Taking time efficiency to ridiculous extremes 79 minute brew

[slym2none]

"I'm not saying I agree with him... but I understand." - Chris Rock

 

[BNolt17]

Owly I completely respect trying something new and thinking outside the box. I truly hope you produce a great beer but I am concerned for Diacetyl in this beer. I have tried a no-chill beer with a similar method to yours (chill method only, not brewing method) and ended up with diacetyl. My theory is leaving it chill in the pot instead of forcing out the oxygen as per traditional no chill was my culprit. I am still pretty much a newbie and a scientist I am not, but that's my $.02

 

[itsnotrequired]

the brulosophy dudes did this a couple months ago

http://brulosophy.com/2015/11/12/short-shoddy-my-1-hour-all-grain-brew-day/

 

[jmcquesten]

Next will be no chill, no boil, no fermentation? You could just dump a bunch of coors light into a bottling bucket, bottle it up, and be drinking it that night.

 

[broadbill]

Next will be no chill, no boil, no fermentation? You could just dump a bunch of coors light into a bottling bucket, bottle it up, and be drinking it that night.

Yes, that is exactly where this is heading next...we will all be remarking about the "good ol' days" when we actually added yeast to wort.

 

[m00ps]

I calculated the hop utilization exactly as I would boiling the whole brew.... This may not be accurate, but tasting the wort, I would say that it's pretty close. It's worth noting that I used Crystal leaf hops for my flavor and aroma hops, an ounce and a half total, and the hop bags remained in the wort until I racked to the fermenter. My "bittering addition", improbably was Willamette, of which I used a full ounce. Brew size, again was 2.5 gallons, so it's very generously hopped at one ounce per gallon total.

H.W.

Wait, this beer seems familiar... or do I just have major deja vu?

Based on that thread, it sounds like it could end up tasting sour either way things go since you never reached a conclusion for that other one before it was gone

 

[agrazela]

the brulosophy dudes did this a couple months ago

http://brulosophy.com/2015/11/12/short-shoddy-my-1-hour-all-grain-brew-day/

Well actually...

Not really, that wort was boiled 15min, not no-boiled. And it was consumed that very same night; so even of it had been no-boil, there was no time to see if it would sour unwantedly.

(And, although very much beside the point, there was no decoction, "hop-decoction," "side-boil," or whatever the hell we want to call it. )

I'm very interested to see how this goes. I'm already BIAB and no-chill (besides dunking the kettle in the utility sink of cold water--I call that "semi-chill" if that's OK with y'all), and I think I make pretty durned good brew without having invested mucho dinero in fancy mashing and chilling equipment. My last batch was an all post-boil hop addition pale (with a short boil, and just as a test of no-boiling hops, and that inspired by one of Owly's other posts), and it is very, very nice.

I think it would be fantastic if "no-boil" turns out to mean people can kick out 5gal AG (or perhaps PM) batches just using any old stovetop, and don't necessarily have to invest in big burners and propane (or 240v electric systems).

I agree that this could be a revolution as big as BIAB or no-chill. So let's get off Owly's decoction and wait and see if this thing spoils!

 

[madcowbrewing]

Well actually...

Not really, that wort was boiled 15min, not no-boiled. And it was consumed that very same night; so even of it had been no-boil, there was no time to see if it would sour unwantedly.

Well actually.......the OP did boil his for 15 minutes also. Just not the entire batch to cut time.

I applaud him in his quest. While I may never do this, for many reasons, there is sometimes a need for others to cut there time down to stay in this wonderful hobby we all have.

 

[MrFancyPlants]

I'd call it a hopdidoption. I also applaud your urge to experiment and hope the beer turns out well and good.

 

[Owly055]

Are you testing to see if conversion is complete? Or is the 30 minutes experiential in nature?

I always test for conversion with short mashes. I've mashed all the way down to 10 minutes and gotten complete conversion with a fine grist, though with lower fermentability resulting in higher FG and more body, and about 1/2% lower abv if I recall correctly.

H.W.

 

[user 204491]

Not sure if people are more upset at Owly for giving a defined brewing term a new meaning or breaking down preconceptions about what it means to "brew" a beer. I too am a fan of the raw ale/no-boil method, having read quite a bit about it and have two planned for upcoming brew days. This is also not a new method, having quite a bit of history behind it, so I really dig the historical aspect.

Definitely applaud the experimental spirit, and I look forward to hearing how it turns out!

 

[schematix]

Love the passion in this thread. Keep it going!

 

[JPicasso]

Fun experiment. I hope it works out, and hope you keep us posted either way!

 

[Owly055]

This brew took off like gangbusters, and is fermenting vigorously. The pitch was a very heavy top crop pitch from a previous brew, and fermentation was evident within a couple of hours. Fermentation is at the "boiling stage" which those who ferment in clear fermenters will understand. What is different is that the trub layer appears to be heavier material and very little of it is actually up in circulation compared to a typical ferment where there is no visible layer, just a muddy boiling mass of wort and trub. I'm concerned about weather it will pack down in a solid compacted layer as it should post fermentation. I just top cropped yeast from it a few minutes ago. Flavor of the wort is good, and clarity of the upper zone when I poured it into the fermenter was excellent, indicating that if nothing else, the whirlfloc I put in with the hop decoction did it's job. (Oops I used that word again ;-)


H.W.

