Benefits Of A 3v Brew Rig?

[bigfridge]

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

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

Sorry for any offense caused.

 

[glenwal]

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

Interesting

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

 

[donburke]

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

 

[sponge]

RAHAHB.

 

[Thirsty Boy]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[dent]

Interesting

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

 

[Nick JD]

I've already quoted this from that Turbidity paper.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Wolfy]

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

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

 

[mje1980]

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

 

[Nick JD]

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve@PMF82]

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

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

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

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

 

[manticle]

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

Sorry for any offense caused.

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

I retract my 'arsehole' comment.

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

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

 

[Nick JD]

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

I retract my 'arsehole' comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bribie G]

Necro:

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

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

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

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

 

[SJW]

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

Good Luck

STEVE

 

[Clutch]

I can't build shit so i started with:

And went to:

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

 

[Batz]

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



Good Luck



STEVE

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

 

[Markbeer]

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

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

Mark

 

[Crusty]

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

 

[sama]

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