# Benefits Of A 3v Brew Rig?



## BPH87 (24/8/12)

Hey brewers,
I am fairly new with brewing have only knocked over 8 BIAB's so far, just about to drink my first 2 beers this weekend. I am really enjoying the brewing process with biab but I would like to think that it would be far cooler on a 3v system. 
That said I am interested in knowing what benefits brewing on a 3 vessel gas system are?
Cheers Ben


----------



## bum (24/8/12)

You can make good beer with both (or any of the other systems).

It isn't that one is more beneficial than the other it is just about fitting in with how you want to work.

For me, 3v seems a bit less work, a bit more of a relaxed brewday (despite the extra cleaning) - no need to agitate the mash the same way, no hoisting heavy bags, etc. I can see why other people couldn't be stuffed with all the transferring of liquid all the time too. Horses for courses.

[EDIT: "heavy nags" - probably should change that before SWMBO thinks I'm talking about her]


----------



## Logman (24/8/12)

bum said:


> For me, 3v seems a bit less work, a bit more of a relaxed brewday.


Seems counter intuitive but it works out that way for me too. At the end of the brewday I fill the cubes and hose out the kettle, finished - cleaning up can be done during the boil. 

I keep wanting to add a HERMS to it but at the moment I can do three cubes with only 2 hours in attendance using temp control etc.


----------



## sim (24/8/12)

I think it main difference largely comes down to sparging options, and these have often been very debatable, lots of opinion there.

As mentioned above, with 3v for me its about how i want brewday to flow - slow, leasurely, methodical. Also, im a sucker for a false bottom and that ruled out the bag for me.

Keep reading and experimenting i say, otherwise you'll just have a whole bunch of other people's opinions.


----------



## DUANNE (24/8/12)

for me going from biab to 3v has meant a quicker brew day. other advantages for me have been clearer wort and better yield because i have halved my losses to trub at the end of the boil. the finished beer at the end of the process is much the same though besides maybe a touch brighter.


----------



## mxd (24/8/12)

for me, I can do 60 ltr batches and consecutive batches (mashing new whilst boiling old) 



N.B could do the same with BIAB with a big enough pot and hoist and 2 pots


----------



## tallie (24/8/12)

A benefit of 3V is that it's less time to do a back-to-back double brewday, as you can mash the second brew in while you're boiling the first. BIAB specifically has limitations in the batch size too. Depending on how much/often you want to brew, those trade-offs may not be relevant to you.

Cheers,
tallie

Edit: Beaten by mxd, although...


mxd said:


> N.B could do the same with BIAB with a big enough pot and hoist and 2 pots


...now you're up to at least 2V


----------



## raven19 (24/8/12)

mxd said:


> ...and consecutive batches (mashing new whilst boiling old)



+1, one of the advantages for me too.

It really does come down to how you like to brew, and how much space you have. And budget available / building skills, etc.

I'd recommend getting along to a brew day near your place to see other rigs in action, to give you an appreciation for the advantages/disadvantages of the various setups.


----------



## Malted (24/8/12)

Given you have specifically asked about a gas powered 3V system:

Regulating the temperature of a gas fired HLT can be tricky, most folks find it easier to use an electrically heated HLT. Gas fired kettle is fine particularly when you can reuse your existing BIAB kettle for this. 
If you have a natural gas BBQ outlet you could hook your system up to this and on an energy cost basis it could work out cheaper than 8.5kg gas bottle refills or the cost of the electricity for an electric system. You would require your burners to be appropriately jetted for natural gas. 
If using a gas fired HLT and kettle you could suck through an 8.5kg bottle possibly every couple of brews. It would be best to have a reserve bottle at all times or use a larger bottle (that gas distributors come to your house to refill, as per bottles for kitchen stove etc).

Most folks will have an electric HLT for finer control of temperatures and ease of construction. A lot of folks prefer a gas fired kettle for it's sheer brute heating force and again for ease of construction. Very few folks will directly heat their mashtun (though some do), they either insulate it and leave it alone or they use an external wort heating system such as HERMS or RIMS.


----------



## Crusty (24/8/12)

I'm going to put my hand up for BIAB & as an ex 3V PID rims brewer, I can't see a single benefit with using 3V. You constantly hear people saying I changed to 3V because I get clearer wort into my boil kettle & the wort is quite turbid with BIAB. I'll let you in on a little secret, It does not matter.
Kopperfloc into the urn 10mins from the end of the boil will yield crystal clear wort into my no chill cube.
I have an electric urn, a roasting rack to cover the exposed element, a BIAB bag, a hop bag & a paint stirrer to rouse the mash when ramping from sacc rest to mash out. Adding another two vessels to this along with a pump, camlocks, hoses etc, adds up to more cleaning & more time on brew day. As far as beer quality with the two systems, no difference at all, both great beers. Now that I have done a few brews with BIAB, I can't believe I put up with all the extra gear & expense to get it going only to prove that a simple rig will produce equal results for a quarter of the price of my ex 3V system. It's exciting to have all that bling & gadgets but so unnecessary to produce great beer. Simplicity is where it's at for time poor people like me & this suits me perfectly. Efficiency is another point people keep bringing up saying BIAB will yield less efficiency than 3V. I have blown that theory out of the water & my recipes are calculated @80% & I hit 86% into fermenter efficiency last brew & this a constant figure for me. So a simple rig, cheap to get into that produces superb beer with minimal fuss makes for a pleasurable brew day & I would never look at going 3V again, no way.


----------



## BPH87 (24/8/12)

Going electric is probably the way to go although once I move to Brisbane, not sure how many rental houses have more than two circuits. (Old homes.)

Is there any benefit running the kettle as gas and having hlt & mash tun electric?


----------



## Crusty (24/8/12)

BPH87 said:


> Going electric is probably the way to go although once I move to Brisbane, not sure how many rental houses have more than two circuits. (Old homes.)
> 
> Is there any benefit running the kettle as gas and having hlt & mash tun electric?



I ran my HLT gas fired, mash tun temp controlled by PID & rims tube (2400w element) & boil kettle gas as well. I rent & I could only make use of the standard 10A circuits in the house so went that way.


----------



## Yob (24/8/12)

BPH87 said:


> Going electric is probably the way to go although once I move to Brisbane, not sure how many rental houses have more than two circuits. (Old homes.)
> 
> Is there any benefit running the kettle as gas and having hlt & mash tun electric?



Electric HLT and Gas fired Kettle works for me... I dont have to worry about the MT as I HERMS (So I guess it's electric too  )


----------



## JDW81 (24/8/12)

BPH87 said:


> Going electric is probably the way to go although once I move to Brisbane, not sure how many rental houses have more than two circuits. (Old homes.)
> 
> Is there any benefit running the kettle as gas and having hlt & mash tun electric?



I've got an electric urn for a HLT and gas fired kettle (mash tun is unheated, if I want to do a step mash I add boiling water). Works well. Fill up the HLT the night before, switch on in the morning, breakfast, coffee then start mash.


----------



## Lakey (24/8/12)

I have been biab'ing for abot a year and only last week did my first 3v and I found the brew day went alot smoother than biab. I converted my 25L esky into a mash tun and used a bigW 19L pot for the hlt heated by a gas master butane stove using my electric heated keggle for boil, the easiest brew day so far! The best benefit was the clarity of the wort after recirculating through the grain bed. Only one 3v brew and I think I am converted! Next step for me will be herms and the brauduino!


----------



## Brewman_ (24/8/12)

tallie said:


> BIAB specifically has limitations in the batch size too. Depending on how much/often you want to brew, those trade-offs may not be relevant to you.
> 
> Cheers,
> tallie



I don't know, my next BIAB batch is not a big batch by any means for my system and I will knock out 58L of TTL. Basically triple batches are the plan and no problems, this one is one full batch and 2 small batches, 20L cube and 2 x 15's.
But all for 3V systems, I would have one.

Fear_n_loath


----------



## Crusty (24/8/12)

Lakey said:


> I have been biab'ing for abot a year and only last week did my first 3v and I found the brew day went alot smoother than biab. I converted my 25L esky into a mash tun and used a bigW 19L pot for the hlt heated by a gas master butane stove using my electric heated keggle for boil, the easiest brew day so far! The best benefit was the clarity of the wort after recirculating through the grain bed. Only one 3v brew and I think I am converted! Next step for me will be herms and the brauduino!



That sounds a lot easier than turning on my Urn & adding the grain to the BIAB bag once at temp. How on earth were you doing BIAB before to claim it was the easiest brew day so far? I missed the benefit of clear wort into the boil kettle. Can you explain how a clear wort into the boil kettle somehow makes for a better finished beer. Seriously, I'm curious. Please don't be mislead by what you may have read, a clearer wort into the boil kettle means nothing, absolutely nothing.
Each to their own for sure but don't be fooled into thinking that the 3V will make you a better beer, it ain't gunna happen. Don't waste your money bro.
Good luck


----------



## Bribie G (24/8/12)

Despite the BIAB purist nazis that lurk out there, BIAB is quite flexible. For example I have an esky and an immersion heater. So while the first BIAB brew is boiling in the urn I can be mashing a second batch in the bag-lined esky and when the first brew has been cubed, after a quick hose out of the urn, the second bag can be raised and the wort transferred to the urn for the second boil. Actually I could keep going and do batch after batch until I drop with exhaustion or run out of cubes  

The major disadvantage of BIAB is hoisting the bag but with a well designed skyhook / pulley system it's fairly trivial. I'm not in the spring of my youth and I do it single handed. As well as raising the bag single handed. B)


----------



## Charst (24/8/12)

Bribie G said:


> Despite the BIAB purist nazis that lurk out there, BIAB is quite flexible. For example I have an esky and an immersion heater. So while the first BIAB brew is boiling in the urn I can be mashing a second batch in the bag-lined esky and when the first brew has been cubed, after a quick hose out of the urn, the second bag can be raised and the wort transferred to the urn for the second boil. Actually I could keep going and do batch after batch until I drop with exhaustion or run out of cubes
> 
> The major disadvantage of BIAB is hoisting the bag but with a well designed skyhook / pulley system it's fairly trivial. I'm not in the spring of my youth and I do it single handed. As well as raising the bag single handed. B)




So really your doing a 2V System? Im a little over having 5litres loss to trub so im thinking about heading this way. plus i can do 2 batchs in a day easier.
Mash in one Keg with a false bottom and Bag for easy cleaning, Get to mashout, vorlauf till clearish, rack to Boil Kettle.
Raise bag and Start mash 2 while brew one is boiling.

EDIT: anyone know if the BIAB Liquor to grist ratio or presence of bag and false bottom will effect setting a grain filter bed?


----------



## Bribie G (24/8/12)

yes 2V it is. Really 3v is 2v. The HLT "number one vessel" really doesn't count as a true vessel, you could be getting your hot water from a continuous gas water heater or something, or in my case heated in situ in the mashtun by an immersion heater. To me, real 3V is a mash tun, a lauter tun and a kettle.

I actually lose very little to trub as I settle it out overnight in sterile jars and get heaps for hop boils, starters etc.


----------



## Nick JD (24/8/12)

3V brewing is like putting a turbo and a loud pipe on your Hyundai. 

You think you're cool but you've just got to B, from A, like everyone else who did it less obnoxiously.


----------



## Brewman_ (24/8/12)

Here is a lifting device that I use. It is a two pulley on top and a single pulley on the bottom. This makes it easier and safer, but anyway back to the OP....





Fear_n_loath


----------



## DUANNE (24/8/12)

Nick JD said:


> 3V brewing is like putting a turbo and a loud pipe on your Hyundai.
> 
> You think you're cool but you've just got to B, from A, like everyone else who did it less obnoxiously.


that must make k+k the greatest thing in the world. why woud you bother with being obnoxious heating water and mashing and boiling when all you had to do was dump water and some goo in a bucket and still get to the same destination at the end, beer. still got you from a to b didnt it? or really just buy a case of vb its still sorta beer in the end, beats ******* around making it, you get straight to your destination without disturbing anyone. i would rather take my time be obnoxious and enjoy the journey cruising in a nice car rather than treat the ride as just a means to an end and taking the train.


