# First BIAB recipe



## Nickedoff (27/9/20)

Hi all

I'm thinking about doing my first BIAB and the idea of doing a Vienna SMASH lager sounds good. Does this sound about right?

Grain - 100% Vienna (5kg)
Hops:

Perle - 60m 30g
Perle - 15m 15g
Perle - 5m 15g

No chill - looking for ~22l batch size. Got my urn boiling away at the moment to figure out losses.

67 deg strike for 65 deg mash temp and 10m mashout @ 78 deg?

BrewMate give me 36.8 IBU. Will probably use s-189.

Sound ok for a first run?


----------



## philrob (27/9/20)

Looks OK to me. Ferment cool, as it's a lager, and use 2 packs of yeast.

I've never used Perle hops, so I'm not sure they fit the profile, but others could jump in here.


----------



## Nickedoff (27/9/20)

I was thinking saaz as an alternative with roughly double the quantities as it seems far less bitter.


----------



## butisitart (27/9/20)

philrob said:


> Looks OK to me. Ferment cool, as it's a lager, and use 2 packs of yeast.
> 
> I've never used Perle hops, so I'm not sure they fit the profile, but others could jump in here.


used perle (and santium) in quite a few german styles, both very nice


----------



## Nickedoff (27/9/20)

Thanks guys. 

I'm trying to work out strike water. I filled up my urn with 35 litres of water, brought it to the boil and then set my timer to see how much evaporated in an hour, which was ~3l. Say 3.5 to be safe. 

So if I'm looking at a 23l batch size with a 5kg grain bill , I add 3 litres to account for boil loss + ~5 litres to account for grain absorption - so I should start with ~31 litres of strike water?


----------



## kadmium (28/9/20)

That sounds right for a full volume BIAB mate. But also, you need to account for deadspace (or what you can't recover from underneath the tap in the kettle) and loss to trub. So, you will lose roughly 1.5L to trub / break material and deadspace no idea. But that needs to be added in, which would be around 32ish


----------



## Nickedoff (28/9/20)

Thanks mate.


----------



## davemac (29/9/20)

First time use less water than you calculate and dilute to get the correct pre-boil volume - dial in your losses for future brews or just carry on liquoring-back


----------



## Hangover68 (29/9/20)

Nickedoff said:


> Hi all
> 
> I'm thinking about doing my first BIAB and the idea of doing a Vienna SMASH lager sounds good. Does this sound about right?
> 
> ...




I did a pilsner a few weeks ago using S-189, 1 pack is enough for 23ltrs.


----------



## philrob (29/9/20)

Hangover68 said:


> I did a pilsner a few weeks ago using S-189, 1 pack is enough for 23ltrs.



Really? I believe the conventional wisdom for lagers is that 2 packs of dry yeast is what is needed as a minimum.
I don't use dry yeast, but even with liquid yeast I grow my smakpaks up to 4 to 5 times original volume of yeast to pitch into 25 litres, and I don't believe I'm overpitching.


----------



## Hangover68 (29/9/20)

philrob said:


> Really? I believe the conventional wisdom for lagers is that 2 packs of dry yeast is what is needed as a minimum.
> I don't use dry yeast, but even with liquid yeast I grow my smakpaks up to 4 to 5 times original volume of yeast to pitch into 25 litres, and I don't believe I'm overpitching.



34/70 say it does up to 11 litres i think, S189 says 1 pack for 20-30ltrs - 1 works well.


----------



## philrob (29/9/20)

I don't care what it says. I read the packet information, but I still think it is underpitching.
Anyways, not for me to tell you what to do or how to brew.


----------



## kadmium (29/9/20)

Hangover68 said:


> 34/70 say it does up to 11 litres i think, S189 says 1 pack for 20-30ltrs - 1 works well.


And wyeast claim their smack packs will do 23L up to 1.050 yet almost everyone makes a starter and quadruples what's in there. 

Lagers need around 1.5million per ml, or 1.5B per litre, with a standard 23L requiring 23x1.5 or 345B cells. Dry yeast contains on average 20B viable cells per gram so an 11.5g packet has 11.5x20 or 230 which is enough for an ale but falls 115B cells short. 

Yeast don't like to reproduce in cold, and as such by fermenting at lager temps you will just increase sulphur and other potential off characters. 

I wouldn't go on what the packet states, I would go from a yeast calculator.


----------



## Hangover68 (30/9/20)

So the info on the pack is just for laughs ?, the pils i'm drinking now was OG 1.054, FG 1.014 fermented at 12c, pitched at 18c.
I'm happy with the result.


