# Finer Crush For Biab



## Bribie G (11/5/09)

Ross (or other suppliers) - If a customer orders a reasonable amount of base malt, say 20k, is it feasible to do a finer crush for BIAB purposes or would this involve too much fiddling around with resetting etc?


----------



## t2000kw (11/5/09)

BribieG said:


> Ross (or other suppliers) - If a customer orders a reasonable amount of base malt, say 20k, is it feasible to do a finer crush for BIAB purposes or would this involve too much fiddling around with resetting etc?



Have you considered getting your own crusher? It may seem pricey, but you can store your grain longer, and you can crush it fresh just before brewing.

The Corona mill isn't the best, but it is not expensive, especially if you can get it used. Careful adjustment of the plates can get a decent crush. I used to use one for all grain brewing and got good results with very little flour, no stuck mashes in the lauter tun, etc. It should be fine for BIAB, and you can crush very fine if you wish, even to the point of making flour with it, which is its intended purpose, really. 

I finally bought a Valley Mill (now out of production) on eBay, but the Schmidling mill is possibly a bit better and has a lifetime guarantee, I believe (at least on the rollers). It would be my choice. He has an adjustable version, which is probably what you would want. For typical all grain brewing (not BIAB), you wouldn't need the adjustability, and Jack actually recommends against it even though he charges more for that feature. 

There are others available, of course, and each has its benefits. The less expensive Phil Mill is also reported to do a good job. I don't remember if it is adustable or not. 

Donald


----------



## kram (11/5/09)

Bribie, with the AUD rising fairly well i'd recommend finding someone else who's keen on a new mill and grabbing the Monster Mill 2 from the states. Two will fit in the same package for postage purposes which is around the $40 mark.


----------



## Ross (11/5/09)

BribieG said:


> Ross (or other suppliers) - If a customer orders a reasonable amount of base malt, say 20k, is it feasible to do a finer crush for BIAB purposes or would this involve too much fiddling around with resetting etc?




In answer to your question yes, will crush finer with any volume if requested - Though to be honest, I don't think you will gain anything

Cheers Ross


----------



## pdilley (11/5/09)

BribieG said:


> Ross (or other suppliers) - If a customer orders a reasonable amount of base malt, say 20k, is it feasible to do a finer crush for BIAB purposes or would this involve too much fiddling around with resetting etc?



if you are not in a rush Im waiting to see the pan out of AUD to USD from the World GFC and then go in for a joint shipping order for one each.


----------



## Sammus (11/5/09)

Yeah if the aud/usd was a bit better I would've picked up a monster2.0 3 roller, but ended up with a millmaster instead. Does the job quite nicely  TBH I'm not sure why everyone switched boats, bailing on the millmaster and getting a monster.


----------



## kram (11/5/09)

I couldn't resist a MM2 for $100AUD incl delivery!

Bribie, it would be interesting to hear the results of the finer crush if you go that way.


----------



## Sammus (11/5/09)

kram said:


> I couldn't resist a MM2 for $100AUD incl delivery!



Wow when was that? Even the cheapest 1.5"diameter Monster mill is 104USD pre delivery, which works out to about $200aud delivered...


----------



## kram (11/5/09)

When they had a few 'scratch and dent' items which were just rollers which had minimal double knurling at one end. So NickB and I got one each and the dollar was nearly even with the US. Doesn't affect the crush in the slightest, basically cosmetic flaws.


----------



## Bribie G (11/5/09)

Wow I didn't realise they were that cheap, I thought anything better than a Marga would be up in the three or four hundreds. The thing is that for my house beer I'm paying $3.60 a kilo crushed from Ross and if I get it for say $2.50 on a bulk buy it's going to take me an awful long time to pay off a mill, but I suppose If I could get one in the foreseeable for $150 if the resources stocks improve and China gets going and the A$ rises.... Definitely.

I've just ordered a couple of brews worth from Ross today pretty late on so if they haven't got round to it yet I'll see if he'll be kind enough to do me a fine crush and I'll see how it goes. Tasted the spent grain from my regular crushed mash today and there wasn't much sugaz left in it to my taste, after a bit of a dunk sparge on the side, but I'll try anything once. Well almost anything


----------



## pdilley (11/5/09)

Yeah, the crankandstein was? $74 USD last I saw, or was I confusing it with another make?

I think I read that the commercial guys use 6+ rollers in the crush, so 2 roller, 3 roller gives home brewers something to talk about but not sure how much benefit to additional cost. Maybe some of the guys that have used both could chime in with some first hand experience.

