Grainfather!!

[jbb3]

Again, it is important for consistency. What you're saying is that you can get the same results regardless of mash temp. I'll ask again, repeat one of the two brews you've made on this system, only put your grain in the freezer overnight and mash them while they're cold. I'm confident your beer will be different.

There's some good discussion happening here with relevant contributions from a variety of folks, but a new thread might be beneficial to poll a larger audience that doesn't have emotional ties to their purchase and consequently feel a need to defend it. Sometimes emotions can get in the way of logic.

Maybe start one in the BIAB forum as that's essentially what the GF is? Several of us have recirculating eBIAB systems that are functionally the same.

BTW, for some reason this discussion reminds me of Dan Ariely's book Predictably Irrational. We are all irrational, but predictably so.

Some very good comments and advice from Tex and I couldn't agree more. I've been following this thread for quite some time and the owners of this system have formed an almost cult following and are very invested emotionally. Maybe they should have named it "ibrew" instead?? Relax. just kidding...

The grain bed temp issue that has been raised is an important one. There is a reason we mash at specific targeted temps but no need to turn this into a brew science discussion. There have been other important issues raised that have been glossed over or dismissed as some take it as criticizing the GF which is not the case.

Everybody please give the GF idol a nice deep bow, then get back to the thing that brings us all to this forum. Good beer and good brewing practices.

 

[gspot]

What you're saying is that you can get the same results regardless of mash temp. I'll ask again, repeat one of the two brews you've made on this system, only put your grain in the freezer overnight and mash them while they're cold. I'm confident your beer will be different.

I don't think that is what people are saying at all. What people are saying is that, for whatever reason, perhaps the design of the GF, the difference between the actual grain bed temp and the built-in temp probe (i,e. wort temp) is a moot point. For example, if I mash at 147 *according to the display* I get a more attenuated beer than I do if I mash at 156 *according to the display*, which results in less attenuation and more body *regardless of what the actual grainbed temp is*. This is perfectly predictable and repeatable because the higher the temp display (i.e. the wort temp), the higher the grain bed temp also. In other words, they are directly proportional to each other even if it takes a few extra minutes for the grainbed to reach the set mash temp.

In any case, using frozen grain to predict the behavior of a system at normal operating temps is a logical fallacy. Nobody is trying to make beer with frozen grain. If they were, I would definitely counsel them to let their grain thaw or not expect the beer they were hoping for in the recipe without accounting for that initial grain temp. Grain temp is always accounted for with either higher strike temps or longer mash times. I can definitely make whatever beer I want predictably and repeatedly regardless of initial grain temp, even frozen with the GF without sticking a probe in the grain bed.

This seems like an issue about which everyone is just going to have to agree to disagree. Prost!

 

[Tang10]

I don't think that is what people are saying at all. What people are saying is that, for whatever reason, perhaps the design of the GF, the difference between the actual grain bed temp and the built-in temp probe (i,e. wort temp) is a moot point. For example, if I mash at 147 *according to the display* I get a more attenuated beer than I do if I mash at 156 *according to the display*, which results in less attenuation and more body *regardless of what the actual grainbed temp is*. This is perfectly predictable and repeatable because the higher the temp display (i.e. the wort temp), the higher the grain bed temp also. In other words, they are directly proportional to each other even if it takes a few extra minutes for the grainbed to reach the set mash temp.

In any case, using frozen grain to predict the behavior of a system at normal operating temps is a logical fallacy. Nobody is trying to make beer with frozen grain. If they were, I would definitely counsel them to let their grain thaw or not expect the beer they were hoping for in the recipe without accounting for that initial grain temp. Grain temp is always accounted for with either higher strike temps or longer mash times. I can definitely make whatever beer I want predictably and repeatedly regardless of initial grain temp, even frozen.

This seems like an issue about which everyone is just going to have to agree to disagree. Prost!

One of my major points I'm trying to make from my testing is the grain bed temp moves very slowly when you off. Its not minutes like you think.

The best mash I have had was with a Wit Beer that I made a few weeks ago. Lots of Flakes Wheat and Oats as the grain bill. I never had one drop of wort down the overflow/drain during the re-circulation process during mashing and my temp probes matched each other bang on for most of the mash. The mash out process temp of 168F was easy to hit within about 5 to 7 minutes.

