BIAB Myths and Misconceptions

[Gavin C]

Gavin, I really like your posts and I learn much from them. But that link does not explain why someone would want to chase high mash efficiency.

(Consistent efficiency, perhaps, but not high. As in, like, higher than in the 70-80% range.)

Thanks for that mate.


I think the linked thread does explain the reasons why you should try to maximize the potential of your brewhouse and minimize errors and inefficiencies. In doing this consistency will come as a byproduct of higher efficiency. That's kind of what I was getting at.

An example in process would be lautering. This of course in BIAB is draining and/or squeezing the bag. I've got my system down so that I predictably lose 0.045 gallons/pound to absorption. Maximizing my lautering efficiency. There is no way I'm going to err on the high side and over-squeeze.

Similarly with conversion efficiency. Get this as close to a maximal value knocking on the door of 100% and you won't suddenly have a brew where you err on the high side. I don't measure either value but once you know mash efficiency, grain absorption (lauter efficiency is linked to this tightly with full-volume no sparge mashes like I use) you can calculate conversion efficiency.

Hope that explains my reasoning a bit.

 

[gbx]

Just so long as your guaranteeing it then.

http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/top-50/

a whole lot of 1.100+ OG beers on there. You can get that kind of gravity 3 ways:
1. padding it out like a Belgian with another sugar source
2. a large thick mash, no sparge, all first runnings and boiling down (poor efficiency unless you partigyle it was smaller beers)
3. sparging and collecting a massive volume and boiling and boiling and boiling.

No commercial brewer is going to do 3. Number 1 is not the right method for a thick chewy barley wine or RIS. 2 has terrible efficiency. ...so yes I stand behind my statement that "I guarantee most beers over 8% that aren't padded out with adjuncts were done with no sparge first runnings and terrible efficiency"

 

[AnOldUR]

Hope that explains my reasoning a bit.

Explains it, but doesn't make it right. The theory is that higher (over 80% as a guess) efficiency draws more tannin's from the grain. Kind of like steeping too long and squeezing a tea bag to get a little more tea. Never tested it with beer, but it makes sense.

 

[Gavin C]

http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/top-50/

a whole lot of 1.100+ OG beers on there. You can get that kind of gravity 3 ways:
1. padding it out like a Belgian with another sugar source
2. a large thick mash, no sparge, all first runnings and boiling down (poor efficiency unless you partigyle it was smaller beers)
3. sparging and collecting a massive volume and boiling and boiling and boiling.

No commercial brewer is going to do 3. Number 1 is not the right method for a thick chewy barley wine or RIS. 2 has terrible efficiency. ...so yes I stand behind my statement that "I guarantee most beers over 8% that aren't padded out with adjuncts were done with no sparge first runnings and terrible efficiency"

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic of best beer equals 8+% ABV.

My position earlier was simply and in a light-humored manner to disagree with the premise that no-sparge brewing produced the best beer.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to create a subset of 8+% beer to counter this position. Clearly you and I have very different preference criteria and very differing approaches to logical debate.

But I do appreciate the extra guarantee that your's and ratebeer's (never used that app BTW and could care less about what the APP's creator's think) criteria are the correct ones. I can offer no similar assurances so shall concede my preferences in beer to be inferior.

And back to the thread...

 

[alphaomega]

That article was not pleasant reading, just nitpicking at phrasing really.
There is no shame in BIAB brewing (or extract brewing for that matter).
And I don't like how he claims it to be superior to using manifolds either. All methods (yes, methods) of brewing has their respective pros and cons, but the one that is superior is the one that suits your needs.
This just seems like a he's trying to push ppl towards BIAB.

It reminds me of a joke:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

 

[stpug]

http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/top-50/

I got side-tracked here with this link... How the HELL can 8 out of 10 of the top ten "best beers" be imperial stouts!?! And 14 of the top 20!?! Wrong! That list is T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E and not a good representation of what is truly a "best beer"....

...anyway, back to the discussion on BIAB misconception... you were saying :fro:

 

[Gavin C]

Explains it, but doesn't make it right. The theory is that higher (over 80% as a guess) efficiency draws more tannin's from the grain. Kind of like squeezing a tea bag to get a little more tea. Never tested it, but it makes sense.