----------



## Bribie G (24/8/12)

BEERHOG said:


> that must make k+k the greatest thing in the world. why woud you bother with being obnoxious heating water and mashing and boiling when all you had to do was dump water and some goo in a bucket and still get to the same destination at the end, beer. still got you from a to b didnt it? or really just buy a case of vb its still sorta beer in the end, beats ******* around making it, you get straight to your destination without disturbing anyone. i would rather take my time be obnoxious and enjoy the journey cruising in a nice car rather than treat the ride as just a means to an end and taking the train.


I get half price on the train. When I move to NSW I will get 1/n price on the train with my pension card where n is a large number.


----------



## rotten (24/8/12)

I chose to go 3V because the process appealed to me and made sense. The 4-6 hour brew day doesn't phase me at all. It all flows nicely and the extra cleaning is only a mash tun as the HLT doesn't need cleaning.

Electric temp controlled HLT, tech ice mash tun, spiral burner keggle FTW :lol:


----------



## Thirsty Boy (25/8/12)

Charst said:


> Im a little over having 5litres loss to trub so im thinking about heading this way.
> 
> EDIT: anyone know if the BIAB Liquor to grist ratio or presence of bag and false bottom will effect setting a grain filter bed?



Thing is - if you have a mash tun, you then lose more liquid to both deadspace in the MT and also to the wetter spent grain. As a matter of interest.... it basically evens out. The amount extra you lose in the kettle in BIAB, is about the same as the amount extra you lose in the MT in a 3V system, give or take a little either way depending on your set-up. so you are just trading places for your losses, not actually reducing them in any significant way. BTW - 5L is too much... you're doing something wrong.

The L:G ratio wont matter for setting a grain bed, read a little about no-sparge brewing in the 3V world. It ends up (and sometimes starts) with the same L:G ratio as BIAB anyway. The bag over a false bottom will effect the way the system drains and the way your lauter runs. A bag over a FB is essentially the same as having a FB with the same parameters as the mesh in the bag. Its not ideal - BUT - not ideal isn't the same as saying its not workable, or even not good. Plenty of people lauter with a bag over a FB, or lauter through FBs that are a chunk away from ideal. It'll work fine if you decide thats what you want to do.

edit - the bit about liquid losses, is for batch or no-sparging. Its not true for continuous sparging.


----------



## Wolfy (25/8/12)

Charst said:


> ... plus i can do 2 batchs in a day easier.
> Mash in one Keg with a false bottom and Bag for easy cleaning, Get to mashout, vorlauf till clearish, rack to Boil Kettle.
> Raise bag and Start mash 2 while brew one is boiling.


It takes me no more than a couple of minutes to scoop out the spent grain and give the mash tun a rinse with water, I'd suggest it's quicker and easier than lifting/draining/moving a bag full of grain.


----------



## adryargument (25/8/12)

3v - easy.
If you don't work in a brewery, the closest experience your going to get is managing a 3V system.
Standing over a bucket with a bag doesn't really achieve the same sensation.

To me - that alone is worth going 3v.


----------



## MHB (25/8/12)

I think I have brewed on every type and configuration imaginable, at present Im brewing on a Braumeister; it was the arrival of the Braumeister on the scene here in Australia that kicked off the whole BIAB thing. Dont get me wrong I love my Braumeister and it will probably be how I brew for the rest of my life, but the win lotto dont-have-to-work-no-more-too-much-time-on-my-hands rig would be a 4V system, a seriously sexy cereal cooker/decoction pot, a well made rims with something remarkably similar to a Braumeister controller managing the mash programme.

Until you have experienced the control you get with a well engineered system like a Braumeister you dont know what you are missing, I couldnt go back to a rig that didnt give me the to the minute and degree C repeatability that I now have. Remember that a lot of my brewing nowadays is recipe development and testing and that repeatability is vital.

Every system has its pros and cons and I dont believe any one option is the be all and end all, a system that allows you to consistently make good beer, that you can afford and that allows you to brew the beer you want to drink is the best system for you/me.

Thirty years of it and I still love brewing
Mark


----------



## glenwal (25/8/12)

So why doesn't the bag count as a vessel?


BIAB is really a 2 tier gravity fed system. You mash in the bag, then lift the bag and gravity transfers the sweet liquor from the bag (MLT) to the kettle.


----------



## Barley Belly (25/8/12)

You get to slag off at and look down your nose at anyone who hasn't reached the dizzying heights of brewing excellence that can only possibly be achieved by 3V brewing!

Anyone else should just buy VB and drink it hot, out of a used ashtray and it'd still taste better than any non 3V brewer could ever hope to produce.

Non 3V time wasters.

I don't even know why we let them on OUR (the 3V elite, that is) Forum.


----------



## MHB (25/8/12)

Glen W said:


> So why doesn't the bag count as a vessel?
> 
> 
> BIAB is really a 2 tier gravity fed system. You mash in the bag, then lift the bag and gravity transfers the sweet liquor from the bag (MLT) to the kettle.



vessel (vsl)
n.
1. A hollow utensil, such as a cup, vase, or pitcher, used as a container, especially for liquids.

Bags dont contain liquid!
Mark


----------



## stef (25/8/12)

I have always been a BIABer (well, since i started brewing a year or so ago). For me it was the cheapest, most convenient option.

I am, however, currently building an esky mashtun. I'll continue to BIAB most of the time, however i wanted a mashtun for those occassions when:

1) i wanted to brew high gravity beers. I know eff. will drop on any system, however i'm pretty limited by my BIAB pot size
2) i want the time savings of mashing one batch while boiling another (i dont have another HLT, so i'll have to work something out yet...) as i brew back to back 90% of the time.

Stef


----------



## Nick JD (25/8/12)

MHB said:


> vessel (vsl)
> n.
> 1. A hollow utensil, such as a cup, vase, or pitcher, used as a container, especially for liquids.
> 
> ...



Vessels also hold seamen.


----------



## glenwal (25/8/12)

MHB said:


> vessel (vsl)
> n.
> 1. A hollow utensil, such as a cup, vase, or pitcher, used as a container, especially for liquids.
> 
> ...



contain
Verb:
1.Have or hold (someone or something) within.


I'd say the bag definately has liquid within it (It however doesn't restrain the liquid)


----------



## iralosavic (25/8/12)

I was BIABing for a while, but have recently switched to a three tier gravity system (which I plan to add HERMS capability to in the future.

My reasons are as follows:

1. Despite following all instructions appropriately, the stick element in my BIAB keggle kept scorching the work. Mark went to some length to clarify the cause being a poorly suited heat density of the element. Now I could have got an electrician to connect better suited element up, but this was only the first reason.

2. The keggle would NOT whirlpool, so if the pick up didn't block up, which it often did (and I tried various pick up designs), then I'd be lucky to lose any less than 3-4L to trub. Now this is more vessle specific than a failing of BIAB, but nonetheless being able to whirflic/brewbrite etc is something that I'd place a reasonable significance on for a BIABer.

3. I discovered that simplicity and takingy mind out of the task was the opposite to what I wanted. When I'm not at work I'm chasing after two kids under 2, so when I get to my brewery I want things to be as mentally stimulating and time consuming as possible, simply to justify the time out and to get the biggest "hobby factor" out of it. I enjoy the extra steps and the capacity for greater control and fine tuning. You can't really muck around with grist:water in BIAB, for example. 

Is 3v necessary? No. It just comes down to what your objectives are. There's really no need for anyone to get defensive or offensive to justify their preferences as we all have our own reasons. So my advice is to figure out your own goals and go down the path that best suits.


----------



## Bada Bing Brewery (25/8/12)

I did 50+ BIABS and loved it. I'm now a 3V and use the HERMIT from Nev. It allows precise mashing times and temp control and step mashing is the go. I tried step mashing a few times with BIAB but it was difficult (not impossible). Go the HERMIT bro !! 
Cheers
BBB


----------



## pk.sax (25/8/12)

@ Charst

I've tried the bag + fb a few times. What I found was that trying to get the grain bed to happen IN the bag was a waste of time. As TB points out, the bag is the fb. The pores are too small to allow effective drainage and recirculation to clear.

If you are having to lift the bag to gen it to drain then what is the point? Really.

I have simply dialled back the crush on my mill one slot and won't use a bag in there whatsoever. While it makes grain removal easier it defeats the bring small bits to the top of the filter bed objective of fb construction in a mash tun. It's like a 1 stage air filter in a car, it gets clogged up eventually and continuously. A fb is like a snorkel, yes, it picks up dust/water but that settles out of the way of the air intake and is removed. Roughly speaking.

That all said, if I make a change it'd prolly be a braumeister. Life is too busy and I've not brewed in more than a month, kegs aren't empty yet because I don't drink enough!


----------



## manticle (25/8/12)

MHB said:


> vessel (vsl)
> n.
> 1. A hollow utensil, such as a cup, vase, or pitcher, used as a container, especially for liquids.



apostrophe/əˈpstrəfē
Noun:	
A punctuation mark (') used to indicate possession (e.g., Mark's Homebrew, Mark's Kegable soft drinks)

Cite 
   sahyt/saɪt 
verb (used with object), cited, citing.
1. to quote (a passage, book, author, etc.), especially as an authority: He cited the constitution in his defense.
2. to mention in support, proof, or confirmation; refer to as an example: He cited many instances of abuse of power.


sight 

saɪt
n.
1. The ability to see.
2. The act or fact of seeing: hoping for a sight of land; caught sight of a rare bird.
3. Field of vision.
4. The foreseeable future; prospect: no solution in sight.
5. Mental perception or consideration: We lost sight of the purpose of our visit.
6. Something seen; a view.
7. Something worth seeing; a spectacle: the sights of London.
8. Informal Something unsightly: Your hair is a sight.
9.
a. A device used to assist aim by guiding the eye, as on a firearm or surveying instrument.
b. An aim or observation taken with such a device.
10. An opportunity to observe or inspect.
11. Upper Southern U.S. A large number or quantity: A sight of people were there.
v. sighted, sighting, sights
v.tr.
1. To perceive with the eyes; get sight of: sighted land after 40 days at sea.
2. To observe through a sight or an optical instrument: sight a target.
3. To adjust the sights of (a rifle, for example).
4. To take aim with (a firearm).
v.intr.
1. To direct one's gaze; look carefully.
2. To take aim: sighted along the barrel of the gun


----------



## Crusty (25/8/12)

BEERHOG said:


> that must make k+k the greatest thing in the world. why woud you bother with being obnoxious heating water and mashing and boiling when all you had to do was dump water and some goo in a bucket and still get to the same destination at the end, beer. still got you from a to b didnt it? or really just buy a case of vb its still sorta beer in the end, beats ******* around making it, you get straight to your destination without disturbing anyone. i would rather take my time be obnoxious and enjoy the journey cruising in a nice car rather than treat the ride as just a means to an end and taking the train.



Yeah for sure but once we reach our destination (beer) we would like to be able to drink the stuff. My neighbour makes K&K & is quite proud of his efforts but he admits my AG shits all over his beer. He can't be bothered with the extra effort to make AG so settles for the stuff he makes & is happy to do so, poor soul.


----------



## MHB (25/8/12)

manticle said:


> apostrophe/əˈpstrəfē
> Noun:
> A punctuation mark (') used to indicate possession (e.g., Mark's Homebrew, Mark's Kegable soft drinks)
> 
> ...



Actually the registered business name is Marks Home Brew without an apostrophe, a typo by Fair Trading that I really couldnt be arsed changing.
Wouldnt the possessive form be Marks, after all I am neither pluralising nor leaving out any letters?
Then again Im not really too concerned, I know just how dyslexic I am and am really grateful for spellcheckers, tho than can sometimes do some funny things to words, just glad I can get my point across nowadays, you really should see my handwriting.
Mark


----------



## manticle (25/8/12)

Would only be Marks' if your name was "Marks" rather than Mark, more likely in a surname than a first name. Eg. Ross' home brew, Steven J Marks' home brew etc.