I'm leaning towards adjusting the crush more coarse so the wort can re-circulate without going down the overflow. Switching from a barley crusher to a monster Mill MM3 this week. The monster mill MM3 is said to leave more of the husk in the crush.

 

[Minky]

Grain temp is always accounted for with either higher strike temps or longer mash times. I can definitely make whatever beer I want predictably and repeatedly regardless of initial grain temp, even frozen with the GF without sticking a probe in the grain bed.

Strike temperature is really what is at issue here. I don't own a Grainfather, but it seems to me if you're heating the water to mash temp and then adding your grain, there would be an unacceptably long lag time before mash temp is reached. By the time the GF could recover, much of the conversion would have already taken place at the lower temp.

I believe I would heat my strike water to ~165, dough in, then set the mash temp on the controller.

 

[HCbrewing]

I'm not saying mash temp isn't important. It obviously is. And from what I understand is that it is important for extraction and fermentability. I did a repeat of a recipe I did when I used my cooler which was mashed at 152 in the Grainfather with the temp controller set at 152. I had a higher OG on the Grainfather and the same FG. My question is if the grain bed temperature is so important, and according to the posters research, mine would have been so much lower, why did I still end up with the same FG?

I have yet to see the poster say that he has repeated a recipe done with the Grainfather instructions and another done with his method and notice a significant difference in FG. Isn't that the main reason for controlling mash temp?

 

[seabrew8]

Some very good comments and advice from Tex and I couldn't agree more. I've been following this thread for quite some time and the owners of this system have formed an almost cult following and are very invested emotionally. Maybe they should have named it "ibrew" instead?? Relax. just kidding...

The grain bed temp issue that has been raised is an important one. There is a reason we mash at specific targeted temps but no need to turn this into a brew science discussion. There have been other important issues raised that have been glossed over or dismissed as some take it as criticizing the GF which is not the case.

Everybody please give the GF idol a nice deep bow, then get back to the thing that brings us all to this forum. Good beer and good brewing practices.

Classic!

Yeah tang10 probably start another thread. I'm not offended so to speak by your critique but i think most people here are not really concerned with this issue. At least i'm not.

 

[seabrew8]

I'm not saying mash temp isn't important. It obviously is. And from what I understand is that it is important for extraction and fermentability. I did a repeat of a recipe I did when I used my cooler which was mashed at 152 in the Grainfather with the temp controller set at 152. I had a higher OG on the Grainfather and the same FG. My question is if the grain bed temperature is so important, and according to the posters research, mine would have been so much lower, why did I still end up with the same FG?

I have yet to see the poster say that he has repeated a recipe done with the Grainfather instructions and another done with his method and notice a significant difference in FG. Isn't that the main reason for controlling mash temp?

http://brulosophy.com/2015/10/12/the-mash-high-vs-low-temperature-exbeeriment-results/
This an interesting experiment on 2 different mash temps. Basically they tasted the same but the low mash temp brew had consideringly more attenuation.

 

[gspot]

Strike temperature is really what is at issue here. I don't own a Grainfather, but it seems to me if you're heating the water to mash temp and then adding your grain, there would be an unacceptably long lag time before mash temp is reached. By the time the GF could recover, much of the conversion would have already taken place at the lower temp.

But this is not the case. It assumes a single stage infusion mash where conversion takes place almost instantly. Enzyme activity is correlated however to temperature and conversion takes place much, much slower at lower temps.

I have a direct-fired 1/2 barrel RIMS also. I can dough-in at 60, do a slow ramp temperature mash up to 168 and won't get full conversion at any particular temperature before I can raise 30lbs of grain to the next step. And doing it this way doesn't result in a thin, watery beer as someone who puts undue emphasis on mash temperature would argue.

This whole argument is based on the Grainfather functioning as a single-infusion, single-step system where conversion takes place immediately, but in reality it doesn't work that way. It works more like my other system. Although the heating element is weaker, the grain amounts are smaller. You could dough in for a protein rest at 120, and you won't be in danger of converting before you've raised the temperature to a higher temp.

