Quantcast

First BIAB

HomeBrewTalk.com - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Community.

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

esabasard

Active Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
34
Reaction score
3
I attempted my first BIAB last weekend after about a year of extract/specialty grains. In addition to trying a new method, we tried a modified version of a recipe from this site.

Loon Lake Smoked Porter

We followed one poster's idea of upping the smoked grain. Additionally we added 10% more grain at our LHBS recommendation. We mashed 90 min and lost about 5 F over that time. Everything turned out fine except we were way high on our OG (1.7 vs 1.5), so we added water to bring it down.

My question really is what to expect now and should we have added any water since we added extra grain?
 

NTexBrewer

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
932
Reaction score
320
Location
Just North of Dallas
Adding water is not a big deal in my opinion. It may affect hop flavor some.

Take good notes so you can make adjustments for future brews. Eventually you will have a good idea about your efficiency and come closer to hitting estimated gravities.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew
 

Foosier

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
539
Reaction score
115
Location
Indianapolis
BIAB does not require 10% more grain. Key lesson for you there. I have added an extra half pound of base malt if I am relying on a single crush from the LHBS, but usually leave that out if I can get them to double crush the grains.

90 min mash is pretty long. Keep it to 60 min and that will help with limiting your temp loss. Wrapping your kettle with some "insulation" will help keep your temps stable. I use an old moving blanket to keep my kettle warm.

Adding water is fine. won't hurt things.
 
OP
E

esabasard

Active Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
34
Reaction score
3
We had the grains double crushed at the LHBS, next time we will not increase the grain. We also increased the mash time from 45 minutes to 90 minutes at the recommendation of the LHBS to compensate for the BIAB.

Generally speaking for BIAB, is there anything you do to modify a recipe from AG or just brew it as directed?
 

Oginme

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
1,966
Reaction score
924
BIAB is all-grain. It's just another way to separating the wort from the grains. For recipes, follow the directions as they are given and modify it for your particular brewing habits.
 

RM-MN

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
14,476
Reaction score
5,208
Location
Solway
We had the grains double crushed at the LHBS, next time we will not increase the grain. We also increased the mash time from 45 minutes to 90 minutes at the recommendation of the LHBS to compensate for the BIAB.

Generally speaking for BIAB, is there anything you do to modify a recipe from AG or just brew it as directed?
This has me chuckling as some of us are experimenting with shorter mash periods with BIAB. The intermediate conclusion is if your grains are milled fine as possible the mash is over in 20 minutes and may be pretty well done in 10 minutes.:rockin::ban:
 
OP
E

esabasard

Active Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
34
Reaction score
3
I am thoroughly confused now, how do you know if the mash is done in 20 min? What does the remaining time do?
 

RM-MN

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
14,476
Reaction score
5,208
Location
Solway
I am thoroughly confused now, how do you know if the mash is done in 20 min? What does the remaining time do?
There are 3 methods to choose from. The iodine test will tell you if there is starch left to convert. That may not be the best because there may be more long chain dextrines that could be converted by the beta amylase. The refractometer can tell if your sugars are still increasing but again, there may still be dextrines being broken down. The most accurate way is to let the beer ferment out. If it ferments to the expected FG, your conversion was appropriate for that beer.

The time between 20 minutes and 90 minutes is to accomodate a thicker crush of the grain because larger particles take longer to wet through to get the enzymes active and for the sugar to make its way back out. That's why I specified the fine milling.
 

1MadScientist

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
682
Reaction score
50
Location
Panhandle of Florida
I am thoroughly confused now, how do you know if the mash is done in 20 min? What does the remaining time do?
60 mins. is considered the norm generally, but with BIAB, at or near a full volume mash, a thin mash, it is recommended to go 90 mins.

I have taken refractometer readings at 60 mins. and 90 mins. and always get two more gravity points.

My brix readings were 13.8 = 1.056 @ 60 mins., 14.2 = 1.058 @ 90 mins.

Another example is 14.6 = 1.059 @ 60 mins., 15.0 = 1.061 @ 90 mins.

I would rather start at 90 mins.

This to me is best practice.
 

RM-MN

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
14,476
Reaction score
5,208
Location
Solway
60 mins. is considered the norm generally, but with BIAB, at or near a full volume mash, a thin mash, it is recommended to go 90 mins.

