# Floating Mashes



## PostModern (12/6/08)

I've been recently introduced to this method of mashing not often seen in home breweries. Well, I heard about it when I started mashing, but like most of us here, crushed fine and used the grain bed as a filter for the floury part of the crush. I've been posting bits and pieces about floating mashes all over the place, but think a dedicated thread is the best place to put this, so questions can be asked and information consolidated.

The following is blatantly pinched from ///'s posts in the IBU forum and from his instruction and advice to me, credit goes to Scotty and his Master for all of this. From my reading, this is a method employed in many if not most British breweries, and probably quite a few ale houses in Aus as well.

Essentially, a floating mash is what is sounds like. It is the method of mashing where the grain bed floats in the hot liquor rather than forming a dense porrige.

*How?*

* coarse crush - going thru the malting process, air bubbles form in the matix and between the husk layers. A coarse crush keeps these intact. A fine crush destroys the air bubbles in the malt which will help float the kernels;

* gentle mash-in - as the barley is coarse milled, the mixing in of the grist is easy with no dough balls forming; and

* slow run off - when you begin the run off this should be done slowly - no more than 30-40% of the first worts in the first hour. This serves to keep the bed afloat, stoping it from compressing. The grist acts as the filter (not the mash plate) and aids in clear, brite worts. (I run off a little quicker than this, but compensate letting the sparge water a little quicker as well, but still, quite slow).

*Why?*

* Bright Wort - nothing but a couple floaties in the first runnings.

* Efficient conversion - the enzymes in the grain are where you'd expect them to be, near the starchy stuff in the protein matrix. By keeping the crush coarse, you let the water into the air gaps that are present in the grain letting efficient conversion occur.

* Slow lauter gives, in ///'s words, "less shear forces on the first worts and less dissolution of lipids and oxidative precursors into the wort from the grain husk compared to 'turbid' worts."

It seems to go against everything we've ever learnt about fine crush for maximum conversion, but it is just a different method to achieve the same thing. Obviously there are some costs and benefits to both methods, but this method has served me well, indeed on my first mash with Marris Otter, I decided to give this floating mash thing a go. My enthusiasm gushed into this post.

Anyway, it works, works well and makes for a great brew day. Seeing the malt rise in the tun rather than water over the grain bed is a fascinating and at first slightly spooky sight.


----------



## Darren (12/6/08)

Hey PoMo,

Is this simply underletting you speak of??

cheers\

Darren


----------



## Kai (12/6/08)

I'd say MO definitely is meant for that, the floating mash is a UK thing, right? Good for well-modified malts where a coarse or fine grind does not result in a big difference in efficiency. I'm sure it'd work well with most of the pils malt we get too but i'd be interested to hear how it works out with something like weyermann bo pils or something else that's purported to be less modified.


----------



## PostModern (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> Hey PoMo,
> 
> Is this simply underletting you speak of??
> 
> ...



No. I don't underlet, I toss the malt into the hot water. The keys are the coarse crush, gentle dough-in and a slow sparge. Liquor to grist ratio of 2.5:1 or so is also desirable. I've seen underletting with a fine crush and you get a thick, sticky mash like any other.




Kai said:


> I'd say MO definitely is meant for that, the floating mash is a UK thing, right? Good for well-modified malts where a coarse or fine grind does not result in a big difference in efficiency. I'm sure it'd work well with most of the pils malt we get too but i'd be interested to hear how it works out with something like weyermann bo pils or something else that's purported to be less modified.



I think you're right Kai. I've tried it with IMC and JW Trad ale and had varying, tho mostly OK results. Failed with IMC Pilsner malt, but it could have been my crush. Lower modified malts need step or decoction mashing to get full conversion anyway. It wasn't until I recently used MO that I saw how great this method is. I'm going to give an Aussie malt another bash next brew with a coarse crush and see how it goes.


----------



## Pumpy (12/6/08)

Po Mo ,

This is a interesting concept which you must have tested to be so happy with 

1)do you recirculate the mash 

2)are you fly sparging or batch sparging 

3) is the efficienct compramised ?

pumpy


----------



## PostModern (12/6/08)

Pumpy said:


> Po Mo ,
> 
> This is a interesting concept which you must have tested to be so happy with
> 
> ...



1: No need. The runoff is clear from the get-go.
2. Fly, of course, otherwise the bed collapses on the tun floor.
3. Bucket measuring system, so no hard data.


----------



## Darren (12/6/08)

What is a gentle dough-in?

cheers

Darren


----------



## Sammus (12/6/08)

I was also thinking this, so you can dump your hot liquor on top, gently dough in (which i take to mean a relatively gentle stir) and the mash stays afloat?

How much coarser are we talking? Like I've seen people talking about their mill settings for us non floaters at around 0.9mm give or take...


----------



## PostModern (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> What is a gentle dough-in?
> 
> cheers
> 
> Darren



Sprinkle the malt on the surface of the water and stir only enough to wet/submerge the malt. Don't mix it like a cake mix. Dough balls don't form, so there's no need to paddle it all over the place. Stirring too much displaces all the air leading to the malt sinking.



Sammus said:


> I was also thinking this, so you can dump your hot liquor on top, gently dough in (which i take to mean a relatively gentle stir) and the mash stays afloat?
> 
> How much coarser are we talking? Like I've seen people talking about their mill settings for us non floaters at around 0.9mm give or take...



