What to do... BIAB or build a Mash Tun?

[Peruvian802]

I'm graduating to some form of AG this week....Does the boil pot factor into your decision to either do AG or BIAB? Picking up a Turkey Fryer today w/a 7.5 gallon boil pot. I have the MLT already, which can hold up to 10 gallons, but like the ease of BIAB.

Can you do BIAB with 7.5 pot or is that limiting in what you can do?

Three considerations:
-how 'big' the beer is: see wilser's discussion above
-what your boil off rate is: higher boil off means more strike or sparge water
-how closely you want to watch for boil over

There is a reason most folks recommend 10g kettles for 5g batches.

 

[cernst151]

So much great info in this thread, I love it. I do BIAB and was planning on eventually upgrading to a mash tun but after a dozen or so batches I see no reason.

I don't know why anybody would BIAB in a cooler. That seems to eliminate one big advantage, the ability to do a 1 pot mash. Using the cooler just gives you something else to clean. I have a fairly thick walled 7.5 gallon kettle and with 2 bath towels I only lose about 2 degrees in an hour mash. I'm extremely skeptical of the 5 minute mash claim made earlier but I've never tested my mash throughout the process so maybe it's done in 5 and I'm just "wasting" time sitting around drinking homebrew. Either way, don't tell my wife I could be done in 5 minutes.

On my first few BIAB batches I bought extra grains expecting a lower efficiency and ended up dramatically overshooting my OG. I think I'll start double grinding and see if I can cut down the required grains further because I've definitely noticed that on some big beers my mash is too thick and I start having efficiency problems and lose too much wort in the grains.

I put an A-Frame ladder over my kettle and have hung a basic block and tackle pulley system from the top with a cleat on the side which makes it light enough that my wife has no problem at all lifting even the largest grain bill. For squeezing the bag I use 2 pot lids and don't burn myself at all. I got my bag at Northern Brewer. I actually got 2 of their largest bags thinking I wouldn't be able to fit everything in 1 but I've never opened the second bag.

 

[LJvermonster]

If you batch sparge there is little time difference.

1 hour mash (both) Sparge 10 - 20 minutes (both?) boil 60 minutes (both)

Mill can be any type, 2 roller mill, 3 roller mill, Corona style. You can set up for a fine crush or run the grain through twice.

Many LHBS's will run it through twice for you.

So I'm confused; where is the 1 hour time saving?

 

[cernst151]

I'd also add that the biggest downside to a traditional mash tun is the cost. If you've already got a spare cooler you're taking out the biggest part of the cost. Still, I like BIAB for the easy cleanup if nothing else.

 

[DurtyChemist]

Really? Did you think I'd brewed BIAB up til now by sheer force of will, telepathically compelling the starch to convert to sugar and fall into the kettle of hot water?



After the grains have successfully mashed with the grain bag in the water, and once the mash has completed, does the hot, wet, sticky bag full of grains need to have contact with the wort to minimize oxidation? I've heard that hot-side aeration is a myth, but even so the myth had to have it's roots somewhere...

I asked because I didn't know what you were doing. What it sounded like was you were pouring hot water over the grains and letting it drip into the boil kettle. Now it sounds like you pull the bag out and let it drain. This is what I do and there isn't anything wrong with it.

 

[kh54s10]

If you batch sparge there is little time difference.

1 hour mash (both) Sparge 10 - 20 minutes (both?) boil 60 minutes (both)

Mill can be any type, 2 roller mill, 3 roller mill, Corona style. You can set up for a fine crush or run the grain through twice.

Many LHBS's will run it through twice for you.

So I'm confused; where is the 1 hour time saving?

The 1 hour time savings would be BIAB compared to doing a fly sparge.

Biab Mash Collect wort (sparge?) Boil
Batch sparge Mash Sparge (10-20 minutes) Boil
Fly sparge Mash Mashout 10 minutes sparge 30-60 min. Boil.

 

[Owly055]

So I'm confused; where is the 1 hour time saving?