----------



## Barley Belly (25/8/12)

What has punctuation got to do with the benefits of 3V? :icon_offtopic:


----------



## Lakey (25/8/12)

Crusty said:


> That sounds a lot easier than turning on my Urn & adding the grain to the BIAB bag once at temp. How on earth were you doing BIAB before to claim it was the easiest brew day so far? I missed the benefit of clear wort into the boil kettle. Can you explain how a clear wort into the boil kettle somehow makes for a better finished beer. Seriously, I'm curious. Please don't be mislead by what you may have read, a clearer wort into the boil kettle means nothing, absolutely nothing.
> Each to their own for sure but don't be fooled into thinking that the 3V will make you a better beer, it ain't gunna happen. Don't waste your money bro.
> Good luck



Opinions and arseholes mate!!!


----------



## Clutch (25/8/12)

I found that going to 3v has shortened my brew day, but it's mainly all about bragging rights.


----------



## Yob (25/8/12)

shit.. what can I say here? I swing 4V, HERMut(ated) Via BIAB/Manifold Esky MT 4 Level CIP Badass Mo Fo.. :blink: 

I assure you its easier to run than it sounds  but the fact is that systems vary as much as the individual that builds it.. 

We build it..

Beer will come..

1,2,3,4V, K&K, K&B, Partials BIAB... who gives a toss..

Great beer is Great Beer

:icon_drunk:


----------



## Lakey (25/8/12)

iamozziyob said:


> shit.. what can I say here? I swing 4V, HERMut(ated) Via BIAB/Manifold Esky MT 4 Level CIP Badass Mo Fo.. :blink:
> 
> I assure you its easier to run than it sounds  but the fact is that systems vary as much as the individual that builds it..
> 
> ...



Well put!


----------



## MastersBrewery (25/8/12)

iamozziyob said:


> shit.. what can I say here? I swing 4V, HERMut(ated) Via BIAB/Manifold Esky MT 4 Level CIP Badass Mo Fo.. :blink:
> 
> I assure you its easier to run than it sounds  but the fact is that systems vary as much as the individual that builds it..
> 
> ...




I don't think anyone can argue with above, I think most of us have evolved in our brewing an improved along the way, whether it be from simple kits, and adding airation prior to pitching yeast, or going to AG with all the bells, there is always something new to learn and try. Issues of repeatability, controled ferment, water chem, and such come down to attention to detail. How much you put in, is how much you get out. In most cases I think you'll find no matter what system you use or settle with, you will produce great beer if you take the time to keep an eye on the rest of the process, producing good wort is really only half the job done.


----------



## Crusty (25/8/12)

Lakey said:


> Opinions and arseholes mate!!!



I realize everyone has one but it's not my opinion, it's a fact. I can with confidence compare the two methods against each other as I have owned both & brewed frequently with them.

1. Did my 3V rims make a better beer than my BIAB in an urn........Nope!
2. Is it a quicker brew day using the urn as opposed to the 3V.............Yep!
3. Am I a bit pissed I spent $2000.00 more setting up my 3V than I needed to.............Yep!
4. Crystal clear wort to the kettle with 3V, turbid with BIAB. Did this make any difference...........Nope!

Of course this is just my experience & if you wish to head down the 3V route, by all means go for it & all the best to you. You will undoubtedly make some great beer. You won't make better beer though. It will be exactly the same, just a different method to get you there.


----------



## [email protected] (25/8/12)

Crusty said:


> 4. Crystal clear wort to the kettle with 3V, turbid with BIAB. Did this make any difference...........Nope!
> 
> Of course this is just my experience & if you wish to head down the 3V route, by all means go for it & all the best to you. You will undoubtedly make some great beer. You won't make better beer though. It will be exactly the same, just a different method to get you there.



Good on you champ....

When you brew something you want to age with a turbid wort come back and let us know if you think there is any difference?

THE FACTS for my reality are that my biab beers to my palate did not age as well as the beers i am now producing with clear wort into kettle. 
The biab beers were great, had a short peak window then rapidly went down hill. Fine if you drink it all quick.
My beers now are generally more clear and to me are more stable and i am enjoying them more and the process.
This could all be in my head, but there is plenty of evidence out there to suggest that turbid worts not even half of what you get with biab can lead to longer term stability issues.

I made some great beers with biab and recommend it to anyone wanting to brew some nice beer and i still use it for very small batches where i am just experimenting and using the esky / copper would not work. In general though i now find biab a bit unrefined in more ways than one, messy and wasteful.


----------



## Crusty (25/8/12)

Beer4U said:


> Good on you champ....
> 
> When you brew something you want to age with a turbid wort come back and let us know if you think there is any difference?
> 
> ...



Are you bottling turbid fermented beer?
Turbid wort into the boil means jack shit, absolutely nothing. Crystal clear wort ends up in my no chill cube & Kopperfloc is the only fining agent used on my brew days. As far as drinking a so called turbid aged beer, I have a batch of SNPA that was BIAB & is 5 months old. Any off flavours or undesireables in that?.......................NOPE!
Is my SNPA brewed & bottled in February this year via 3V better than the above BIAB beer?.................Nope! No difference whatsoever & both crystal clear. 
The success of BIAB in competitions proves without doubt the lack of importance of clear runnings. 

Your results differ to mine & whatever works for you is fine by me. I made the switch from 3V to BIAB looking for a more simple & less complicated brew day & get excellent results. So the switch for me was the right one & I'm glad I did.


----------



## Brewman_ (25/8/12)

Edit: Not much science to many of these comments.
Go for what your budget / time allows.
Thats enough!

Fear.


----------



## Nick JD (25/8/12)

MHB said:


> Wouldnt the possessive form be Marks, after all I am neither pluralising nor leaving out any letters?



If you and your two brothers all named Mark were opening a homebrew shop, then Marks' homebrew would be perfect.

Getting to grips with the basic rules of communication is the first step to pretending you're smart.


----------



## jyo (25/8/12)

I like my 3V ghetto gravity set up because I get to climb up a step ladder to fill the HLT. This is a perfect opportunity to drop my strides and stare into the lounge room until the missus notices and looks on in disapproval. 
Granted, I could stand outside filling up a single vessel BIAB rig and drop my shorts, but it is comically superior when standing on a step ladder.


----------



## kelbygreen (26/8/12)

jyo said:


> I like my 3V ghetto gravity set up because I get to climb up a step ladder to fill the HLT. This is a perfect opportunity to drop my strides and stare into the lounge room until the missus notices and looks on in disapproval.
> Granted, I could stand outside filling up a single vessel BIAB rig and drop my shorts, but it is comically superior when standing on a step ladder.



now this is the most informative post yet!. love it


----------



## Stubbie (26/8/12)

kelbygreen said:


> now this is the most informative post yet!. love it



+1. :lol: If ever there was irrefutable scientific evidence.............


----------



## robbo5253 (26/8/12)

jyo said:


> I like my 3V ghetto gravity set up because I get to climb up a step ladder to fill the HLT. This is a perfect opportunity to drop my strides and stare into the lounge room until the missus notices and looks on in disapproval.
> Granted, I could stand outside filling up a single vessel BIAB rig and drop my shorts, but it is comically superior when standing on a step ladder.


 :icon_offtopic: 
I thought the benefit of the step ladder was so you could see the neighbors missus where as with BIAB you can only see your own?


----------



## MHB (26/8/12)

Nick JD said:


> If you and your two brothers all named Mark were opening a homebrew shop, then Marks' homebrew would be perfect.
> 
> Getting to grips with the basic rules of communication is the first step to pretending you're smart.



What a shame, all those years wasted studding brewing passing exams and trying (in general) to contribute something meaningful, when what I should have been doing is studying up on punctuation, so I could post reams of irrelevant opinionated grammatically correct shit.
Thanks for the advice Nick, do you think if I study real hard for a couple of years I could pretend to sound as smart as you, I mean without having a lobotomy or beating myself around the head with a bat?
Mark


----------



## Nick JD (26/8/12)

MHB said:


> Thanks for the advice Nick



Hey, no worries.


----------



## Bribie G (26/8/12)

Oh my that big horrible unmanageable bag, so huge, so massive, so wet and hot, that's going to put your back out and ..............







I mean, seriously ............ :lol: 

HTFU princesses, do you need mumsy to wipe your liddle pooey bum as well?

edit: and that's a six k bill or what's left of it - taken ten minutes ago


----------



## Batz (26/8/12)

Bribie G said:


> HTFU princesses, do you need mumsy to wipe your liddle pooey bum as well?




You and I both know someone who does.


----------



## Bribie G (26/8/12)

yes, wipe away with abandon ( I was about to use the old term "gay abandon" but probably a wrong choice or words in the 21st century)


----------



## Jay Cee (26/8/12)

Bribie G said:


> Oh my that big horrible unmanageable bag, so huge, so massive, so wet and hot, that's going to put your back out
> 
> edit: and that's a six k bill or what's left of it - taken ten minutes ago



You appear so strong of forearm, when the skyhook assistant is omitted from the photo :lol:


----------



## Cocko (26/8/12)

Bribie G said:


> edit: and that's a six k bill or what's left of it - taken ten minutes ago



So one advantage of 3v kicks into play when you get over the single batch size then yeah?

I would say, if it was a 20kg / quad batch bill, the hassle of managing it with a bag [impossible] or bags [IRC QLDKev did] would be a pain in the butt. Lifting our 4 bags, draining 4 bags, sparging 4 bags etc...

One advantage of 3v is the actions are the same for any size rig.

2c.


----------



## Yob (26/8/12)

Cocko said:


> is the actions are the same for any size rig



just cant help yourself can ya :lol:


----------



## Cocko (26/8/12)

iamozziyob said:


> Cocko said:
> 
> 
> > Well, ****....
> ...


----------



## Yob (26/8/12)

No.. its ok man.. I understand.. it's like cocko turetts syndrome.. it's OK to be sick..


----------



## Batz (26/8/12)

Bribie G said:


> yes, wipe away with abandon ( I was about to use the old term "gay abandon" but probably a wrong choice or words in the 21st century)




ok we should both leave it there mate.  
Get your arse up here for a beer before you leave Qld but.


----------



## Cocko (26/8/12)

iamozziyob said:


> No.. its ok man.. I understand.. it's like cocko turetts syndrome.. it's OK to be sick..



HAHA!

I am sick   Sh&T B&TCH F%CK!


But seriously, I stand by my point, I am not just shit stirring - the topic of the thread is Benefits of 3v Brew Rig

I pointed one out.



Now I will use the word **** to offend any one reading this who thinks that word lowers my intelligence.

Ok, now I am going to bed


----------



## Bribie G (26/8/12)

Jay Cee said:


> You appear so strong of forearm, when the skyhook assistant is omitted from the photo :lol:
> 
> View attachment 56711



Skyhooks are gay


----------



## Aydos (26/8/12)

I've been to bribie's brew day and I have seen him lift a bag single handed! :beer:


----------



## Cocko (26/8/12)

aydos said:


> I've been to bribie's brew day and I have seen him lift a bag single handed! :beer:



WOW! That must be about 9-10kg, thats the same as a slab of stubbies!!

He must stand like 15ft tall and have arms like trees! :blink: 

WTF! <_<


----------



## MHB (26/8/12)

Trying to drag this thread back on topic (kicking and screaming)
This is my personal opinion; the advantages of BIAB are fundamentally all about cost.
There are some space, time, convenience... advantages that cant be ignored but the big advantage is cost.
Lower up front get into AG which is I think fantastic, the more brewers making the change the better.