I don't know the setting. I just align the mill to the white mark on the adjustment knob on Scotty's village bike of a mill. Looks to me about 2mm... Perhaps Scotty will chime in with facts and figures.


----------



## Kai (12/6/08)

PostModern said:


> I think you're right Kai. I've tried it with IMC and JW Trad ale and had varying, tho mostly OK results. Failed with IMC Pilsner malt, but it could have been my crush. Lower modified malts need step or decoction mashing to get full conversion anyway. It wasn't until I recently used MO that I saw how great this method is. I'm going to give an Aussie malt another bash next brew with a coarse crush and see how it goes.



Cheers pomo, sounds like we're on the same page. Just wanted to add that the difference in extract between coarse and fine crush is an indicator of the degree of conversion even when a step/decoction isn't necessarily required... just trying to pretend i learnt something while studying the last couple months


----------



## Darren (12/6/08)

Pardon my ignorance,

Wont this method end up with a large prportion of unconverted starch in the mash (protected from conversion by the course crush)?

cheers

darren


----------



## matti (12/6/08)

Inspired by a step mash thread

I recall mashing a pilsner in a rectangular esky with braid, only my second AG for that matter.
I added only enough water (1.5:1) ratio to wet the mash for protein rest then poured the remaining water in for the saccharification rest.
When I added the remaining water in for the mash-out the water ratio was above 4:1.
I was batch sparging with a floating mash and had great initial run off but a stuck sparge in the second run off as the some grains managed to get in to the braid.
(I mashed ~5 kgs and got +1.050 Og after boil for 19 Litres
I topped up and added DME to 23 litres) for and OG of ~1.045

I never did work out the efficiency.

My understanding is if one desire a highly dextrinious wort the mash need to be fairly thick initially then diluted later.
If you have a floating mash at an early stage the enzymatic activity differ somewhat.
Thirstyboy had a post some where on this....


----------



## Kai (12/6/08)

That would depend on how coarse (and modification!), after all (almost) none of us crush our grain to flour.


----------



## Darren (12/6/08)

Kai said:


> That would depend on how coarse (and modification!), after all (almost) none of us crush our grain to flour.




Kai,

The crush described in this thread (husk filled with air) sounds as if it would very likely result in DRY unconverted starch. 

Still unsure as to the benefit? My run-offs are clear, no doughballs and have only had 2 stuck sparges out of a couple of hundred. I am a fine crusher/underletter.

cheers

Darren


----------



## PostModern (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> Pardon my ignorance,
> 
> Wont this method end up with a large prportion of unconverted starch in the mash (protected from conversion by the course crush)?
> 
> ...



Your ignorance is unpardonable 

From: Institute of Brewing and Distilling study guide exam 1 "AME":

[paraphrase]
Along with the air in the husk-testa interface, the starches and small air-filled "water-free" spaces in the endosperm in a good "mealy" kernel are entrapped in the protein matrix. That means two things:

1. The air-filled spaces allow easy water ingress into the matrix and an even pattern of hydration and hence better modification of the endosperm
2. A coarse milled grain without destroying the matrix allows the grain to float.
[/paraphrase]


If you have "steely" malt, rather than "mealy", then yes, you would be right. As Kai has mentioned, the method works best with well modified malts. They, by the very nature of their malting, have air gaps within the endosperm. A coarse crack doesn't leave the endosperm pristine, it introduces fissures through which the mash water may enter the kernel. Water enters. The enzymes are in close proximity to starch > brilliant conversion. Slow sparge gets all the resultant fermentatbles out of the husk.


----------



## Kai (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> Kai,
> 
> The crush described in this thread (husk filled with air) sounds as if it would very likely result in DRY unconverted starch.
> 
> ...



I am too, works great for me every time apart from when my manifold fell out last brew. The husk filled with air doesn't mean the particles from the endosperm aren't saturated though.


----------



## PostModern (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> Kai,
> 
> The crush described in this thread (husk filled with air) sounds as if it would very likely result in DRY unconverted starch.
> 
> ...



A fine crush can lead to a really firm grain bed. This can trap fermentables during run-off. Channelling is an enemy. In a loose floating mash, runoff is unrestricted, hence more fermentables are retrieved to the kettle.


----------



## Darren (12/6/08)

Hey PoMo,

Seems like quite a highly contestable point. If it so effective why crush at all? 

How slow is a slow sparge? and is slow worth the extra effort at the HB level??

Extraction of the sugars from the husk would obviously be lower than that acheived with a fine crush at whatever sparge speed surely??

Doubting Darren 8)

EDIT: Your above point. Thin mash will acheive minimise channeling and will be readily fermentable


----------



## Kai (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> Hey PoMo,
> 
> Seems like quite a highly contestable point. If it so effective why crush at all?



Geez daz, that's a lousy point. pomo's crushing to his satisfaction same as we do. How are the hammer mill and mash filter treating you and your flour crush these days?


----------



## Julez (12/6/08)

Before delving more into the theory and science of it, I'd just like to know realistically, what efficiency improvement could be expected using this method? It sounds like its a slightly more delicate process, and definitely more time-consuming when compared with batch sparging. I understand the logic, but interested to know the bang for buck of this method in terms of some actual figures. Are we talking about achieving 95% efficiencies here?

Interesting, very interesting!