----------



## kadmium (30/9/20)

Hangover68 said:


> So the info on the pack is just for laughs ?, the pils i'm drinking now was OG 1.054, FG 1.014 fermented at 12c, pitched at 18c.
> I'm happy with the result.


No, the pack is for the minimum. If you're happy to brew at the minimum required, go for it. But it's not something I would be telling new brewers to do. In my opinion, it's about best practice.

If you want to underpitch your lager and you like the taste, go for it. You are brewing for yourself.


----------



## Nickedoff (29/10/20)

I've been busy making a dual coil immersion chiller (great fun, but I suck at copper soldering), so I haven't got around to actually doing this yet. 

Quick question about yeast nutrient - is it really necessary to make a slurry, or can I just chuck it into the boil in the last 15 minutes or so?


----------



## kadmium (29/10/20)

Nickedoff said:


> I've been busy making a dual coil immersion chiller (great fun, but I suck at copper soldering), so I haven't got around to actually doing this yet.
> 
> Quick question about yeast nutrient - is it really necessary to make a slurry, or can I just chuck it into the boil in the last 15 minutes or so?


I just throw the nutrients and the whirlfloc straight into the boil but that's me.


----------



## Nickedoff (29/10/20)

kadmium said:


> I just throw the nutrients and the whirlfloc straight into the boil but that's me.



Thanks mate.


----------



## Paddy (29/10/20)

I have done the same as Mr H68 and had very good results with German style pils, pressure ferment 1x S189 at 12c/15psi, rest at 22c/18psi cold crash to 2C/12psi taste test and lager for as long as I can resist - I am weak!


----------



## MHB (29/10/20)

Perle is more properly named Hallertau Perle, along with a couple of other hops like Hallertau Magnum, Hallertau Tradition... a lot of people forget the Hallertau part.
The famous (most wanted hop in the world) Hallertau Hallater Mittelfrüh is very susceptible to wilt and a bunch of other hop diseases and pests, there is a long and ongoing breading program to develop more resilient, better yielding hops that keep the elegance of the old Mittelfrüh. None of them are quite as balanced as Mittelfrüh but are all very fine hops.
Hallertau Magnum is my main bittering hop, but Perle is a fine all-round general purpose hop and will work very well in the Vienna above, or in most other Lager styles.
Mark


----------



## Nickedoff (2/11/20)

Finally got around to doing this today. Seemed to go well - mash temp was a touch under 65c, ended up with OG of 1.047 which seems around 70% brewhouse efficiency for final volume of 23l in the fermenter (fair bit of trub though). Hopefully it goes ok in the glass.


----------



## kadmium (3/11/20)

Nice! Make sure you keep us updated!


----------



## Nickedoff (11/11/20)

This turned out very nicely. Tasted warm, the Vienna was very toasty, but it mellowed nicely after a cold crash. Such a clean beer.

I'm thinking about Dr Smurtos Golden for my next brew - reckon this will go ok under pressure with US-05?


----------



## kadmium (11/11/20)

Yeah, US-05 is a pretty neutral yeast so I don't think you'd be missing out on any esters etc. Should be a good beer.


----------



## beergee (11/11/20)

Nickedoff said:


> This turned out very nicely. Tasted warm, the Vienna was very toasty, but it mellowed nicely after a cold crash. Such a clean beer.
> 
> I'm thinking about Dr Smurtos Golden for my next brew - reckon this will go ok under pressure with US-05?



Let me know what recipe you end up using for your BIAB @Nickedoff as there's a few different versions and I've been tossing up which one to use myself.


----------



## Nickedoff (11/11/20)

I'm going to use this recipe:

55% JW trad ale
20% Weyermann Munich I
20% Weyermann Wheat
5% Caramalt
Amarillo @ 60 to 31 IBU
1g/L @ 20 and 0
US05 

But I'm going to substitute Vienna for Munich and Rye for Wheat, based on Dr Smurto's comments on another forum (not sure if I'm allowed to link or not). So sort of a hybrid between the award winning version and his (current) favourite version. 

Is a 90 minute mash really necessary? I'm thinking about cutting it to 60.


----------



## kadmium (12/11/20)

Nickedoff said:


> I'm going to use this recipe:
> 
> 55% JW trad ale
> 20% Weyermann Munich I
> ...


Highly modified malts complete most of their conversion within the first minutes. By about 20 minutes you're probably fully converted. 

