BIAB Myths and Misconceptions

[Gavin C]

Whatever method you choose there is no reason to chase high efficiency rates.

I disagree for a variety of reasons. See why here.

 

[Gavin C]

Who really cares except those number chasers who want some bragging rights?


If you want to make the best beer possible you don't want to sparge and would want efficiency in the 60-70% region.

The nonsense-ometer is going off the charts here mate.

 

[gbx]

The nonsense-ometer is going off the charts here mate.

if you go by the ratebeer criteria of "best beer" (the strongest beer possible) then it isn't complete malarkey. I guarantee most beers over 8% that aren't padded out with adjuncts were done with no sparge first runnings and terrible efficiency.

 

[noggins]

 

[m00ps]

Ill raise the meter a bit more:
BIAB produces inferior beer. There is simply no way around it

 

[pricelessbrewing]

ill raise the meter a bit more:
Biab produces inferior beer. There is simply no way around it

gtfo.

 

[agrazela]

I disagree for a variety of reasons. See why here.

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.)

 

[Gavin C]

if you go by the ratebeer criteria of "best beer" (the strongest beer possible) then it isn't complete malarkey. I guarantee most beers over 8% that aren't padded out with adjuncts were done with no sparge first runnings and terrible efficiency.

Just so long as your guaranteeing it then.

 

[wilserbrewer]

Ill raise the meter a bit more:
BIAB produces inferior beer. There is simply no way around it

Yea, but BIAB works great without all the hassle, and extra equipment compared to brewing all grain. J/k

 

[UndeadFred]

Wow that Rex guy sure knows how to stir @#$@ up doesn't he? Must be good for business.

Unfortunately his claims of BIAB being vastly superior is as disingenuous as those who claim you can only get 60% efficiency.

BIAB is just another form of AG. I currently use a hybrid but did a full BIAB 3 gallon batch once.. I think I hit mid 70s with that, and the hybrid bag in the cooler batch sparge I'm usually in the low 80s.. good enough for me. Wort looks the same either way..

Fred

 

[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?