That's pretty cool! I will give it a try. It actually sounds pretty simple. Even easier than checking the pH, with all the calibration and such...
What did your grain bill look like? I tend to not use a massive grain bill on "big" Belgian beers because of the amount of sugar added to the boil and since much of the higher ABV comes from the higher attenuation. I have had more challenges on grain bills for NEIPAs (and all-grain beers like Imperial Stouts and Barleywines).
I had about 19 pounds of grain and 2.5 pounds of sugar. Software is now showing OG 1.081, FG 1.014, for abv of 8.8%. I originally wanted OG of 1.088 to get to 9.5%. A bit on the low side for a quad, but within BJCP guidelines.
I did receive both of your other PMs. I thought about an answer, but was unable to reply for some reason.
I did receive both of your other PMs. I thought about an answer, but was unable to reply for some reason.
I was the source of that other theory. The reason I said it is that I am a batch sparger too, BUT... I was double-sparging, dividing the mash volume and the two sparge volumes equally into not just two but THREE equal portions. Equalizing the volumes results in maximum batch sparge efficiency. So by mashing thick and then sparging not just once but twice, you extract the most you can. And, mashing thick ensures the volumes will actually fit in your mash tun! If your mash tun is enormous, then I suppose you wouldn't HAVE to mash it thicker. But wouldn't hurt.
Combine that also with planning to do not just a 60 to 90 minute boil, but how about a 2.5 to 3 hour boil. Collect way more sugar and boil off more water volume.
Make more sense now?
Otherwise, all processes being standard while aiming for a high gravity, your efficiency is going to suck a$S. You should expect an efficiency of 55% for standard process. But with the process I've mentioned above, you can still hit 80% or whatever.
Another alternative would be to partigyle. Make a really strong first runnings beer. Then make a second smaller beer with the second runnings. Your efficiency will be great then except that about 2/3 of the sugars end up in the first beer, and the second beer ends up with half the OG of the first one. The commercial English brewers love the partigyle method as I'm sure you've heard about. Fuller's is famous for producing all their beers this way using different blends. They might sparge twice if memory serves, making three volumes as I suggested above.
P.S. I have never done an iodine test. It would just be misleading more than anything else. Crush well, mash well, sparge well, ensure a mash pH around 5.3-5.6, and your conversion will be just fine.
It might be a mash pH thing. Dark roasted grains are inherently acidic. If a pale beer turns out fine but a dark beer has lower efficiency, consider whether your mash pH might have fallen down to 4.9-5.1 or something like that, far from the ideal of 5.3 or more.
Yeah, so I'm getting ready to do a kitchen sink stout with all of my leftover specialty grains. If the brewer's friend calculator is to be believed, the black patent and especially the chocolate wheat are going to make my pH way too low (4.2 instead of 5.3). I want them mostly for color anyway, so I guess I could just steep them separately. But when should I add that tea to the wort to avoid screwing things up?
Add it in the last 5 minutes of the mash, along with a nice teaspoon of baking soda or pickling lime to offset the pH effects.
Can't you adjust in the water calculator? Baking soda should do the trick I'd think...
It's possible.. But my target was 5.5 and my final reading at the end of the mash was 5.52.
For the reiterated, I just watched a few videos... Some people also sparge a bit and use that water too for the second mash. But others just use the mash wort only for the second mash. That seems easier... Is one method better?
Yeah, and I might. But I'm also a little bit worried about getting too much astringency from the black patent.
Right. As in my first post in this thread.
I guess you also missed the part about the point of this brew being to use up all of my leftover specialty grains.
Yes I did one for the first barley wine that I made in my robobrew 3. It was a while ago now. I followed the method on a youtube video, possibly david heath youtube video. It did add time to the day but a lot quicker than the stuck mash and sparge I got from having the rye grains milled to perfectly block every hole in the bottom plate of my malt pipe on my 70litre all in one.
Mac, I mentioned the timing of the result of steeping because @dmtaylor suggested you could add it near the end of the mash with other stuff. And 'cuz you asked about timing. The other thing is for some future batch I guess. Enjoy the leftoversRight. As in my first post in this thread.
I guess you also missed the part about the point of this brew being to use up all of my leftover specialty grains.
Mash thickness affects the rate of conversion, with thinner mashes converting faster than thicker mashes. So, if you mash for a fixed time, that is not long enough to get 100% conversion, then a thinner mash will have better conversion efficiency than a thicker mash.
What a great explanation! I fly sparge and mash generally around 1.1qt. I tend to mash long and sparge slow. My brew sessions are longer, but my large batches and low/high gravity end with the same efficiency. I generally underlet and mix to start, and never open the tun until sparge is complete. Really a great explanation, I was wondering when you would show big D!Mash thickness affects the rate of conversion, with thinner mashes converting faster than thicker mashes. So, if you mash for a fixed time, that is not long enough to get 100% conversion, then a thinner mash will have better conversion efficiency than a thicker mash.
Conversion efficiency is only half the story however. Mash efficiency equals conversion efficiency times lauter efficiency. When fly sparging, lauter efficiency is improved by mashing thicker and using more water for sparging (for a fixed pre-boil volume). When batch sparging, lauter efficiency is maximized when all the run-offs (initial and all sparges) have equal volume. Because of grain absorption, in order to get equal run-off volumes, the strike volume needs to be greater than each of the sparge volumes.