----------



## Kai (12/6/08)

Julez said:


> Before delving more into the theory and science of it, I'd just like to know realistically, what efficiency improvement could be expected using this method? It sounds like its a slightly more delicate process, and definitely more time-consuming when compared with batch sparging. I understand the logic, but interested to know the bang for buck of this method in terms of some actual figures. Are we talking about achieving 95% efficiencies here?
> 
> Interesting, very interesting!



i think it's more about the method and your equipment than efficiency.


----------



## Pumpy (12/6/08)

As with all significant innnovations This method need to be given a Name 

I suggest the PoMoGoFloJoNo Stir Mash Method' 


Pumpy


----------



## Darren (12/6/08)

Kai said:


> i think it's more about the method and your equipment than efficiency.




Hey Kai,

No hammer mill. Fine crush always increased my efficiencies though.

Julez, I would say at a GUESS that your efficiency will decrease. You will probably also see an increase in cloudiness of your finished beers.

I have been wrong before so happy to hear others reports on the efficiency etc.

cheers

Darren


----------



## Julez (12/6/08)

Kai said:


> i think it's more about the method and your equipment than efficiency.



Ah. In that case, it's probably more of an academic/nitty gritty topic than a practical one for someone with my level of brewing experience! 

Never the less, intriguing


----------



## warrenlw63 (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> The crush described in this thread (husk filled with air) sounds as if it would very likely result in DRY unconverted starch.



That was my initial thought too Darren. Have to say I've got an open mind about it though. Be interesting to try just for the same reason as one would do a decoction. Just to see the difference I guess.

It's obviously tried and true in a commercial environment but as we all know what works in commercial practice doesn't always equate to the same thing or obvious results as a home setup.

Warren -


----------



## Kai (12/6/08)

Julez said:


> Ah. In that case, it's probably more of an academic/nitty gritty topic than a practical one for someone with my level of brewing experience!
> 
> Never the less, intriguing



i'd say it has very practical roots; it's about how the crush size and mashing-in method affect ease of lautering. Easier runoff = smoother brewday = more time to sit down with a pint.

NB this is not an advocation to crush coarser and drink more


----------



## Sammus (12/6/08)

I'm guessing there would be a significant efficiency increase over faux sparging (aka batch sparging ), but not for the proper method, which, admittedly I have yet to embrace 

Sounds interesting tho, I need to try something different, my efficiency is locked in at 60% no matter what I try. Any change ought to improve it


----------



## PostModern (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> Hey PoMo,
> 
> Seems like quite a highly contestable point. If it so effective why crush at all?
> 
> ...



Why crush at all? To allow the mash water to get to the air pockets inside the kernel. No compromise of the testa, no ingress of water.

The time of a slow sparge is compensated for by not having to recirculate. Also, by the time the run off was finished, the boil was under way on my system.

A thin mash will lead to a pancake on top of your husks with holes for some of the sparge water to flow thru without picking up extract. A fine crush will tear the husk, ~potentially~ leading to the oxidative precursors mentioned in OP.

Lately, I haven't been doing things like weighing my base malt, because I know that pretty much one metric bucket gets me close to 1.050 in a standard 1 keg batch on my system. So I can't give you accurate efficiency figures. However... one bucket = 1.050x20l. With my first "proper" floating mash, I used a bucket plus another 2 litres of base malt and got 34 litres of 1.055 wort, so from that rough measure, it was more efficient on my system, but I used MO for the first time, so, in fairness, it could just be the more highly modified malt than the aussie malt I normally use.

I'm not trying to convert everyone for all brews, but to present an interesting an unexplored mash method that works well, for me, with MO (any more qualifiers I missed?)


----------



## PostModern (12/6/08)

For your viewing pleasure, some pics I nicked from Scotty's IBU forum thread. (Cheers Scotty)

Firstly, is the mash. As you can see, not dry, just floating under the surface of the water:





Then, the first couple hundred ml of runnings. My own first runnings had much less floaties in it that this.


----------



## Kai (12/6/08)

I'd love to see a photo of your crush too so everyone has a visual indicator of exactly how coarse you are crushing. Those first runnings looks nice.


----------



## PostModern (12/6/08)

Kai said:


> I'd love to see a photo of your crush too so everyone has a visual indicator of exactly how coarse you are crushing. Those first runnings looks nice.



This is Scotty's crush, but as I said, I use his mill on his settings (now) and it's pretty similar.


----------



## Kai (12/6/08)

See, that's where I reckon the meats and bones of this thread (and darren's dissension) are at. I would immediately say that a crush like that would give me 60-65% efficiency if I brewed with it at home. Perhaps this is a great indicator of how many variables one needs to consider when trying to decide what makes a good efficiency on brewday.


----------



## PostModern (12/6/08)

I was getting about 75% before my scales broke. Given the results of the bucket and bit double batch, I'd say it's in the 80's with a floater and slooooowww sparge.


----------



## matti (12/6/08)

Good work Pomo.
more then words can say.
I will be fly sparging reeeaaally sloooooooowly in my 36 Litre Keepcold rubbermaid mashtun.
Working on how to underlet the water with a copper pipe down the side from my urn.
Just need a new mill now, Doh!


----------



## Julez (12/6/08)

Kai said:


> I'd love to see a photo of your crush too so everyone has a visual indicator of exactly how coarse you are crushing. Those first runnings looks nice.