Having said that, anecdotal evidence shows that there can be a randomised effect to how low the FG goes if you mash less than 30 minutes. There seems to be, from what I can gather a consensus that a 60m mash is still best practice and I personally wouldn't see an advantage in a 90m mash. 

I think it also has to do with grains, ph, temp and mash thickness but generally in general 30-60 with 60 being a safe option. 

Someone with more technical knowledge may dispute/ clarify but that's my understanding. 

So short answer, no I don't think 90m is needed for that grain bill.


----------



## MHB (12/11/20)

I disagree, there are lots of advantages to doing a longer mash.
With very high quality malt, that is perfectly crushed, fully hydrated, in liquor that has the ideal amounts of salts and micro trace elements (Zn, Cu, Mn...), step mashed at all the optimum temperatures, you will still get a better more consistent result mashing for 90minutes than you would at any shorter time. Its just a question of 1/ how much extract you are willing to give up and 2/ how much randomness you can live with.

You can go down the Brülosophy rabbit hole where apparently nothing matters or learn how things really work. Either way you will end up with beer, better or worse from the same ingredients is in the brewer's hands.

The other point I would like you to think about.
Dr Smurto, apart from being author of one of the most brewed recipes out there is a highly respected and experienced brewer, one of those I always listen to with respect, he really does know what he is talking about.
He recommends a 90 minute mash (no doubt there is more information supplied than just that) but when some novice brewer thinks he knows better - Jesus, going to stop now before I start swearing.


----------



## kadmium (12/11/20)

MHB said:


> I disagree, there are lots of advantages to doing a longer mash.
> With very high quality malt, that is perfectly crushed, fully hydrated, in liquor that has the ideal amounts of salts and micro trace elements (Zn, Cu, Mn...), step mashed at all the optimum temperatures, you will still get a better more consistent result mashing for 90minutes than you would at any shorter time. Its just a question of 1/ how much extract you are willing to give up and 2/ how much randomness you can live with.
> 
> You can go down the Brülosophy rabbit hole where apparently nothing matters or learn how things really work. Either way you will end up with beer, better or worse from the same ingredients is in the brewer's hands.
> ...


I was going by John Palmer, I thought he knows a thing or two. Perhaps he doesnt.


----------



## Nickedoff (12/11/20)

MHB said:


> I disagree, there are lots of advantages to doing a longer mash.
> With very high quality malt, that is perfectly crushed, fully hydrated, in liquor that has the ideal amounts of salts and micro trace elements (Zn, Cu, Mn...), step mashed at all the optimum temperatures, you will still get a better more consistent result mashing for 90minutes than you would at any shorter time. Its just a question of 1/ how much extract you are willing to give up and 2/ how much randomness you can live with.
> 
> You can go down the Brülosophy rabbit hole where apparently nothing matters or learn how things really work. Either way you will end up beer, better or worse from the same ingredients is in the brewers hands.
> ...



I love the passion that brewing inspires in some people. 

No doubt Dr Smurto knows his stuff - that's why I'm going to try to make his beer. But I reckon he'd probably welcome questions being asked about brewing methods and recipes, as he's made many, many changes to the original recipe and seems quite fond of experimentation. 

Which is why I posed the question about mash time - to seek the advice of others. I take your point about brulosophy though, but they make it clear everything they do should be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## sp0rk (12/11/20)

kadmium said:


> I was going by John Palmer, I thought he knows a thing or two. Perhaps he doesnt.


He says here that it can vary from 30 minutes to 90
I can't find anywhere where he says 30 minutes is the only figure to use (even in the new edition)





Manipulating the Starch Conversion Rest - How to Brew







howtobrew.com


----------



## sp0rk (12/11/20)

Nickedoff said:


> I love the passion that brewing inspires in some people.
> 
> No doubt Dr Smurto knows his stuff - that's why I'm going to try to make his beer. But I reckon he'd probably welcome questions being asked about brewing methods and recipes, as he's made many, many changes to the original recipe and seems quite fond of experimentation.
> 
> Which is why I posed the question about mash time - to seek the advice of others. I take your point about brulosophy though, but they make it clear everything they do should be taken with a grain of salt.


I've brewed smurto's recipes dozens of times and I advise to stick with his mash times as they end in a superior beer IMHO


----------



## MHB (12/11/20)

I'm absolutely sure Dr S has very good reasons for recommending a 90 minute mash, he would have thought about it, he even knows what is happening in the mash and still recommends 90 minutes. Sort of makes your question redundant and very much gives then impression you know better.

kadmium have another read of what Palmer has to say, mind you a 1 page precis of the mashing process is going to be far from complete. If you want a better (free) read on Starch Conversion, visit Braukaiser I really think its much more helpful than the little Palmer spent on the subject.