If you don't want to wait let me know 

Cheers,
Brewer Pete

EDIT: Correction http://www.crankandstein.net/index.php?mai...p;products_id=3


----------



## flattop (11/5/09)

I would also like a mill but $200 is putting me off, i've already sunk $220 into an urn, that will take a bit of brewing to pay off, the Melbourne bulk buy has come around and the savings are plain to see, mind you one of my grain suppliers is fairly reasonable on price.
The other issue is space and setup, although my house is big enough i don't have a room for brewing and can't use the garage so a mill is another thing to store away and setup when i need it. Perhaps the convenience of buying crushed grain outweighs the cost aspect


----------



## Bribie G (11/5/09)

No hurry, Pete, we're moving (locally) next month and I've just put in my last pre move order of milled grain to Ross so everything will be brewed, bottled and the kit mothballed. Then when we get into the new place and the brewery has been re-established I'll be considering getting a mill. Late June earliest. If we get one each, freight within Aus isn't too bad. Or meet Dubbo for the delivery?


----------



## pdilley (11/5/09)

Thats a bit bloody inland for an island guy!

Still you're moving closer to me all the time 

I'll have to see if the Canberra Brewers Club has any info on good buys around between now and then as well.

If I can't swing a holiday off work then can just fallback to freight.

Cheers,
Brewer Pete


----------



## T.D. (11/5/09)

Ross said:


> In answer to your question yes, will crush finer with any volume if requested - Though to be honest, I don't think you will gain anything
> 
> Cheers Ross



Why don't you think there would be any gain from a finer crush? I have always found my efficiency improves significantly if I crush finer or crush twice. The only thing holding me back is the increased likelihood of a stuck sparge as I use a false botton. But with biab that problem doesn't apply. And with the fine mesh of a biab bag I would think you'd want to crush as fine as possible. In these days of higher prices etc I reckon you might as well try and get the most out of your grain.

So good to hear you're offering to crush finer for biab folk!


----------



## Kai (11/5/09)

BribieG said:


> Ross (or other suppliers) - If a customer orders a reasonable amount of base malt, say 20k, is it feasible to do a finer crush for BIAB purposes or would this involve too much fiddling around with resetting etc?



Any good HBS should tweak their crush to suit your requirements... as Ross has said he would. It always annoys the crap out of me when I get a coarse crush and lose 10% or so on efficiency. 

Also worth saying that a finer crush is as relevant (and usable) to a well-tweaked lauter tun as it is to BIAB. How much do you BIABers find your efficiency varies based on crush?


----------



## flattop (11/5/09)

Haven't done enough BIAB to confidently answer but the finer the crush the more trub in the urn, this much i know, flour passes through the weave.
I think that Bribie is probably right though, a finer crush will probably create and environment for better sugar extraction.
In the end i suspect this is topic is more about exploring BIAB to it's limitations than actual efficiency.
If we can get more sugars from a finer crush great... will it impact significantly on overall efficiency, i don't know, i suspect Bribie already had tweaked his process to get a fair amount of efficiency already...


----------



## Kai (11/5/09)

flattop said:


> Haven't done enough BIAB to confidently answer but the finer the crush the more trub in the urn, this much i know, flour passes through the weave.
> I think that Bribie is probably right though, a finer crush will probably create and environment for better sugar extraction.



Aye, a finer crush definitely will expose more of the grain for sugar extraction (without getting into the coarse crush & floating mash theory). It's getting the sugar out of the mash that poses more difficulty, and I found myself wondering how well this fares in a bag.


----------



## Damian44 (11/5/09)

I was getting 70% with default setting on my mill. I tightened the gap (cant remember how much) and now i get 76%. I could go alot finer if i wanted.


----------



## Bribie G (11/5/09)

This morning I posted a recipe for the fairly strong UK pale ale I mashed in this morning, in the 'what are you brewing 2' thread and Scotsman asked me for the Beersmith file. I don't use software (yet) so he offered to run the recipe through beersmith for me, and based on the OG of the wort at cube time I got 73 % efficiency. Considering that it's one of the biggest grain bills I have BIABd so far, and the OG ended up a handy 1054, I'm quite encouraged with that and it's a challenge to see if I can go better, as I've heard of BIABBers getting far better.
Of course I've been using the standard crush from Ross so If I can get onto him early enough tomorrow and get my new order finer crushed, it will be interesting to see how it goes for the next brews.

Good incentive to get Beersmith


----------



## jayse (11/5/09)

Kai said:


> Aye, a finer crush definitely will expose more of the grain for sugar extraction (without getting into the coarse crush & floating mash theory). It's getting the sugar out of the mash that poses more difficulty, and I found myself wondering how well this fares in a bag.



I think kai has posed the questions you need to be looking into in such a thread.
It is entirely possible to get less effiency out of a finer crush and too me I would think with the whole BIAB thing and how it works a more traditional crush would be best so the liquid can flow easily out of the great big bag you have hanging and dripping into your kettle.
With a fine crush you could actually heave out the bag and leave it hanging to drain but the finer crush will trap in a lot more of the wort and as such leave you with less, not quite the same as a stuck sparge as you have retrieved most of the liquor just there is a reasonble amount left trapped in there.
There is also a higher chance of balling (clumping) of course.
Now if no one has found this to be the case in practice with fine crushed grists in BIAB then well...hey all good.