They do! This is probably a dumb question, but here goes ~ what advantage is there to brighter first runnings?


----------



## PostModern (12/6/08)

Julez said:


> what advantage is there to brighter first runnings?



Less/no need to recirculate. These runnings went straight into the kettle. ie, the stuff in the photo was the first liquid that came out of the mash tun. From there, it just got clearer.


----------



## Offline (12/6/08)

I recently had the pleasure of witnessing the floating mash method for the first time at a recent brew day. Yes it was a course crush and the first runnings were very clear from the start. It will be interesting to try the resulting beer.


----------



## Kai (12/6/08)

Less polyphenol extraction from the husk is one and consequently this means less grainy, husky or astringent flavour in the final beer. However I think the more practical reason is the clearer the runnings into your kettle, the clearer the runoff from your kettle. That means less waste of precious delicious wort and more beer for you and me.


----------



## Tony (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> Julez, I would say at a GUESS that your efficiency will decrease. You will probably also see an increase in cloudiness of your finished beers.



Have you ever been positive about anything before Darren?

mmmmmmmm........ i GUESS not!

I have been doing a lot of thinking about floating mashes for months now. I was thinking of doing some trials by re plumbing my rig to reverse the flow of the wort when recirculating with a finer crush. Im not really set up to be able to fly sparge (yet..... will get 2nd pump soon) so batching it is. I was going to put a fine mesh basket in the mash tun to act as a top layer FB and extract wort from inside it and basicly return it via underlet to see if the stiring motion of the mash would inprove efficiency.

I never really know what a "true" floating mash was till just now  

2 things holding me back from trying this.

1. I have my mill set to my optimal setting. I get whole husks but a fairly fine cush and 80 to 85% efficiency in the firmenter consistantly. Im just not game to move the adjustment bolts!

2. i basicly have to batch sparge which won't work with this method so maybe when im set up for fly sparging i wil give it a go......... definatly.

I like to try out something i havnt tried before, before i shoot it down in flames. A lot of what is said by long term members on here is taken seriously by less experienced brewers. When critisism its based on GUESS's and personaly untried aligations, it can be misleading.

cheers


----------



## Paul H (12/6/08)

PostModern said:


> I was getting about 75% before my scales broke. Given the results of the bucket and bit double batch, I'd say it's in the 80's with a floater and slooooowww sparge.



Pomo how long was your sparge & at what volume?


----------



## matti (13/6/08)

Fly sparging they say is done at a speed around 7 litres per 1/2 hour but can be done quicker if you adjust the brew liqour accordingly.
I am talking theoretically only.
If you can get a mash temperature of 76-78 degrees through out the mash and the pH never rises above 6.5 and most of the husk is intact you can sparge until the Sg is 1.012 without a worry.

More practical solution IMHO is when you have fine crush, (husks that may come through), is to sparge no slower then 7 L per 1/2 hour and ensure the grain bed stays intact when fly sparging. If you stop a sparging at 1.015 or above you have less chance of astringency and clearer wort.

If you make a dark beer this doses off cource not matter as much.
And Darren 

Be more positive hehehe


----------



## matti (13/6/08)

OOOPS 
correction
NOT 7L PER 1/2 HOUR
7 gallons per 1/2 hour

closer to 0.7L/min.

My conversions is all screwed up. 

1- 1 1/2 hour fly sparge for a double batch of +50L preboil is normal.

(Gives you enough time time to mow the lawn if you have a big enough urn.)


----------



## PostModern (13/6/08)

Tony said:


> Have you ever been positive about anything before Darren?
> 
> I like to try out something i havnt tried before, before i shoot it down in flames. A lot of what is said by long term members on here is taken seriously by less experienced brewers. When critisism its based on GUESS's and personaly untried aligations, it can be misleading.



I think even the new members know how to take Darren  It's good to have the devil's advocate looking over things, but perhaps, as you suggest, a little trial or even some basic research might be in order rather than just WAGs.

Oh, as for equipment, my "fly sparge manifold" is just a flattened BBQ drip tray with a few hundred holes punched thru it with the handle of a dining fork  That just floats on the mash and I run the sparge water into the tray. It flows out nice and even.



Paul H said:


> Pomo how long was your sparge & at what volume?



Here's the thing, I am pretty familiar with my system. As you might guess from the PoMo bucket measuring system, I also approximate things like water (I weigh hops with a small scale and I take gravitry readings to work out bitterness additions and whatnot, tho). It's only let me down one time so far. For the 34L in the cube batch I did this on, I just filled the HLT to "enough" space, sparged until the kettle had "enough" headroom for a boil which just happened to occur when the mashtun drained and the HLT ran dry. Not luck, just experience and familiarity with my system. There is a crease in the kettle and HLT that shows me 25L and I base measurements around those.

Anyway, to answer your question, I ran off for about 90 mins, by which time, the kettle was at a rolling boil, the bittering hops were in and there was about another 20 mins of boil before I pulled out the hose. I guess the biggest risk I have is a plastic taste from the hose being exposed to boiling wort temps  Anyway, that was my effort to recover some time. First cube from the batch is in the fermenter now.


----------



## Asher (13/6/08)

has anyone got a glass mash tun? I'd love to see some pictures of this method in action


----------



## PostModern (13/6/08)

Asher said:


> has anyone got a glass mash tun? I'd love to see some pictures of this method in action



Interesting idea. I might save some grain from my next crush and float mash it in a pint glass.