Perhaps is not right and my theory will fail me one day. As with any theory, its only as good as the observed data agreeing with it. There is going to be a point of diminishing returns of course. Thankfully tannins/astringency have not, as of yet appeared in any remarks form the limited number of impartial tasters of my beer in comps (A very small data set).

With my no-sparge method it is quite easy to predict the brewhouse efficiency, build a recipe, and hit the appropriate planned targets for OG, IBU:OG ratio color etc. Recipes formulated at 80% is the norm on my setup. i'm not doing anything ground-breaking. This is largely in agreement with the article that this thread is discussing.

I take issue with the idea that it is some how a superior system though or magically produces inherently superior beer owing to the type of manifold used.

Yes, there are very clear pro's and con's to a bag as a manifold. A similar statement can be made about a braided hose or a false bottom. For me that's the only appreciable difference.

With a simple homebrew setup, a single vessel setup can provide certain advantages missing from a rudimentary 3 vessel setup of comparable cost. Advantages that I feel are largely under-utilized by home-brewers making use of a bag-manifold.

 

[stpug]

I think the linked thread does explain the reasons why you should try to maximize the potential of your brewhouse and minimize errors and inefficiencies. In doing this consistency will come as a byproduct of higher efficiency. That's kind of what I was getting at.

Similarly with conversion efficiency. Get this as close to a maximal value knocking on the door of 100% and you won't suddenly have a brew where you err on the high side. I don't measure either value but once you know mash efficiency, grain absorption (lauter efficiency is linked to this tightly with full-volume no sparge mashes like I use) you can calculate conversion efficiency.

I think I get what you're driving at here, but I don't agree - if I understand correctly. A similar situation happens in wine making that I think almost mimics our processes. After the fermentation (or before, depending on wine), the grapes are barely pressed to a predetermined extent of pressure, and this designates the free run wine or the best pressing of the wine/juice. Usually a further pressing to a higher pressure will take place for a second pressing wine or for blending. And then there is the pressure you do not exceed - even though more juice/wine can be had - due to excessive tannin extraction from the seeds and skins (and stems depending on wine). It seems like beer brewing is similar so some degree. One hundred percent of sugar/juice/wine does not denote the best mark for which to aim. Sometimes you just gotta leave a little for the gods

 

[Gavin C]

I think I get what you're driving at here, but I don't agree - if I understand correctly. A similar situation happens in wine making that I think almost mimics our processes. After the fermentation (or before, depending on wine), the grapes are barely pressed to a predetermined extent of pressure, and this designates the free run wine or the best pressing of the wine/juice. Usually a further pressing to a higher pressure will take place for a second pressing wine or for blending. And then there is the pressure you do not exceed - even though more juice/wine can be had - due to excessive tannin extraction from the seeds and skins (and stems depending on wine). It seems like beer brewing is similar so some degree. One hundred percent of sugar/juice/wine does not denote the best mark for which to aim. Sometimes you just gotta leave a little for the gods

I think most models of brewing typically assume a close to 100% conversion efficiency. This is not like what your describing where there is just squeezing. Again the debate of squeezing and tannins is an old one. I'm not suggesting I get 100% mash efficiencies. That of course is impossible with no sparge. There is always some sugars in the grain left for the gods.

I'm stating that by squeezing the bejeepers out of the grain at temperatures shy of 170F and at appropriate pH levels, tannins are not something I or impartial tasters have noted in the resulting beer.

 

[stpug]

I think most models of brewing typically assume a close to 100% conversion efficiency. This is not like what your describing where there is just squeezing. Again the debate of squeezing and tannins is an old one. I'm not suggesting I get 100% mash efficiencies. That of course is impossible with no sparge. There is always some sugars in the grain left for the gods.

I'm stating that by squeezing the bejeepers out of the grain at temperatures shy of 170F and at appropriate pH levels, tannins are not something I or impartial tasters have noted in the resulting beer.

You're right. I agree with this. I trust that everything you're attempting to say is fairly accurate, sometime from brain through fingers to forum just doesn't always mesh 100% (happens to me all the time )

 

[gbx]

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic of best beer equals 8+% ABV.