----------



## Ross (11/5/09)

T.D. said:


> Why don't you think there would be any gain from a finer crush? I have always found my efficiency improves significantly if I crush finer or crush twice. The only thing holding me back is the increased likelihood of a stuck sparge as I use a false botton. But with biab that problem doesn't apply. And with the fine mesh of a biab bag I would think you'd want to crush as fine as possible. In these days of higher prices etc I reckon you might as well try and get the most out of your grain.
> 
> So good to hear you're offering to crush finer for biab folk!




...because we already crush on the fine side & from a lot of experience I reckon we have the mix pretty well spot on. But as i said, if guys want finer, who are we to argue  

cheers Ross


----------



## T.D. (11/5/09)

Ross said:


> ...because we already crush on the fine side & from a lot of experience I reckon we have the mix pretty well spot on. But as i said, if guys want finer, who are we to argue
> 
> cheers Ross



That's good to see Ross. My point was more that what is "spot on" for one false bottom type or sparging technique may be different to others. BIAB in my view would be one technique that could tolerate a signifcantly finer crush than possibly any other method. I presume your mill setting would be aimed at more commonly used methods (the "median masher" if you will), which arguably are not suited to a particularly fine crush.


----------



## Cocko (11/5/09)

I ordered a finer crush, for BIAB, and picked up 7%.

Although that said, my efficiency can be a little up and down anyways.. so who knows!

I can tell you a little OT: I ducked out last weekend during a mash, BIAB, and got caught up, ended up with a 2 1/2 hour mash!!  Dropped from 67 > 61 - Again  

I pulled an 83% out of that brew - my average thus far is around 70%...

I am building my 3v ATM but will continue to tool around with extended mashes for sure...


----------



## Thirsty Boy (11/5/09)

The point of a finer crush in a BIAB brew (and any other) is not to increase the extraction of sugar from the mash - but to increase the production of sugar in the mash. Virtually every mash has an amount of unconverted, still bound up in the grits, husks etc starch. The finer you crush, the more readily the liquor and therefore the enzymes can access that starch, and the more sugar you will make in the first place. _Then_ you have to go about getting it out of the mash tun. If you mill very finely in a mash or lauter tun - this might be a problem. It isn't in a BIAB mash.

There is no "trapping" of extract, nor any channeling, nor any of the reasons for an inefficient lauter if you BiaB - the only downside is the lack of a sparge to rinse the grain (assuming you don't do one that is) and the fact that by traditional standards you get a turbid and therefore low quality wort. So what you lose on the one hand, you get back on the other.

In BIAB your efficiency is about how well you convert your starch - and then about the size of your grain bill. Because the losses are all about the liquid that remains in the grain, and that increases with the amount of actual grain. So while it might not matter _quite_ as much for a traditionally lautered and mashed brew - the limits on crush being around the ability to run off at reasonable speed - a fine crush has a marked effect on BiaB efficiency.

BiaB is at the core a mash filter technology - and mash filters get a goodly chunk of their impressive efficiency from the fact that the grist is able to be milled so finely.

BUT - as mentioned above. You get a bit more trub the finer you mill.. so you lose some of that mash efficiency due to kettle losses. I assume that at some point the two would balance out. And the finer you crush - the more of the fine particles that go across will be husk. It matters not that starchy flour makes it through the mesh - that just converts. But eventually I imagine you will get enough husk going across to the boil that it would cause quality issues. 

I would draw short of saying "mill it to flour" - but as long as your husks are left in pieces that are visibly larger than the holes in the filter cloth - the finer the crush the better, up till you find your total system efficiency reversing because of kettle losses anyway. Or until you notice the beer not being as good.


----------



## PistolPatch (12/5/09)

Ross said:


> In answer to your question yes, will crush finer with any volume if requested - Though to be honest, I don't think you will gain anything
> 
> Cheers Ross



I wouldn't worry about crushing any finer Ross. Whilst I enjoy reading and respect the substantial scientific knowledge conveyed so well above, the application and practicality of this knowledge is way beyond a home brewer and certainly misleading to a new home brewer.

Measuring a 4000 litre brew with accurate equipment still has an error margin so what possible hope can us poor homebrewers with a brew length of 19 or 23 lts have in measurement? We rarely even brew the same recipe over and over let alone even have accurate hydrometers!

I think it is a real shame that in the home brewing world, we have such a focus on measurement. Our strong point, as home brewers is that we have so much freedom on ingredients compared to large breweries but still, we talk about improving efficiency by 2%.

I think experienced all-grainers should emphasise this. Let's face it, unless you brew exactly the same recipe 20 times, and filter (and temper) your wort for gravity readings, you can not hope as a home brewer to accurateley measure any increase in efficiency.