You can cut mash time far below the typical mash time, simply because you can crush far finer, which drastically accelerates conversion. BIAB allow you to operate with extremely fine crush that you could never use with conventional mash.

H.W.

 

[BroStefan]

So I'm confused; where is the 1 hour time saving?

For me the time savings mainly comes in the fast transition from mashing to boiling. Pull the bag, kick up the heat and I'm at a boil in not time. Even with a batch sparge it takes a while.

This is not directly related to BIAB But I have a Jamil style recirculating immersion wort chiller. Boiling to pitching temp in ~ 12 minutes.


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew

 

[Owly055]

All things being equal, perhaps a conventional mash is more efficient than BIAB.... But all things are NOT equal. I have frequently gone over 90% using BIAB. The deal breaker as far as efficiency is the crush. You cannot use the fine crush in a conventional mash tun we can on BIAB. If you use LHBS standard crush with BIAB, your efficiencies will tend to run in the mid to high 70's. If you do a finer crush, you will find yourself in the 80's, and can even exceed 90 occasionally. In both processes the same amount of water is used. In the one case, it is all used at once, in the other it is used in stages. The net result appears to be almost the same. In theory less water means a higher concentration of enzymes, and faster conversion....... at least some people's theory. Experience does NOT bear this out.

Both processes achieve exactly the same results if done correctly. BIAB is far less expensive, and requires only a single pot, and bag. You don't handle the wort until you transfer it to the fermenter. It doesn't require a mash tun, valves, pumps, an HLT, etc. You just dump your malt into the bag and go.........Lift it out and boil. I use a colander, and a round bottom bowl to squeeze the bag to drain it.

BIAB really requires a LHBS that is willing to adjust crush......... or your own crusher, if you want peak efficiency. You can keep it simple, or you can complicate it. as much as you want....... You can with either process. I only had to buy the bag (and malt and yeast and hops) to get started. I had everything else I needed including fermentation locks from wine making, and a hydrometer. You can brew in stainless steel, aluminum, enamel, you name it.

Get started cheap........... go with the bag. You can take it from there.


H.W.

 

[Jphillips13]

What effect does mashing with the full volume have on ph? I've only done one extract and one biab batch. On the biab batch I used a cooler and mashed at 1.5q/pd and dunk sparged in my bk. SG came out perfect and beer turned out fantastic.


Sent from somewhere using Home Brew

 

[paul_111]

I consistently get efficiencies of between 85 & 90 percent, and often exceed 90. The key of course is having a very fine crush.......... which you can't do with a conventional mash or you'll get a stuck sparge. It increases efficiency, and reduces time. I'll repeat my latest mash time......... though I'm sure folks are tired of hearing it........ 5 minutes! Not an hour, not 45 minutes, not 30 minutes........... 5 minutes to full conversion. I challenge anybody to match that with a mash tun and sparge. The efficiency was my usual 88% or so. There is no argument that I can conceive of that would get me to go to a conventional mashing system. I can see absolutely zero advantage. The Barley Crusher is key to the whole thing. My second crush is with a spacing of .010.

H.W.

Owly;

Can you please explain further? What is the gap for your first crush? Is your grain essentially floured? Do you stir during the mash? Have you achieved similar efficiency results with many styles and gravities?

Thanks!
Paul

 

[Owly055]

Owly;

Can you please explain further? What is the gap for your first crush? Is your grain essentially floured? Do you stir during the mash? Have you achieved similar efficiency results with many styles and gravities?

Thanks!
Paul

Paul:
When I got my BC mill, I immediately closed the gap significantly from normal.... I didn't measure it at that time, but it was as tight as I could go and not have the handle slip. I would guess it to have been about .020. At that point my grain was not "flour" at all, but noticeably finer than LHBS grind. My efficiency jumped dramatically from the low to mid 70's to the mid to high 80's. It made a HUGE difference. I do get a bit more trub, as there is more "flour" than there was before, but not much, most of my trub is cold break material and yeast.

