Lots of electric lurking. Why so much BIAB?

[ChocolateMaltyBalls]

Really? What kind of shop vac do you have? I'd love to do this but I am thinking my shop vac won't suck up wet grain easily. It kind of seems like it sucks.

http://t.homedepot.com/p/Bucket-Head-5-gal-Wet-Dry-Vacuum-BH0100/202017218

I use any bucket I have around, makes it easy to dump the spent grain in the compost pile. I also suck up some water to clean it out and keep it from getting smelly.

 

[Siberian]

I don't see any need to progress out of my bag setup at this point. I've got about 20+ batches under my belt with it now and see nothing about 3-vessel setups I'd need. The only thing I can see there is Parti Gyle type brewing is more troublesome with BIAB, but I've gotten around it by "2 vessel" brewing where I put the bag in a cooler to collect runnings for a second beer.

I do have a controller, it was a logical progression for me because at the scale of my system maintaining temperature in the mash was difficult and tedious. The controller and RIMs got rid of that tedium (running out the fire up the burner repeatedly by hand) and has helped things become more consistent.

I'm doing BIAB in a 20 gallon kettle to allow me to do 10 gallon high gravity batches (Barleywines/Imperial Stouts) all grain. I have no real desire to setup a 3-tier system given the costs to accomplish the same batch size.

Even if I wanted to "go pro" homebrew recipes don't tend to translate directly to commercial rigs even when done on homebrew 3-vessel setups. I've been on a number of brewery tours that have small homebrew style pilot systems who have stated they have to make recipe adjustments moving it to the full sized system because the efficiency is so radically different (75-80% on the pilot, 90%+ on the commercial system). So, really BIAB is going to mirror the process relatively well enough that making the step to 'pro' wouldn't be much harder than someone practicing on a 3-vessel setup.

 

[LandoLincoln]

BIAB does it all in one pot which means a lot less clean up. Think of the 3 vessel system. Not only do you have 3 15 gallons pots to clean but you also have all that tubing, a few pumps, sparge arm, the list goes on. Cleaning can take a while with that system. BIAB has 1 pot, 1 pump and 1 hose.

The HLT doesn't need cleaning, since it only holds water. Just needs to be wiped down inside if you're persnickety. The water pump doesn't require any cleaning either.

BIAB systems have a pot to clean and a bag to clean. 3 vessel systems have a BK to clean and an MLT to clean. I don't think you're saving a lot of time cleaning.

 

[h22lude]

The HLT doesn't need cleaning, since it only holds water. Just needs to be wiped down inside if you're persnickety. The water pump doesn't require any cleaning either.

BIAB systems have a pot to clean and a bag to clean. 3 vessel systems have a BK to clean and an MLT to clean. I don't think you're saving a lot of time cleaning.

One weekend I'll do a compare but I feel even a 2 vessel system takes longer to clean than BIAB.

Cleaning a bag takes 1 minute.

 

[jbaysurfer]

What I begged to differ on was your incorrect understanding of the meaning of the word "empirical."

To your other point, the OP said in one of his many posts on this thread "clear wort is nice." I assumed, maybe incorrectly, that the preference for clear wort was related to a desire for clear beer. There are a lot of folks who assume clearer wort leads to clearer beer. I pointed to one experiment that showed wort clarity may not be correlated to beer clarity at all. There are also a lot of people who assume getting any grain bits (especially husk material) into the boil will lead to tannin extraction, so they want clear wort into the boil. So, my question about desirability of clear wort into the BK was a serious question. I would like to know if there is any empirical evidence that cloudy wort into the BK has caused identifiable problems? Maybe I could have worded it better.

If the OP's statement that "clear wort is nice," is just about aesthetics, then that is a reasonable opinion.

Brew on

Congratulations. I capitulate. You win the internet. You looked up the word empirical and it turns out that what scientists consider empirical science is a standard above and beyond the internet dictionary you found.

As a prize you get...???????? Well I don't know what you get out of it, but it must be something. Enjoy.

 

[watermelon83]

I guess that is what hits the nail on the head. If your bottom line is little money and time.. BIAB all the way.

But then throw in adding a controller and it doesn't fit into the original bottom line.

Its like having the cockpit of a Boeing 747 in your single engine Cesna.

I have one pot. That means I store, clean and maintain one vessel. I can make any beer a Rims or Herms can. That's what the controllers for. I spent about a grand less and my system is less then half the size as those systems. I think the question should be worded, Why would anyone spend money on a huge herms or rims system?

Edit: Didn't read the whole thread before replying, so yeah what everyone else said.

 

[ChocolateMaltyBalls]

I think the question should be worded, Why would anyone spend money on a huge herms or rims system?