I have taken refractometer readings at 60 mins. and 90 mins. and always get two more gravity points.

My brix readings were 13.8 = 1.056 @ 60 mins., 14.2 = 1.058 @ 90 mins.

Another example is 14.6 = 1.059 @ 60 mins., 15.0 = 1.061 @ 90 mins.

I would rather start at 90 mins.

This to me is best practice.
Recommended by whom? When I reach my expected OG in 10 minutes and continue to mash for another 10 minutes and the OG doesn't change, what will make the big difference in mashing for 90 minutes?
 

1MadScientist

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
682
Reaction score
50
Location
Panhandle of Florida
Recommended by whom?
Pat Hollingdale, one of the site creators of BIABrewer.info


April 24, 2014 - BIAB Legacy

Brew in a Bag pioneer Pat Hollingdale talks about the legacy of the technique and the myths surrounding it.

Pat mentions a 90 min. mash numerous times on >>> BIABREWER.INFO <<<

http://www.basicbrewing.com/index.php?page=radio


When I reach my expected OG in 10 minutes and continue to mash for another 10 minutes and the OG doesn't change, what will make the big difference in mashing for 90 minutes?
Here's an example of the gravity change starting at 45 mins. Why would anyone stop a mash at 20 mins.?

American Amber Ale

1.033 at 45 mins
1.043/1 at 60 mins
1.046 at 75 mins
1.049/4 at 95 mins
GIB = 1.050/5
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
3,244
Reaction score
3,193
just my humble opinion, but after spending time both here and at biabrewer, i am inclined to think that the mad scientist knows a thing or three .. i would try his ideas before i dissed his ideas .. ymmv
 

RM-MN

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
14,476
Reaction score
5,208
Location
Solway
just my humble opinion, but after spending time both here and at biabrewer, i am inclined to think that the mad scientist knows a thing or three .. i would try his ideas before i dissed his ideas .. ymmv
I have tried the 60 minute mash and I don't see any difference from the 20 minute mash. That may be because I mill my grain much finer than most. If your grain isn't all converted in 20 minutes, set your mill tighter, much tighter.
 

1MadScientist

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
682
Reaction score
50
Location
Panhandle of Florida
I have tried the 60 minute mash and I don't see any difference from the 20 minute mash. That may be because I mill my grain much finer than most. If your grain isn't all converted in 20 minutes, set your mill tighter, much tighter.
That's another myth that is busted in the podcast. :)
 

RM-MN

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
14,476
Reaction score
5,208
Location
Solway
That's another myth that is busted in the podcast. :)
Which myth? That I can get full conversion without mashing for 90 minutes or that a finer milling will get me faster conversion? Just because someone has said something in a podcast doesn't necessarily make it true. Experimental results say my method works.
 

Conestoga

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
84
Reaction score
28
Location
Quakertown
Which myth? That I can get full conversion without mashing for 90 minutes or that a finer milling will get me faster conversion? Just because someone has said something in a podcast doesn't necessarily make it true. Experimental results say my method works.
Experimental, or anecdotal?

I'd be interested in seeing a detailed write up of your process, so that I can get a handle on how variables are controlled.

Also, multiple data points would be nice. Thanks.
 

lylo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
198
Reaction score
12
Location
Lacombe
The shorter mash time probably won't hurt efficiencies but will probably hurt attenuation. The longer mash times give the enzymes time to break down the simpler sugars which the yeasts can more easily devour.
 

Magnus314

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
448
Reaction score
108
Location
Wellington
Who cares what a podcast says?

No one else's results mean diddly squat when you can check for yourself so easily. Just check your own next batch at 30/60/90 and see of there's any increase in gravity.

And remember that the longer mash might mean more attenuation too.

I mill my grains fine in a Corona mill. A 90 minute mash in my 10 gal. BIAB system results in ZERO additional gravity points over a 30 in mash (haven't tried 20 yet), and near 100% apparent attenuation/1.000 FG beer.

Fine for "American light beer", if that's what you want every time.

A MUCH shorter mash time - 30 minutes or so - gives me the same gravity and proper attenuation.
 