My position earlier was simply and in a light-humored manner to disagree with the premise that no-sparge brewing produced the best beer.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to create a subset of 8+% beer to counter this position. Clearly you and I have very different preference criteria and very differing approaches to logical debate.

But I do appreciate the extra guarantee that your's and ratebeer's (never used that app BTW and could care less about what the APP's creator's think) criteria are the correct ones. I can offer no similar assurances so shall concede my preferences in beer to be inferior.

And back to the thread...

That post was half joking as I too think beer rating apps are ridiculous disagree with the craft beer concept of what constitutes the "best beer" (it has to be 8%+ and extremely hard to find).

But this is all dumb. The cold side has a far bigger influence on beer quality than anything that happens in the hot side. Your service and fermentation matter so much more than your mash and boil (you have to do those things right but there is a much bigger margin for error). People make too big a deal about the stuff that has a small effect on the beer (ie. people without temp control freaking out over water profiles and homebrewers who bottle condition in denial that the "hot side aeration" they are experiencing is entirely cold side).

I'm sure you can make slightly better beer with a computer controlled RIMS but you can make just as good a beer with BIAB as you can with a cooler mash tun and both make way better beer than you can with extract (and BIAB is only slightly harder than extract with specialty grain brewing). If you are just starting out, go BIAB. If you get hardcore into brewing and want to chase medals or are a gear guy, you'll want to upgrade.

 

[jason.mundy]

The best quality wort is from the first runnings



With sparging you are effectively diluting your first runnings so to get back to your required volume you need to boil off the additional liquid.

Besides, it is not really BIAB if you are sparging.

Has this thread been derailed enough?

 

[Gavin C]

If you get hardcore into brewing and want to chase medals...., you'll want to upgrade.

Nope. Can't agree with you there either I'm afraid.

 

[stpug]

That post was half joking ... If you get hardcore into brewing and want to chase medals or are a gear guy, you'll want to upgrade [from BIAB].

I'm going to hope that you're, again, (half) joking; otherwise, that last part is completely ludicrous. Not to mention that "medal chasing" is just as successful with extract brewing as it is all grain. You're just a little jokester aren't you

 

[jason.mundy]

Agreed. I've routinely won medals with BIAB in large competitions. I would say that 90% of your beer flavor comes from recipe formulation and cold side management.

Making wort is the easy part.

 

[SteveH aka shetc]

Ah, the simplicity that is full volume BIAB.

View attachment 1444444781319.jpg

 

[1977Brewer]

Nope. Can't agree with you there either I'm afraid.

I won a donkey trophy brewing in a bag, and at the time, a homer bucket.

Next.

 

[iBrewR]

Ah, the simplicity that is full volume BIAB.

Ahh yes. The overhead trolley two vessel system. Simplicity in its truest form.

 

[AnthonyUK]

Besides, it is not really BIAB if you are sparging.

Has this thread been derailed enough?

Apologies for that and I totally agree but it was a point regarding efficiency rather than BIAB.
With BIAB you already have your first and second runnings combined as we mash full volume.

I've not been able to find the article as I can't remember what I was searching for but this one has a reference to Brewkaiser which I'm thinking it may have been.

http://www.brewinabag.com/blogs/news/15732680-the-philosophy-of-filters

This article by John Palmer also states that the wort produced in a no sparge batch is better quality - http://byo.com/malt/item/1375-skip-the-sparge

There is of course in the BYO article a massive efficency drop which may not be attractive even for homebrewers.

 

[Gavin C]

Apologies for that and I totally agree but it was a point regarding efficiency rather than BIAB.

So you agree with J Mundy's (BIAB purist's, I'm guessing tongue in cheek) remark, that its not BIAB if you're sparging.

Okeydokey. ????


Just out of curiosity, what is it then?

 

[AnthonyUK]

So you agree with J Mundy's (BIAB purist's, I'm guessing tongue in cheek) remark, that its not BIAB if you're sparging.

Okeydokey. ????


Just out of curiosity, what is it then?

I'm not sure it was meant that way.
I don't want to get into semantics but sparging with full volume mashing, unless you are carefull and know what you are doing is more likely to raise the pH and extract unwanted compounds. It isn't necessary unless you want to save a dollar in grain, will not increase your wort quality and takes more time so the recommendation is not to do it. It was only those people advocating high efficiency numbers that led to BIAB sparging.