So, as it relates to this discussion, this is why grain bed temp isn't that big of a deal. If your grain bed ends up at 140 degrees after dough in at 152, you're not going to convert significantly before you can reach the 152 you wanted because a mash at 140 doesn't convert as quickly as one at 152.

 

[HCbrewing]

http://brulosophy.com/2015/10/12/the-mash-high-vs-low-temperature-exbeeriment-results/
This an interesting experiment on 2 different mash temps. Basically they tasted the same but the low mash temp brew had consideringly more attenuation.

This is my point. If this issue was as big of a deal as some make it out to be we would all be getting highly attenuated beers, and we are not. So either the difference isn't as big as he is finding for everyone else, or the liquid temperature is actually what is important and the grain temp isn't as crucial.

 

[Yambor44]

Is a portion of your return wort going down the over flow? If so, you answered your question.

Yes, but more is going thru the grain bed. IMO the two together will make an average at the bottom of the kettle where the temp probe is located.

What's your past brewing experience?

8 years, all grain. I've had about every known brew system that most brewers would have had at one time or another.

Don't take this as a insult. Just trying to understand why the mash discussion becomes a sort of a sore spot with some folks.

I don't take it wrong, but I am curious why when someone has a difference of opinion, they are being "sore" about it?

I'm trying to educate you that I have ran a calibrated temp probe in the mash tun, and it's tough to change the temp if your off. Give it a try before you state facts about something you haven't tried.

I'd like to know where I was "stating facts about something I haven't tried"? All I said was I still didn't understand how the grain bed could be that much cooler - when the wort coming thru the grain bed is reading my target temp.

I understand fully (am educated) what you are talking about. My point is the first time I brewed I set my strike water higher as has been suggested (and was my normal practice before the GF) and my temp stayed 7-10 degrees higher for the majority of the mash. The next two times I set the strike at the mash temp I wanted and as I mentioned before, it dropped a few degrees before returning to my target temp within a few minutes.

All three beers came out fine. Now I understand the point of brewing lets say a maltier beer thinking you are at 158f when your grain bed may actually be 148-150f providing a sweeter, drier beer. I get that. I am not into malty beers at this time so maybe that's the reason I'm okay with whatever is going on inside because I am only driven by the end result at this stage of my hobby.

I also understand repeating a process to get consistency. If my target OG is 1.062 and my wort finishes at 1.062 via my method, can't I use the same method the next time with the same recipe to get the same results?

I am NOT claiming or saying that your findings are false or untrue. I just do not understand how the grain bed can be 140F when the wort coming out of it (and yes SOME from the overflow tube) reads 150f. Soon I will do as you ask and brew a duplicate recipe with your method and see what my results are. I'm sure it will be different because no matter what, my starting temp will be much higher.

Even though I feel I have been doing this long enough to feel I am experienced at it (145+ brews in that 8 years, most 10 gallons) I know I have much more to learn therefore I reach out from time to time to try and gain more understanding about this HOBBY. Sometimes it comes easy, sometimes it doesn't. I don't plan on going pro, but I do like learning and will never feel like I know it all.

 

[Yambor44]

This is my point. If this issue was as big of a deal as some make it out to be we would all be getting highly attenuated beers, and we are not. So either the difference isn't as big as he is finding for everyone else, or the liquid temperature is actually what is important and the grain temp isn't as crucial.

That's a good point. My attenuation (US-05) is pretty much always 1.010FG on beers that start around 1.060. No different with the GF when using the same yeast on 2 of the 3 beers I have brewed so far.

 

[Yambor44]

Again, it is important for consistency. What you're saying is that you can get the same results regardless of mash temp. I'll ask again, repeat one of the two brews you've made on this system, only put your grain in the freezer overnight and mash them while they're cold. I'm confident your beer will be different.



There's some good discussion happening here with relevant contributions from a variety of folks, but a new thread might be beneficial to poll a larger audience that doesn't have emotional ties to their purchase and consequently feel a need to defend it. Sometimes emotions can get in the way of logic.

Maybe start one in the BIAB forum as that's essentially what the GF is? Several of us have recirculating eBIAB systems that are functionally the same.