In terms of brewing I think 3V is the winner on all fronts
More control of Liquor to Grist, L:G makes some big changes to how the same grain bill ends up.
More efficient sparging, (real sparging not batch)
Much better wort clarification during recirculation giving lower protein and particulate matter in the kettle
Lower kettle losses to trub
More and cleaner wort to the fermenter

I know a lot of BIAB brewers will be turning red and saying that their beer is wonderful.
True some BIAB brewers are making pretty amazing beer, each of the points above dont make the beer bad, added together it just means you can make better beer on a 3V system, not that you will nor that you cant make good beer BIAB

I get a lot of beer (wonderful to awful and everything in between) being brought in for comment, I think I am getting to be able to tell BIAB and poorly recirculated beer by taste, there is a certain thick dextrins to an almost a glueyness to the worst of them, these are beers that almost invariably show a lot more chill haze and prove to be the least stable, and generally dont attenuate as well as they could.
Most strongly noticeable in beers made on systems that are too small for the volume being made (see L:G) brewing High Gravity and diluting is not the best option.

I strongly support BIAB as a starting point, proviso being that your pot is at least 1/2 bigger than your brew volume, preferably double
As a starting point the classic all in full volume version of BIAB is I believe the best learning arrangement, and under no circumstances squeeze the bag I know its nearly impossible to resist the temptation, but try, that white stuff that comes out is mostly very big protein gels and you really dont want them in your kettle.

Ok if the dedicated (sic fanatical) BIABers want to hold a burning in effigy I was cleaning out the wardrobe this weekend send a 5Kg post bag and I will return some old T-shirts and jeans... just for authenticity.
Mark


----------



## jyo (26/8/12)

robbo5253 said:


> :icon_offtopic:
> I thought the benefit of the step ladder was so you could see the neighbors missus where as with BIAB you can only see your own?



Mate, you haven't met my missus neighbour's missus.


----------



## warra48 (26/8/12)

I like my 3V gravity assisted system, and I'm sticking with it.
Don't care about the pros and cons. I made the decision 5 years ago to set up a 3V system, and I'm not investing any further funds to change anything.
Plus, I'm happy with the beers I brew.
At the end of the day, that's all that matters to me.



jyo said:


> Mate, you haven't met my missus neighbour's missus.



No, maybe he hasn't, but he's seen mine, and she's definitely worth a look.


----------



## Wolfy (27/8/12)

MHB said:


> Lower up front get into AG which is I think fantastic, the more brewers making the change the better.
> 
> In terms of brewing I think 3V is the winner on all fronts


On page 2 of this thread you said that BIAB was essentially derived as a cheap copy of a BM system, and that you considered the BM the pinnacle of home brewing setups, yet today it the prize goes to 3V?.

Wouldn't a BIAB setup (with PID and pump, or maybe one of the DIY-BM systems) be a better approximation of a BM than a 3V system?
Doesn't a BM system suffer all the disadvantages that you listed as to why 3V has advantages over BIAB (L:G, sparge, losses, etc), while the BM also misses out on the cost advantage?
If not where and why does the BM fit in, and what about 3.5V brewing (RIMS/HERMS)?

(I'm not taking the piss or being argumentative, it's just I've not ever used BIAB or BM so I'm genuinely curious as to how and why you'd fit those systems in).


----------



## MHB (27/8/12)

I said no such thing - go back and read my post again - I take exception to being misquoted to support anyone's opinion!

_"On page 2 of this thread you said that BIAB was essentially derived as a cheap copy of a BM system, and that you considered the BM the pinnacle of home brewing setups, yet today it the prize goes to 3V?."_

I said_ "it was the arrival of the Braumeister on the scene here in Australia that kicked off the whole BIAB thing."_

That is a long way from _"BIAB was essentially derived as a cheap copy of a BM system" _The only commonality is that both are/were single vessel, essentially full volume systems and that the expended malt is lifted out of the wort. 

In my post on page 2, I was very careful not to say that the BM was anything other than what I brew on, that I like it is true, but that a 3V + an extra pot would be my ideal system if all constraints were lifted.

Again that is not saying "_that you considered the BM the pinnacle of home brewing setups"_

I believe I generally respect your posts and pay a lot of attention to your work on yeast; I ask that you do me the courtesy of going back and re-reading my post objectively



In the post above I was trying to stay on topic and answering the question in the OP by directly comparing BIAB and 3V, without adding other systems into the mix



Wouldn't a BIAB setup (with PID and pump, or maybe one of the DIY-BM systems) be a better approximation of a BM than a 3V system?
Doesn't a BM system suffer all the disadvantages that you listed as to why 3V has advantages over BIAB (L:G, sparge, losses, etc), while the BM also misses out on the cost advantage?
If not where and why does the BM fit in, and what about 3.5V brewing (RIMS/HERMS)?



To touch on your other questions, what a Braumeister shares with a 3V system is a permeable bed, the long recirculation of the wort (better compared to a HERMS/RIMS system than conventional 3V) through the full depth of the bed carries fines and very high molecular weight protein gels as they condense until they are trapped in the natural filter bed that forms during recirculation, this eliminates them from being eluted into the kettle.

BIAB being a very fine grist and not building a filter through recirculation lacks this ability and the result is more turbid wort this is one of the widely acknowledged shortcomings of BIAB.

BIAB started as a very simple full volume system, in an attempt to fix some of the shortcomings there are a plethora of spin-off modifications going on, frankly from my observation, when you start adding pumps, recirculating, mix in a PID what have you, you are trying to make a Braumeister because you are too sodding tight to buy one.

The idea that a Braumeister is too expensive is a very subjective one, in any other hobby you could name $3500 isn't exactly big bickeys, I mean you wouldn't want to think of any hobby that included motor sport, sailing (well anything that floats displaces its own volume in $20 notes), flying Christ even a remote control plane can cost more than $3500 and people stack them every day, Golf appears to be a bottomless money pit...

If you have the right skill set and happen to be very handy you can build something like a Braumeister for about half of the cost, but even if you spent $4000 got a 50L BM, Fridge with controller and all the extras brewing is the only hobby where you stand a chance of recouping the total investment in savings and get to drink world class beer.

Do you have any idea how sick of hearing people whinge about the price of Braumeisters I get?

Braumeisters have their limitations (as do all systems) they also have most of the advantages of a 3V, with mash recirculation, stepped temperature control, in a small footprint professionally designed and built in Germany to the standard you expect from German engineering,

Fark now you have dragged me OT I do love my Braumeister and for very good reasons but it's far from the only option.

Mark


----------



## Lakey (27/8/12)

Bribie G said:


> Skyhooks are gay



''Move over son gimme that bag''


''BRIBIE ANGRY!!!''


----------



## Jono_w (27/8/12)

3 Vessel = More Stainless Bling, need I say more.


----------



## Crusty (27/8/12)

MHB said:


> BIAB being a very fine grist and not building a filter through recirculation lacks this ability and the result is more turbid wort this is one of the widely acknowledged shortcomings of BIAB.




Well I will argue about this point till the cows come home. A shortcoming, I think not. Indeed BIAB will produce a more turbid wort than recirculation through a grain bed & the downside of that is trub loss. This is not a drama though & can be managed & reduced to a minimum on a well set up BIAB brew rig. I use loose hop pellets & a hop bag for my hops & on a typical batch size of 23lt, I lose 2.5lt to trub. I think this figure is in the ball park against any Braumeister users out there & better than most 3V users so I can't see a turbid wort as a problem. Did I mention 86% efficiency into the fermenter? I constantly read threads where people for some reason need to achieve a crystal clear wort into the boil kettle & myself included, spend / spent shit loads of money trying to do just that & it just so happens that it doesn't matter, not one bit. I have no temp control, recirculation or anything else on my 40lt urn but can produce an identical brew to the one previous, tomorrow, next week, next month or next year. Repeatability, crystal clear wort to the boil kettle, full on PID temp control are all required to make better beer is a total misconception, it's hogwash!


----------



## RdeVjun (27/8/12)

MHB said:


> I get a lot of beer (wonderful to awful and everything in between) being brought in for comment, I think I am getting to be able to tell BIAB and poorly recirculated beer by taste, there is a certain thick dextrins to an almost a glueyness to the worst of them, these are beers that almost invariably show a lot more chill haze and prove to be the least stable, and generally dont attenuate as well as they could.
> Most strongly noticeable in beers made on systems that are too small for the volume being made (see L:G) brewing High Gravity and diluting is not the best option.


Mark, are you involved in competition judging and if not, why so? It would be disappointing to to see those particular talents under- utilised, or indeed if other judges might be missing faults. 
I think its great that your palate has developed to such a degree, it gives me hope that my own might really graduate beyond primary school one day!

Not sure if you're aware but last year at BABB Annual one club member entered six MaxiBIABs and every one of them earned a medal (four bronze, two silver IIRC), plus one first and two third placings. (MaxiBIAB is the volume- limited, high gravity, dilution BIAB method, I presume that's what you're talking about.) Repeated medal and placing results over a number of years lead me to believe it is simply an adequate* technique, while the continued positive assessments by our peers and across various competitions largely eliminate the possibility that it was a chance occurrence, likewise if the method had fundamental flaws or the judging was defective.
* Note, I deliberately chose not to use the term 'best', just 'adequate'; without much context surrounding then even more so.


----------



## glenwal (27/8/12)

Nick JD said:


> Unfortunately his retail agenda is influencing his posts - and that's a sad thing for the AHB.



But isn't the why there is the retailer flag that adds the red "Retailer" text under there name.



disclamer: I'm not saying that i agree or disagree with any comments made about any particular retailer, i am purely commenting as a general statement about retailers posting in general.


----------



## Malted (27/8/12)

Glen W said:


> i am purely commenting as a general statement about retailers posting in general.


Yeah why would a retailer retail something? Doesn't make sense does it. Maybe some folks are professional brewers but don't get paid for it? It gets worse, imagine amateurs being amateurish and letting that influence their posts - that's a sad thing for the AHB. 








h34r:  :lol:


----------



## Bribie G (27/8/12)

I was actually going to post re competition wins for BIAB brews but RdeV beat me to it. As more and more BIAB brews get entered into comps then the results will, ultimately, speak for themselves. 

Watch out in the NSW State Comp next year B) B) B) B)


----------



## adraine (27/8/12)

Malted said:


> imagine amateurs being amateurish and letting that influence their posts - that's a sad thing for the AHB.



Hence the reason im staying out of this little debate


----------



## mattric (27/8/12)

As someone that has done one BIAB and not seen a 3v brew rig outside of the internet, I am mighty confused with this thread. 

There appears to be no clear cut X is better than Y but it's down to personal preference.

Is there a place where one could go and help in a brew day to see what actually takes place in a 3V brew rig?


----------



## Bribie G (27/8/12)

It would be helpful if you could put your location in your sidebar


----------



## Malted (27/8/12)

mattric said:


> There appears to be no clear cut X is better than Y but it's down to personal preference.



You appear to have interpreted it correctly.


----------



## black_labb (27/8/12)

actually it is clear that 3v is far superior. The difference is 3v you have more stuff on your brewing stand to take cover behind when the poo flinging starts. 

Though if you stay out of the shitfight then yes it does come down to personal preference.


----------



## mattric (27/8/12)

That it would eb handy to have my location... Sorry about that.


----------



## MHB (27/8/12)

I really have bent over backwards to highlight what I see as the strengths and weakness in effectively three systems, I started on a 3V, have done BIAB and I now brew on a Braumeister.
All of them have their advantages and disadvantages, without being one eyed about it and trying to be fair when doing the comparison between BIAB and 3V I believe that 3V is the clear winner.
I have already stated that you can and that people do make great beer on all three, I think its harder to brew really good beer BIAB, and have already said that BIAB is a really good way to start.

What do you want me to do - Lie and give something other than my honest opinion

While I have been writing this 4 people have been in and out of the shop - the brew in the Braumeister is ticking along totally unattended in 10-15 minutes it will beep at me and I will go and turn it off one of the things I like about the BM is that it is the only way I can fit brewing into my week. Imagine owning a home brew shop and being too dam busy to brew, with the Braumeister I can brew what is not to like about that!