Trying to track any improvement in quality can be even harder.

It would be nice to see more a focus on successful recipes than a focus on measurement that any true scientist would shoot to pieces in two seconds in our mini-brewing world.

Let's just brew a beer we like and teach others the practical way to do the same.

A good and understandable question from BribieG but I hope Bribie, that after reading the above, the least of your worries should be the crush. 

Ramble, ramble,
Pat


----------



## crundle (12/5/09)

There is always the option of running the grain through the mill twice at the original setting instead of using a finer setting initially. I saw some pictures the other day that showed a much finer result using this process, so the mill settings that people are used to don't need to be altered.

As said by others, what you gain on the one hand you lose somewhat on the other. I have tried using a swiss voile hop bag as a filter in the neck of my cube while transferring from the urn to the cube (BIAB), but recently was told that a pool filter bag from Kmart was quite effective at stopping trub getting through, so will be trying this in my next brew to attempt to minimise losses.

Crundle


----------



## T.D. (12/5/09)

PistolPatch said:


> I think it is a real shame that in the home brewing world, we have such a focus on measurement. Our strong point, as home brewers is that we have so much freedom on ingredients compared to large breweries but still, we talk about improving efficiency by 2%.



But surely if you could obtain even 2% extra efficiency for no extra time, effort or risk of stuck sparge, then why on earth wouldn't you do it!

I can understand your argument if comparing batch sparging and fly sparging, because the efficiency gains of fly sparging are offset by the extra time required and a more specialised setup. In that case yeah, maybe the extra effort of fly sparging is not enough to justify the efficiency gains (although it may be for some people). But in this case we are talking about a very simple modification to the process (finer crush) that has been said to raise efficiency significantly. Why wouldn't you do it???

And re crundle's comments, you certainly can crush twice as an alternative to reducing the roller gap. This is what I do every brew now and I am not only getting more consistent results but also higher efficiency.


----------



## Bribie G (12/5/09)

I rang CraftBrewer this morning, they hadn't processed my order yet for the Pale Pilsener, Rosscoe Junior has done a finer crush for me, blessim, and should arrive tomorrow. I'll do a couple of my usual house lager and looking forward to the results. Reading Thirsty's post another thing that occurs to me, regarding conversion of starches, is that I use a fair whack of rice in my house brew and maybe a finer crush might give a more 'intimate' juxtaposition of the malt fragments and rice fragments in the mash and get better efficiency that way. Will bump and post in due course.


----------



## MHB (12/5/09)

If you ground really really fine and had a good enough filter bag you should be able to get close to theoretical extract yields, especially if you follow the mash regime in here View attachment 27031
.



MHB


----------



## Kai (12/5/09)

Thirsty Boy said:


> The point of a finer crush in a BIAB brew (and any other) is not to increase the extraction of sugar from the mash - but to increase the production of sugar in the mash.



I meant to have the word conversion in there too, of course...


----------



## PistolPatch (12/5/09)

T.D. said:


> But surely if you could obtain even 2% extra efficiency for no extra time, effort or risk of stuck sparge, then why on earth wouldn't you do it!
> 
> I can understand your argument if comparing batch sparging and fly sparging, because the efficiency gains of fly sparging are offset by the extra time required and a more specialised setup. In that case yeah, maybe the extra effort of fly sparging is not enough to justify the efficiency gains (although it may be for some people). But in this case we are talking about a very simple modification to the process (finer crush) that has been said to raise efficiency significantly. Why wouldn't you do it???
> 
> And re crundle's comments, you certainly can crush twice as an alternative to reducing the roller gap. This is what I do every brew now and I am not only getting more consistent results but also higher efficiency.



Don't mind me TD. Venting about efficiency is what I do for relaxation :icon_cheers: 

I just get worried when brewers get hung up on efficiency after their 2nd or 3rd brew (not BribieG - he's done heaps) and are not at the stage where they fully understand software, measurement etc.

Anyway, I'm really relaxed now :lol:


----------



## Kai (12/5/09)

T.D. said:


> I can understand your argument if comparing batch sparging and fly sparging, because the efficiency gains of fly sparging are offset by the extra time required and a more specialised setup.



Specialised setup?


----------



## flattop (12/5/09)

I think we are speaking about 2 problems here, one is process and the other is improvement/output.
As Biab is a "relatively" new science, we are right to question the process and try to work improvements into the process for the advantage of all.

Then we move to the question of improvement over output, if i told you that i could improve the quality of your brews by 2% by cranking a mill by hand for 15 hour before you brew would you do it? Most would say no. IF i said you could improve your brew by 5% by adjusting your mill...... perhaps so...

I am interested in efficiency but i am more interested in whats in the glass.... if it tastes good but it cost me $2 more in grain bill per brew to compensate for my crappy brew style i will happily pay it AS LONG AS THE BREW TASTES GOOD!