 

[mongoose33]

It's only wasted time and ingredients if owly deems it that way after reaping his rewards; of course, we are all allowed to form our own opinions.

There have been times in various hobbies that I have tried something new and failed miserably at meeting my pre-experiment hopes/expectations.

I've never considered it wasted time. I learned something, discovered what doesn't work, and as a result I'm more educated about whatever it is I was testing.

 

[madscientist451]

Arguments about linguistics here are pointless, we will reach our own conclusions based on our own inclinations.

I didn't start this thread to start an argument, though I knew it would get the old ladies in a tizzy, and the usual suspects have not disappointed with the expected comments My goal really was to share a methodology I am experimenting with that incorporates non-original ideas and methods to ultimately I hope achieve a good all grain beer brewed in a sub one hour brew session.


Everybody knows my forte is operating completely outside the box.

H.W.

I like this experiment and the idea of trying to do things in an unconventional manner. I also like the way this post has stirred up the cyber-pot.
My question to the OP: Why try to raise the temperature of the main pot of wort with the smaller amount of wort boiled with hops? Couldn't you have just put the main pot on the stove and raised its temperature while you were boiling the smaller amount? When the main pot reached 165-170, you could just shut it down, then combine the two pots later and set aside to chill overnight? I'm thinking doing what I suggest would shave a few minutes off your brew time?

FROM THE ORIGINAL POST:
"The decoction went back into the wort, which raised the wort only to about 155 again, so I put the total back on the stove top and raised the temp to 165 (with the whirlpool hops in it)."


Thanks again for posting.

 

[joshesmusica]

I always test for conversion with short mashes. I've mashed all the way down to 10 minutes and gotten complete conversion with a fine grist, though with lower fermentability resulting in higher FG and more body, and about 1/2% lower abv if I recall correctly.



H.W.

How are you testing for conversion?

 

[Owly055]

I like this experiment and the idea of trying to do things in an unconventional manner. I also like the way this post has stirred up the cyber-pot.
My question to the OP: Why try to raise the temperature of the main pot of wort with the smaller amount of wort boiled with hops? Couldn't you have just put the main pot on the stove and raised its temperature while you were boiling the smaller amount? When the main pot reached 165-170, you could just shut it down, then combine the two pots later and set aside to chill overnight? I'm thinking doing what I suggest would shave a few minutes off your brew time?

FROM THE ORIGINAL POST:
"The decoction went back into the wort, which raised the wort only to about 155 again, so I put the total back on the stove top and raised the temp to 165 (with the whirlpool hops in it)."


Thanks again for posting.

What you suggest is exactly what I intend to do in my next no boil brew. Using a hot plate, I will raise the temp of the main body of wort slowly to about 160 while the decoction is boiling (Oops... there is that forbidden word again ;-). My decoction will be smaller next time due to the use of pellet hops instead of leaf hops, and may be shorter as I intend to use a high alpha hop. I haven't formulated the recipe yet, but it will incorporate Magnum, Summit, Nugget, or Polaris, along with a flavor / aroma hop, so I may boil the decoction for somewhere in 5 minute range instead of 15. Reducing the decoction boil time will result in a what amounts to a zero time decoction for practical purposes, as the bag will be draining, etc and the main wort heating while this is going on. Combine this with a 10 minute inline mash, which actually takes about 15 minutes including the time to heat the mash to conversion temp, and I expect to EASILY take the all grain brew to significantly under one hour including clean up, crushing grain and pitching yeast. The key is using AG300 in the fermenter.

This is all at least 2 weeks off,, and I haven't formulated the recipe yet, but I'm leaning toward using Nugget and Mosaic, which I think would pair nicely with the spicy Nugget balancing out the complex fruity Mosaic. Here is my tentative recipe

2.5 gallon brew

OG 1.042
ABV 4.48
SRM 6.13
IBU 34


2 lb 2 row
1.5 lb Munich 10
.5 lb flaked wheat

.5 ounce Nugget and 1 ounce Mosaic @ 5 min
.5 ounce Mosaic @ whirlpool 165

Process: BIAB 10 min "inline mash"

Decoct .5 gallon of wort for hop decoction and boil 10 min
Heat main wort to 160 while decoction is being boiled

Cool over night in boil kettle & transfer and pitch in the morning, adding AG300

Allow at least 3 weeks in fermenter.


H.W.

 

[Owly055]

How are you testing for conversion?

Primarily by taking refractometer samples and watching for gravity to plateau. I then do an iodine test for confirmation. I won't bother with the iodine on my next fast brew, as it will have AG300 in the fermenter.

H.W.

 

[joshesmusica]

Primarily by taking refractometer samples and watching for gravity to plateau. I then do an iodine test for confirmation. I won't bother with the iodine on my next fast brew, as it will have AG300 in the fermenter.



H.W.

Gotcha. I hear the iodine is pretty much a waste of time as it can produce false negatives.

What do you mean by inline mashing?