Yeah! And for that matter why would anybody bother spending money on making beer? You can get that stuff cheap at the 7-11.

 

[LandoLincoln]

I have one pot. That means I store, clean and maintain one vessel. I can make any beer a Rims or Herms can. That's what the controllers for. I spent about a grand less and my system is less then half the size as those systems. I think the question should be worded, Why would anyone spend money on a huge herms or rims system?

Edit: Didn't read the whole thread before replying, so yeah what everyone else said.

I made my HERMS system because:
1) I wanted to be able to ramp up mash temps accurately and at will
2) I like futzing with equipment and my three big pots make me happy

 

[Beek]

Yeah! And for that matter why would anybody bother spending money on making beer? You can get that stuff cheap at the 7-11.

That's a terrible argument. We brew beer because we enjoy the process and the product we create. But some of us still like to save money when we do it.

 

[watermelon83]

I made my HERMS system because:
1) I wanted to be able to ramp up mash temps accurately and at will
2) I like futzing with equipment and my three big pots make me happy

1). I can too!!
2). Yeah, the geek factor is definitely there... I do want more vessels, just to confuse onlookers.

 

[watermelon83]

Yeah! And for that matter why would anybody bother spending money on making beer? You can get that stuff cheap at the 7-11.

You sir get the Jackassery award! Congratulations for posting something that provides no insight to the discussion!!

 

[ChocolateMaltyBalls]

That's a terrible argument. We brew beer because we enjoy the process and the product we create. But some of us still like to save money when we do it.

It is a terrible argument, but sarcasm is crude that way. Home brewing is a hobby, enjoyed as much for the process as the result. In that sense it's useless to criticize someone's level of investment in a hobby when part of the enjoyment is making that investment, whether it's time building or money.

Could I convince a dedicated BIAB to switch to a 3 vessel HERMS? or vice versa? Unlikely, because however rational my reasoning we all have our own aspect of homebrewing we enjoy along with unique assets and limitations. It's a hobby, so you can strip it down to a 6qt pot on a two burner apartment stove or build a brew shed with a 3bbl system. If your system makes great beer on the cheap (http://hbd.org/cascade/dennybrew/), that isn't a good argument that your way is better for me, that just means you know how to use your system.

 

[soccerdad]

Could I convince a dedicated BIAB to switch to a 3 vessel HERMS? or vice versa? Unlikely, because however rational my reasoning we all have our own aspect of homebrewing

Sure you could When I serve as an assistant brewer it is often on a 3 vessel set up. I come home with a bit of equipment envy every time. But then I remember how much space I have (or rather lack) - and how much funding I have (or rather lack), I come back to being content with what I do. Others who assist me might go away with some envy for the simplicity - I dunno. We all make good beer (most times), so who cares?

 

[doug293cz]

Congratulations. I capitulate. You win the internet. You looked up the word empirical and it turns out that what scientists consider empirical science is a standard above and beyond the internet dictionary you found.

I provided references for my assertions. Do you have any references for your alternate definition of "empirical?" Are you perhaps confusing "empirical" with "statistically significant?" I made no assertions about statistical significance in any of my posts on this thread. I have yet to see any experiments conducted by home brewers (including my own) that would pass any significance tests that I am familiar with. That doesn't mean that none exist, just that l haven't seen any.

Brew on

 

[pablosbrewing]

Maybe your right.

Being the my personal experience with BIAB is slim. Do you feel you can get the wort left in the pot as clear as wort that was recirculated through a seperate vessel?

I don't see why not:

eBIAB is a constant vorlauf exactly like HERMS or RIMS, and a good bag has a much tighter mesh than any false bottom.

Many folks have solved clarity (edit: or clog) problems by using a "BIAB" bag in their mash tun, above the false bottom.

 

[jeffmeh]

Regarding clarity of the final product, time in the fermentor creates clarity regardless of initial wort clarity. Cold crashes and gelatin can each accelerate the process. I do BIAB, no-chill, and drain everything into a winpak at 190F, which serves as my fermentor, and the beer comes out as clear as any other process.

 

[inhousebrew]

I built my 2.5 gallon recirculating eBIAB system for a few reasons, many of which have already been mentioned but I thought I'd share anyways.
1st: Because it's small(ish) and doesn't have a ton of equipment to lug around compared to other methods.
2nd: While a bit complex in nature it produces a very easy brewday. The limited equipment already mentioned is one factor but the brew process itself is super simple and pretty quick as well.
3rd: I like projects. I had no electrical experience and immersed myself in reading and research on here and other sites to learn something new.
4th: It makes good, consistent beer!