BTW, for some reason this discussion reminds me of Dan Ariely's book Predictably Irrational. We are all irrational, but predictably so.

I can only speak for myself, but that is not the case here (no emotional ties). I have had many so systems from partial mash to custom propane 3 vessel systems to a 50L Braumeister....too many to list.

I don't feel we are talking about the GF falling short or this being a negative. I think it's just a matter of science and this finding (grain bed temps) can be changed if the individual brewer decides to do so (i.e. start with a higher strike temp).

I agree that once you dough in, unless your grain is exactly the same temp as the water, the temp will drop. It shows a drop on my display. I guess the big thing here is that the actual grain bed temp is not rebounding as fast as the display shows that it is.

Again, at the sake of getting pelted, if the wort from my overflow is 150f and the wort coming out of my grain bed at the bottom is 142f, why would my display show 150?

 

[Kampenken]

Still enjoying this discussion here on temps, adds a new and interesting topic. Jamie, thanks for bringing this up!

I think we aim to mash at a set temp. That temp should be the grain bed (duh, that's where the activity is occurring), not the wort below. Your recipe is presumably created with the specific characteristics of that mash temp. Grain bed temp is what the recipe is suggesting you follow. I will go down the path of trying to maintain that temp, not the temp in the wort at the bottom by the heat.

Why would wort temp be different than grain bed? I'd suspect volume of overflow. More overflow = greater disparity. No reliable way to measure overflow and if you eliminate the overflow entirely (as I've done the last few) then it stands to reason all recirc is coming through the grain bed- which to me is ideal and will close the temp disparity.

Last brew I measured the return temp (didn't feel like stopping and taking grain bed measurements, nor had I calibrated my corded temp probe). The return temp was lower than the STC readout by a few degrees. Possibly loss in the already hot discharge pipe, though that seems unlikely more than 1-2 degrees, but combined with the small space of wort being measured at the bottom, it could make up the total loss. IDK. I ran my temp up on the STC to hit a return temp of 152 (my mash temp), mostly early on, where I was running the STC up to ~157 at times to hit a return of 152! It did settle out, according to my notes in about 15 min. I do suspect my grain bed was <152 for at least the 1st 15 min and I did I hit it with higher strike water (~7degrees) but was below 152 after doughing in and before putting top plate in place.

I prefer to hit and maintain at the desired temp at dough in just as I did in my cooler mash tun. End result may be non-discernable to my palate, I just like knowing the temp I mash the grains. To me its not about "it works for me, see my gravities", its about I expect to mash at this temp and wish to accomplish that.

I have no idea how the pros maintain temps, would be interesting to know if they are measuring the grain bed, I suspect that is the case. Maybe it was considered in GF design, maybe not, maybe it wasn't even a thought, however it is logical that the GF should measure "where the action is"- the grain bed.

Regardless of your decision....Brew on folks!

 

[Tang10]

Sorry for this one folks. Kampenken, I think you have a better way of getting the message across. For me personally, I was most excited about the GF mostly because of the points I have made about mash temp control. I apologize for any rude comments I have made.

I'm really trying to inform the GF users of possible pitfalls in the system and what we can do to make simple improvements.

Jamie

 

[gspot]

I think we aim to mash at a set temp. That temp should be the grain bed (duh, that's where the activity is occurring), not the wort below. Your recipe is presumably created with the specific characteristics of that mash temp. Grain bed temp is what the recipe is suggesting you follow....however it is logical that the GF should measure "where the action is"- the grain bed.

Do we know this for certain? Might it not be possible that the enzymatic reactions are occurring wherever the starches might be present. Could there be a greater concentration of accessible, dissolved starches in the wort as a whole rather than on the surface of the grain particles? Just wondering out loud...

 

[Yambor44]

Good stuff. I had another thought that I think might fit here. One I have often had when watching others on videos miss there mash temp by overshooting. They dough in with a target of 152º but after stirring it's sitting at 158º. So they stir and stir for 10 mins or so until they hit their target temp and then "begin" their mash. Wasn't the mash in fact started as soon as they doughed in and in this example mashing at 158º? So now it's a 70-75 minute mash instead of a 60 minute. Just curious.