My critique of small volume concentrated worts is based on nothing other than observation, and researching what I observe, it has nothing whatsoever to do with personalities; nor what I sell. If I came out and said BIAB was the clear winner would I be getting the same shit from the 3V guys?
Seriously I doubt it.
Someone (other than me) needs to sit down and have a long hard look at the effect of L:G ratios has on wort, particularly the dextrin to fermentable ratios of the finisher wort, it goes a long way to explaining why Nick has often said that 10% sugar improves the beer. The other point being I still sell Malt and Hops, thats my core business and yes we sell a lot more Bags than Braumeisters my advice to people starting out is consistent with what I posted here, Full volume makes it easier to make better beer.

FYI, I had the (mixed) pleasure of judging a small flight at the NSW state comp this year only 6 beers but Baltic Porter is always fun, I say mixed there were 3 Forty Point plus beers (unalloyed pleasure) in the flight and a couple that needed serious help, even managed to stay within a couple of points of my co judge.
Mark


----------



## Nick JD (27/8/12)

MHB said:


> Someone (other than me) needs to sit down and have a long hard look at the effect of L:G ratios has on wort, particularly the dextrin to fermentable ratios of the finisher wort, it goes a long way to explaining why Nick has often said that 10% sugar improves the beer.



I use the same L:G ratios as 3V brewers.


----------



## bigfridge (27/8/12)

Crusty said:


> Well I will argue about this point till the cows come home. A shortcoming, I think not. Indeed BIAB will produce a more turbid wort than recirculation through a grain bed & the downside of that is trub loss. This is not a drama though & can be managed & reduced to a minimum on a well set up BIAB brew rig. I use loose hop pellets & a hop bag for my hops & on a typical batch size of 23lt, I lose 2.5lt to trub. I think this figure is in the ball park against any Braumeister users out there & better than most 3V users so I can't see a turbid wort as a problem. Did I mention 86% efficiency into the fermenter? I constantly read threads where people for some reason need to achieve a crystal clear wort into the boil kettle & myself included, spend / spent shit loads of money trying to do just that & it just so happens that it doesn't matter, not one bit. I have no temp control, recirculation or anything else on my 40lt urn but can produce an identical brew to the one previous, tomorrow, next week, next month or next year. Repeatability, crystal clear wort to the boil kettle, full on PID temp control are all required to make better beer is a total misconception, it's hogwash!



Simple answer to a tyranical rant - lipids.

Read any professional brewing text ( I mean textbooks subject to peer review and and not just a book for homebrewers, written by homebrewers or commercial interests) and you will learn that delivering clear wort into the kettle is the single most important step in ensuring clean flavours in your beer. The only exception to this is lambics where a trubid wort gives the nutrients required by wild yeast and bacteria.

I would be willing to argue discuss this point with you but in order to make it fair you will need to show that you have at least 20 years brewing experience and spent at least $1,000 on brewing textbooks and education. I have 30 years and spent around $5,000 but I am willing to go easy on you.

<_<


----------



## Nick JD (27/8/12)

bigfridge said:


> Simple answer to a tyranical rant - lipids.



Your education cost you five grand? Top work. 

Your honorary doctorate is in the mail... 

BTW - can we have some references to fats and their impact on beer? Most brewers leave the hot break behind.


----------



## bigfridge (27/8/12)

Nick JD said:


> Your education cost you five grand? Top work.



There you go again - misquoting for effect ! :angry: 

I have NOT spent five grand on education - unless you count the cost of buying commercial beers for beer judging.  




Nick JD said:


> BTW - can we have some references to fats and their impact on beer? Most brewers leave the hot break behind.



Nope - that would be off topic ! 

My contribution to this thread was concerning lipids - which are different to fats and even fatty acids. When you are confident that you can understand the difference, you may, just may get some benefit from this article

"It is generally accepted that lauter turbidity is of outstanding importance in terms of beer quality. Particularly, the importance of a clear lauter wort has often
been emphasized. Nielsen summarizes the undesired components of turbid worts as follows: lipids which are believed to contribute to beer staling and foam
deterioration; anthocyanogens derived from malt which cause a decrease in the non-biological stability of the finished beer, with the content of thocyanogens in wort depending on the contact time of wort with grist; flavour compounds which directly affect the flavour quality; and starch since it affects both the biological and nonbiological stability adversely."

Need I say more ?


----------



## glenwal (27/8/12)

bigfridge said:


> I have 30 years and spent around $5,000






bigfridge said:


> I have NOT spent five grand on education



:unsure: <_< :huh:


----------



## Nick JD (27/8/12)

bigfridge said:


> Need I say more ?



Yes, I think you should. Your quote is nonsense.

Try this - from the paper you referenced.

_Although the majority of the lipids are removed during
boiling, higher levels in sweet wort (kettle-up) also caused
higher concentrations in cast wort. However, the levels did
not differ that much afterwards.47 Similarly, *Eils reported
that fatty acid contents in worts after whirlpool were comparable,
due to an efficient hot trub separation, even if the
lauter worts contained variable concentrations*.32 According
to Graf 35, an efficient removal of hot trub and cold
trub seems to decrease the difference between turbid and
clear lautering in long-chain fatty acid concentration without
eliminating it completely. Further effects of cold trub
removal on beer quality are highlighted in more detail by
Dickel et al.23,24 For turbid kettle-up worts, separation
problems in terms of precipitation and sedimentation of
hot trub occurred during whirlpool operation.80,90,91,111 The
more turbid the kettle-up wort, the higher the trub content
of wort and the worse the separation in whirlpool, leading
to higher extract losses._

If you'd like me to explain that, just ask. Until then ... Cloudy wort is fixed with kettle finings.

You need to get $4999 back.


----------



## real_beer (27/8/12)

BPH87 said:


> Hey brewers,
> I am fairly new with brewing have only knocked over 8 BIAB's so far, just about to drink my first 2 beers this weekend. I am really enjoying the brewing process with biab but I would like to think that it would be far cooler on a 3v system.
> That said I am interested in knowing what benefits brewing on a 3 vessel gas system are?
> Cheers Ben


You might find the info you want to here:
http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...c=42248&hl=

Lots of imagination, enthusiasm, & encouragement between brewers who've built all kinds of cool rigs.

Cheers


----------



## manticle (27/8/12)

bigfridge said:


> My contribution to this thread was concerning lipids - which are different to fats and even fatty acids. When you are confident that you can understand the difference, you may, just may get some benefit from this article



Are you sure? I was under the impression that fats and fatty acids are categorised as lipids (as are other compounds).

http://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reus...tJml/lipids.htm



bigfridge said:


> "It is generally accepted that lauter turbidity is of outstanding importance in terms of beer quality. Particularly, the importance of a clear lauter wort has often
> been emphasized. Nielsen summarizes the undesired components of turbid worts as follows: lipids which are believed to contribute to beer staling and foam
> deterioration; anthocyanogens derived from malt which cause a decrease in the non-biological stability of the finished beer, with the content of thocyanogens in wort depending on the contact time of wort with grist; flavour compounds which directly affect the flavour quality; and starch since it affects both the biological and nonbiological stability adversely."
> 
> Need I say more ?




Probably. I've read that article before and found some of the varied results from different researchers quite interesting. I would quote all the relevant text but there's a lot of it and if I were to be selective, it would appear as if I were trying to use the article to say the opposite.

However, in the section on flavour quality, there are a number of researchers suggesting that turbid wort and the impact of lipids on flavour quality has been over-estimated. There's others who have found differently but it isn't cut and dried.

Even the flavour stability section, which suggests that much research is in favour of clear wort ends with the following



> On this point Schur and Pfenninger[90] partly disagree as they found that beers produced from extended lautering and very clear worts performed
> the worst in taste testings of fresh and aged beers.



The section on non-biological stability suggests


> There are only few papers dealing with the effect of
> turbid lautering on the non-biological stability of the resulting beer. Turbid lautering is *assumed* to cause a lower
> non-biological stability [80,90] and the reason for this might be that turbid worts sweep along more anthocyanogens resulting in a higher affinity for the formation of haze in bottled beer.


 which is far from conclusive (my italics).

The section on foam stability is also inconclusive (some say poor, some say improved)



> According to Schur and Pfenninger [90] and Anness and Reed [6] , turbid lautering or lipids cause a slightly lower foam stability in the resulting
> beers. In contrast to this, Eils [32] reported that turbid lautering and/or higher contents of oxygen during lautering or lower intensity of wort boiling caused an increase of coagulable nitrogen in wort and of foam stability of beer. According to Schuster [91] , when lipids extracted from spent grains were added to a fermentation the resulting beer foam was not negatively affected but rather was stabilized. Even after the third fermentation cycle no deterioration
> was detectable compared to the control. Thus, Schuster [91]concludes that lipids derived from turbid lautering do not
> have a negative influence on foam stability



The article's conclusion again is inconclusive but suggests some turbidity may aid aspects of beer and that super bright worts may encounter some fermentation problems. It is worth re-reading in that light, particularly when it ends with this:



> With these two aspects in mind, the question arises whether the threat of a quality loss, possibly originating from lauter turbidity, is
> nowadays overestimated. Since a proper fermentation is a premise for a high beer quality, it has to be questioned whether the today’s lauter turbidity may be too low to provide a proper yeast nutrition. Therefore, it seems to be worthwhile to discuss a new statement of preferring a
> moderate lauter turbidity, within the range of lauter turbidities currently observed, instead of the minimum turbidity that is technically realizable today in order to provide proper yeast nutrition and to minimise adverse quality effects at the same time


.

I read this article some time ago when I was looking for research into the effect of cold break on finished beer (I ferment on top of mine and am therefore interested to know what lab based effects if any, have been observed/documented). I found it to have a very interesting perspective on the whole 'wort must be bright' idea that warrants further discussion.


----------



## dougsbrew (27/8/12)

Glen W said:


> I have 30 years and spent around $5,000
> 
> I have NOT spent five grand on education
> 
> :unsure: <_< :huh:



which part are you struggling to understand. where did it say he spent $5000 on education? 
what is the purpose of your post? dont u like it when someone has something intellectual to say?


----------



## [email protected] (27/8/12)

Hmm this thread just wants to keep going heh.

Getting on a bit in age but this is also a good read - http://morebeer.com/brewingtechniques/libr...2.2/miller.html


----------



## glenwal (27/8/12)

dougsbrew said:


> dont u like it when someone has something intellectual to say?



nope - i end up confused when people can't spell it out for me. While we're at it, what does pitch mean?


----------



## Dan Pratt (27/8/12)

Crusty said:


> I realize everyone has one but it's not my opinion, it's a fact. I can with confidence compare the two methods against each other as I have owned both & brewed frequently with them.
> 
> 1. Did my 3V rims make a better beer than my BIAB in an urn........Nope!
> 2. Is it a quicker brew day using the urn as opposed to the 3V.............Yep!
> ...


Just a bit curious, did you go from biab single infusion to 3v multi step mashing or did you continue with single infusions with maybe a mash out? Maybe you did multi step with biab, yes no?


----------



## Crusty (27/8/12)

bigfridge said:


> Simple answer to a tyranical rant - lipids.
> 
> Read any professional brewing text ( I mean textbooks subject to peer review and and not just a book for homebrewers, written by homebrewers or commercial interests) and you will learn that delivering clear wort into the kettle is the single most important step in ensuring clean flavours in your beer. The only exception to this is lambics where a trubid wort gives the nutrients required by wild yeast and bacteria.
> 
> ...



Discuss away. Professional brewing text from who? Jamil? Donny? Brad Smith perhaps. All three advocates for typical 3V batch or fly sparge methods. Why do you think Brad Smith added BIAB to his BeerSmith software programme? These guys continually voiced their concerns about hot side aeration, low efficiency with full volume mashing & high liquor to grain ratios only to be somewhat shocked & stunned that it's quite possible to brew award winning beers without the above concerns with a so called entry level brewing technique like BIAB. So really, I don't give a shit how many years you have been at it & how much money you spent on reading, obviously outdated literature, it all comes down to what works best for you. I don't read jack shit. I get in the shed & brew it & my results are typical of all the BIAB brewers out there. My beers on my PID controlled Rims were no better than my BIAB beers at all. I got excited about how clear the wort went into my kettle & thought that 3V was the be all & end all with all my fancy gear. I soon realized I wasted $2,000.00 on fancy shit & all I needed was my entry level BIAB equipment.