In my 5 minute conversion test, I used this same grind as my primary, and my secondary was with the rollers set at .010" which is extremely close. It was like course corn meal. I doughed into 130F tap water, full volume. I never added any water after that point. I already had the kettle on the burner at high when I added the grain, then slowed the temp climb down to approximately 1 deg per minute when I hit 145...... on up until I had full conversion. The conversion began around 148-149, and was complete 5 minutes later at around 153-154. I left the one deg per minute temp rise until 165 anyway, then cranked the heat and pulled the bag. My conversion efficiency was right in the 90% range, and in only 5 minutes. I was monitoring brix and doing iodine tests. The Brix started to rise slowly, then almost instantly hit a plateau and never climbed after that. It was well above what I expected.

Fermentability is my concern...... How many long chains versus short chains. My test this coming Saturday will be an exact duplicate of a previous brew, and should tell the story. I will do a similar brew later, holding the temp rise a bit lower, and cutting the heat, and adding some cold water, and allowing it to slope off once the conversion is complete. Perhaps capping temp at 152, and dropping back to 145, and bringing it very slowly back up to give the Beta Amylase more conversion time to break sugars down to short fermentable chains, making it a 15 min or so mash.

In any case, as far as I'm concerned, I'm through with the conventional one hour heat and hold mash. Below is an interesting bit of information that would explain why my mash that slopes up from 130 into the normal conversion range seems to be providing plenty of fermentables for my current test brew. It also suggests that perhaps the optimal procedure might be a slower temp increase from 133, all the way up to total conversion temp.... say a 20 minute time from 133-153. Clearly there is a lot of room for experimentation.
Howard



Beta amylase produces Maltose, the main wort sugar, by splitting 2 glucose molecules from the non-reducing end of a glucose chain. It is therefore able to completely convert Amylose. But since it cannot get past the branch joins, Amylopectin cannot completely be converted by beta amylase. The optimal pH range for beta amylase between 5.4 and 5.6 and the optimal temperature range is between 140ºF (60ºC) and 150ºF (65ºC). Above 160ºF (70ºC) beta amylase is quickly deactivated [Narziss, 2005].

Alpha Amylase is able to split 1-4 links within glucose chains. By doing so, it exposes additional non-reducing ends for the beta amylase. This allows for the further conversion of Amylopectin. The optimal pH range is between 5.6 and 5.8 and the optimal temperature range is between 162ºF (72ºC) and 167ºF (75ºC). Above 176ºF (80ºC) alpha amylase is quickly deactivated [Narziss, 2005]

Limit dextrinase is able to split the 1-6 links that are found in Amylopectin. It is therefore able to reduce the amount of limit dextrins (glucose chains containing a 1-6 link) which are left over by alpha and beta amylase activity. Its optimal pH is 5.1 and the otimal temperature range is between 133ºF (55ºC) and 140ºF (60ºC). Above 149ºF (65ºC) this enzyme is quickly deactivated [Narziss 2005]. Because of an optimal temperature well below the commonly used saccrification rest temperature for single temperature saccrification rests, this enzyme plays only a mior role in most mashing schedules. Extended rests in the lower and upper 130sºF (upper 50sºC) benefit a higer fermentability of the wort.

 

[Peruvian802]

Howard - very interesting reading. What was your OG, FG, and what yeast did you use?

 

[Owly055]

My target OG was 1.062, (75% efficiency) My actual OG reading as my boil hit 1 gallon was over 1.074, (90% efficiency) and I boiled down another quart as the fermenter I'm using is only 1 gallon. I'll add water when the krausen falls to bring it up to a gallon. Because I was water later, I pulled the sample during the boil so I'd have an accurate OG.

My current SG is meaningless because it is fermenting still. Current SG is 1.045 but I will be diluting 25% to hit my 1 gallon volume, so in reality, I'm probably somewhere closer to 1.036 as compared to my OG based on a gallon volume.

What is clear is that I got a pretty fermentable wort. I usually finish at about 1.026, on a brew of this gravity, and I'm going to hit pretty close.