 

[gspot]

The more thought I give it, the more I think it's the wort acting as a solvent where the action is. After all when you do an iodine test for conversion you don't put a drop on a grain particle and see if it turns colors, you mix it with a drop of wort. If this is the case, it might help explain why so many are having success without measuring grain bed temperature.

 

[CMcK]

Apologies if this has been brought up, but is anyone concerned about the amount of grain that ends up in the boil? I have be using a strainer to fish it out after the mash

 

[Tang10]

Apologies if this has been brought up, but is anyone concerned about the amount of grain that ends up in the boil? I have be using a strainer to fish it out after the mash

This is on my list of improvements at some point. I think thats why the Braumeister uses finer screens in the top and bottom of the mash tun section to help eliminate this problem.

Any one use some sort of additional screens to help?

 

[HCbrewing]

The more thought I give it, the more I think it's the wort acting as a solvent where the action is. After all when you do an iodine test for conversion you don't put a drop on a grain particle and see if it turns colors, you mix it with a drop of wort. If this is the case, it might help explain why so many are having success without measuring grain bed temperature.

Ding ding ding!!!

 

[TexasWine]

The more thought I give it, the more I think it's the wort acting as a solvent where the action is. After all when you do an iodine test for conversion you don't put a drop on a grain particle and see if it turns colors, you mix it with a drop of wort. If this is the case, it might help explain why so many are having success without measuring grain bed temperature.

Good thought. Yes, the water is where the action is. And it will act as a solvent, pulling the hydrated, gelatanized and dissolved starch away from the grit. Once the starch has been extracted, I think the parallels with it being a solvent end. The water is where the starch conversion happens and therefore it doesn't matter if the water is in the grain bed or somewhere else.

But, where is a majority of the water in the system residing? In my system it's in the volume occupied by the grain bed. There are a couple of gallons below the grain bed, but other than that, the water is all nestled up and cozy with the grits. Therefore, for consistency's sake, I will always make sure my grain bed is within my desired mash temp range and I will always set my strike temp higher than my mash temp.

Side note: The reason you don't include the grain particle in the iodine test is so that you don't get a false positive. No other reason.

Side note 2: Another theory on why the GF instructions don't say to make strike water hotter than desired mash temps. Maybe they couldn't figure out a good mathematical prediction for doing so? I can't imagine it's an easy task, being dependent on grain temp, water/grist ratio.

 

[Yambor44]

This is on my list of improvements at some point. I think thats why the Braumeister uses finer screens in the top and bottom of the mash tun section to help eliminate this problem.

Any one use some sort of additional screens to help?

I have t noticed any grain particles in my fermentation vessel. Very few in the boil. Hop filter screens it out upon transfer to Fv.

I wouldn't think the few particles that do make it to the boil would be an issue. I know I sure love the clarity of the wort with the GF vs the BM.

 

[seabrew8]

Sorry for this one folks. Kampenken, I think you have a better way of getting the message across. For me personally, I was most excited about the GF mostly because of the points I have made about mash temp control. I apologize for any rude comments I have made.

I'm really trying to inform the GF users of possible pitfalls in the system and what we can do to make simple improvements.

Jamie

Considering i'm the unofficial spokesman for the GF here i will speak for the group. No apologizes sir!

We are just sharing our thoughts afterall. Isn't that what a forum is all about?

 

[Kampenken]

... For me personally, I was most excited about the GF mostly because of the points I have made about mash temp control. ..

I too was excited about temp control, with recirc. I was planning a RIMS for my cooler MT, but changed course at last minute as I examined the GF closer. Wanted the temp control, recirc, ability to step mash and of course consistency. And then you came along. I've enjoyed what you've brought forth, and thank you- it will help me dial in better, including my decision to go back to higher strike temp. All in I am still pleased with the GF. Really enjoying it. I don't believe the GF team gave as much thought to this topic as has been taken here, possibly due to difficulty, or cost, to implement a temp probe into grain bed set up. IDK.

Do we know this for certain? Might it not be possible that the enzymatic reactions are occurring wherever the starches might be present. Could there be a greater concentration of accessible, dissolved starches in the wort as a whole rather than on the surface of the grain particles? Just wondering out loud...

