiency reduced acordingly.
Yes I agree. A hassle sparge is just not worth it. I like to do a small pour over sparge as the bag hangs over the kettle on a ratchet pulley, not so much for the point of sparging but more so as a pre boil volume adjustment. This allows me to be lax on strike volume and make an accurate adjustment with a sparge.
The conversion may happen in any case if moisture of the right temperature can make it's way into the particle, but a finer crush will better allow those sugars to be released from the particle, rather than remain inside of it.
Totally agree. Diffusion is in play. The bigger the particle the more time needed for that to occur.
Although in theory this is true, in practice a 30-60 minute mash is long enough to get full conversion regardless of particle size. If I remember Braukaiser's experiments, under most "normal" conditions, one can assume near complete conversion efficiency (upwards of 90% anyway) and therefore the lauter should be targeted if you are looking for improvements in efficiency.
In short, the rate limiting step is the lauter.
IIRC an average crush is likely to be converted rather quickly under good conditions. I think pH has a hand in how fast it occurs as well, although I may be mistaken. Also mash dilution is supposed to be a factor as well, as it takes longer for the enzymes to make contact with, and modify the starches if they are not in close quarters. This is why stirring the mash is very helpful.
Also mash dilution is supposed to be a factor as well, as it takes longer for the enzymes to make contact with, and modify the starches if they are not in close quarters.
I often use my fermenting bucket for the sparge dunk, easy to just drop a few gallons of water in that i boiled with an electric kettle.
Fwiw, dunk sparging in your fermenter may not be the best practice. The preboil wort is not sanitary, so you are contaminating your fermenter. Yes, I realize it gets sanitized, it's just best practice not to use the same equipment pre and post boil.
Actually, the rate limiting step (at least for larger grain particles) is getting the water into the particles for gelatinization to occur, not getting the sugar to "release" from the particles. Gelatinization occurs in layers from the outside of the particle towards the center. After gelatinization has occurred, the starch is soluble and goes into solution. Most of the actual conversion takes place in the liquid and gelatinized layers on the outer edges of the particles.The conversion may happen in any case if moisture of the right temperature can make it's way into the particle, but a finer crush will better allow those sugars to be released from the particle, rather than remain inside of it.
Primarily because significantly thicker mashes are harder to stir and get good mash in, and significantly thinner mashes don't leave enough needed volume to get a good sparge. People used to think that thicker mashes converted better due to higher enzyme concentrations, but this has been debunked experimentally (and theoretically.) So, for fly spargers, ~1.25 qt/lb gave a good compromise between ease of mashing, and allowing for a large enough sparge volume for good efficiency.... If there is no good reason to go with 1.25:1 ratio, then why is it taught?
...
Although in theory this is true, in practice a 30-60 minute mash is long enough to get full conversion regardless of particle size. If I remember Braukaiser's experiments, under most "normal" conditions, one can assume near complete conversion efficiency (upwards of 90% anyway) and therefore the lauter should be targeted if you are looking for improvements in efficiency.
In short, the rate limiting step is the lauter.
I disagree. There have been several threads recently started by brewers with poor efficiencies. I have done analysis of the conversion and lauter efficiencies in for many of these brewers processes (and posted the results in their threads.) The biggest detractor is usually (but not always) low conversion efficiency. There might be some loss of lauter efficiency, but it's not the big hitter.
Brew on
Actually, the rate limiting step (at least for larger grain particles) is getting the water into the particles for gelatinization to occur, not getting the sugar to "release" from the particles. Gelatinization occurs in layers from the outside of the particle towards the center. After gelatinization has occurred, the starch is soluble and goes into solution. Most of the actual conversion takes place in the liquid and gelatinized layers on the outer edges of the particles.
Brew on
I'd be interested to see how you do this, as I don't see how this is possible without directly testing samples from that person's setup.
Interesting. So does a mash stir help the starches release from the grain particle after gelatinization? I am trying to visualize this, but I can only see that the starches might still be bound up in the protein and other things that make up the part of the kernel that is converted.
I've wanted to make animated brewing videos describing how the process works, and this would be a perfect example of how an animated visual would be useful. I need to learn how to do simple animations.
I'd be interested to see how you do this, as I don't see how this is possible without directly testing samples from that person's setup.
Thought I'd drop the other shoe, and compare no sparge vs. single sparge with equal runnings. For the sparge process a dunk sparge with stirring is assumed, and the grain absorption is the same for initial drain and sparge drain (have to drain/squeeze both steps the same amount.) Other conditions are the same as the quoted post.Here's the efficiency story for no sparge BIAB. The data is for 100% conversion and 6.75 gal pre-boil volume (corrected to 68°F). Strike volume is adjusted for grain absorption to get a constant pre-boil volume. Grains are assumed to have 80% by weight conversion potential on a dry basis, and 4% moisture ("as is" conversion potential of 76.8%)
View attachment 312526
Grain absorption is affected by how long you drain and/or how well you squeeze. If your conversion percentage and your grain absorption (gal/lb) are consistent, then your efficiency will be consistent and depend only on your grain bill.
Brew on
Yes, mash stirring or recirculation will help the swelled starch coating the particles to slough off and go into solution faster.
I was thinking after writing this post that putting a couple of different size malt particles under a microscope during gelatinization would make a good video. The hard part of making the video would be devising a way to heat a small volume of water on the microscope stage to a controlled temperature. A "micro mash tun" if you will.
Brew on
A micro-mash tun could be made with a coil of NiChrome wire on a slide. Use silicone adhesive to keep the shape. Solder a thermister to it and create a feedback system to control the temp of the wire.
More dilute mashes seem to perform numerically better all else being equal.
Contrary to common believe no attenuation difference was seen between a thick mash (2.57 l/kg or 1.21 qt/lb) and a thin mash (5 l/kg or 2.37 qt/lb).
Something like that should work. The short thermal time constant of such a micro mash tun would require a fast acting controller in order to keep a stable temperature. The kinds of PID's used by homebrewers for their macro mash tuns wouldn't cut it.
Brew on
I often use my fermenting bucket for the sparge dunk, easy to just drop a few gallons of water in that i boiled with an electric kettle.
This ratio is quite a bit lower than typical BIAB brewing though. So in actuality we are comparing thin mashes to VERY thin mashes, right?
Enter your email address to join: