Benefits Of A 3v Brew Rig?

[Steve@PMF82]

Hmm this thread just wants to keep going heh.

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

 

[glenwal]

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

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

 

[Dan Pratt]

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

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

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

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

 

[Crusty]

Simple answer to a tyranical rant - lipids.

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

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

<_<

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

 

[Crusty]

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

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

 

[Bribie G]

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

 

[manticle]

Professional brewing text from who?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MHB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[manticle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thought you were a lefty?

 

[manticle]

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

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

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

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

 

[Crusty]

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

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

 

[bigfridge]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May all your worts run clear !

 

[glenwal]

but as he continued the misquote

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bigfridge]

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

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

Glad that we can keep things civil then.

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

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

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

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

But on to more substantive matters.

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

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

 

[bigfridge]

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

No I am not saying any such thing.

Whats the relevance of it then?

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

 

[Wolfy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet you also said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And to get back on topic ...

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

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

 

[manticle]

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

Glad that we can keep things civil then.

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

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

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

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

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

But on to more substantive matters.

Fighting arrogance with rationality would make more sense.

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

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

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

 

[felten]

Call me when the first BIAB commercial brewery opens for business

What about a mash filter press?

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

 

[Thirsty Boy]

Simple answer to a tyranical rant - lipids.

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

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

<_<

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

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

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

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

 

[bigfridge]

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

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