 

[gbx]

I'm going to hope that you're, again, (half) joking; otherwise, that last part is completely ludicrous. Not to mention that "medal chasing" is just as successful with extract brewing as it is all grain. You're just a little jokester aren't you

Firstly, I'm a hardcore BIABer (80+ batches since i gave up the mash tun) and I have no intentions to "upgrade" but when is the last time a ninkasi award winner was an extract brewer? How many NHC finalists were extract brewers? (not many this decade). How many of those are BIABers? How many of them are even mashing in cooler mash tun? Yeah you can win medals at a local comp with crappy judges against other extract brewers but its a completely different thing to be competing for national titles. Those types are not BIABing because when you get to that level you are brewing an insane amount and attempting to control every thing in your process- you aren't going to settle for +/- .5C mash temp and losing a degree per hour when you mash. They all have 3 vessel recirculating systems. Maybe its possible to make just as good a beer BIAB but it is a lot more effort to be repeatable which is necessary if you are going to go for titles (not just the occasional medal). The fact is the hardcore medal chaser brewers are not brewing that way.

 

[pricelessbrewing]

I'm not sure it was meant that way.
I don't want to get into semantics but sparging with full volume mashing, unless you are carefull and know what you are doing is more likely to raise the pH and extract unwanted compounds. It isn't necessary unless you want to save a dollar in grain, will not increase your wort quality and takes more time so the recommendation is not to do it. It was only those people advocating high efficiency numbers that led to BIAB sparging.

I have to disagree with all of this entirely except for the comment about mash PH, but mash PH is important for all brewers IMO.

YOUR recommendation is not to do it*

 

[Gavin C]

I'm not sure it was meant that way.
I don't want to get into semantics but sparging with full volume mashing, unless you are carefull and know what you are doing is more likely to raise the pH and extract unwanted compounds. It isn't necessary unless you want to save a dollar in grain, will not increase your wort quality and takes more time so the recommendation is not to do it. It was only those people advocating high efficiency numbers that led to BIAB sparging.

You probably should explore the process more. By definition full-volume mashing involves a zero volume sparge. Mash pH should be managed for all mashes regardless of technique.

I agree sparging is not necessary. I don't sparge. I am however an advocate for consistent and high efficiency numbers. No sparge methods and predictable high (a relative term I suppose) efficiency are not mutually exclusive. Similarly pH issues, if one is cognizant of them and takes the appropriate corrective measures, particular with respect to thinner mashes, can be managed effectively to the beer's benefit.

 

[Gavin C]

Firstly, I'm a hardcore BIABer (80+ batches since i gave up the mash tun) and I have no intentions to "upgrade" but when is the last time a ninkasi award winner was an extract brewer? How many NHC finalists were extract brewers? (not many this decade). How many of those are BIABers? How many of them are even mashing in cooler mash tun? Yeah you can win medals at a local comp with crappy judges against other extract brewers but its a completely different thing to be competing for national titles. Those types are not BIABing because when you get to that level you are brewing an insane amount and attempting to control every thing in your process- you aren't going to settle for +/- .5C mash temp and losing a degree per hour when you mash. They all have 3 vessel recirculating systems. Maybe its possible to make just as good a beer BIAB but it is a lot more effort to be repeatable which is necessary if you are going to go for titles (not just the occasional medal). The fact is the hardcore medal chaser brewers are not brewing that way.

Where do you get your stats on Ninkasi award winners and contenders and their brewing style?


This years Ninkasi winner Mark Schoppe featured in both competitions I recently entered here in Texas. He enters a ton of beers and is fully open about his process. He does small batch brews with a technique he knows well no doubt and uses a carpet bomb strategy to maximize his medal haul. Just as an example his entry fees in the recent comp i was in I would estimate would have been close to or in excess of $100.

Nothing wrong with what he is trying to do, but to assume he is using some 3 vessel recirculating setup for 1-2 gallon batches is inane. Read his great interview in the recent issue of Zymurgy (I think it was in). The one with all the NHC winning recipes.