PS Crundle did you find the filters?


----------



## Guest Lurker (12/5/09)

Oi Kai. Wheres the paddle I made you in that photo? Did you drop it in Jake?


----------



## browndog (12/5/09)

PistolPatch said:


> I wouldn't worry about crushing any finer Ross. Whilst I enjoy reading and respect the substantial scientific knowledge conveyed so well above, the application and practicality of this knowledge is way beyond a home brewer and certainly misleading to a new home brewer.
> 
> Measuring a 4000 litre brew with accurate equipment still has an error margin so what possible hope can us poor homebrewers with a brew length of 19 or 23 lts have in measurement? We rarely even brew the same recipe over and over let alone even have accurate hydrometers!
> 
> ...



Great post Pat,
Is it really such a dealt that you may have to use an extra 1/2 a kilo more base grain than Joe Blogs down the street to get the same OG? People get hung up on efficiency when they should be concentrating on consistancy and becoming familiar enough with their system that they can confidently brew without having to rely on brewing software to advise them how their beer will turn out.

cheers

Browndog


----------



## Kai (12/5/09)

Guest Lurker said:


> Oi Kai. Wheres the paddle I made you in that photo? Did you drop it in Jake?



I'd just had a bunch of my old stuff delivered from SA. I was having a retro moment with my old paddle.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (13/5/09)

MHB - funny, I had half composed a post where I was going to compare BIAB to the various congress mashes.

Interesting to note that all of the congress mashes (ASBC, EBC and IOB) are in fact different and all of them are closer to BIAB than they ar to any other mashing technique. The IOB standard mash is almost identical to a stock BiaB brew. L:G, no-sparge, isothermal temp, finer grind.. everything.

You are right - with a fine filter bag, fine enough grind and constant agitation. BIAB should get pretty close to 100% - it is basically just a 20L congress mash.


----------



## warrenlw63 (13/5/09)

Hey for you BIAB'ers who crave extra efficiency why don't you tie up your bags and press them in an Apple or Grape press? You'd be up there with some of the Mega Breweries and their mash filter/presses then. You could also incorporate a "very" fine lab grind as well. 

Take that suggestion as you will. Is it too remote to work?

Warren -


----------



## Bribie G (13/5/09)

warrenlw63 said:


> Hey for you BIAB'ers who crave extra efficiency why don't you tie up your bags and press them in an Apple or Grape press? You'd be up there with some of the Mega Breweries and their mash filter/presses then. You could also incorporate a "very" fine lab grind as well.
> 
> Take that suggestion as you will. Is it too remote to work?
> 
> Warren -



Only if It comes with the blonde chick


----------



## T.D. (13/5/09)

I think that's one of the interesting things about BIAB Warren - the chance to try these sorts of things, that are not possible for us 'conventional' brewers. That is precisely the reasoning behind my thoughts re the finess of the crush. BIAB is unique in that it allows brewers to push the limits of the mash more, due to the bag being fine mesh.

I had a feeling this might turn into a "If I lose 5% efficiency but it makes better beer then that's fine by me" situation, but that is not what any of this is about. In this case, there is no suggestion that the beer will suffer in any way, and Ross is happy to crush the grain finer for BIAB brewers, at no extra cost. So essentially the brewer gets more efficiency and incurrs no additional cost. Why wouldn't you do it! Its like saying "if you put this new petrol in your car (same price), you will get an extra 50kms out of each tank", but then deciding to stick with the old petrol...


----------



## eric8 (13/5/09)

warrenlw63 said:


> Hey for you BIAB'ers who crave extra efficiency why don't you tie up your bags and press them in an Apple or Grape press? You'd be up there with some of the Mega Breweries and their mash filter/presses then. You could also incorporate a "very" fine lab grind as well.
> 
> Take that suggestion as you will. Is it too remote to work?
> 
> Warren -


I tend to give my bag a fair squeeze whilst waiting for the boil and also during the boil to try and get more wort out of the grain and bag. Not sure if you are taking the piss a bit there warren, but why would you go to that much trouble, you may as well be dunk sparging the bag as well, which then means more gear and thus moving further away from the original idea of BIAB, being a single vessel way of brewing.

I like knowing what my efficiency is, but I don't really care too much when the beer turns out well, it's just a number that gets put into the beer software at the end of the day. If the beer ends up tatsting great, then excellent lets try and make it better, but if it tastes like crap, then oh well lets try something different. All about trial and error and trying to make sure you don't make the same mistakes again.