RM-MN

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
14,476
Reaction score
5,208
Location
Solway
Experimental, or anecdotal?

I'd be interested in seeing a detailed write up of your process, so that I can get a handle on how variables are controlled.

Also, multiple data points would be nice. Thanks.
Good point! It's got to be anecdotal because I don't work in a laboratory, I brew in my kitchen. I also don't brew the same recipe over and over. How boring to have to drink that amount of the same brew.
 

Oginme

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
1,966
Reaction score
924
Even with experimental data, be very careful about drawing steadfast conclusions. There are more activities taking place than just an enzymatic breakdown of starches into sugar. In mashing there is the solubilization of the starches and extraction of the soluble starches from the grain kernel protein matrix into the water during which conversion is taking place. The time factor is highly dependent upon the size of the grain kernels from the crush. RM-MN is most likely getting faster swelling of the kernels due to the finer crush, quicker starch solubilization and transport out of the grain matrix to where the enzymes have better contact. RM-MN's data would be very valid FOR HIS PARTICULAR CRUSH. Likewise, many of the claims about the extended mash time for BIAB most likely relate to having a standard crush that one would employ with using a mash tun/lauter tun system.
 

Conestoga

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
84
Reaction score
28
Location
Quakertown
Good point! It's got to be anecdotal because I don't work in a laboratory, I brew in my kitchen. I also don't brew the same recipe over and over. How boring to have to drink that amount of the same brew.
I still think value can be assigned to even the most basic of experiments. Sure, a lab would be nice and maybe one day this can happen. There is absolutely nothing negative about a home brewer experimenting within practical means.

Value can be assigned if you're meticulous in logging your equipment used and go into every last detail of your methodology across brew styles. You don't have to be perfect, just transparent enough for readers to assess your environment.

Perhaps another member can mirror your recipe with traditional mash times, and a small tasting event could be held? The sky is the limit really, but in the end we have to look at everything with a critical eye. With any luck, we will gain insight and end up with more questions to explore. Rinse, repeat ... and everything just keeps us on a compelling path of truths (whether the idea is debunked or not).



I'm all for being enlightened to new ideas, but need to gain some respect to the idea before I begin spending my own time and money toward it.

I implore folks to treat this as a myth until it is vetted to some degree.

Maybe in the future it'll check out, but until proper considerations are given ... it's simply not right to encourage it as accepted practice.

Tangent:

I used to compete in powerlifting, and know a great deal about exercise/nutrition science through reading research papers. Anyone with experience in the fitness industry will tell you that most myths are perpetuated via "some huge guy at the gym told me ... X", or .. "some skinny girl I know does this, so she must be right."

It's amazing what people can believe when spoken by a person they envy while remaining ignorant to the available science. The equivalent here might be a veteran member with a high post count. Newbs look up to these members, so please treat them with the care they deserve.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
 

Milan37

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
83
Reaction score
13
Location
York
You seem like a cool dude. I assume you're open to honest debate, and maybe a direct question or two. Such as:

Is anything easier than casting doubt while refusing to step onto the platform yourself? "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena."

I agree that it's important to be skeptical and wary of received wisdom--those are excellent points. I've watched RM-MN share his mashing results for some time now, and he's always been very careful how it's presented and open to alternate interpretations, or even being wrong. I happen to put more weight on what he shares than something I'll find on a podcast somewhere.

I assume the same principles you mention apply to the podcast? So one is saying 90 minutes, the other (RM-MN) is saying far shorter. What standard are you applying to decide which one is more credible?

What mash method do you use, and why?

"Perhaps another member"...why not you? With this hobby a great deal will be received wisdom until you try it yourself. Often one must push ahead with imperfect, incomplete, or otherwise unsatisfactory data...otherwise you'll
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
3,244
Reaction score
3,193
I used to check and stir my BIAB mash every 15 min. I would always take a pinch for the refracto. For my system and my crush, I would have the most points at 15 min, significantly more at 30, and then tiny bumps at 45 and 60. If at 60 I was below what I wanted in pre-boil gravity, I would bump temp to 165 or 170 (sorta kinda maybe like a hotter water sparge step) for maybe 10 minutes and that would get me another point or two. I have NO IDEA if that higher temp really helps .. I might have gotten just as much going another 15 to 30 min at 15x ?? I now actually just check and stir every 20 min since I never get dough balls and I want to hold the heat in. I get most conversion in the first 20, but definitely more at 40 and a bit more at 60. I am never in a hurry when I brew, so a 60 min mash is fine with me and going another 20 to 30 minutes would not upset me in the least. I could maybe even see or Eli or Tony throw another interception in that time, and that is ALWAYS fun :) ... no science in the form of controlled experiments, just wisdom guided by experience.
 