Good point. But, as Tex pointed out the majority of water is in the grain bed. I'd bet less than a gallon is outside the bed, given how low the grain basket rests and how tight of a fit within the boiler.

Good stuff. I had another thought that I think might fit here. One I have often had when watching others on videos miss there mash temp by overshooting. They dough in with a target of 152º but after stirring it's sitting at 158º. So they stir and stir for 10 mins or so until they hit their target temp and then "begin" their mash. Wasn't the mash in fact started as soon as they doughed in and in this example mashing at 158º? So now it's a 70-75 minute mash instead of a 60 minute. Just curious.

Ha! This was my "fear" after I initially started with higher strike temp (right on 1st batch). I backed down as I felt I'd rather be low and work up than other way around. Now though I want to treat it like mashing in a cooler. I do think all this may be more academic than anything else, (post Brulosophy tests here!) for me I want to aim and hit the target, regardless of whether I "need" to or not.

Apologies if this has been brought up, but is anyone concerned about the amount of grain that ends up in the boil? I have be using a strainer to fish it out after the mash

Sort of, but by eliminating the overflow (throttle valve, I do end up running about 3/4 open by mid mash) I stop any little free riders entering the boiler. However, the hop screen should eliminate them as well. I like this process also so all the recirc goes thru grainbed. As the CFC fills my conical, I run the wort out hose over a strainer. This way I feel I harvest "cleaner" yeast. I don't think the cold break, hop gunk or any grain pieces will harm your beer.

 

[Kampenken]

Considering i'm the unofficial spokesman for the GF here i will speak for the group. No apologizes sir!

Ha ha!! So now we know, you've got some equity stake in GF!! Just the Canadian distribution, or US? Or Global GF Domination??!!

 

[DC_Steve]

Hey guys just wanted to post a follow up with my results, or lack thereof, when trying to get a replacement controller on my GF. I've called, emailed, and contacted GF through Facebook numerous times and had 0 results. Really extremely disappointing. I decided to contact the person I bought it from (igobru32 on eBay) and see if there's anything he can do even though it's a manufacturing issue and not his fault at all. Well what a pleasant experience. Contacted him through eBay in the morning a couple days ago. He said he'd contact his distributor. Later that day he had a tracking number for me. Almost 0 questions asked. The part will be here today.

Very excited to give this thing a shot this weekend. Everything else seems well made. Just a faulty controller which I'm sure GF just buys in bulk. So if you're looking to buy one of these I'd highly recommend buying from this guy on eBay or another place that gets things directly from BrewCraftUsa or has a good connection with them since it's basically impossible to contact GF themselves.

 

[Jay-Brew]

Hey guys just wanted to post a follow up with my results, or lack thereof, when trying to get a replacement controller on my GF. I've called, emailed, and contacted GF through Facebook numerous times and had 0 results. Really extremely disappointing. I decided to contact the person I bought it from (igobru32 on eBay) and see if there's anything he can do even though it's a manufacturing issue and not his fault at all. Well what a pleasant experience. Contacted him through eBay in the morning a couple days ago. He said he'd contact his distributor. Later that day he had a tracking number for me. Almost 0 questions asked. The part will be here today.

Very excited to give this thing a shot this weekend. Everything else seems well made. Just a faulty controller which I'm sure GF just buys in bulk. So if you're looking to buy one of these I'd highly recommend buying from this guy on eBay or another place that gets things directly from BrewCraftUsa or has a good connection with them since it's basically impossible to contact GF themselves.

There are a couple of groups on Facebook (North American Grainfather Users Group and Grainfather Users Group) and a fellow named Nick who appears to work for the Imake is a member of the North American group (and I assume the other too). Seems like a reasonable guy and if you are a member of either I would reach out to him as they should be aware of this. Lousy customer service is only going to shoot themselves in the foot. I am happy to mention it to the guy if you want. Glad your retailer took care of it. I had a missing connection for the chiller and my retailer had the part to me in two days. That is customer service!