I'm not sure what planet your brewing on but +/- 5c mash temps are nowhere near acceptable regardless of technique. I can nail it to a fraction of a degree. [Edit, reread you wrote .5C, disregard. +/- 0.5 degree would be entirely acceptable. With measurement error on a very good thermometers at +/-0.4C it's largely impractical to be more accurate.] Just takes bit of careful planning but is not hard. I have no doubt Schoppe is doing something comparable. They guy is a legend but he is homebrewing just like you and me. Granted it would seem he is brewing primarily for comps but that is what he wants to do so good luck to him.

The judges don't care or know if a beer is made on a 3 vessel HERMs or a simple 1 gallon BIAB setup mashed in the oven, or a kit and kilo brew. The only factor in play is the quality of the beer in the anonymous bottle and how best it conforms to the style guidelines.

In short. Your talking utter nonsense. read his interview. Small batch brewing at its finest.

 

[AnthonyUK]

I am however an advocate for consistent and high efficiency numbers.

I gathered that

If you are able to provide any evidence why you should do this then I'm happy to listen and adapt my process. The overwhelming evidence elsewhere though is hard for me to ignore and I have to say that my own experience fully supports this from both a quality perspective and time efficiency which is the balance I seek.

 

[AnthonyUK]

I have to disagree with all of this entirely except for the comment about mash PH, but mash PH is important for all brewers IMO.

YOUR recommendation is not to do it*

You disagree that it takes more time

The recommendation isn't mine. I picked it up from Pat Hollingdale who was one of the Aussie pioneers of the BIAB method we know today.
It was a podcast on Basic Brewing Radio - http://www.biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=2689

 

[aamcle]

Two points from my own experience,

I do get lower efficiency unless I dunk sparge (very easy) then it jumps to 85 - 88%.
Stuck sparge are possible, I had one just two batches ago 100% Rye.


Aamcle

 

[chisena]

Just hook up a pump and continuously recirculate during the mash. Viola.

 

[slym2none]

Yeah you can win medals at a local comp with crappy judges against other extract brewers but its a completely different thing to be competing for national titles.

Wow.

 

[aamcle]

Chisena
I am using a recirculating biab system and I still see a big jump.

This ONLY RELATES TO DUNK SPARGE!

To explain, if I calculate that I need 35litres total volume I'll hold back some (maybe 10litres) and mash in with the rest.

When you lift the bag and drain/squeeze it retains some water and the sugars that are dissolved in that water.
So 5kg of grain will retain 4 to 5kg of sweet liquor including the sugars. For ease call that 4 to 5 litres, on my system (I'm looking for 23 litres into FV) that's a significant % of the total.

Two dunks and I have retrieved most of the sugars and my % efficiency rises. That's nothing fancy, I heat some of the water I saved in the kitchen kettle add it to some more water in a bucket and dunk. As long as its warm but not too hot it fine, just so easy

I have tried pure FVM but some very easy dunking gets me 15 to 20%+ more efficiency.

Atb. Aamcle

 

[TexasWine]

They all have 3 vessel recirculating systems.

Sorry, this is wrong...

Excerpts from the Mark Schoppe interview are below.

View attachment 1444480834620.jpg

View attachment 1444480848308.jpg

 

[AnthonyUK]

Hi Aamcle, what would you say is your primary objective for increasing efficiency?

 

[stpug]

If you get hardcore into brewing and want to chase medals or are a gear guy, you'll want to upgrade [from BIAB].

I'm going to hope that you're, again, (half) joking; otherwise, that last part is completely ludicrous. Not to mention that "medal chasing" is just as successful with extract brewing as it is all grain. You're just a little jokester aren't you

Firstly, I'm a hardcore BIABer (80+ batches since i gave up the mash tun) and I have no intentions to "upgrade" but when is the last time a ninkasi award winner was an extract brewer? How many NHC finalists were extract brewers? (not many this decade). How many of those are BIABers? How many of them are even mashing in cooler mash tun? Yeah you can win medals at a local comp with crappy judges against other extract brewers but its a completely different thing to be competing for national titles. Those types are not BIABing because when you get to that level you are brewing an insane amount and attempting to control every thing in your process- you aren't going to settle for +/- .5C mash temp and losing a degree per hour when you mash. They all have 3 vessel recirculating systems. Maybe its possible to make just as good a beer BIAB but it is a lot more effort to be repeatable which is necessary if you are going to go for titles (not just the occasional medal). The fact is the hardcore medal chaser brewers are not brewing that way.