Note: These are direct, uncorrected refractometer readings. I use a refractometer exclusively, and don't bother with correction, so they are not accurate compared to a hydrometer reading. I don't really care. It tells me all I need to know comparatively, and I'm not concerned with absolute data.

This coming 2 Saturdays, I will brew exact copies of my "Rolling Stone Pale Ale", and I will use the same procedure, so I have an exactly baseline for comparison. I'm downsizing to 2 gallon brews from 2.5 gallon brews also for convenience. My 4 gallon stainless pot won't contain all the strike water and grain for a 2.5 gallon brew, and I'm using a large hot water bath canner for a brew kettle. I recently decided that rather than buying a 5 gallon stock pot, I'll just scale to use what I have. I can do 20% less beer per brew. I want to cut down on my own consumption a bit anyway. 2 gallons is a better kitchen size than 2.5 gallons. With my brew day approaching a mere 2 hours start to finish, it makes sense for me.

Rolling Stone Pale Ale (2.5 gallons):
Grans: 2 pounds American 2 row, .25 Carapils, .25 CR60
Hops: 1/4 oz nugget & 1/4 oz Nelson Sauvin (first wort), repeat at 5 min + 1/4 oz
Amarillo. Dry hop 4 days.... 1/4 oz Nelson.

 

[Peruvian802]

I wonder if your volumes effect your speed of conversion?

 

[Owly055]

I wonder if your volumes effect your speed of conversion?

Supposedly a larger volume of water slows conversion. The logic being that the enzymes are less concentrated. With a 5 minute conversion, I can't see where there is much room for improvement. I suppose I could mash with half my water, and dump the rest in after the conversion, but the extra hassle hardly seems worthwhile. I think that the key to the extremely rapid conversion is twofold. One factor being the very fine crush (.010), the other being that I dough in at 130F which gives plenty of time for starch gelatinization during the heat to conversion temp. The grain is well saturated by the time it hits 140 (gelatinization temp), so things happen really fast!
Fermentability is still my concern........but the rate things are percolating, it looks like it shouldn't be too much of a concern. If it does under-attenuate, I'll just dump in some cold water next time after complete conversion, and drop the temp back into the high 140's for another 10 minutes or so to allow the Beta to do it's work. Making my 5 min mash into a 15 min mash.

H.W.

 

[Skarekrough]

The thing that drove me to brewing AG was, thankfully, BIAB.

I just found the process cumbersome and mainly just too derivative from BIAB. Why would I want to continue doing something that was derived from and required things like more materials when I could just do the original thing to begin with and be done with it.

I'm certain plenty of people have done BIAB and made great beer. But for me it was just easier to figure out AG rather than have to figure out how something got done in AG and then how it would work in a BIAB scenario.

 

[LLBeanJ]

All grain is all grain.

With traditional MLT brewing, you drain the wort from the grain. With BIAB, you remove the grains from the wort. Other than that, they are the same process.

 

[Owly055]

All grain is all grain.

With traditional MLT brewing, you drain the wort from the grain. With BIAB, you remove the grains from the wort. Other than that, they are the same process.

There is one distinct difference. That is that you generally do a mash with 100% of your water when doing BIAB, while with traditional mashing, you use very little water for your strike water, then sparge later with the remainder. The net result as it turns out is virtually identical.

I'd love to have a simple "extractor" to use with the bag, but I just set it in a colander, and use a round bottom mixing bowl to squeeze it.... seems to work fine.

H.W.

 

[LLBeanJ]

There is one distinct difference. That is that you generally do a mash with 100% of your water when doing BIAB, while with traditional mashing, you use very little water for your strike water, then sparge later with the remainder.

Yes, but that is not a hard and fast rule. One could just as easily mash with 100% of the brewing water using a standalone mash tun and get the same results. Conversely, a brewer could mash at 1.25 qts/lb doing BIAB and sparge the rest. In the end, it makes no difference other than how do we get the wort out of the grains and into the boil kettle.