(Btw see how easy it is to clear up something you don't quite understand?)

 

[hunter_le five]

FWIW, I like the idea of the experiment, and am looking forward to seeing the results, good, bad, or otherwise.

But if we're going to use brewing terms, let's use them correctly, so we're all on the same page. Just my inconsequential opinion.

And lighten up. "FTFY" is common forum humor, not arrogance.

 

[TheMadKing]

Cool experiment Owly, I look forward to hearing how it turns out. It's also always fun to see peoples panties get bunched over a term when everyone understood and could replicate what you did without issue. Brew on!

 

[JohnSand]

This brew took off like gangbusters, and is fermenting vigorously. The pitch was a very heavy top crop pitch from a previous brew, and fermentation was evident within a couple of hours. Fermentation is at the "boiling stage" which those who ferment in clear fermenters will understand. What is different is that the trub layer appears to be heavier material and very little of it is actually up in circulation compared to a typical ferment where there is no visible layer, just a muddy boiling mass of wort and trub. I'm concerned about weather it will pack down in a solid compacted layer as it should post fermentation. I just top cropped yeast from it a few minutes ago. Flavor of the wort is good, and clarity of the upper zone when I poured it into the fermenter was excellent, indicating that if nothing else, the whirlfloc I put in with the hop decoction did it's job. (Oops I used that word again ;-)


H.W.

I wonder if the trub difference has to do with the absence of the hot break, also if the finished product will contain more protein than it would had it been boiled.
I brewed 5 gallons of Rye Pale, stove top BIAB, 30 minute partial boil, in 3hrs25 yesterday. Are people mad at me too?
At least I mashed for an hour, put down your pitchforks please.

 

[Owly055]

Gotcha. I hear the iodine is pretty much a waste of time as it can produce false negatives.

What do you mean by inline mashing?

(Btw see how easy it is to clear up something you don't quite understand?)

Inline Mash is a term I coined to describe my method of doing very short mashes. It's all done on the stove top. The strike water is hot water from the tap which is approximately 130F before the grain is added. At that point the stove is put on high, and the mash is stirred regularly. When it reaches 145F, the heat is turned down for a slow temp increase to 155. The rate of increase governs the actual "mash time", which is the time between 145 and 155, which is the actual mash. I call it "inline" because is conducted inline with the heating as opposed to a typical simple infusion mash, step mash, or decoction mash. It's a step mash without the steps, everything happens in an inline progression, hence the name.

H.W.

 

[Owly055]

I wonder if the trub difference has to do with the absence of the hot break, also if the finished product will contain more protein than it would had it been boiled.
I brewed 5 gallons of Rye Pale, stove top BIAB, 30 minute partial boil, in 3hrs25 yesterday. Are people mad at me too?
At least I mashed for an hour, put down your pitchforks please.

Time will tell......... There is a thread on no boil / no chill. This was not my idea, but those who are doing it seem to be having good luck.


H.W.

 

[m00ps]

Pretty sure the Dupont brewery in Belgium has been doing that for years
https://beerandbrewing.com/VMvilisAAKGj51nr/article/belgian-beer-youre-probably-doing-it-wrong

 

[Aristotelian]

I followed Owly055's somewhat polemical earlier thread on reducing the brew day. I think it's great that he has put his money where is mouth is and demonstrated a simple process for a quick brew day. If he can make good beer an hour faster than the rest of us, I think that is great. As a new brewer also with kids and a full time job, I am also looking to cut corners without cutting too much quality. Good luck!

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=555269

 

[geoffey]

Inline Mash is a term I coined to describe my method of doing very short mashes. It's all done on the stove top. The strike water is hot water from the tap which is approximately 130F before the grain is added. At that point the stove is put on high, and the mash is stirred regularly. When it reaches 145F, the heat is turned down for a slow temp increase to 155. The rate of increase governs the actual "mash time", which is the time between 145 and 155, which is the actual mash. I call it "inline" because is conducted inline with the heating as opposed to a typical simple infusion mash, step mash, or decoction mash. It's a step mash without the steps, everything happens in an inline progression, hence the name.



H.W.

I don't get how this is "inline". How is it not a step mash? You infuse the grain at a specific temperature (temp of your chlorinated tap water) and then raise it to 155, first quickly and then slowly. You are describing a step mash with no pause at a specific temp. It's an impatient step mash. When you say "inline" I'd expect the water to pass through the grain in one pass (like through a tube) and come through the the other end as sweet wort.

 

[specharka]

My one and only argument with the brewing process showcased here is...does it make good beer? You could make a beer in 15 minutes and I really would not see the point unless it tasted as good or better than what I make now.

I applaud your experiments Owly, but I will stick with my methods unless you can "convince" me otherwise.

 

[Aristotelian]

Owly, have you tried fermenting in your kettle? I have seen a few threads on it. Seems to work fine. This would eliminate your final stage which you listed at 7 minutes. With your other changes you could get under 60 minutes for sure.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=185324
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=492095

Unfortunately I brew in a kettle that we also use regularly for cooking but I am tempted to get a separate brewing kettle to try this (and also increase my capacity).