Turns out you ARE high as a kite! I thought I was reading into that, but, nope, you said it!

 

[SteveH aka shetc]

You disagree that it takes more time

The recommendation isn't mine. I picked it up from Pat Hollingdale who was one of the Aussie pioneers of the BIAB method we know today.
It was a podcast on Basic Brewing Radio - http://www.biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=2689

There's been a Pat Hollingdale sighting (my BIAB mentor) - good on you, mate

 

[aamcle]

Anthony.

I'm not that bothered about efficiency if fact as most recipes assume 75% I'd be very pleased if that's what I got.

I often buy AG kits from MaltMiller and I don't want to mess about adding extra grain to them.

I've found about 66% mashing full volume and a couple of batches at 86% with a dunk sparge.
Maybe I should do one dunk not two.

atb. Aamcle

 

[SteveH aka shetc]

There's been a Pat Hollingdale sighting (my BIAB mentor) - good on you, mate

Now, if you follow the Aussie approach ala Pat then the usual efficiency is 84% for a full volume (i.e. 'sparge' water included) BIAB brew. This is without doing anything special such as doubling crushing, dunking, etc. (I do love to squeeze my bag).

 

[gbx]

Where do you get your stats on Ninkasi award winners and contenders and their brewing style?


This years Ninkasi winner Mark Schoppe featured in both competitions I recently entered here in Texas. He enters a ton of beers and is fully open about his process. He does small batch brews with a technique he knows well no doubt and uses a carpet bomb strategy to maximize his medal haul. Just as an example his entry fees in the recent comp i was in I would estimate would have been close to or in excess of $100.

Nothing wrong with what he is trying to do, but to assume he is using some 3 vessel recirculating setup for 1-2 gallon batches is inane. Read his great interview in the recent issue of Zymurgy (I think it was in). The one with all the NHC winning recipes.

I'm not sure what planet your brewing on but +/- 5c mash temps are nowhere near acceptable regardless of technique. I can nail it to a fraction of a degree. [Edit, reread you wrote .5C, disregard. +/- 0.5 degree would be entirely acceptable. With measurement error on a very good thermometers at +/-0.4C it's largely impractical to be more accurate.] Just takes bit of careful planning but is not hard. I have no doubt Schoppe is doing something comparable. They guy is a legend but he is homebrewing just like you and me. Granted it would seem he is brewing primarily for comps but that is what he wants to do so good luck to him.

The judges don't care or know if a beer is made on a 3 vessel HERMs or a simple 1 gallon BIAB setup mashed in the oven, or a kit and kilo brew. The only factor in play is the quality of the beer in the anonymous bottle and how best it conforms to the style guidelines.

In short. Your talking utter nonsense. read his interview. Small batch brewing at its finest.

Ok I was in a trolling mood yesterday and wanted to generate controversy but now I’m not bored at work. Plus I re-read my last post and I sound like more of an ******* than I intended

In regards to Mark Schoppe i happily stand corrected. Nothing makes me happier then when low tech or casual brewers have great success but I just don't see it that much anymore. Not that anybody who wins a Ninkasi award is a casual brewer. Gordon Strong has joked that one of the secrets to winning at NHC is writing the largest cheque to Charlie (as in, submitting the most number of entries). I’d still think that low tech brewing is a rarity at that level which is why his story is even a story. To be spamming multiple comps a month with dozens of entries each requires is a different level of home-brew crazy. The people I know who are even slightly headed down that road are never satisfied with their gear and always upgrading something.

 

[aamcle]

I'd love to but so far I've never got near that mashing FV.

If you have a look at biabrewer.info pistolpatch will tell exactly the same, no extra sparging needed, l've not even managed 70% that way.
I discussed it at lenght here :-

http://biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3130

Atb. Aamcle

 

[Gavin C]

.... I’d still think that low tech brewing is a rarity at that level .

What are you basing this on? Have you chatted with many NHC multiple medal winners over the years about their processes?

....which is why his story is even a story..

It's a story because he won the Ninkasi not because he uses a particular method. The AHA magazine writers interview the Ninkasi winner along with all the other gold medalists. No surprise there.