:icon_cheers: 
Eric


----------



## Bribie G (13/5/09)

My fine crush arrived this morning and I'm about to give it a whirl. Another 'efficiency' aspect that I've discovered is that with recipes that have a fair amount of cereal adjuncts, because the cereals (polenta, rice) are huskless, almost the whole weight of the adjunct is nuked during mashing and the resulting spent mash is comparatively light and easy to hoist, drain and squeeze so a good extraction is possible:





I'm not saying that BIAB brewers should always add grain adjuncts, just that in recipes that do well with adjuncts (Classic American Pilsner, Cervezas, Some British Milds and Bitters etc etc) then BIAB is an excellent technique for those particular brews.


----------



## crundle (13/5/09)

flattop said:


> PS Crundle did you find the filters?



Headed down to the shops a bit later on today, so will have a look for them while I am down there.

The reason I am interested in milling finer is to try to reach an efficiency somewhere around what most recipes accept, around 70% or so. At the moment, my efficiency is at around mid 60's, so if by merely crushing my grain bill a bit finer I can raise it to that ballpark, I will be happy enough.

Always been happy with the taste of my beers, but I am trying to brew to style and being able to hit expected gravities is part of the process. Not aiming for perfect accuracy, but looking at why I am unable to hit the same efficiencies as other BIAB'ers using the same process, and I think the variable may be the crush size of the grain bill.

Going to order my grain for a Wicked Elf Pale Ale clone today, and will be asking for it to be milled twice to see what effect it has. Coupled with the pool filter in the neck of the cube while filling, I hope to be able to gain some efficiency and counteract the effects of greater trub in the bottom of the urn.

Got to love experimenting in brewing, it is the thing that makes it such an obsession. I still go back and read the original threads on BIAB and laugh with hindsight at the progress the method underwent. I tip my hat to all who were involved in the process, both as advocates and devil's advocates, for getting me into all grain!

cheers,

Crundle


----------



## Bribie G (13/5/09)

Well I've done the mash with the finer crush and I'm very pleased with the result, which is boiling now. Ended up with a nicely compact dry bag after a bit of squeezing. One thing that struck me was that when I dumped the spent grain on the garden, usually with rice in the mash I end up with discernible rice grains in the spent mash. They usually collapse straight away on being touched as they have been 'hollowed' out by the enzymes. However in this case I can't pick any rice grains at all. Hopefully conversion has been a tad better this time. OG will tell.


----------



## reviled (13/5/09)

BribieG said:


> Well I've done the mash with the finer crush and I'm very pleased with the result, which is boiling now. Ended up with a nicely compact dry bag after a bit of squeezing. One thing that struck me was that when I dumped the spent grain on the garden, usually with rice in the mash I end up with discernible rice grains in the spent mash. They usually collapse straight away on being touched as they have been 'hollowed' out by the enzymes. However in this case I can't pick any rice grains at all. Hopefully conversion has been a tad better this time. OG will tell.



I found it hard to pick the rice grains when I dumped the grist for my Cereal Pest APA, I did look as well and couldnt really make them out...


----------



## PistolPatch (13/5/09)

Thanks browndog  Does that mean I can I write a bit more now? LOL. (Crundle have a read of the below and then I am going to PM you.)

*Why 2% Improvements in Efficiency are Impractical to Measure*

There is nothing wrong with trying to improve efficiency, nothing wrong at all but there is a reason why very experienced and successful brewers like browndog are a little dismissive of it. In fact, you'll find only two groups of brewers obsessed by efficiency - new brewers and experienced brewers who love the science of brewing. 

This is all good and enjoyable but we need to look at it realistically. Let's have a look at just how hard it is to see if your efficiency increases by 2% or more using a finer crush.

[This will be a ridiculously long post and no need to read it all. The number of points in this post alone should show how difficult it is to measure small efficiency increases and this is the sole aim of this post.]

Let's have a look at some of the minimal equipment you will need to test if a finer crush gives better efficiency than a coarser crush and by how much.

1. 15kg accurate scales. - You'll want to weigh your own grain for the brews you do. Scales will come in handy for measuring your spent grain as well - lol
2. Filter Paper - To get accurate hydrometer readings you will need to filter all your wort samples. (Thanks Nev, I didn't know that one until you told me.)
3. Accurate Hydrometer - These are rare and make sure you use the same one on each brew.
4. Calibrated Scientific Jug - Use this to calibrate *all* your other volume equipment.

Next you need to determine at what stage of the brew you are going to measure your efficiency. To measure the true difference between the two crushes, *you will have to measure how much clear beer you get from your fermenter.* 

Your *efficiency into the kettle will not answer the question.* There are three questions to answer here and the third is very important but can't be answered at the into the kettle stage. The three questions are...

1. Did I get more or less wort into the kettle?
2. Was it of higher or lower gravity?
3. How much trub did I get in my kettle?

The only scientific way of measuring efficiency is clear beer from the fermenter. Just the same as comparing a counter-flowed beer or no-chilled beer to an immersion chilled beer. The former will have a higher efficiency into the fermenter (due to a tad more trub) but probably the exactly same efficiency from the fermenter.