 

[divrguy]

Personally, I would build the tun and do BIAB....because that's what I do now. Both. I think a lot of folks get caught into thinking that their way of doing things is the best way and it might be for them. If you have tried every way to brew beer and you like a certain way.... do it. I some times put my BIAB wort into a mash tun that used to be for batch sparging that has a bazooka screen and false bottom setup and line it with a wilserbrewer bag because it holds my temp better when it's freezing outside. Then I can just lift the bag and dump after it's drained. Some times, I use my sleeping bag to wrap the 15 gallon pot because I feel like it and it works great too! Sometimes I don't lift the bag and squeeze, I just drain and dump....(usually because it's close enough) Sometimes... I just go to Bevmo and buy all sorts of beer... While I'm brewing... Lol. RDWHAHB


Cheers!

 

[Skarekrough]

All grain is all grain.

With traditional MLT brewing, you drain the wort from the grain. With BIAB, you remove the grains from the wort. Other than that, they are the same process.

With AG I don't ever recall having to lift a scalding hot wet bag of grains.

 

[LLBeanJ]

With BIAB, I don't ever recall having to use rice hulls or attempting to free a stuck mash. If fact, the possibility of a stuck mash doesn't exist in my world.

We can go back and forth all day about which process is better, but there is no right answer. It's a personal choice and both processes start with grain and result in wort in the fermenter at the end of the day, which was the point I was making. If having "to lift a scalding hot wet bag of grains" is unsettling to you, that's okay because there is another way and you are free to make your choice, as am I. Both methods have their pros and cons and it's up to each of us to decide which carry the most weight.

With MLT I don't ever recall having to lift a scalding hot wet bag of grains.

FIFY

 

[Skarekrough]

With BIAB, I don't ever recall having to use rice hulls or attempting to free a stuck mash. If fact, the possibility of a stuck mash doesn't exist in my world.

We can go back and forth all day about which process is better, but there is no right answer. It's a personal choice and both processes start with grain and result in wort in the fermenter at the end of the day, which was the point I was making. If having "to lift a scalding hot wet bag of grains" is unsettling to you, that's okay because there is another way and you are free to make your choice, as am I. Both methods have their pros and cons and it's up to each of us to decide which carry the most weight.

I agree.

I know plenty of folks who brew BIAB almost exclusively. Some of them make great beer too.

But to me crafting beer is, alot of times, about the learning process. And not just making my own beer. It's about learning how others that do it on a professional level achieve the results they do. None of those great breweries are using BIAB.

My statement stands; BIAB is a process that was designed to be a substitute for All Grain Brewing. With the prevalence of all grain in both craft and large scale breweries you're having to adapt their process to yours make it work. If you like the challenge then great. But if you're looking to advise someone on the path of least resistance then you're not going to be able to beat the All Grain method over BIAB.

 

[LLBeanJ]

Well, that's all understandable. Not everyone shares the same goals.

For me, it's all about making beer from grain (as opposed to extract) and in my head, BIAB is far and away easier and less equipment heavy than the traditional mash-lauter method, especially since I often step-mash. I also understand that not every homebrewer shares my opinion. No problem. You do it your way and I'll do it mine and we can agree to disagree as to which method is superior, at least at the homebrew level.

 

[KeninMN]

Yes, but that is not a hard and fast rule. One could just as easily mash with 100% of the brewing water using a standalone mash tun and get the same results. Conversely, a brewer could mash at 1.25 qts/lb doing BIAB and sparge the rest. In the end, it makes no difference other than how do we get the wort out of the grains and into the boil kettle.

That's what I do. MIAB...

 

[Minbari]

I agree.

I know plenty of folks who brew BIAB almost exclusively. Some of them make great beer too.

But to me crafting beer is, alot of times, about the learning process. And not just making my own beer. It's about learning how others that do it on a professional level achieve the results they do. None of those great breweries are using BIAB.