----------



## Hutch (13/6/08)

PostModern said:


> Interesting idea. I might save some grain from my next crush and float mash it in a pint glass.


Good idea PoMo. Would be interested to see how the grain-bed looks over the course of a 1hr mash. Maybe chuck the glass in the oven set to 70deg, and take a few before & after photo's.


----------



## Tony (13/6/08)

dont pick up the wrong pint while your brewing 

cough cough gag splutter


----------



## /// (14/6/08)

HELLO....

With a cough, a splutter and a yearning for a solid nights sleep i delve into said method of mashing.

At the very start this is a method of mash management. There is more than one. One of the core separation points I saw between my homebrewing to professional brewing when I first started working with Dr Simon Brooke-Taylor was mash management. In my unenlightened days I would bang things in, bang them out and have huge fuss and bother about other elements in brewing (for eg. how i gripped the pole during my ninny pole dancing routine to excite the yeast).

Simon has really impressed onto Dave and I management of all the elements of beer making; brewing to a tight process and specification to achieve predictable and manageable results. And I have to say it works, there are no surprises in my homebrewing, wort pack production or commercial beer production efforts now. Within a few tight points of Gravity I end up with consistent PG's, TG's and flavour profiles. I see this as absolutely necessary for the volume of wort we move a week.

Reading thru the pages I think a few points are misguided some. Such as why do we wet the grain with foundation water? We do this as at the ranges of 60-72C the starches liquify in the malted barley. With this liquification the enzymes then cleave the long chain starches into sugars. Also, the topic of 'undermodified' malt. What is undermodification?? This is an incomplete processing of the malt by the maltster due to the inherent chemical composition of the malt. Is the malt we buy now 'undermodified'? Well I'd like to see a spec sheet, cos' after having sold Weyermann Malt for a number of years with Dave Cryer I never once saw a spec sheet that indicated anything less than complete modification by the WK index. I'd really like to turn this into a myth buster episode, but that said this is not the subject of the thread. All I will say is that if you think Weyermann would let out poor quality malt that requires a huge amount of time and energy to complete thier work by the brewer, your crazy. Weyermann is a quality based supplier. As Chris Garret from Warminster Malt once said to me, <insert lovelly English accent> 'if any Malster worth his chops in these modern times lets out undermodified malt into the market and makes more work for the brewer, then they should call themselves a stock-feed supplier not malster'. 

Ok, back to the thread. There are a few ways to manage a mash. One is to submerge the mash, resting it on the plates of the lauter tun with a thin bed to enable a quick run-off. This is done with a wide flat lauter tun to a depth of about 30-45 cm. Because of the quick run-off and compaction of the bed, rakes are used to cut the bed to enable full extract of sugars. The quick run-off decreases the chance of polyphenol extraction due to the finer crushed husk and oxidative precursors from dissolving substances (forget my notes at work) in the embryo section of the grain. The mash tun plate helps to act like a filter as well. This is very much equipment based, with a usual 4 vessel system of Mash mixer, Lauter tun, kettle and wort receiver (whirlpool)

Next is a mash filter. This is where grain is milled to a flour and put into a mash mixer, pumped to the filter and rested for about a 25 mins. The grain is then sparged quickly (diaprham expands and squeezes out the goodness) with the membrane doing to filtering. This goes on a few times, with weak worts recovered and mashed back into the next batch, meaning efficiencies of 103-105%. Again speed of transfer of the worts and contact time decreases the chances of dissolving polyphenol and embryonic substances for issues down the line. Equipment is often mash mixer, mash filter, kettle, wort receiver. Coopers used this method with thier Mauri Mash Mixer beast ...

Then we have our old friend floating mashes. Yes very much a method of the UK brewers (for some of times passed) and with a different range of parameters. The run off speed should be about 20% run off first hour, 30% next hour, remainder 3rd hour. Yes up to a 3 hour run off. But lets not forget, the first worts are put onto boil straight away, so the last worts only need about 25 minutes. We run a bit quicker in our production and acheive on average 78-80% with about 30-40% first hour - the brewhouse is manual and you need to manager the pumps and valves for each batch. 

With all things are in balance, the longer the run off, the courser the crush and the less chance of polyphenol and oxidative precursor's (sure lipids are the main culprit here, will check) dissolving. Also, the slower run off leaves the greater chance to continue the extraction of the sugars from the grain. Enzymic action is encouraged right throughout the process. Due to the often custom made mash plates and breweries, the brewers found the best method to hold back unwanted substrates and produce high quality wort (and beer) was to float the mash and let it self filter compared to letting the grain rest on the plates as a submerged mash would. They also found greater efficiencies were achieved by the slow run off allowing the sugars to be collected thru the deep grain bed. Running off to quickly leaves the more viscous wort behind over the less viscous sparge water. So to the equipment, a mash/lauter tun, kettle and sometimes whirlpool/hopback will be employed. Often high-gravity mashing is also used.

On the pics illustrated, i had a course crush, bright worts and acheived 82% efficiency on that brew, with numbers of 78% and 75% (left tap open and lost some strong wort) on 2 successive brews.