A testing of finer versus coarser crush would be even more important to test at the 'from the fermenter,' stage as you really would want to know just how much of that extra volume into the kettle is solids etc.

Now we have all the above sorted, we need to get to the actual measuring side of things - lol!

For example, any experienced traditional brewer knows that you can leave the wort draining from your mash tun for a long long time and this can add at least 1.5 litres to your kettle - more if my memory serves me correctly. There's about a 5% increase in efficiency straight away! So for traditional brewers, you'd have to set a time when you turn the mash tun tap off. For BIABers, it will be harder to get consistent results. How hard are you going to squeeze and/or how long are you prepared to hang and drain your bag? You will have to do it the same way for every brew.

Next you will need to measure your OG and the latest stage you can do this is into the fermenter. But you can't measure the true volume at this stage as you don't know how much extra or less a finer crush will add trub to your fermenter.

To get your volume, you will have to wait until the brew is fermenterd out, drain the same clarity of wort from it and then measure the trub!!!

I haven't even talked about the inaccuracies of measurement but an article* I read a while back acknowledges a plus or - 5% measurement error just on the measurement side of things alone! So, I wasn't exaggerating in my last post when I said that you would need to do 20 brews to detect a 2% increase in efficiency. Do 10 identical recipes with the coarse crush and then 10 with the fine crush!

[*Couldn't find that article quickly but here is one that looks interesting.]

I could write more on the problems of measurement but surely the above is enough?

Efficiency is fun to explore and talk about but we do need to be realistic and convey efficiency figures usefully which is quite difficult.

A better goal for new brewers is the consistency that browndog mentioned. A new brewer is far better off in the long run establishing convenient cut-off points of measurement. For example, a new traditional brewer should say turn their mash tun tap off at the start of the boil, whilst a new BIAB brewer might like to squeeze or hang until the boil start.

New brewers focussed on measurement would also be far better off getting some accurate measuring jugs and seeing how much trub settles out at varying stages of the brewing process. This can be a bit of fun and certainly educational.

The *ONLY* benefit I can see for a new brewer having a basic understanding of efficiency is to know if something is majorly wrong. And guys like Crundle will be hard pressed finding good quality information on even the term 'efficiency.' He is probably measuring his efficiency on the more honest end of the scale. Even 55% from the fermenter is perfectly acceptable.

The more you brew and learn, the more you realise that any efficiency figure you see quoted will probably be a lot more useful to the person quoting it than you. Efficiency is very individual to the brewer and their equipment. It is a very mis-used term.

The most useful figure to convey to other brewers who wish to replicate your brew is simply the OG you measured and even then you better cross your fingers that their hydrometer reads anywhere near yours - lol! 

Thanks heaps browndog. I'm even more relaxed now!!!
:beer: 
Pat


----------



## browndog (13/5/09)

Pat, we have all missed your posts mate, time to get back into it. Very sound advice, conistancy and repeatability and a sound knowledge of your system, be it basic or a Brew boy. Get those things down pat, then look at efficiency.

cheers

Browndog


----------



## T.D. (13/5/09)

Pat I think you are going to have to start writing executive summaries to your posts.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (13/5/09)

Explain why you need filter paper to get accurate hydrometer readings - this I don't understand.

You make the assumption that people don't actually have the things you list - and that they aren't capable of recognizing a trend when they see one

I measure all my things the same way every time - I get a new finer crush and notice and improvement in efficiency, measuring the way I always did - this level of efficiency is consistent while I maintain the new crush - I go back to the old crush and my efficiency drops again.

That'd be good enough for me


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (14/5/09)

Thirsty Boy said:


> Explain why you need filter paper to get accurate hydrometer readings - this I don't understand.


Thirsty, First of all its not a practise that I use but it will give you a more accurate hydrometer reading by removing particulate and trub.Of course it only going to do that if your Hydrometer is accurate.Its also necessary if you are doing a spectrometry reading for accurate colour ratings.From memory its advocated in the guidelines published by The American Brewing Chemists.Good read , if you can get a copy, tells you all the right way to do testing.
GB


----------



## Thirsty Boy (14/5/09)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Thirsty, First of all its not a practise that I use but it will give you a more accurate hydrometer reading by removing particulate and trub.Of course it only going to do that if your Hydrometer is accurate.Its also necessary if you are doing a spectrometry reading for accurate colour ratings.From memory its advocated in the guidelines published by The American Brewing Chemists.Good read , if you can get a copy, tells you all the right way to do testing.
> GB



Yeah, Important if you are measuring tint, and important for measuring gravity if you are using either a density meter or a refractometer - but particulate matter cant make a difference to the density of a liquid. By definition its not in suspension.

Not just something I know in theory, also in practice. I have tested this at home on good quality precise hydrometers... if it makes a difference, then its one that is imperceptible to me. And at work if we are using hydrometers instead of gravity meters (they sometimes break) the samples are definitely not filtered. And they would be if it made a difference.