My statement stands; BIAB is a process that was designed to be a substitute for All Grain Brewing. With the prevalence of all grain in both craft and large scale breweries you're having to adapt their process to yours make it work. If you like the challenge then great. But if you're looking to advise someone on the path of least resistance then you're not going to be able to beat the All Grain method over BIAB.

sorry but that argument doesnt hold water ( or beer) would be like telling my wife that making burgers two at a time in a frying pan is no way to cook since McDonald's cooks them 12 at time.

what works for a large scale business is not always feasible in small scale. in the end the process is really not ANY different. you are taking crushed grain, soaking it in heated water and draining off the sugary water. people get the same efficiency for both methods.

 

[Roundhouse]

I don't see one as being any more or less viable than the other. Just different. It's hard to argue with the simplicity of BIAB. I personally use a mash tun now but then again I'm doing decoction mashes from time to time too and many would argue against the benefits of that. I've gotten 75% mash efficiency with infusion mashing in a mash tun and as high as 90%. With BIAB I've gotten around 82-83% so strangely enough they aren't all that far off from each other if you know what you are doing.

I am personally not a fan of lifting a bag full of grain out of my keggle but then again I also never rigged up a pulley system overhead. That would make things immensely easier. A kettle instead of a converted keg would also be much easier since the opening on the keggle is smaller in diameter than the keg itself. This can be challenging trying to squeeze the bag through a smaller opening than it has been expanded for. None of this is the fault of BIAB but rather my particular setup. Indeed if I were starting all over again with all grain I'd probably do a dedicated single vessel BIAB style build with a pump like so many others have here.

One thing I've learned in engineering is that don't ever try to justify something by saying "it's always been done that way" or by saying that someone else does it that way or that it must have been done that way for a reason. This doesn't promote advancement but instead justifies the status quo or rather in some ways, mediocrity. The best innovations come about from a clean sheet way of thinking where we look at what we have and look at what the end goal is and then design the easiest way to get there. It sometimes can look very different from convention but if it works, don't question it. Perhaps it doesn't work any better or worse than any other way. At the end of the day it's just a different path to the same goal. There's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't really matter what the large scale brewers are doing. We aren't using wort strippers, steam heating, or pumped mash filters while many of them are. We are using pots and scoops and coolers and propane burners, etc... Design around YOUR needs.

 

[BroStefan]

This is how I think about it.

All grain is all grain. MLT or BIAB are both AG mashing.

Every brewer designs his/her/their system to meet goals that make sense to them.

I've been brewing and evolving my system around these goals.

Making a very high quality wort resulting in great beer.

Consistent repeatable process.

Time efficiency and space efficiency.

EDIT: ability to do 10 gal batches of standard strength beers and 5 gal batches of high gravity beers

Based on these design goals I'm plenty happy with my BIAB system.

The question is not "which is better," but "which is a better implantation of your design goals."




Sent from my iPad using Home Brew

 

[Owly055]

I agree.

I know plenty of folks who brew BIAB almost exclusively. Some of them make great beer too.

But to me crafting beer is, alot of times, about the learning process. And not just making my own beer. It's about learning how others that do it on a professional level achieve the results they do. None of those great breweries are using BIAB.

My statement stands; BIAB is a process that was designed to be a substitute for All Grain Brewing. With the prevalence of all grain in both craft and large scale breweries you're having to adapt their process to yours make it work. If you like the challenge then great. But if you're looking to advise someone on the path of least resistance then you're not going to be able to beat the All Grain method over BIAB.

It's kind of absurd to make the comparison of processes based on what commercial breweries are using . My microbrewery friend (owner) uses many 50 pound bags of malt in a single brew. Can you imagine the bag that could handle that much wet grain?? It's kind of a specious argument. BIAB is relatively new, and most of the long time brewers are used to working with mash and sparge equipment, and have a lot invested in it. As a result it has the aura of being "the way pros so it".

Perhaps it would be a good topic for a "reality tv" show. Give the pros a pot, a burner, a bag, malt and hops, and turn them loose to make the best beer they can under those limitations. Limits, are often what brings out the most creativity in people. I thoroughly enjoy being in a situation where I have only a few options to brew with.

H.W.

 

[dirtybulkales]

I do both and I personally find BIAB alot easier.
I only ever use the Mash Tun for Doubles or when I do Strong ales.