Around 90 minutes is the point of diminishing returns, 60 minutes is a fair compromise but you will get less extract and probably a higher FG and increased randomness. I find most of my mashes end up being around 80-90 minutes including ramp times.
If the regime is rising from a Glucan or protein rest closer to 90 minutes for the time between 60 and 80oC
In what is closer to an Isothermal mash, again including ramping to mash out closer to 80 minutes.

Those are compromise times, I know I could get a little more out of my mashes but am fairly happy with brewhouse efficiencies, without pulling any tannins, which I find starts to happen if its pushed much over 85% overall (in fermenter).
Mark


----------



## Nickedoff (12/11/20)

MHB said:


> I'm absolutely sure Dr S has very good reasons for recommending a 90 minute mash, he would have thought about it, he even knows what is happening in the mash and still recommends 90 minutes. Sort of makes your question redundant and very much gives then impression you know better.
> 
> kadmium have another read of what Palmer has to say, mind you a 1 page precis of the mashing process is going to be far from complete. If you want a better (free) read on Starch Conversion, visit Braukaiser I really think its much more helpful than the little Palmer spent on the subject.
> 
> ...



Mate, I'm here to learn which is why is ask questions. I don't think my question is redundant at all, because I now have more information from both you and Kadmium which I can consider. 

I'm genuinely confused about why you think asking questions is any indication of me thinking I know better - the opposite is true. I'm asking questions because I want to understand more and tap into (pun intended) the great brewing minds on this forum. 

Thanks to all for your helpful information and suggestions.


----------



## kadmium (12/11/20)

sp0rk said:


> He says here that it can vary from 30 minutes to 90
> I can't find anywhere where he says 30 minutes is the only figure to use (even in the new edition)
> 
> 
> ...


I can't find anywhere I said 30 is the only figure? Pretty sure I said 60.


----------



## kadmium (12/11/20)

Nickedoff said:


> Mate, I'm here to learn which is why is ask questions. I don't think my question is redundant at all, because I now have more information from both you and Kadmium which I can consider.
> 
> I'm genuinely confused about why you think asking questions is any indication of me thinking I know better - the opposite is true. I'm asking questions because I want to understand more and tap into (pun intended) the great brewing minds on this forum.
> 
> Thanks to all for your helpful information and suggestions.


Some people are in the camp of "that's how it's always been, that's how it will always be. Dont ask questions, don't question legends, don't experiment for yourself"

Some of the younger generation question everything and experiment for themselves. Why would anyone insult or put you down or acuse you of being a know it all is beyond me. 

Many boomers like the established order of things. Its the way it will be till they all drop off. 

Brulosophy may not be a scientific beacon of excellence, but with all the rubbishing some people on this forum give to pressure fermentation I have not experienced any real negatives. 

I don't boil my bohemian floor malted pilsner for 90 minutes either. Guess what? I don't suffer from DMS. 

Then again, according to MHB my beer will be rubbish, I don't have a refined pallete, or I don't know what I'm on about. 

You asked a question, my opinion is that 60 minutes will be fine. 

Others think 90m is the way it should be done. That's their opinion and its also fine. But to say that 90m is the only way because "that's how he does it, don't question it you know it all" is not fine.


----------



## MHB (12/11/20)

You have my intent entirely arse about!
The way I see brewing it has two very distinct sides, the Art of brewing and the Science of brewing.
I think this holds in any field of endeavor to give a simile, take architecture, anyone can draw a picture of a skyscraper made of bricks. Problem is there is a very real limit to the height you can pile bricks to before the bottom row starts to explode from the weight above. Someone worked this out over 4500 years ago when they were running up the first pyramid (see bent pyramid).
Comes down to some fundamental rules relating to the strength of materials.

Likewise in brewing there are fundamental rules, learning a bit about them before you head off and "experiment" can be nothing but helpful to your chances of making good or even better beer.
Experiment can mean different things to different people, not having a clue and just deciding to chuck random stuff together is a bit like turning the kids loose in the kitchen, they might come up with something better than a Ruben sandwich, but lets face it you really are much more likely to get server Vegemite Marshmallows.