 

[DC_Steve]

There are a couple of groups on Facebook (North American Grainfather Users Group and Grainfather Users Group) and a fellow named Nick who appears to work for the Imake is a member of the North American group (and I assume the other too). Seems like a reasonable guy and if you are a member of either I would reach out to him as they should be aware of this. Lousy customer service is only going to shoot themselves in the foot. I am happy to mention it to the guy if you want. Glad your retailer took care of it. I had a missing connection for the chiller and my retailer had the part to me in two days. That is customer service!

Feel free to mention my experience with whoever you'd like. I agree customer service is very important. If I had to guess, I'd say that since it's still new to the US, they aren't built to handle the volume of inquiries. Hopefully they plan on building a CS team in the US and this will resolve the problem sooner rather than later. For now, I'd definitely recommend buying this product through a retailer that you trust.

 

[d-bone]

Hey guys just wanted to post a follow up with my results, or lack thereof, when trying to get a replacement controller on my GF. I've called, emailed, and contacted GF through Facebook numerous times and had 0 results. Really extremely disappointing. I decided to contact the person I bought it from (igobru32 on eBay) and see if there's anything he can do even though it's a manufacturing issue and not his fault at all. Well what a pleasant experience. Contacted him through eBay in the morning a couple days ago. He said he'd contact his distributor. Later that day he had a tracking number for me. Almost 0 questions asked. The part will be here today.

Very excited to give this thing a shot this weekend. Everything else seems well made. Just a faulty controller which I'm sure GF just buys in bulk. So if you're looking to buy one of these I'd highly recommend buying from this guy on eBay or another place that gets things directly from BrewCraftUsa or has a good connection with them since it's basically impossible to contact GF themselves.

Weird. When I received my GF, it had a big dent in the side and the inlet on the pump was cracked. Contacts the customer support directly and had a replacemnt vessel and pump in like 3 days. I had great customer experience, but this was sometime mid-late last year, when the first North american batches where going out. Maybe it has to with with them having so many third party sellers now.

 

[Yambor44]

I've also spoken with someone, a woman, every time I call GF in New Zealand. Here's the number I use (888) 689-0281.

Keep in mind the time difference. It's 9:15am here EST and 2:15am in NZ. I usually called in the late afternoon to late evening my time.

 

[Rijnland]

Good thought. Yes, the water is where the action is.
---
But, where is a majority of the water in the system residing? In my system it's in the volume occupied by the grain bed. There are a couple of gallons below the grain bed, but other than that, the water is all nestled up and cozy with the grits. Therefore, for consistency's sake, I will always make sure my grain bed is within my desired mash temp range and I will always set my strike temp higher than my mash temp.
---
Side note 2: Another theory on why the GF instructions don't say to make strike water hotter than desired mash temps. Maybe they couldn't figure out a good mathematical prediction for doing so? I can't imagine it's an easy task, being dependent on grain temp, water/grist ratio.

If you use BrewSmith to develop your recipes, it will assist in establishing the right strike water temperature by entering the grain temperature in the mash profile. I've found it does a rather good job providing you have changed some settings in BeerSmith to fit the Grainfather. Use the attached profiles and explanation to make the necessary changes. By the way, by making these changes, BrewSmith's inability to accurated calculate mash and sparge water quantities are also fixed

View attachment TeBrake's Grainfather profile.pdf

View attachment Grainfather equipment profile.bsmx

View attachment Grainfather temp mash 1step full body profile.bsmx

 

[tjwheels]

I just received my GF yesterday and ran it through its cleaning cycle today. I plan to brew Saturday and have a question that may have already been discussed (I did read the first 50 pages of post but decided I'd just ask). I like to take gravity readings during the sparge and stop when the wort hits 1.010. Has anyone figured a process to get under the mash basket and grab a sample during the sparge? It would only be an issue when I'm brewing alone. Thank you in advance.

 

[MeanLowerLow]

I just received my GF yesterday and ran it through its cleaning cycle today. I plan to brew Saturday and have a question that may have already been discussed (I did read the first 50 pages of post but decided I'd just ask). I like to take gravity readings during the sparge and stop when the wort hits 1.010. Has anyone figured a process to get under the mash basket and grab a sample during the sparge? It would only be an issue when I'm brewing alone. Thank you in advance.