Still, I will track down those guidelines and read them - I don't think I'm wrong, but I'd like to be sure.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (14/5/09)

Thirsty Boy said:


> Yeah, Important if you are measuring tint, and important for measuring gravity if you are using either a density meter or a refractometer - but particulate matter cant make a difference to the density of a liquid. By definition its not in suspension.
> 
> Not just something I know in theory, also in practice. I have tested this at home on good quality precise hydrometers... if it makes a difference, then its one that is imperceptible to me. And at work if we are using hydrometers instead of gravity meters (they sometimes break) the samples are definitely not filtered. And they would be if it made a difference.
> 
> Still, I will track down those guidelines and read them - I don't think I'm wrong, but I'd like to be sure.


Over simplified: if you have a testing tube full of trub/cold break and drop the hydrometer into that vessel will your hyro sit on the trub? I think so.Therefore a false reading.
GB


----------



## Ross (14/5/09)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Over simplified: if you have a testing tube full of trub/cold break and drop the hydrometer into that vessel will your hyro sit on the trub? I think so.Therefore a false reading.
> GB




You'd have to be pretty silly to try & get a reading if choco full of trub, but a few floaties are not going to make any difference & certainly no need for filter paper...just my 2 bobs worth B) 

cheers Ross


----------



## Bribie G (14/5/09)

I just take a splosh of clear wort midstream into a schott bottle, chill it in the freezer and when cool enough fill the hydro tube right up, drop the hydro in and the excess runs out over the sides, removing any foaming, to leave a batch of totally clear wort with the hydro sticking out of the top of the completely full cylinder. I believe I get an accurate reading.

Using whirlfloc the wort stream is always crystal clear. Often wish it was that clear eventually in the glass :lol:


----------



## bradsbrew (14/5/09)

Speaking of gravity, how did the finer crush go Bribie??

Brad


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (14/5/09)

Ross said:


> You'd have to be pretty silly to try & get a reading if choco full of trub, but a few floaties are not going to make any difference & certainly no need for filter paper...just my 2 bobs worth B)
> 
> cheers Ross


Silly yes but it does happen, not every one is a bright as you.
GB


----------



## T.D. (14/5/09)

Ross said:


> You'd have to be pretty silly to try & get a reading if choco full of trub, but a few floaties are not going to make any difference & certainly no need for filter paper...just my 2 bobs worth B)
> 
> cheers Ross



You're not using a filter on your hydro samples are you Ross??? :lol:


----------



## Bribie G (14/5/09)

bradsbrew said:


> Speaking of gravity, how did the finer crush go Bribie??
> 
> Brad



Won't know till tomorrow because being an Aussie dark I'll be putting in some sugaz a la Fostaz and will measure OG before pitching :beerbang:


----------



## kram (14/5/09)

I would've thought measuring the gravity to check efficiency would be done before adding any additional fermentables?


----------



## jayse (14/5/09)

I don't think this thread is any longer a retail thread so maybe move it to all grain yeah? No objections?
It won't be filtered through paper or anything just shifted :lol:


----------



## Bribie G (14/5/09)

kram said:


> I would've thought measuring the gravity to check efficiency would be done before adding any additional fermentables?



Good point, I'll take a sample before the sugaz. I normally only measure the OG as a guide to how many brain cells I am likely to lose and also to see if I am within guidelines if I am trying to copy a commercial style. 
However for the current exercise I take your point.

Edit: yes move it, the 'commercial' aspect was fulfilled when Ross et al sent me the fine crush


----------



## Thirsty Boy (14/5/09)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Over simplified: if you have a testing tube full of trub/cold break and drop the hydrometer into that vessel will your hyro sit on the trub? I think so.Therefore a false reading.
> GB



Fair enough I suppose. Not quite needing a filter paper to get an accurate reading, but I see the logic in recommending that samples be filtered in the ASBC guidelines. Takes the whole issue completely out of the equation.


----------



## crundle (20/5/09)

The last sample I took to measure SG was taken after dumping cube contents into the fermenter just before pitching yeast. At first there was a decent amount of debris seemingly suspended in the wort, but I left it on the bench for 10 minutes then returned, and the bulk of it had settled out to the bottom of the tube, and my hydrometer sat above it happily without disturbing it, so I am happy with the results of the reading in that aspect.

However, I tested my hydrometer in demineralised water and found it was floating at 0.096 instead of 1.000 at 20 degrees. To test the accuracy of my hydrometer, I thought of using a sugar solution at 20 degrees to test at typical Starting and finishing gravities.

Beersmith tells me that 1 litre of water at 20 degrees with 130 grams of dissolved white table sugar should give a reading of 1.050, while 1 litre of water with 30 grams of sugar should give a reading of 1.015. Anyone think that these figures are wrong on their calculations?

Crundle


----------