----------



## Crusty (27/8/12)

Pratty1 said:


> Just a bit curious, did you go from biab single infusion to 3v multi step mashing or did you continue with single infusions with maybe a mash out? Maybe you did multi step with biab, yes no?



I went from 2V, easky mash tun, HLT was also my boil kettle. Single infusion, mash out & double batch sparge. I tried a couple of times to do infusion step mashes & eventually omitted the mash out as well. I was led to believe that I needed more precise temp control so went to 3V, PID controlled Rims. I did single infusions with mash out, multiple infusions with mash out etc. Beers were good but no better than the esky mash tun with no temp control. I had a few stuck sparges with my Rims as well & got a bit pissed off with that. Sold up & bought the Urn & bag. The single most intelligent decision I have made in my short 5yr All Grain career. I am extremely happy with my beers & the simplicity of brew day is fantastic. I no chill as well & have never had any problems thus far.


----------



## Bribie G (27/8/12)

Well I'll just have to keep drinking my lipid infested chill hazed beers as I can't afford an esky.


----------



## manticle (27/8/12)

Crusty said:


> Professional brewing text from who?



He means peer reviewed scientific articles on brewing such as the one linked to.

Jamil is a homebrewer writing for homebrewers (although now he has turned professional).

There is a difference, although I believe both have validity and relevance to the homebrewing community. Sometimes people forget that most professional and peer reviewed brewing literature is based around large scale commercial brewing, the majority of which results in pale lagers. Not every single thing from brewing literature is necessarily directly translatable to a small scale.

Add to that that science (of any and all persuasions) is not an immovable body of facts so much as an ever growing, ever changing and ever evolving group of hypotheses and theories which are tested and contested for repeatability - something that lends weight or evidence in support of an idea - not something that should be pushed as dogmatic or irrefutable fact.

It's surprising when many of those who are most qualified to discuss science, refuse to do so because they believe it to be immutable. Good science (and good scientists) remain sceptical and should always be prepared to think laterally and critically evaluate.


----------



## MHB (27/8/12)

manticle said:


> He means peer reviewed scientific articles on brewing such as the one linked to.
> 
> Jamil is a homebrewer writing for homebrewers (although now he has turned professional).
> 
> ...



Actually that is I believe the crux of the problem, when anything other than the assertion BIAB is best is put forward, no matter the basis nor the evidence presented the reply is personal attacks, strident claims that BIAB is best and a total refusal to even discuss the possibility that other approaches to brewing have any merit.
If BIAB is better cheaper faster and makes better beer, Im sure there is someone out there who would like to save a couple of couple of tens or even hundreds of thousands on their brewery start-up.
Call me when the first BIAB commercial brewery opens for business until then couldnt be arsed reading any more of this shit, nor Nicks personal jibes
if you cant play the ball play the man, has always struck me as the most cowardly and least intelligent way to engage in any discussion, particularly one like this were all of us are ultimately just aiming to make better beer.


----------



## manticle (27/8/12)

MHB said:


> BIAB started as a very simple full volume system, in an attempt to fix some of the shortcomings there are a plethora of spin-off modifications going on, frankly from my observation, when you start adding pumps, recirculating, mix in a PID what have you, you are trying to make a Braumeister because you are too sodding tight to buy one.
> 
> The idea that a Braumeister is too expensive is a very subjective one, in any other hobby you could name $3500 isn't exactly big bickeys, I mean you wouldn't want to think of any hobby that included motor sport, sailing (well anything that floats displaces its own volume in $20 notes), flying Christ even a remote control plane can cost more than $3500 and people stack them every day, Golf appears to be a bottomless money pit...
> 
> ...



I've said it before and I'll say it again - there are many, many homebrewers who simply do not have available to them the funds to spend on a system like a sabco or a braumeister. Tightarsedness has nothing to do with it and is about as relevant as golf, sailing or moonwalking, none of which are hobbies that people with low incomes who are interested in making beer probably involve themselves with either (although you can play golf for <$20 down the local public golf course if you want).

You sell them. You use them and endorse them from experience. Fair enough.

They are still comparatively expensive for people who don't have the funds. That's not difficult to understand and is also fair enough.

I fry my meat in a shitty pan I picked up from a workplace years ago on a shitty stove that I'm stuck with in my shitty rental home. I could buy really expensive equipment if I had the cash and the inclination but not having either doesn't make me a tight arse. Lucky I actually know how to cook so I can make do with what I have and still cook excellent food. I'd rather spend the cash I do have on good ingredients.

Thought you were a lefty?


----------



## manticle (27/8/12)

MHB said:


> Actually that is I believe the crux of the problem, when anything other than the assertion BIAB is best is put forward, no matter the basis nor the evidence presented the reply is personal attacks, strident claims that BIAB is best and a total refusal to even discuss the possibility that other approaches to brewing have any merit.
> If BIAB is better cheaper faster and makes better beer, I’m sure there is someone out there who would like to save a couple of couple of tens or even hundreds of thousands on their brewery start-up.
> Call me when the first BIAB commercial brewery opens for business – until then – couldn’t be arsed reading any more of this shit, nor Nicks personal jibes
> “if you can’t play the ball play the man”, has always struck me as the most cowardly and least intelligent way to engage in any discussion, particularly one like this were all of us are ultimately just aiming to make better beer.



I'm deliberately not entering the discussion about which is better. I've also not entered into any personal attacks nor played men instead of balls. Dismissing the possibility of discussing anything because they might not have spent enough on textbooks is akin to ad hominem argument though.

The scientific article was linked in support of the concept that 'clear wort = better beer' but reading the article thoroughly, suggests it is not definitively asserting that at all. That's worthy of further discussion, outside the petty crap that always comes up in 'which is better threads'. At the very least, it warrants a response from bigfridge who made one of the most arrogant statements I've yet seen on this forum only to show his comprehension of the article _he_ linked to was sadly lacking. Admission that a re-read would do him some good and an apology for being a downright arsehole would go a long way. He may have 30 years brewing experience but that's not going to get him a nobel prize. I have about 4 years and have spent a few hundred dollars. By the time I'm much older, I'll have more and will have spent more. That means diddly squat, in and of itself. I have previously respected Dave's contribution to the forum (and his knowledge and experience) but that kind of attitude detracts massively from the positives.

As for BIAB commercial brewery - that's as spurious an argument as looking for a commercial no chill brewery. Just because something isn't workable on a commercial scale, doesn't make it unworkable on a homebrew scale. There's many things I do at home that are simply not feasible for a large scale commercial operation, both brewing and non-brewing related.


----------



## Crusty (27/8/12)

MHB said:


> Actually that is I believe the crux of the problem, when anything other than the assertion BIAB is best is put forward, no matter the basis nor the evidence presented the reply is personal attacks, strident claims that BIAB is best and a total refusal to even discuss the possibility that other approaches to brewing have any merit.
> If BIAB is better cheaper faster and makes better beer, I'm sure there is someone out there who would like to save a couple of couple of tens or even hundreds of thousands on their brewery start-up.
> Call me when the first BIAB commercial brewery opens for business until then couldn't be arsed reading any more of this shit, nor Nicks personal jibes
> "if you can't play the ball play the man", has always struck me as the most cowardly and least intelligent way to engage in any discussion, particularly one like this were all of us are ultimately just aiming to make better beer.



This will go round in circles & will never end as everyone has their own opinions. I stated my Biab is not better than my 3V produced beers, identical in fact. I just can't understand the continual relation to BIAB as being an entry level way to brew All Grain. There is a strong following of people who assume that BIAB is the first step to All Grain followed by the ultimate in brewing, the 3V brewery. I am speaking from my own results & experiences & comparing my beers with the two brewing methods. Which is better? They're both the same, just less hassle for me doing BIAB. As far as commercial breweries are concerned, I think we will see quite a few 200lt Braumeisters start coming into play in the not too distant future. Look what going commercial has done for Lyon Nathan & CUB. Plenty of money being made by the big boys that sell their wares to those less fortunate than us to have made & tasted something far superior to that shit.


----------



## bigfridge (27/8/12)

dougsbrew said:


> which part are you struggling to understand. where did it say he spent $5000 on education?
> what is the purpose of your post? dont u like it when someone has something intellectual to say?



Sorry Doug, but you have confused me now - you have attributed my words to 'Glen W', but as he continued the misquote started by Nick JD I guess that I am everyones target tonight.

If you look back at my original post, I said that I had spent that money on education AND professional texts. These are the same textbooks used in brewing education courses so it probably doesn't matter much but it does bug me that folks can be so careless with the facts when it suits their motive.

Spending $5,000 on a course may make me seem to be someone who has just attended a week long course. I was trying to show that I had spend my time building a reference library that I enjoyed reading and pondering about.

I referred to the paper as it was a neat summary of the *issues as I understand them*. While it may seem that the conclusions are saying that "turbid worts are good" you do need to read that carefully and in context. 

"Unfortunately, in many papers a reliable definition is missing regarding the terms turbid and bright wort, making a quantitative evaluation difficult".

The conclusion then goes on to say that "the average lauter turbidity dropped tremendously, now reaching a value of roughly 10 EBC units when applying state-of-the-art technologies ... yeast performance has been continuously improving in practical operations. With these two aspects in mind, the question arises whether the threat of a quality loss, possibly originating from lauter turbidity, is nowadays overestimated. 

Since a proper fermentation is a premise for a high beer quality, it has to be questioned whether the todays lauter turbidity may be too low to provide a proper yeast nutrition."

Taking the above quotation "as written", the authors are stating that a wort turbidity of 10 EBC units may be too low to provide proper yeast nutrition.

10 EBC=2.45 NTU which you can see from the following samples is very bright.







So the only support that the conclusion would seem to offer the Turbid supporters is:

"Therefore, it seems to be worthwhile to discuss a new statement of preferring a moderate lauter turbidity, within the range of lauter turbidities currently observed, instead of the minimum turbidity that is technically realizable today in order to provide proper yeast nutrition and to minimise adverse quality effects at the same time."

So, effectively bright worts may not provide sufficient yeast nutrients - but care should be taken to still avoid the "adverse quality effects" that can result from increasing the turbidity of the wort. Commercial breweries are under cost constraints so would take every opportunity to save time during lautering and gain some free yeast nutrient.

The small scale brewer at their very best, produce worts far more turbid than contemplated by this article. They also lack the measurement and process controls needed to reliably ensure good fermentation if conditions are less than optimal. 

But we all have access to cheap yeast nutrient which removes the only benefit that having some wort turbidity offers - so why risk it ? 

Nowhere have I said that anyone should do this or that to slavishly obtain crystal clear wort. I simply stated my understanding, suported by my reading of the professional brewing texts - that wort clarity has a significant effect on beer quality and stability.

May all your worts run clear !


----------



## glenwal (27/8/12)

bigfridge said:


> but as he continued the misquote


Its not a misquote. You were talking about the minimum that you expect other people to spend on education *AND* professional texts, and then state the amount you have spent. If you had said "i've spent $5,000 on texts alone" that would be different. Now you may have been trying to say you had spent that much just on reference material, but you didn't.



bigfridge said:


> I was trying to show that I had spend my time building a reference library that I enjoyed reading and pondering about.


 Again - comes down to what you were trying to do, vs what you actually did (which was to state that everyone elses opinion/experience is worthless unless they've thrown money at buying reference material).



bigfridge said:


> The small scale brewer at their very best, produce worts far more turbid than contemplated by this article.


 So you're saying that the scope of this article does not extend to a home brewing scale. Whats the relevance of it then?


----------



## bigfridge (27/8/12)

manticle said:


> I'm deliberately not entering the discussion about which is better. I've also not entered into any personal attacks nor played men instead of balls.