This started of with me replying to Nickedoff, his post makes as much sense to me as a learning baker looking up the most popular muffin recipe going, then suggest changing 2/3 of the basic ingredients and only baking for 2/3 of the time.
Will all the changes make beer? yes but will it be anything like a Dr S's Golden Ale, that is a very open question. I would brew the Golden until I was happy with my ability to make a really good example, then make changes if I wanted to move the finished beer in a given direction. I would spend some time doing a bit of basic research on alternative ingredients and how they need to be handled.

Take Rye, highest Glucan content of any brewing grain, thinnest to. It needs special attention in milling and if there is much in the grain bill it really needs a Glucanase rest or it will play hob with your recirculation/lautering.
Mill it like you do Barley malt and you will be lucky to get half of it potential, without the Glucanase rest at 20% as suggested you could easily find your mash has the consistency of Uncle Tobies.

Just trying to encourage people to spend a little time learning the basics before taking on an artistic interpretation
Learn how to use your ingredients and equipment to make good beer, learning what you like drinking and how to make the best beer you can is for me what home brewing is all about.
But (as always in brewing) look at your choices and why you are making them. If you want to shorten the mash, the boil, the fermentation time and maturation, do people really think it wont affect the beer.
Choices made for cheaper quicker easier almost invariably result in worse beer.
Learning how what you do effects the outcomes lets you make choices that result in better beer.
Mark

PS
Right now I have a broken tooth that is giving me a fair amount of gyp. Choice between intense pain or too much painkiller until I can get the sucker pulled out, not at my best!
If I've been a bit brusque I'm sorry, rubbing people the wrong way was not my intent.
M


----------



## kadmium (12/11/20)

My opinion is its like baking a muffin and OP said "hey guys, it said to bake at 160, but I think I might do 170 and bake it 5 minutes less"

Its still going to be a great muffin, and having a dig and accusing OP of being a know it all is not really acceptable. 

So OP, in my uneducated, un refined, non award winning, DMS riddled, stressed under pressure yeast, bad beer opinion (which everyone seems to enjoy, including now brewing for 2 mates and my brother in law who dropped half the costs of a brew system so I could brew for him and bought a full keg set up) I don't think dropping 30m on the mash using well modified malts, having ph in the acceptable range and doing all other standard practices will have an appreciable impact. 

Then again Heston Blumenthal states you have to mince the meat in a single strand direction and layer them in the same direction, and bind with salt only then fry flipping every 30s if you want ANYTHING that resembles a $70 burger from a 3 Michelin star chef. I just buy ground mince and add eggs, mustard and some bread crumbs. Makes a good ******* burger and my houses foundations didn't explode either.

Edit: no good about the tooth. Nothing worse than a sore tooth. It makes a shitty time for certain!


----------



## Nickedoff (12/11/20)

MHB said:


> This started of with me replying to Nickedoff, his post makes as much sense to me as a learning baker looking up the most popular muffin recipe going, then suggest changing 2/3 of the basic ingredients and only baking for 2/3 of the time.
> Will all the changes make beer? yes but will it be anything like a Dr S's Golden Ale, that is a very open question. I would brew the Golden until I was happy with my ability to make a really good example, then make changes if I wanted to move the finished beer in a given direction. I would spend some time doing a bit of basic research on alternative ingredients and how they need to be handled.
> 
> Take Rye, highest Glucan content of any brewing grain, thinnest to. It needs special attention in milling and if there is much in the grain bill it really needs a Glucanase rest or it will play hob with your recirculation/lautering.
> Mill it like you do Barley malt and you will be lucky to get half of it potential, without the Glucanase rest at 20% as suggested you could easily find your mash has the consistency of Uncle Tobies.



Your feedback on rye is interesting - thanks. I'm brewing BIAB so no recirculation. In Dr Smurto's rye recipe he doesn't specify a glucanase rest, so what do I do now? Do I take your advice to stick with the recipe or do I take your advice to do a glucanase rest? It's very confusing. 

You realise that I'm basically just blending Dr Smurto's recipes together, right? Like there's not one version of his Golden Ale. He talked about his reasons for substituting Vienna for Munich, and rye for wheat, and it made sense to me. 

Anyway, I'm brewing beer for me, if I want to experiment and end up making crap beer then it's beyond me why that would bother you. I'll learn and improve either way - whether it works or not. 

Having said that, I do appreciate the info you have provided, and I understand if your tooth is giving you hell - I hope you get it sorted soon.


----------



## Nickedoff (28/11/20)

Even though I overshot my mash temp by a couple of degrees, mashed for about 60ish minutes and completely munted the mash out this turned out pretty well. Lovely beer. I ended up using wheat instead of rye because MHB gave me porridge anxiety


----------