 

[ChocolateMaltyBalls]

@inhousebrew

I like your reasoning and it sounds like your system is well thought out, care to share a pic?

 

[inhousebrew]

After doing a lot of research I ended up basically copying the layout from the 2.5 gallon recirculating eBIAB I found on here. Click on it and check it out. I changed a couple small things but in general it's the same and I like it a lot. Actually just finished making my first batch in a long time earlier today. It went pretty well.... other than the fact that my bag tore leaving a bunch of grain behind which clogged my plate chiller but would would a first brew back be if it went perfectly?

 

[ChocolateMaltyBalls]

After doing a lot of research I ended up basically copying the layout from the 2.5 gallon recirculating eBIAB I found on here. Click on it and check it out. I changed a couple small things but in general it's the same and I like it a lot.

Ah nice one, that's one of the inspirations for my current build.

OP: the thread above is a good example (from many) of why someone would build a controller for BIAB.

 

[4of7]

Seems like a lot of guys here are building or using controllers just to BIAB?

To me the logical progression would be to get out of the bag.. then think about going electric and getting into controllers.

Am I missing something?

2v ebiab, 15 gallon kettle, 10 gallon batches, 50l kegmenter, 3.5-4 hr brew day, the bag cuts down on the cleaning time.. LoL.."Stay strong and Brew on"

 

[NewJersey]

i dont for the life of me see why someone would EVER go 3 vessel rims/herms over biab.
it's like a cartoon where the character is banging on a door, ramming it, bombing it, etc and then the other character walks up, turns the knob with his hand and opens the door.
3 vessel rims/herms is just a waste of money, time, and space. BIAB, for a homebrewer, seems like an inferior option while in reality it is actually superior.

 

[LittleRiver]

...To me the logical progression would be to get out of the bag.. then think about going electric and getting into controllers....

You, and many brewers, have the perception that traditional systems are somehow inherently "better" than a simple single vessel BIAB rig. I don't mean this as a personal attack, but the flaw here is in your perception.

Why do you have that perception? Is it a matter of pride of ownership of hardware? Is it a pride of operation, where you feel your experience operating that hardware is more "real" or "better" than someone who doesn't have that hardware?

Hardware is not what defines a person as a brewer, or in any other way.

...If we produce the exact same beer one you brewed in your BIAB or 3v or 2v method and one that I (in the future) brewed by adding a touch of ethanol and spoonfull of beer powder and then shooting it with C02. Arent you the better brewer? Yes you are.. i didnt do anything but mix ingredients. The point there being the process does matter. You brewed and I didnt. I think my thought here is that at somepoint the process is so dumbed down... it doesn't feel like brewing TO ME (I am NOT saying it isn't brewing!)...

BIAB is not a "dumbed down" process. You just have a flawed perception of it.

There's nothing dumb about removing unnecessary complexity and arriving at elegant simplicity.

 

[Wizard_of_Frobozz]

At the risk of stirring this pot even more, I'll throw out another argument: Multi-vessel systems allow you to adjust the mash thickness; single vessel doesn't.

According to John Palmer:

The grist/water ratio is another factor influencing the performance of the mash. A thinner mash of >2 quarts of water per pound of grain dilutes the relative concentration of the enzymes, slowing the conversion, but ultimately leads to a more fermentable mash because the enzymes are not inhibited by a high concentration of sugars. A stiff mash of <1.25 quarts of water per pound is better for protein breakdown, and results in a faster overall starch conversion, but the resultant sugars are less fermentable and will result in a sweeter, maltier beer. A thicker mash is more gentle to the enzymes because of the lower heat capacity of grain compared to water. A thick mash is better for multirest mashes because the enzymes are not denatured as quickly by a rise in temperature.

So here's a scientific reason to use more than one vessel if you want to have the ability to adjust another brewing variable. Can you brew great beer using BIAB? Sure! However, if you want to be able to brew a wide range of beer styles (low alcohol session beers to high alcohol barleywines or similar), then you might want to go multi-vessel so you have more control over the process.

Then again, you may not. That's what's cool about our hobby - many ways to get the job done and it's up to you what suits you best.

 

[tmendick]

You can do BIAB without it being full volume. I've done quite a few batches where I "sparge" about 2 gallons of room temp water after the mash is done. I don't feel that it made my beers better/worse so I usually forego this practice

 

[pocketmon]

At the risk of stirring this pot even more, I'll throw out another argument: Multi-vessel systems allow you to adjust the mash thickness; single vessel doesn't.