Theres arguments and research for and against each main method, but at the end of the day it comes down to what equipment you have and what you are trying to achieve. My $0.02c worth is that as most HB'ers are using infusion mash tuns with a deep grain bed then a floating mash method is most appropriate. I dont know any hb'er that runs a mash mixer/lauter tun with rakes system or a mash filter (but would be keen to see one in action), hence my opinion here. Also, with the increase usage of high quality raw materials and more money spent on systems, it would be worthwhile to adopt a better approach to mash management at the first step of the beer making process; the mash. Sure 'its only home brewing and you can chuck in a few extra grams of malt', but the pages of this forum are more than filled with folks trying to make the best beer they can, so why not adopt a better approach to all parts of the process than cherry pick parts of the process we think will improve our beer and discount the rest?

By following the advise of Simon, such advise has taken a hack-homebrewer to winning awards at professional comps. So i hope that would be some evidence that a more thoughtful approach to every stage of the process reaps rewards ...


----------



## Tony (14/6/08)

/// said:


> With a cough, a splutter and a yearning for a solid nights sleep i delve into said method of mashing.



For a second there you drank PoMo's pint :lol: 

Great post mate !


----------



## dicko (14/6/08)

Hi all,

This is certainly very interesting.
Now having read all of the above posts am I lead to assume that provided we are using an infusion mash tun that the only thing we need to do to achieve a floating mash is to crush coarser (?) and sparge very slowly using the "fly" method?
There is no need to chage manifolds, false bottoms, braids etc ???

Cheers


----------



## /// (14/6/08)

No change to equipment is necessary, as long as you follow a things: course crush, about 2.5l:1 liquor to grist, a slow run off and manage sparge water coming slowly and evenly (at the moment I am doing this with a jug). The course crush is the widest setting on my ye-old barley crusher.

It can take a few times to get it right, and occasionally you stuff it up, but saves all the mucking around with batch/dump sparging.

In answer to Tony's post, i just had PoMo's 'Its a Floater' beer. Rather than a cough and a splutter, i would have loved to strip naked and rubbed it all over myself. That of course, in a non-homo-erotic-illawarra-brewers-union kinda way that is ...


----------



## Tony (14/6/08)

So would it be worth drawing from the top of the mash tun and pumping back in the bottom (like underletting) to both stir the mash and also maintain temp using the HERMS coil in my HLT?

Or is that not how it works?

I have been toying with the idea of doing this with my finer crushed grist to try and get better conversion (already getting 80+%)

I lose a bit of heat from my ss mash tun, even with it insulated some what.

cheers


----------



## /// (14/6/08)

Tony asked a question I cannooooo answer - as the RIMS and this style of mash come at loggerheads. So, why not give it a try.

I did see a RIMS system running a few weeks ago and was amazed at after 40 minutes the wort was still cloudy. Tony is this the same as your system.

scotty

ps. i have made an error. I forgot to include the 4th and 5th style of mashing. Decoction at #4 and RIMS at #5. No lesser a result, a different way to skin the pussy cat...


----------



## Kai (14/6/08)

/// said:


> Reading thru the pages I think a few points are misguided some. Such as why do we wet the grain with foundation water? We do this as at the ranges of 60-72C the starches liquify in the malted barley. With this liquification the enzymes then cleave the long chain starches into sugars. Also, the topic of 'undermodified' malt. What is undermodification?? This is an incomplete processing of the malt by the maltster due to the inherent chemical composition of the malt. Is the malt we buy now 'undermodified'? Well I'd like to see a spec sheet, cos' after having sold Weyermann Malt for a number of years with Dave Cryer I never once saw a spec sheet that indicated anything less than complete modification by the WK index. I'd really like to turn this into a myth buster episode, but that said this is not the subject of the thread. All I will say is that if you think Weyermann would let out poor quality malt that requires a huge amount of time and energy to complete thier work by the brewer, your crazy. Weyermann is a quality based supplier. As Chris Garret from Warminster Malt once said to me, <insert lovelly English accent> 'if any Malster worth his chops in these modern times lets out undermodified malt into the market and makes more work for the brewer, then they should call themselves a stock-feed supplier not malster'.



I didn't say weyermann malt was undermodified, I said weyermann bohemian pilsner malt is purported to be less modified.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (14/6/08)

This is a lovely thread - in it I can see the beginnings of so much homebrew "lore" and why many times the "lore" seems to be either self contradictory, debatable or at least not matching people's real world experience.

What I mean is something like the "Short sparge time = low efficiency" thing. Despite being almost universally accepted as _true_, it often doesn't actually match up to many people's experience on their system, nor even to many commercial examples. But after reading this thread - it makes a lot of sense. If you are using a mashing method that more closely approximates a floating mash, ie course crush, deep mash/lauter tun etc, then that maxim is obviously true. And considering that in Australia we probably owe the vast majority of our brewing practical history to the English tradition... then it seems obvious that our common knowledge would have this system as its baseline.

Its when you choose one of the other methods for skinning your cat - Rimms, Batch sparging, Thin bedded lauter tuns, BiaB, fine crush infusion, decoction etc etc etc - that things get confusing. They all have their own set of "lore" and when we try to apply the rules from one system to another, we frequently end up contradicting each other's "truths"

I strongly suspect that this sort of thing is where 75% of the argument threads here on AHB originate (the other 25% are because guys like me are smart alecs who like the sound of their own voices too much  ) We all know that there are lots of different ways that people manage to squeeze a beer out of some barley and water - its just that deep down inside I think most of us harbour the thought that "their" method isn't as _right_ as "our" method, so when we talk... we are constantly engaged in a low level argument who's aim is to nudge people closer and closer to doing it the way we do it.