Conestoga

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
84
Reaction score
28
Location
Quakertown
You seem like a cool dude. I assume you're open to honest debate, and maybe a direct question or two. Such as:

Is anything easier than casting doubt while refusing to step onto the platform yourself? "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena."

I agree that it's important to be skeptical and wary of received wisdom--those are excellent points. I've watched RM-MN share his mashing results for some time now, and he's always been very careful how it's presented and open to alternate interpretations, or even being wrong. I happen to put more weight on what he shares than something I'll find on a podcast somewhere.

I assume the same principles you mention apply to the podcast? So one is saying 90 minutes, the other (RM-MN) is saying far shorter. What standard are you applying to decide which one is more credible?

What mash method do you use, and why?

"Perhaps another member"...why not you? With this hobby a great deal will be received wisdom until you try it yourself. Often one must push ahead with imperfect, incomplete, or otherwise unsatisfactory data...otherwise you'll
I can answer this very easily. I know Pat Hollingdale, and when asked a question he will typically spend hours responding to an individual. I often feel for him, because many are looking for a quick answer and do not want to go through the process of help that he gives on a daily basis.

He will confess to anything he is unsure of, he will support his statements by citing sources, and he will consider any topic from an impressive variety of angles. Not just the typical "well, I do this", which can happen for pages upon pages here before any OP gets an answer with quality information. Pat truly has my respect as you have RM-MN's. I've also seen RM-MN bring this topic up many, many times (don't post often, but I lurk daily), and do not agree that it's presented carefully. Agree to disagree here.

I know exactly why Pat recommends 90 minute mashes to the masses, because he answers this question ad nauseam, often after first learning a brewers entire brewing situation. Hours of his time spent, custom advice, who does that? He also cites sources on why a floury crush might be opening oneself up to potential problems. It's not to discourage the practice, but to inform the potential. He also wants to experiment this idea, but it's very far down on a long "to do" list.

As for me, I'd much rather keep my process in tact to explore other areas of interest, until presented with a respectable alternative. I asked for data on this topic, but it is not currently available, therefore I move on until it's there, or until I reach it myself.

In short, Pat has my respect and his wisdom has been displayed in countless posts(seriously, he posts on numerous account names .. it's confusing. :D) on BIABrewer.info.

I challenge you to read over there, and then compare quality of advice to anything you see here related to BIAB.
 

mdbrewer1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
449
Reaction score
74
I can answer this very easily. I know Pat Hollingdale, and when asked a question he will typically spend hours responding to an individual. I often feel for him, because many are looking for a quick answer and do not want to go through the process of help that he gives on a daily basis.

He will confess to anything he is unsure of, he will support his statements by citing sources, and he will consider any topic from an impressive variety of angles. Not just the typical "well, I do this", which can happen for pages upon pages here before any OP gets an answer with quality information. Pat truly has my respect as you have RM-MN's. I've also seen RM-MN bring this topic up many, many times (don't post often, but I lurk daily), and do not agree that it's presented carefully. Agree to disagree here.

I know exactly why Pat recommends 90 minute mashes to the masses, because he answers this question ad nauseam, often after first learning a brewers entire brewing situation. Hours of his time spent, custom advice, who does that? He also cites sources on why a floury crush might be opening oneself up to potential problems. It's not to discourage the practice, but to inform the potential. He also wants to experiment this idea, but it's very far down on a long "to do" list.
As for me, I'd much rather keep my process in
tact to explore other areas of interest, until presented with a respectable alternative. I asked for data on this topic, but it is not currently available, therefore I move on until it's there, or until I reach it myself.

In short, Pat has my respect and his wisdom has been displayed in countless posts(seriously, he posts on numerous account names .. it's confusing. :D) on BIABrewer.info.