"bigfridge who made one of the most arrogant statements I've yet seen on this forum ... apology for being a downright arsehole would go a long way"

Glad that we can keep things civil then.  



manticle said:


> I have previously respected Dave's contribution to the forum (and his knowledge and experience) but that kind of attitude detracts massively from the positives.



I am sorry to have failed to meet your expectations, but in my defense I was provoked by the arrogance of the statement by Crusty that:

"Repeatability, crystal clear wort to the boil kettle, full on PID temp control are all required to make better beer is a total misconception, it's hogwash!"

"Fight arrogance with arrogance" I thought was the only way to deal with someone 'willing to argue'.

But on to more substantive matters.



manticle said:


> The scientific article was linked in support of the concept that 'clear wort = better beer' but reading the article thoroughly, suggests it is not definitively asserting that at all. ... At the very least, it warrants a response from only to show his comprehension of the article _he_ linked to was sadly lacking.



I have just posted how a careful reading of the conclusion does indeed agree with what I had said about low turbidity worts being more desirable. I beleive that the remainder of the article also supports this conclusion if the scale of the brewing operation is considered.


----------



## bigfridge (27/8/12)

Glen W said:


> So you're saying that the scope of this article does not extend to a home brewing scale.



 No I am not saying any such thing.



Glen W said:


> Whats the relevance of it then?



I offer it only so that others may decide that for themselves.


----------



## Wolfy (27/8/12)

MHB said:


> I said no such thing - go back and read my post again


I thought I did read your comments objectively, so lets re-read what you said _(there is a difference between misquoting and selective quoting)_:


MHB said:


> I think I have brewed on every type and configuration imaginable, at present I’m brewing on a Braumeister
> ...
> I love my Braumeister and it will probably be how I brew for the rest of my life
> ...
> Until you have experienced the control you get with a well engineered system like a Braumeister you don’t know what you are missing, I couldn’t go back to a rig that didn’t give me the to the minute and degree C repeatability that I now have.


The logical and objective conclusion I made reading that was that you "_considered the BM the pinnacle of home brewing setups_", but obviously I was mistaken, so I'm sorry for that.


MHB said:


> I take exception to being misquoted to support anyone's opinion!


I have no opinion (and have not expressed it previously in this thread) because I couldn't care less what systems other people use, advertise or promote.
What I do hope is that each and every dedicated home brewer should attempt to brew the 'best' beer they can with the equipment, cost and other limitations that fit their specific situation.
For some people 'best' is cheap alcohol that gets you drunk, for others it's beer that wins state championships, for others (like myself) it's simply beer they enjoy drinking.
For many people the 'best' system is BIAB-in-an-URN, for others it's a 3V system, others again a BM system, and any mirriad of other options that are available.
The only reasons why I asked a question in this thread (since I have never used a BM/BIAB setup) is to enhance my understnding of brewing process from someone with industry-related-knowledge and experience, who has used those as well as 3V systems and now chooses to work with a BM. The logical assumption I take from that is that they feel the BM is the best for their situation.


MHB said:


> I said_ "it was the arrival of the Braumeister on the scene here in Australia that kicked off the whole BIAB thing."_
> 
> That is a long way from _"BIAB was essentially derived as a cheap copy of a BM system" _The only commonality is that both are/were single vessel, essentially full volume systems and that the expended malt is lifted out of the wort.


Yet you also said:


MHB said:


> This is my personal opinion; the advantages of BIAB are fundamentally all about cost.


I agree with you, and didn't think it was too far from the truth or anything personal or insulting to suggest that "_BIAB was essentially derived as a cheap copy of a BM system_".



MHB said:


> BIAB being a very fine grist and not building a filter through recirculation lacks this ability and the result is more turbid wort – this is one of the widely acknowledged shortcomings of BIAB.
> 
> BIAB started as a very simple full volume system, in an attempt to fix some of the shortcomings there are a plethora of spin-off modifications going on, frankly from my observation, when you start adding pumps, recirculating, mix in a PID what have you, you are trying to make a Braumeister because you are too sodding tight to buy one.


Thank you, that is what I was asking about, no need to get grumpy, angry or personal.



MHB said:


> Do you have any idea how sick of hearing people whinge about the price of Braumeisters I get?


I was not whinging about how expensive a BM is - they're a wonderful piece of highly engineered shiny bling - I was simply asking how and why the BM system did not have the disadvantages (when compared to 3V) that BIAB has (which you answered, thank you), while pointing out the local and obvious truth, that BM is more expensive than BIAB (which is something you said yourself).

And to get back on topic ...


BPH87 said:


> I am fairly new with brewing have only knocked over 8 BIAB's so far, just about to drink my first 2 beers this weekend. I am really enjoying the brewing process with biab but I would like to think that it would be far cooler on a 3v system.
> That said I am interested in knowing what benefits brewing on a 3 vessel gas system are?


I don't have a gas 3V system, mine is electric since I brew indoors, and I've never brewed using BIAB.
However, I feel my 3V (HERMS) system gives me a more precise level of control and repeatability, I can use a range of water/grain ratios and grain crush settings, I can heat/step the mash without having to worry about melting the bag or mixing the water/grains and I don't have to worry about scorching the electric element (since the wort into the kettle is filtered in the mash tun). I also don't have to worry about the logistics and mess of lifting the spent grain.
While a single vessel brewery system could be purchased or made to avoid many of those things, the design and cost of doing so was too expensive or complicated for me to consider.


----------



## manticle (27/8/12)

bigfridge said:


> "bigfridge who made one of the most arrogant statements I've yet seen on this forum ... apology for being a downright arsehole would go a long way"
> 
> Glad that we can keep things civil then.



I said I play the ball, not the man and I took issue with your assertion that you needed to spend X in order to be able to discuss with you. Sure you were addressing Crusty directly but you are also suggesting that no-one else who has not been brewing for X years nor spent Y money is worthy of discussing brewing in your presence. That is arrogant and very much so. I addressed that directly.

I'm not big on personal attacks and few of my many, many posts would suggest that I am. It's not something I strive for. I also come out of my cunticle box from time to time.




> I am sorry to have failed to meet your expectations, but in my defense I was provoked by the arrogance of the statement by Crusty that:
> 
> "Repeatability, crystal clear wort to the boil kettle, full on PID temp control are all required to make better beer is a total misconception, it's hogwash!"
> 
> ...



Fighting arrogance with rationality would make more sense.



> I have just posted how a careful reading of the conclusion does indeed agree with what I had said about low turbidity worts being more desirable. I beleive that the remainder of the article also supports this conclusion if the scale of the brewing operation is considered.



And your subsequent posting is far more reasonable. You initially implied unequivocally and with no qualification, that clear wort makes better beer and used a paper to support that which itself makes no such claim. That is disingenuous and is bad science. You don't need me or my brewing experience (or lack thereof) to prove that - it is in black and white in the article you linked to. The article itself is very interesting and I for one would like to know more - especially in regards to cold break and its documented effect on finished beer. 

The point has also been made about clear wort to the fermenter which is possible in all systems - BM, BIAB and 2/3/4 V. Leaving proteins behind in the tun as far as I understand, just makes it easier to get clear wort with less trub. Proteins in the boil, in and of themselves don't (as far as I understand) have a negative effect on finished beer IF they are left behind in the kettle.


----------



## felten (28/8/12)

MHB said:


> Call me when the first BIAB commercial brewery opens for business


What about a mash filter press? 

Nevermind, I wouldn't want to drag the discussion off topic.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (28/8/12)

bigfridge said:


> Simple answer to a tyranical rant - lipids.
> 
> Read any professional brewing text ( I mean textbooks subject to peer review and and not just a book for homebrewers, written by homebrewers or commercial interests) and you will learn that delivering clear wort into the kettle is the single most important step in ensuring clean flavours in your beer. The only exception to this is lambics where a trubid wort gives the nutrients required by wild yeast and bacteria.
> 
> ...



actually - I've read most of the major brewing texts, and I can find no such thing at all let alone it being ubiquitous and/or something stressed as of highest importance. I can find a lot of statements of opinion that its true, but not any actual information to back it up. I have in fact been making a reasonably dedicated effort to survey the literature to find proof that turbid wort into the kettle is the problem that brewers say it is - and I'm failing to find it. If you can point me at it I'd really appreciate it.

Lipids matter.... but I find no literature that connects turbid worts into the kettle with particularly high lipid levels out of the kettle as long as the boil was condicted properly and the normal wort clarification steps are followed. Differences are monimal if they exist at all.

I'm of the professional opinion that brewers preference for clear wort is just that, a preference based largely around the fact that clear wort is prettier and that pretty much every brewer has been told that its "higher quality" during their education.

As I said, I've been looking for papers/texts that provide information about how and why turbid wort into the kettle is a probelm, cant find it and would genuinely appreciate being pointed towards any that might exist. Turbid ex kettle wort is all the things you are talking about, no argument there.


----------



## bigfridge (28/8/12)

Thirsty Boy said:


> As I said, I've been looking for papers/texts that provide information about how and why turbid wort into the kettle is a probelm, cant find it and would genuinely appreciate being pointed towards any that might exist. Turbid ex kettle wort is all the things you are talking about, no argument there.




I haven't read it in detail, but there is some data that may be relevant here.


----------



## bigfridge (28/8/12)

manticle said:


> Sure you were addressing Crusty directly but you are also suggesting that no-one else who has not been brewing for X years nor spent Y money is worthy of discussing brewing in your presence. That is arrogant and very much so. ... Fighting arrogance with rationality would make more sense.



It looks like my sarcastic reply to the all too common - 'I said it so it must be true' nature of AHB discussions; has not had the effect that I was intending. I will leave humour to the experts in future. 

Sorry for any offense caused.


----------



## glenwal (28/8/12)

bigfridge said:


> I haven't read it in detail, but there is some data that may be relevant here.




Interesting


> In conclusion, fermentation performance may be improved by more turbid lautering, and the negative consequences often reported for the resulting beers appear to be overestimated, since the quality parameters of the final beers had not deteriorated significantly.


----------



## donburke (28/8/12)

what L:G ratio does one normally use for a BM ?


----------



## sponge (28/8/12)

RAHAHB.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (28/8/12)

oh, for some reason i thought i had read to the end of the thread and I hadn't - excuse my slightly out of whack post.

Thanks for linking to the article - interestingly, its been posted before when this argument has come up previously and its also more or less the only thing that _ever_ is linked to by either people who support the general proposition that "turbid wort is bad" OR by people who believe that its not so bad as all that. its the only reasonably comprehensive paper that actually addresses the topic. And its inconclusive - there's enough in it and the material it references to build a half decent argument either way.

And thats the point - "Turbid wort is bad, its the lipids wot does it..." is trotted out as something which is self evidently true, beyond argument and of paramount importance. And thats just not so. The truth is that clear wort is, on balance, probably better than turbid wort, a bit. And thats about it.

If someone would perhaps talk reasonably about the possible quality implications, their reasonable likelihood and severity, and how they could perhaps be avoided or minimised in a situation like BIAB, that might be better recieved than the general technique put downs.

Mind you - the thing that no doubt kicked this off. Someone saying that an advantage of a multi vessel system is that it can produce clear wort whereas a BIAB system does not. Well, thats just plain true. Whether you think it matters or not is a different thing.

If people know of them, I'd still very much like to be pointed at other texts/articles that directly address the topic so i can develop my opinion (needless to say i fall onto the "not so bad" side if the argument at the moment) further.


EDIT: and as usual i take so long to type that the replies i am looking for happen while I'm doing it. Thanks BF, I've read that article before - same authors as the other one and unfortunately, roughly the same sort of "bit each way" conclusions to be drawn. But more information is more. Thanks.


----------



## dent (28/8/12)

Glen W said:


> Interesting



This paper has the same issues with reference to this discussion as many others do - their idea of a_ 'turbid' wort is 82 EBC_ in this instance. That is about 21NTU, if you refer to that image of the set of flasks. BIAB wort is often much, much more turbid than that, so I don't think it is very valid for us to come to the same conclusions that the paper does anyhow.


----------



## Nick JD (28/8/12)

I've already quoted this from that Turbidity paper.