According to John Palmer:

The grist/water ratio is another factor influencing the performance of the mash. A thinner mash of >2 quarts of water per pound of grain dilutes the relative concentration of the enzymes, slowing the conversion, but ultimately leads to a more fermentable mash because the enzymes are not inhibited by a high concentration of sugars. A stiff mash of <1.25 quarts of water per pound is better for protein breakdown, and results in a faster overall starch conversion, but the resultant sugars are less fermentable and will result in a sweeter, maltier beer. A thicker mash is more gentle to the enzymes because of the lower heat capacity of grain compared to water. A thick mash is better for multirest mashes because the enzymes are not denatured as quickly by a rise in temperature.

So here's a scientific reason to use more than one vessel if you want to have the ability to adjust another brewing variable. Can you brew great beer using BIAB? Sure! However, if you want to be able to brew a wide range of beer styles (low alcohol session beers to high alcohol barleywines or similar), then you might want to go multi-vessel so you have more control over the process.

Then again, you may not. That's what's cool about our hobby - many ways to get the job done and it's up to you what suits you best.

It seems that Kaiser's experiment came out different conclusion.
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.ph...ciency_in_single_infusion_mashing&redirect=no

"
The results for mash thickness were somewhat surprising. Contrary to common believe no attenuation difference was seen between a thick mash (2.57 l/kg or 1.21 qt/lb) and a thin mash (5 l/kg or 2.37 qt/lb). Home brewing literature suggests that thin mashes lead to more fermentable worts, but technical brewing literature suggests that the mash concentration doesn't have much effect in well modified malts [Narziss, 2005]. Briggs cites data that doesn't show a change in fermentability when the mash thickness is changed [Briggs, 2004]. This was confirmed by these experiments where all the data points were on the same curve that had already been established in the temperature experiment.
"

 

[Wizard_of_Frobozz]

You can do BIAB without it being full volume. I've done quite a few batches where I "sparge" about 2 gallons of room temp water after the mash is done. I don't feel that it made my beers better/worse so I usually forego this practice

Interesting! As long as you are using room temp water, then you can do it with single vessel - I hadn't thought of doing that. I always sparge with 170F water, since that helps get to boiling faster once I'm done sparging, and that's why a 2nd vessel is needed to heat that water.

 

[tmendick]

Interesting! As long as you are using room temp water, then you can do it with single vessel - I hadn't thought of doing that. I always sparge with 170F water, since that helps get to boiling faster once I'm done sparging, and that's why a 2nd vessel is needed to heat that water.

You could also heat all your water and reserve some in a bucket, but that would be closer to counting as a "2nd vessel". I have done that a few times to save some ramp time after the mash.

 

[Wizard_of_Frobozz]

It seems that Kaiser's experiment came out different conclusion.
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.ph...ciency_in_single_infusion_mashing&redirect=no

"
The results for mash thickness were somewhat surprising. Contrary to common believe no attenuation difference was seen between a thick mash (2.57 l/kg or 1.21 qt/lb) and a thin mash (5 l/kg or 2.37 qt/lb). Home brewing literature suggests that thin mashes lead to more fermentable worts, but technical brewing literature suggests that the mash concentration doesn't have much effect in well modified malts [Narziss, 2005]. Briggs cites data that doesn't show a change in fermentability when the mash thickness is changed [Briggs, 2004]. This was confirmed by these experiments where all the data points were on the same curve that had already been established in the temperature experiment.
"

Very good info in this article - thanks for posting the link!

I can say from personal experience that I've seen a difference when adjusting mash thickness. I always went with 1.25 qts/lb and kept ending up with higher finishing gravity that I liked. When I went to 1.33 qts/lb, my average FG dropped into the expected range pretty consistently.

It does seem to depend on the type of malt you use, according to the article. I know most malts these days are highly modified, and a lot of the brewing science/conventional wisdom was developed prior to improvements in malting.

Back to my main point on all this: The design of YOUR system will depend on what YOU want it to do. For me, I like being able to adjust the mash thickness; it may be a minor effect, but I want the ability to do it.

I seriously considered a single vessel e-BIAB, but chose a 2 vessel system that allows me that freedom. Overkill? Maybe, but not for me, which is all that's important to my design. Others have different wants and needs, and thus have different systems. Not right or wrong, better or worse, just different methods. It's all good!

 

[Wizard_of_Frobozz]

You could also heat all your water and reserve some in a bucket, but that would be closer to counting as a "2nd vessel". I have done that a few times to save some ramp time after the mash.

That's basically what my system is, although I don't use a bucket. I have an electric kettle and a cooler for a mash tun. Heat all the water in the kettle, transfer some over to the mash tun for the mash, then transfer the rest on top of the mash when it's time to sparge. Slowly pump the mash tun over to the kettle, which mimics a fly sparge, since the sparge water is all on top of the mash.