I challenge you to read over there, and then compare quality of advice to anything you see here related to BIAB.
If he hasn't experimented with the idea and it is very far down on his "to do" list, I don't even see how you can be factoring his non-existant advice on this particular aspect and you are unlikely to see it anytime soon.

Based on your posts, especially the second passage I bolded, even if a poster here presented a well-documented case for his claims, I can't imagine you being open to it since it wouldn't be coming from a well-established source.

I'm curious why you even participated in this thread given your particular mindset.
 

Milan37

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
83
Reaction score
13
Location
York
So I accepted your challenge, best I could while I had a break.

A quick read of the first page of topics in the "Mash to Lauter" forum includes a post "Crushed grains or milled grains".

Response from PistolPatch on the question of crushing too fine leading to tannins was a link to a sticky post simply stating "If you pulverise your grain or turn it into flour, you are causing two problems. The first is that the resulting beer can develop tannin flavours."

That's it. No long, detailed science about why crushed grain husks leach tannins. No link in the sticky pointing me to where I can find the well supported evidence for this assertion. Seems to me to be perpetuating a myth.

No doubt he's a good guy, and I agree on the elegance of the BIAB method (and share his enthusiasm for it)...but I'm just not seeing a big difference over there. Lots of received wisdom, lots of 'this worked for me', etc., etc.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I'll keep looking. If you have examples of something from Pat that meets your rigorous requirements for evidence, I'd welcome it (if you have it at your fingertips).
 

Conestoga

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
84
Reaction score
28
Location
Quakertown
If he hasn't experimented with the idea and it is very far down on his "to do" list, I don't even see how you can be factoring his non-existant advice on this particular aspect and you are unlikely to see it anytime soon.

Based on your posts, especially the second passage I bolded, even if a poster here presented a well-documented case for his claims, I can't imagine you being open to it since it wouldn't be coming from a well-established source.

I'm curious why you even participated in this thread given your particular mindset.
1. He actually does have advice on the topic, and has an open mind. What's the problem again? I also have advice, well ... not really advice but a code that I live by. What we do have is gobs of scientific support for traditional methods. Occam's Razor states:

" ... among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better."

Why I'm participating in this thread: I'm trying to eliminate some of those assumptions by asking for clarification. It's simply not here.

2. You are speculating pretty heavily in regard to my character for absolutely no reason. Think what you wish to yourself, but leave the ad hominem attacks out please. What I would do, I would process the presented information, give respect where it is due, absorb what is useful and discard the rest. Then, I'd continue searching for data and test against even the strongest theory. This is called the Scientific Method, and I don't have a personal bias toward the outcome. Sorry to have rustled your jimmies, it was not my intent.

 

Conestoga

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
84
Reaction score
28
Location
Quakertown
Perhaps I'm wrong. I'll keep looking. If you have examples of something from Pat that meets your rigorous requirements for evidence, I'd welcome it (if you have it at your fingertips).
Please do.

As I've said, he will readily admit to what he is unsure of, but one of his angles is to assert opinions to save himself on the time spent answering questions. This has come up many times, sometimes he's brief, other times he'll write a book.

It's easy to look back on the past and fall victim to your own confirmation bias by cherry picking poor examples, what I meant was to join current discussions that are developing organically. Digging through old posts is tedious, and will not convey my opinion (that was formed over 2 years) in 20 minutes of search time.

The culture there is much more laid back, and generally yes we do have links to toss around when needed.

It's admittedly slow over there since Pat is focused on the BIABacus development and site structure right now, so it can be tough. Some of the posters in this thread are over there, and are equally as helpful as Pat.
 

Milan37

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
83
Reaction score
13
Location
York
Thanks.

I assume you'll understand that when a forum has an unsupported, probably false, assertion (fine crush leads to tannins) in the sticky post, it undermines the credibility of the entire enterprise (at least a little).

And to be clear, I didn't cherry-pick the example. It was the first that I could find with a relevant topic and a response from Pat. But you are correct in cautioning against cherry-picking examples.

Edit: PistolPatch seems like a very helpful guy, with good advice. Nothing in this is meant to attack him in any way. Just want to be clear on that.