_Similarly, Eils reported that fatty acid contents in worts after whirlpool were comparable, due to an *efficient hot trub separation*, even if the lauter worts contained variable concentrations._

A hypothesis: Since I kettle chill (and can eliminate ALL break material from my fermenter via decanting) *I am getting less products of a turbid wort into my fermenter than fast-chill 3V brewer*.

Please provide references to compounds from break material entering the clear wort and I'll change my mind. 

Until then I know that my brewing technique is superior than those who slop cold break into their fermenters.  Brewers who have crystal clear wort in their kettle and cloudy slop into their fermenter but convieniently forget about that.

And this is why this thread is so dumb - started by someone outlining how his expensive stainless BIAB system is superior.


----------



## Wolfy (28/8/12)

Nick JD said:


> A hypothesis: Since I kettle chill (and can eliminate ALL break material from my fermenter via decanting) *I am getting less products of a turbid wort into my fermenter than fast-chill 3V brewer*.


How/why is chilling after the boil different for BIAB/3V?
Either you use an immersion chiller, plate chiller/CFC, or you no-chill, once the wort is in the kettle whats the difference compared to how the wort is produced?


----------



## mje1980 (28/8/12)

Don't get him started wolfy, we'll have 3 more pages of misquotes, links to irrelevant data, and photo's of chill hazed beer made from big w pots


----------



## Nick JD (28/8/12)

Wolfy said:


> How/why is chilling after the boil different for BIAB/3V?
> Either you use an immersion chiller, plate chiller/CFC, or you no-chill, once the wort is in the kettle whats the difference compared to how the wort is produced?



No difference. Point I'm making is that some people go out of their way to get clear wort into their kettle and then fast chill including all those coldbreak compounds in their fermenter. 

Take a no chill cube that's been made with crystal clear wort and shake the crap out of it. Murky as hell into the fermenter. 

Irony is ironic like that. Point being that anyone who spouts one method is superior to another is an idiot. All methods are capable of making great (award winning) beer.


----------



## [email protected] (28/8/12)

I think the only way this would ever be resolved would be if say a biab wort could be split at lautering, one kept as is and the other recirculated and cleared up. 
Everything else down the line kept equal and the resulting beers measured for lipid content? if this can even be done? i would hazard guess some serious equipment would be involved.

My own personal theory is that by boiling all those extras proteins and fats for 60 - 90min they are getting broken up into smaller and smaller bits, which in the end makes it harder to remove after the boil. So then another question would be if the addition of a kettle coagulant totally nullifies this effect? 

Logically it would make sense that the unwanted lipids which to my understanding have a fatty acid "tail" makes them not dissolve into water which the wort is mostly anyway, except for the hop oils that have been added? So another question would be in a highly hopped beer can some of the unwanted lipids join / mix with the hop oils in solution? 

Just my personal thoughts / questions with no scientific grounding what so ever...


----------



## manticle (28/8/12)

bigfridge said:


> It looks like my sarcastic reply to the all too common - 'I said it so it must be true' nature of AHB discussions; has not had the effect that I was intending. I will leave humour to the experts in future.
> 
> Sorry for any offense caused.



You'd have to admit it was a pretty piss poor effort at humour.

I retract my 'arsehole' comment.

Even if inconclusive, the links are interesting reads. Do you have any relating to the inclusion of cold break in the final (ex-kettle) wort?

A few texts suggest it's not an issue (fairly certain Fix mentions it at some point but would need to check) but is there any dedicated literature?


----------



## Nick JD (28/8/12)

manticle said:


> You'd have to admit it was a pretty piss poor effort at humour.
> 
> I retract my 'arsehole' comment.
> 
> ...



BS&P has quite a bit to say on cold break.

_This `cold break' is composed mostly of proteins and polyphenols and some associated lipids. It is often, but not always, considered desirable to remove this material to give a `bright', completely clear wort.

Zinc ions and/or unsaturated fatty acids in the break could stimulate yeast
multiplication in zinc-deficient or poorly oxygenated worts (Chapters 11 and 12).
`Excess' cold break may confer off-flavours to beers, it will contaminate the yeast crop
and it may confuse the control of pitching rate, cause poor fining, and accelerate the
fermentation rate. Even where cold break removal had no measurable effects on the
brewing parameters, beers made from break-free worts were preferred (Narziss et al.,
1971)._

Being anal about clear runnings and then pitching the cold break is funny.


----------



## Bribie G (28/8/12)

Necro:

A couple of years ago you may remember I poured the top clear halves off two cubes into a fermenter, and the murky chill hazed bottom halves into another fermenter. 

Same recipe, fermented with same yeast, same temperature, lagered next to each other and kegged at the same time. 

I took them to a BABBs meeting labelled beer X and beer Y. 

Those who could tell any difference actually rated the chill haze one to be more complex in flavour, but not much in it between the two. 
A couple of drinkers commented that one of them tasted like a slightly watered down version of the other, and yes that one was the non-chill haze beer.


----------



## SJW (28/8/12)

I have not read this thread but will answer the question IMO.
I built a 3v system about 5 years ago. See photo below. It was fine, but it took a long time to get it dialled in perfectly. As you know I have a Braumeister now I will list the negatives I found with the 3v system in comparison with the BM.
The 3v system was a pain to clean up. All the bits were heavy. Very unforgiving if you dont do everything right i.e., leave a valve open and you got beer on the floor, or forget to turn the HLT off and you got a boil over. All this while youre running electricity to a metal frame brew table. The 3v system is very large and I had to sell it as we were moving to a rental while we built a new home. Lucky I sold it for $2500 and bought a BM.
Dont get me wrong I loved it and it broke my heart to sell it and it was great fun building and refining it, but there is no comparison with the BM. 
Also, I got lots of stuff for the 3v cheap/free or stolen  and I bet that all up it still cost more than a BM. When you start adding up all the little things like $50 per sheet or Aero flex to insulate the mash and HLT tuns, + $20 for a roll of tape. March pump, valves, hose clamps, silicone tubing, metal table, wheels for the table, elements for the HLT, false bottom for he Mash tun, electrical components to power it, a rubberised industrial mat glued to the top of the table so it did not burn or get water damaged and lot of trail and error bits along the way.
I would never say dont build one, but if I had my time again, and new what I know now I would just buy a BM up front. 
While it was fun in the early days on the 3v I just like to brew beer now and consistent beer at that. There are just too many variables with a 3v system (I found) to make a consistently great beer.

Good Luck

STEVE


----------



## Clutch (29/8/12)

I can't build shit so i started with:






And went to:






I have little to no idea as to what I'm doing and I can't tell the difference between the beer.


----------



## Batz (29/8/12)

SJW said:


> I have not read this thread but will answer the question IMO.
> I built a 3v system about 5 years ago. See photo below. It was fine, but it took a long time to get it dialled in perfectly. As you know I have a Braumeister now I will list the negatives I found with the 3v system in comparison with the BM.
> The 3v system was a pain to clean up. All the bits were heavy. Very unforgiving if you dont do everything right i.e., leave a valve open and you got beer on the floor, or forget to turn the HLT off and you got a boil over. All this while youre running electricity to a metal frame brew table. The 3v system is very large and I had to sell it as we were moving to a rental while we built a new home. Lucky I sold it for $2500 and bought a BM.
> Dont get me wrong I loved it and it broke my heart to sell it and it was great fun building and refining it, but there is no comparison with the BM.
> ...





Before my BM. I built it and I loved it, there are not many of us who have owned and brewed on each.


----------



## Markbeer (29/8/12)

The only thing I will add is that if you like brewing mostly big high gravity beers, Tripels and Dopple Bocks etc I can see a 3V would be an advantage as it is awkward and results in lower efficiency for me when I try the same on my BIAB setup, even with dunk sparge and long boils.

I probably wouldn't attempt a barley wine with mine.

Mark


----------



## Crusty (29/8/12)

The last brew I did in my urn, I got 20.5lt of wort into my cube @1.048 + 2.5lt trub loss = 23lt batch. This gave me 86% efficiency which is better or on par with my ex 3V system. I would be happy to attempt anything with my BIAB set up that I would with my old 3V system. I have not really looked into high gravity beers & am quite happy with the 4.5% - 5.5% range of beers. As I stated before, I have found no difference in my beers using either system & it really boils down to how much you want to spend, how much space you have & what suits you best. I wanted out of the temp control 3V set up for various reasons but the regular stuck sparges really got me pissed off even with a coarser crush & higher liquor to grain ratios. The BIAB in the urn is so darn simple & hassle free & the beers are fantastic.


----------



## sama (29/8/12)

it must be added that you don't need pumps and bells and whistles for a 3v.If you keep it simple,a 3v can be easy to clean and operate.Just as easy as as any other system.You don't need to over complicate,but many a brewer gets struck by the dreaded tinkering disease,to a point where there system becomes a pain in the ass to brew on.


----------



## Muscovy_333 (29/8/12)

Thirsty Boy said:


> oh, for some reason i thought i had read to the end of the thread and I hadn't - excuse my slightly out of whack post.
> 
> Thanks for linking to the article - interestingly, its been posted before when this argument has come up previously and its also more or less the only thing that _ever_ is linked to by either people who support the general proposition that "turbid wort is bad" OR by people who believe that its not so bad as all that. its the only reasonably comprehensive paper that actually addresses the topic. And its inconclusive - there's enough in it and the material it references to build a half decent argument either way.
> 
> ...



Long chain fatty acids = oxidation/auto-oxidation= staling/rancidity
To add another dimension; I would argue that perhaps fatty acid composition of the grain bill/age and handling of the grain (stability of the inherent FA's), mill size and high efficiency may potentially increase or vary extraction of fatty acids into the wort. 


Thus subjectively concluding that it probably has just as much to do with individual process/handling of ingredients, fermentation and storage conditions of beer, not to mention inclusion or exsisting levels of salts/minerals that are known to chelate or kerb oxidation of long chain fatty acids. 

Conclusion...each to their own, their are too many important variables to beer quality to compare based on the configuration of your rig. 

Perhaps the answers lie outside of the general brewing literature. Starch manufacturers/processors probably have mre sound literature when it comes to this discussion. They make a whole lot more money out of grains than beer producers and have a million more value added products using the fractions of grains. 
Most beer literature i have read seems a little antequated on the chemsitry/biochemstry side of things IMHO.

Can of worms re-opened!


----------



## Cocko (30/8/12)

Go electric.

over.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (30/8/12)

Muscovy said:


> Long chain fatty acids = oxidation/auto-oxidation= staling/rancidity
> To add another dimension; I would argue that perhaps fatty acid composition of the grain bill/age and handling of the grain (stability of the inherent FA's), mill size and high efficiency may potentially increase or vary extraction of fatty acids into the wort.
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks dude, but i dont really need the science explained to me - I understand it already. I'm looking for actual literature which supports the general conclusions that people draw from the science. I know its there, just not so much in the books and journals I have access to (or not that I've found anyway).

The starch guys and pure ethanol products probably do have a whack of info - but you'd assume that they'd be more interested in pure bang for buck stuff rather than in the sorts of quality/stability/flavour issues that are relevant for beverages. Worth a look though - might start nosing around in distillers books and cereal science stuff. Cheers


----------



## Jay Cee (30/8/12)

Crusty said:


> This gave me 86% efficiency which is better or on par with my ex 3V system.



Same grain all the time ? I have found a few times that I get exceptional efficiency, but have since reviewed that and determined the grain to be responsible. JW vs MO. 

Efficiency IMO is not much of an argument for one system over another. The difference between 75% & 85% in hitting targets with grain bill works out to be a few cents per bottle extra.


----------



## Muscovy_333 (30/8/12)

Thirsty Boy said:


> Thanks dude, but i dont really need the science explained to me - I understand it already.




Sorry, it was not aimed at you, just linked it to your comments as they are a sub-thread to the OP's question. 

I would be looking in published cereal technology references for this sort of research, as opposed to individual scientific studies, my 2c again. I have responded to your comments for the same reason as previous.


----------