This thread and specifically Scotty's post, should be a great reminder to all of us, that different isn't necessarily wrong and that right down to the tiny air bubbles inside a kernel of malt... the assumptions behind one method might be completely different to those of another, and that flows on to effect the whole wort production process.

Thanks to everyone who has posted to this thread so far. I've learned quite a bit about brewing and probably just as much about brewers in the last half an hour or so.

Cheers

Thirsty


PS - I do have a glass mash tun (or at least a quite clear plastic one) so I might be able to take some photos if I try this method out. Of course, It'll have to wait till I do a double batch, because otherwise I have a quite low and flat grain bed for getting a fast runoff (batch sparge) I can rig up for a fly sparge no problem, but I'll need double batch volumes to actually get anything to "float". And as I was just saying above, if I mix and match methods, It'll probably suck and certainly prove nothing. Eventually though, I'll get around to it and resurrect this thread with a few photos.


----------



## Paul H (14/6/08)

Can you have a FMIAB (floating mash in a bag) & then "no-chill" it?


----------



## warrenlw63 (14/6/08)

Despite the multiple paragraph postings please appease the inner-idiot in me and answer this question, which still has not really been answered.

Will it result in a better pint of beer in my hand at the end of the day in your average home setup? :unsure: 

In other words if we did an identical recipe with a floury crush and batch sparge against a floating mash and protracted fly sparge would the end beer be any different to the discerning drinker in a blind taste test ????

Warren -


----------



## Ross (14/6/08)

warrenlw63 said:


> In other words if we did an identical recipe with a floury crush and batch sparge against a floating mash and protracted fly sparge would the end beer be any different to the discerning drinker in a blind taste test ????
> 
> Warren -



I would be very surprised if there was any discernable difference  
a very interesting thread, but can't see me switching from a 20 minute batch sparge just yet.... B) 

cheers ross


----------



## Thirsty Boy (14/6/08)

warrenlw63 said:


> Despite the multiple paragraph postings please appease the inner-idiot in me and answer this question, which still has not really been answered.
> 
> Will it result in a better pint of beer in my hand at the end of the day in your average home setup? :unsure:
> 
> ...




Its not supposed to - the whole point is not to make "better" beer. I thought that Scotty's post made that point rather well. There are a whole bunch of different ways to make beer, they all make good beer, but, depending on the mechanics of your particular system, perhaps one or other of the various techniques might give you a smoother/shorter/more consistent/less frustrating/more efficient etc etc brew day. 

If you have a wide flat mashtun like me - floating mash makes no sense for you, but if you have a taller thinner mash tun, thats the territory of the floating mash, and if you aren't getting the consistency or smoothness of brewday that you would like, well here's a valid technique that despite going against some of the "accepted" wisdom, might sort out your problems. Of course if you have a tall grain bed and are experiencing no problems at all, why would you change? and why would anyone care if you don't?

You're fine... great. I'm fine.... great. But Joe Blow out there might have been having trouble, and now he has one more option that he might have had before this thread came along. Options are good.

TB


----------



## bigholty (14/6/08)

Cheers to PoMo and /// (and others) for putting such effort into this post. It has really got me interested in this type of mash management, and it is always cool to get insight into what goes on in a commercial-scale brewery. I pretty much already mash this way, other than the coarseness of my crush. I usually start with a grist:liquor ratio of 1:2.5, I have a relatively deep mash-tun, and I fly sparge. Two of the main annoyances I have at the moment is mastering a fine crush on the Marga mill, and slow or stuck run-off. This method will let me run a coarser crush (which seems to work better on my mill) and to be content with a slow run-off and sparge. Once I set the valves on the HLT and tun, it's no difference to me if I go do something else for an extra hour. I will most certainly give this a go next time I brew.

The question I have though, is 'doesn't the grain sink once it becomes waterlogged after the mash?' And could you do do a floating mash without any kind of false bottom or manifold, etc?


----------



## Kai (14/6/08)

Thirsty Boy said:


> Its not supposed to - the whole point is not to make "better" beer. I thought that Scotty's post made that point rather well. There are a whole bunch of different ways to make beer, they all make good beer, but, depending on the mechanics of your particular system, perhaps one or other of the various techniques might give you a smoother/shorter/more consistent/less frustrating/more efficient etc etc brew day.



werd. i too thought this was a discussion about process not product.


----------



## Sammus (15/6/08)

So do you start the sparge at the same time as the runoff? 

I've noticed with flying they say to wait till the water level is just above the grain - I've never really understood why, but I reckon itd be hard to judge how much clear wort youve got underneath the floater, and your runoff might de-clear a bit if the floating mass of grain hits the false bottom or whatever..

Am I getting a hang of how it works?


----------



## warrenlw63 (15/6/08)

Thirsty Boy said:


> You're fine... great. I'm fine.... great. But Joe Blow out there might have been having trouble, and now he has one more option that he might have had before this thread came along. Options are good.