To figure optimal strike and sparge volumes for batch sparging use the following formulas:
Each sparge step volume = pre-boil target volume / (1 + number of sparge steps)Strike volume = one sparge step volume + expected total grain absorptionA simple rule of thumb for volumes when single batch sparging is 60% of total water required for strike, and 40% for sparge. If double batch sparging then use 50% - 25% - 25%. When doing batch sparging you shouldn't even think about hitting a specific mash thickness.
Things get a little trickier when batch sparging large grain bills. If the mash thickness from using the guidance in the previous paragraph results in a mash that is too thick to stir effectively, then you will need to shift water from sparge to strike. This is the only time you should worry about mash thickness when batch sparging.
Brew on
This is excellent info - thanks!Mash thickness affects the rate of conversion, with thinner mashes converting faster than thicker mashes. So, if you mash for a fixed time, that is not long enough to get 100% conversion, then a thinner mash will have better conversion efficiency than a thicker mash.
Conversion efficiency is only half the story however. Mash efficiency equals conversion efficiency times lauter efficiency. When fly sparging, lauter efficiency is improved by mashing thicker and using more water for sparging (for a fixed pre-boil volume). When batch sparging, lauter efficiency is maximized when all the run-offs (initial and all sparges) have equal volume. Because of grain absorption, in order to get equal run-off volumes, the strike volume needs to be greater than each of the sparge volumes.
To figure optimal strike and sparge volumes for batch sparging use the following formulas:
Each sparge step volume = pre-boil target volume / (1 + number of sparge steps)Strike volume = one sparge step volume + expected total grain absorptionA simple rule of thumb for volumes when single batch sparging is 60% of total water required for strike, and 40% for sparge. If double batch sparging then use 50% - 25% - 25%. When doing batch sparging you shouldn't even think about hitting a specific mash thickness.
Things get a little trickier when batch sparging large grain bills. If the mash thickness from using the guidance in the previous paragraph results in a mash that is too thick to stir effectively, then you will need to shift water from sparge to strike. This is the only time you should worry about mash thickness when batch sparging.
Brew on
As beers get bigger, you need more grain, and the result is a larger fraction of the total wort stays in the spent grain due to absorption. This is why lauter efficiency drops off as grain bills get larger. The effect can be calculated with high accuracy for batch sparging, and estimated with reasonable accuracy for fly sparging (by using many small batch sparges to simulate a fly sparge.) If you plot efficiency vs. the ratio of grain bill weight to pre-boil volume, you remove the batch size as a factor.
This is correct. Thanks for the clarification; I was not this clear in my initial response. The grains soak up a lot of wort permanently, so for highest efficiency, with a batch sparge, the volume that matters for the first part out of the mash is the runnings, not the entire volume of the mash.
As beers get bigger, you need more grain, and the result is a larger fraction of the total wort stays in the spent grain due to absorption. This is why lauter efficiency drops off as grain bills get larger. The effect can be calculated with high accuracy for batch sparging, and estimated with reasonable accuracy for fly sparging (by using many small batch sparges to simulate a fly sparge.) If you plot efficiency vs. the ratio of grain bill weight to pre-boil volume, you remove the batch size as a factor.
For batch sparging the lauter efficiency vs. grain bill ratio looks like this:
View attachment 812768
The calculations are for the case of equal run-off volumes (unless that would force the mash to be thicker than 0.9 qt/lb), so mash thickness varies as required to maintain equal run-off volumes (when possible.)
For fly sparging, I simulate the fly sparge with 15 small batch sparges, and set specific starting mash thicknesses. As the grain bill gets larger, the amount of strike water increases to maintain the chosen mash thickness, and the amount of sparge water decreases. Here is what lauter efficiency variation looks for fly sparging:
View attachment 812771
This chart shows that lauter efficiency goes up across the board as the mash gets thicker, due to allowing more water for sparging. The lines terminate at the right when the strike water required to maintain target mash thickness would cause the pre-boil volume to be exceeded (which would also mean 0 sparge water.)
The curve shapes a bit different for batch sparging vs. fly sparging, but the decrease in lauter efficiency with increasing grain bill weight holds for both processes.
You can gain back some lauter efficiency by targeting a larger pre-boil volume, with the intention of boiling off the excess water to obtain the target batch size.
Another interesting chart is to plot lauter efficiency vs. OG. For the chart below, a fixed batch size (5.5 gal post-boil volume and 5.0 gal fermenter volume) was assumed, along with a constant boil-off volume (1.0 gal.) Note that lauter efficiency drops off faster with increasing OG than it does with increasing grain bill ratio. This is because the decreasing efficiency increases the amount of grain required, shifting you even further to the right on the grain bill ratio axis.
View attachment 812772
Brew on
![Craft A Brew - Safale S-04 Dry Yeast - Fermentis - English Ale Dry Yeast - For English and American Ales and Hard Apple Ciders - Ingredients for Home Brewing - Beer Making Supplies - [1 Pack]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41fVGNh6JfL._SL500_.jpg)