My BIAB method is to simply do everything the same as you would with a mash tun.
EG;
>Raise temp for mashout process
>Recirculate your wort after 45/60 mins for even distribution of temp.
> Same process with Sparged wort

I guess I am doing BIAB as if an All Grain brewer would use a Mash Tun?

Cheers,

 

[Skarekrough]

It's kind of absurd to make the comparison of processes based on what commercial breweries are using

Um, not it isn't.

If it was then books like "Brew Like A Monk" wouldn't exist and certainly wouldn't be as popular as they are.

Books like that sell so well because when we look to craft at home we try and draw lessons and processes learned from the professionals.

 

[BroStefan]

Um, not it isn't.



If it was then books like "Brew Like A Monk" wouldn't exist and certainly wouldn't be as popular as they are.



Books like that sell so well because when we look to craft at home we try and draw lessons and processes learned from the professionals.

But nobody is able to copy someone's process exactly into their brewing practice. There are just too many variables. We have to adapt to some extent or other - "to draw lessons" as you said.

Fermentation is the key. I've read Brew Like a Monk in detailed information on fermentation practices and my Belgians have gotten much better.


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew

 

[wingedcoyote]

I do BIAB exclusively and I love the simplicity and get fine efficiency, but I am planning to buy a cooler pretty soon. Mostly because I have issues with holding mash temp with BIAB -- even with all the blankets in the house I seem to lose 5+ degrees over an hour. No idea if that's affecting my beer, but it bugs me. I have tried the kettle in the oven trick, and the design of my oven unfortunately makes it unworkable. I also only have a 5-gallon kettle, which is great for boiling my 2.5-gallon batches but a little small for mashing some of them, and a 10-gal cooler is a lot cheaper than a 10-gal kettle.

I'm still going to do full-volume mashing, as it's worked great for me so far -- in fact, this should let me do full-volume for recipes where I've needed the awkward colander sparge before. And I'll probably stick with the bag and just treat the cooler as a big BIAB pot.

 

[LLBrewer]

Get the best of both worlds and line a cooler with a grain bag and then batch sparge. This is what I do and I'm convinced its the best method for me. I can easily hold my mash temp due to the cooler, I don't need to vorlouf due to the bag and I never have a stuck sparge. Because I don't worry about grain getting into the kettle I constantly stir the mash as I'm sparging. I think this helps with efficiency although for ~$2.00/lb of base malt I always buy an extra pound just in case. I can really reap the benefits of this method if I ever get a mill.

 

[gezzanet]

I was thinking of doing this also. I originally was going to setup a 3 v rig but after reading about the time savings in Biab I am setting up a keggle for it. I had already ordered a 10 gallon igloo cooler. So maybe the bag in the cooler is the go. Then again a temp control pid setup on the keggle for mashing would mean no need for the cooler at all. Suppose the cooler would be the option if you were gas only.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[BroStefan]

.Suppose the cooler would be the option if you were gas only.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

My dear wife gave me a Tower of Power control unit for my gas Direct fired BIAB setup. She is very cool.

Before this I recirculated and cycled the burner manually. Boring but effective.

 

[wilserbrewer]

I was thinking of doing this also. I originally was going to setup a 3 v rig but after reading about the time savings in Biab I am setting up a keggle for it. I had already ordered a 10 gallon igloo cooler. So maybe the bag in the cooler is the go. Then again a temp control pid setup on the keggle for mashing would mean no need for the cooler at all. Suppose the cooler would be the option if you were gas only.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

A bag for a keggle and a 10 gallon round cooler are about the same size, so you could try either or both. I like to BIAB, but also do 3v with using a Cooler MT. It's nice to mix it up and not be too rigid IMO.


Wilserbrewer
Http://biabbags.webs.com/

 

[gezzanet]

Tower of power does look pretty cool. Looks like you can control whatever you want with it. Bit out of my league for now but stashed in the memory bank for future.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[timpoulsen]

I like the system jkarp put together and am about finished with my system similar but for 5 gallon batches. https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f51/countertop-brutus-20-a-131411/