Tell me: do you believe that crushing grain too finely can lead to tannin extraction? If so, why?
 

mdbrewer1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
449
Reaction score
74
1. He actually does have advice on the topic, and has an open mind. What's the problem again? I also have advice, well ... not really advice but a code that I live by. What we do have is gobs of scientific support for traditional methods. Occam's Razor states:

" ... among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better."

Why I'm participating in this thread: I'm trying to eliminate some of those assumptions by asking for clarification. It's simply not here.

2. You are speculating pretty heavily in regard to my character for absolutely no reason. Think what you wish to yourself, but leave the ad hominem attacks out please. What I would do, I would process the presented information, give respect where it is due, absorb what is useful and discard the rest. Then, I'd continue searching for data and test against even the strongest theory. This is called the Scientific Method, and I don't have a personal bias toward the outcome. Sorry to have rustled your jimmies, it was not my intent.
You didn't rustle anything. Nothing much does. I am very even-keeled.

Your posts to me appeared very closed-minded to advice from anyone other than those you deem well-established and also sounded very disparaging of this forum's advise on BIAB in general. If that wasn't your intent, that's fine, but that isn't how it is presented, at least not to me. I'm not sure how else to take....

I challenge you to read over there, and then compare quality of advice to anything you see here related to BIAB.
That to me is a very strong statement and is what made me wonder why you would even peruse, much less comment, on threads here related to BIAB.
 

Conestoga

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
84
Reaction score
28
Location
Quakertown
You didn't rustle anything. Nothing much does. I am very even-keeled.

Your posts to me appeared very closed-minded to advice from anyone other than those you deem well-established and also sounded very disparaging of this forum's advise on BIAB in general. If that wasn't your intent, that's fine, but that isn't how it is presented, at least not to me. I'm not sure how else to take....



That to me is a very strong statement and is what made me wonder why you would even peruse, much less comment, on threads here related to BIAB.
Noted. My personality profile is INTJ, and I'm very self aware about how pointed we can seem to others. It's just my nature to be brutally direct, and assume people can tell the difference when I am stating opinion rather than fact.
 

mdbrewer1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
449
Reaction score
74
Noted. My personality profile is INTJ, and I'm very self aware about how pointed we can seem to others. It's just my nature to be brutally direct, and assume people can tell the difference when I am stating opinion rather than fact.
Noted.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread....
 

Conestoga

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
84
Reaction score
28
Location
Quakertown
Thanks.

I assume you'll understand that when a forum has an unsupported, probably false, assertion (fine crush leads to tannins) in the sticky post, it undermines the credibility of the entire enterprise (at least a little).
I'm sorry, but this is very shallow and I do not agree with you at all.

And to be clear, I didn't cherry-pick the example. It was the first that I could find with a relevant topic and a response from Pat. But you are correct in cautioning against cherry-picking examples.

Edit: PistolPatch seems like a very helpful guy, with good advice. Nothing in this is meant to attack him in any way. Just want to be clear on that.
You kinda did. It may have been the first thing you found, but you wasted no time in pointing it out instead of opening a discussion about it on his forum. But, fair enough I suppose.

Tell me: do you believe that crushing grain too finely can lead to tannin extraction? If so, why?
Sure, it can lead to tannin extraction.

It's a simple theory, but also requires some other contributing factors to be present. Such as mash pH going well above ideal range. It's reasonable to theorize that more surface area being malformed could lead to MORE tannin extraction. The advice given in that particular post you mention is to save newbs from every potential pitfall that can be thought of. There is much going on behind the presented words, most people who contribute to the site know the reasoning behind his words. At a glance, I can see why an experienced brewer might scoff a little.

Think of music theory, it's important to learn the rules before breaking them. BIABrewer.info is .info, and we are going to great lengths to inform the uninformed and to undo ambiguity in terminology. Hence this at the end of his sticky .. .

"If you have questions regarding this topic, feel free to ask them on forum."

Some of the guys like to dampen their grain before milling for this very reason. It's a well established concern that needs further research, and some choose to make adaptations until it can be explored further.

Why? Because this particular adaptation is simple, and most of us over there get great extraction efficiency with a coarse crush.

Of course, this could all change as more information comes our way.
 