I haven't done this - I tend to let is sparge until the last drop. However, when I'm done, I put the grain basket in my stainless pot to let it rest until I get around to emptying it (I use this same kettle to heat the sparge water). I suppose if I wanted to get a gravity reading, I'd lift the basket for a moment let a few drops drip into the stainless kettle, and then replace the grain basket onto the GF and get my sample from the kettle.

Again, I haven't tried it and someone may have a better idea.

Out of curiosity, why do you want to stop at 1.010? Just to avoid diluting the wort? I always drain all the way and typically far surpass my target OG, for whatever it's worth.

 

[okbecker]

I would try to collect a bit of wort from sparge and use an ATC refractometer to measure gravity. Then again, I will not be getting a GF for a few months so I can not speak from experience

 

[jschein]

This is on my list of improvements at some point. I think thats why the Braumeister uses finer screens in the top and bottom of the mash tun section to help eliminate this problem.
Any one use some sort of additional screens to help?

I have not had this issue. Maybe the gasket got loose or the filter.

 

[DC_Steve]

If you use BrewSmith to develop your recipes, it will assist in establishing the right strike water temperature by entering the grain temperature in the mash profile. I've found it does a rather good job providing you have changed some settings in BeerSmith to fit the Grainfather. Use the attached profiles and explanation to make the necessary changes. By the way, by making these changes, BrewSmith's inability to accurated calculate mash and sparge water quantities are also fixed

Thanks for this! I just got my GF and it's my first go at all grain so I just installed Beer Smith. This is a Beer Smith newb question, but how do I save those profiles? Maybe it's because I'm on a trial so I can't?

I'm able to load the equipment profile and it opens up but I have no way to save it under My Profiles > Equipment? I watched the basic tutorial on Beer Smith and haven't seen anything about this.

Edit: Or can I just follow the PDF and that will accomplish the same thing?

 

[Eichler]

If you use BrewSmith to develop your recipes, it will assist in establishing the right strike water temperature by entering the grain temperature in the mash profile. I've found it does a rather good job providing you have changed some settings in BeerSmith to fit the Grainfather. Use the attached profiles and explanation to make the necessary changes. By the way, by making these changes, BrewSmith's inability to accurated calculate mash and sparge water quantities are also fixed

Thanks for sharing your profiles. Will have to compare them to the app now that they've fixed the sparge calculations.

 

[Nickbtag]

Just found this thread and have been eyeing the GF. Thanks for all the great tips and helpful info. I haven't had a chance to read all 62 pages yet but as I have a tendency to over analyze everything, I probably will. Thanks guys! Sub'd.

 

[scallopking]

If you use BrewSmith to develop your recipes, it will assist in establishing the right strike water temperature by entering the grain temperature in the mash profile. I've found it does a rather good job providing you have changed some settings in BeerSmith to fit the Grainfather. Use the attached profiles and explanation to make the necessary changes. By the way, by making these changes, BrewSmith's inability to accurated calculate mash and sparge water quantities are also fixed

.

Thanks!! Fwiw I found by after applying these and adjusting the Tun Deadspace upwards you can get closer to the total mash and spare water volumes. I'm comparing it against the online calculator. For example total water volume for 14lb. 6gl online is 8.66. With all the Beersmith changes its 8.6. The setting I have it on now is 1.10.

 

[Rijnland]

.

Thanks!! Fwiw I found by after applying these and adjusting the Tun Deadspace upwards you can get closer to the total mash and spare water volumes. I'm comparing it against the online calculator. For example total water volume for 14lb. 6gl online is 8.66. With all the Beersmith changes its 8.6. The setting I have it on now is 1.10.

Interesting. I hadn't noticed this before, but the online calculator appears not to give the same results as the formulas provided in the user's manual, which I have been using. With my settings in BrewSmith, for 14 lbs. of grain, I get 5.66 gals. (22.64 qts.) for mash water and 3.14 gals. (12.56 qts.) for sparge water for a total of 8.8 gals., precisely the same as given by the user's manual formula. You did change the grain absorption setting under options>advanced from 0.9600 to 0.800, didn't you?