Is it one more option or just a reinvention of the wheel? I don't deny it won't work in any way but fail to see what problems it would actually solve? :unsure: 

Coarser crush, float your mash and sparge slower to me its really only going to achieve the same end as any other mash. Yep, it would work no doubt at all but ummmm yahoo?! What's new or really all that innovative about it? :lol: 

Bit like a diet. So many of them yet in reality they all achieve the same end but maybe in differing time frames and associated risks. Just options.

As I stated on this or maybe even another thread about this great "revelation". Quite willing to try it just to see what it does. Only for the same reasons I've tried a decoction mash. Somebody's done it at some time in the history of brewing and I guess I can see what I am or am not missing out on.

Warren -


----------



## Thirsty Boy (15/6/08)

The phrase "re-invent the wheel" is only of any use whatsoever if you are 100% absolutely sure that the wheels you are currently using are perfect and couldn't be improved.

I'm not


----------



## GMK (15/6/08)

Sammus said:


> So do you start the sparge at the same time as the runoff?
> 
> I've noticed with flying they say to wait till the water level is just above the grain - I've never really understood why, but I reckon itd be hard to judge how much clear wort youve got underneath the floater, and your runoff might de-clear a bit if the floating mass of grain hits the false bottom or whatever..
> 
> Am I getting a hang of how it works?




All my AG Mashes float....I start the fly first and wait until my Rubbermaid is filled almost to the brim.
Then i start the run off and match the water in to water out whilst maintaining the water level.

However, this results usually in a faster runoff than what is suggested here.
So i will slow it down.
My last AG yesterday - the runoff was the slowest i have ever did.
50+ litres took approx 70mins to run through....

Hope this helps.


----------



## /// (15/6/08)

Back in the thread sorry if it appeared i was taking a pot-shot about the undermodified malt i forward apologies - best way to check is with the spec sheets and will see if there are any available.

We turn on the sparge as soon as we start to run out, this on a big-rig to save sucking down the bed. The grain will continue to float until you turn off the sparge. I had a pic on my old machine where the pump was too slow compared to the water coming in and rose about 30cm up the tun and almost out the door. When you get a perfect floater it is a beast to itself.

But this is process as I think Kai mentioned, but managing this process has improved my beer thru the roof. It has also made things ultimately predictable, and that is also a plus considering other issues like my poor OH&S record (fire, what fire I say PoMo!)


----------



## PostModern (15/6/08)

Thirsty Boy said:


> Options are good.



You win the thread!



bigh said:


> could you do do a floating mash without any kind of false bottom or manifold, etc?



I've wondered if you could lauter without a manifold. I don't see why not, except maybe you'd end up with the area near the tap running less concentrated than the rest of the tun. It would be fun to try lautering with just a garden hose stuck thru the bed siphoning into the kettle, but I've already got a copper manifold and it works really well in my tun. It also gives peace of mind in case the bed collapses.



/// said:


> (fire, what fire I say PoMo!)



Yeah yeah, you don't see no fire. Um... where did that dent in your laundry roof come from?


----------



## Kai (15/6/08)

/// said:


> Back in the thread sorry if it appeared i was taking a pot-shot about the undermodified malt i forward apologies - best way to check is with the spec sheets and will see if there are any available.



i found a couple for weyermann pils and bo pils, couldn't actualy see any major indicator of a difference between them but the spec sheets were a little limited... I was hoping to find a coarse-fine grind extraction difference on them.

if i can remember where I found them i'll post them up. it was a US hbs.


----------



## Murray (20/6/08)

Sounds interesting. Might give a floating mash a go on the weekend and see how it goes.


----------



## Airgead (23/6/08)

Ok Folks.. so when we say "coarse crush" just how coarse are we talking here? I currently have my crankandstein set to .7mm which gives a very fine crush. Up until recently I had no problems at all with that but after two absolutely stuck solid sparges in a row (though that could have something to do with all the oatmeal I chucked in the stout) I'm willing to give this floating thing a go. 

Are we looking to just fracture/squash the kernel but leave the whole thing intact? Or are we looking a bit finer than that? I would guess at around 1.5-2mm gap to just fracture things. Any of you floaters out there know what your mill is set to?

Cheers
Dave


----------



## matti (23/6/08)

I am currently setting up a 3 tier brewing and intend to fly sparge and just looked up in my bible of what G. Noonan has to say about floating mashes.

He states that, start of quote "_If the malt is well converted and perfectly crushed, if the saccharification rest temperature is reasonable uniform, if the mash float well, if sparging is evenly dispersed, if the lauter mash is raked and the sweet wort is restricted to so that it takes ninety minutes or so to collect, an infusion mash will give as nearly the same extract as a step mash or decoction mash would_." end of quote.

A crush to a floating mash require the barley to be split long wise. This will give the them maximum starch area left for conversion and entrain some air, As Pomo suggested in his initial post.
A coarse crush constitutes of at least 75 % grist partly intact and less then 10 % flouring.
This, off course, is open for an argument...

A thick mash is essential for a dextrenious wort as the alpha amalyse would then be kept intact for a longer period.

When you mash out with just adding boiling water, the mash is going to thin out to about 4:1 water to grist ration and depending on when and how you add this depend on what type of beer you after.
If you are after a higher attenuated beer you can thin the mash gradually.

When you desire a higher efficiencies and cleared wort it comes down to the uniformity of the crush and the mash program.

As stated previously in other thread the brew shop tend to crush the grain fairly coarse. 
But if you can achieve a floating mash and run off slowly, you probably eke the most out of the grain.


----------