2drunk2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
400
Reaction score
79
Location
South Bend
Just send me some beer, because I'm impartial. I'll try it, and tell you if your methodology worked.
 

Magnus314

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
448
Reaction score
108
Location
Wellington
My question really is what to expect now and should we have added any water since we added extra grain?
Now that you know your BIAB efficiency is excellent, you don't need to add additional grain.

If you did add extra water, you would have just had more beer - never a bad thing! You'd have to adjust your hops, too (which you probably needed to anyway due to the high OG).

You might want to take the time to figure out your extraction efficiency so you know what to expect more precisely on future brews.

I highly recommend that you take samples 30/60/90 next time, cool them all down and measure them to see if the extra time is helping any.

And when the ferment is finished, remember to check the attenuation and see if it's where you want it.

If your beer ferments lower than you wanted it to, mash shorter next time.

That way you know, with your system and technique, exactly what to expect on your future batches.
 

Milan37

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
83
Reaction score
13
Location
York
I'm sorry, but this is very shallow and I do not agree with you at all.



You kinda did. It may have been the first thing you found, but you wasted no time in pointing it out instead of opening a discussion about it on his forum. But, fair enough I suppose.



Sure, it can lead to tannin extraction.

It's a simple theory, but also requires some other contributing factors to be present. Such as mash pH going well above ideal range. It's reasonable to theorize that more surface area being malformed could lead to MORE tannin extraction. The advice given in that particular post you mention is to save newbs from every potential pitfall that can be thought of. There is much going on behind the presented words, most people who contribute to the site know the reasoning behind his words. At a glance, I can see why an experienced brewer might scoff a little.

Think of music theory, it's important to learn the rules before breaking them. BIABrewer.info is .info, and we are going to great lengths to inform the uninformed and to undo ambiguity in terminology. Hence this at the end of his sticky .. .

"If you have questions regarding this topic, feel free to ask them on forum."

Some of the guys like to dampen their grain before milling for this very reason. It's a well established concern that needs further research, and some choose to make adaptations until it can be explored further.

Why? Because this particular adaptation is simple, and most of us over there get great extraction efficiency with a coarse crush.

Of course, this could all change as more information comes our way.
Ok, I get that you want that forum to succeed, as do I. But I suggest that a forum where one has to "know the reasoning of his words" without being able to find them falls short of being helpful.

As a favor, then: can you point me to anything on that forum that stands up to the standard you presented here?
 

Conestoga

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
84
Reaction score
28
Location
Quakertown
Ok, I get that you want that forum to succeed, as do I. But I suggest that a forum where one has to "know the reasoning of his words" without being able to find them falls short of being helpful.

As a favor, then: can you point me to anything on that forum that stands up to the standard you presented here?
We all agree, as I mentioned earlier site structure is being worked on right now to address this.

If there was a thread to define that site for me, it would be this one I list below. Might be confusing for those who are not familiar with the BIABacus terminology, but it's a fine example of what Pat is trying to accomplish.

http://www.biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2647
 

mdbrewer1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
449
Reaction score
74
We all agree, as I mentioned earlier site structure is being worked on right now to address this.

If there was a thread to define that site for me, it would be this one I list below. Might be confusing for those who are not familiar with the BIABacus terminology, but it's a fine example of what Pat is trying to accomplish.

http://www.biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2647
No offense to the thread creator, but that is poorly written. Most of what he writes could be accomplished in a cleaner manner in single post (instead of small bits in 10 different posts). It's just not very well presented and it comes off as very pompous to boot.

A simple sticky titled "Recipe Integrity: What It Means," could have presented the same information, even using the same example, but in a much less condescending, know-it-all tone. If that is how he responds to a posted recipe from the AHA, I would be hesistant to ever ask a question there.

To show that I did look around the site, I found his attempt at trying to come up with standardized terminology a useful endeavor, but is probably a giant uphill battle. I would have loved to have found the sticky on Clear Brewing Terminology (CBT) early in my homebrew adventure. The definitions are very succinct and would have made my introduction into the brewing world smoother.

That said, I didn't see many examples of the types of threads that meet the high standards you led us all to believe filled the site. I see promise and it sounds like brewers with the underlying knowledge frequent the site, but the presentation just isn't up to snuff.
 
Top