Quantcast

First BIAB recipe

Aussie Home Brewer

Help Support Aussie Home Brewer:

Nickedoff

Well-Known Member
Joined
17/3/18
Messages
88
Reaction score
35
Location
Melbourne
Finally got around to doing this today. Seemed to go well - mash temp was a touch under 65c, ended up with OG of 1.047 which seems around 70% brewhouse efficiency for final volume of 23l in the fermenter (fair bit of trub though). Hopefully it goes ok in the glass.
 

kadmium

Pro
Pro
Joined
12/3/07
Messages
955
Reaction score
638
Nice! Make sure you keep us updated!
 

Nickedoff

Well-Known Member
Joined
17/3/18
Messages
88
Reaction score
35
Location
Melbourne
This turned out very nicely. Tasted warm, the Vienna was very toasty, but it mellowed nicely after a cold crash. Such a clean beer.

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

kadmium

Pro
Pro
Joined
12/3/07
Messages
955
Reaction score
638
Yeah, US-05 is a pretty neutral yeast so I don't think you'd be missing out on any esters etc. Should be a good beer.
 

beergee

Well-Known Member
Joined
12/6/20
Messages
61
Reaction score
20
Location
Perth
This turned out very nicely. Tasted warm, the Vienna was very toasty, but it mellowed nicely after a cold crash. Such a clean beer.

I'm thinking about Dr Smurtos Golden for my next brew - reckon this will go ok under pressure with US-05?
Let me know what recipe you end up using for your BIAB @Nickedoff as there's a few different versions and I've been tossing up which one to use myself.
 

Nickedoff

Well-Known Member
Joined
17/3/18
Messages
88
Reaction score
35
Location
Melbourne
I'm going to use this recipe:

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

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

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

kadmium

Pro
Pro
Joined
12/3/07
Messages
955
Reaction score
638
I'm going to use this recipe:

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

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

Is a 90 minute mash really necessary? I'm thinking about cutting it to 60.
Highly modified malts complete most of their conversion within the first minutes. By about 20 minutes you're probably fully converted.

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

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

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

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

MHB

Well-Known Member
Joined
1/10/05
Messages
6,231
Reaction score
3,707
Location
Newcastle
I disagree, there are lots of advantages to doing a longer mash.
With very high quality malt, that is perfectly crushed, fully hydrated, in liquor that has the ideal amounts of salts and micro trace elements (Zn, Cu, Mn...), step mashed at all the optimum temperatures, you will still get a better more consistent result mashing for 90minutes than you would at any shorter time. Its just a question of 1/ how much extract you are willing to give up and 2/ how much randomness you can live with.

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

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

kadmium

Pro
Pro
Joined
12/3/07
Messages
955
Reaction score
638
I disagree, there are lots of advantages to doing a longer mash.
With very high quality malt, that is perfectly crushed, fully hydrated, in liquor that has the ideal amounts of salts and micro trace elements (Zn, Cu, Mn...), step mashed at all the optimum temperatures, you will still get a better more consistent result mashing for 90minutes than you would at any shorter time. Its just a question of 1/ how much extract you are willing to give up and 2/ how much randomness you can live with.

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

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

Nickedoff

Well-Known Member
Joined
17/3/18
Messages
88
Reaction score
35
Location
Melbourne
I disagree, there are lots of advantages to doing a longer mash.
With very high quality malt, that is perfectly crushed, fully hydrated, in liquor that has the ideal amounts of salts and micro trace elements (Zn, Cu, Mn...), step mashed at all the optimum temperatures, you will still get a better more consistent result mashing for 90minutes than you would at any shorter time. Its just a question of 1/ how much extract you are willing to give up and 2/ how much randomness you can live with.

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

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

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

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

sp0rk

Mayor of Pooptown
Joined
14/2/11
Messages
4,227
Reaction score
1,077
Location
Muswellbrook
I love the passion that brewing inspires in some people.

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

Which is why I posed the question about mash time - to seek the advice of others. I take your point about brulosophy though, but they make it clear everything they do should be taken with a grain of salt.
I've brewed smurto's recipes dozens of times and I advise to stick with his mash times as they end in a superior beer IMHO
 

MHB

Well-Known Member
Joined
1/10/05
Messages
6,231
Reaction score
3,707
Location
Newcastle
I'm absolutely sure Dr S has very good reasons for recommending a 90 minute mash, he would have thought about it, he even knows what is happening in the mash and still recommends 90 minutes. Sort of makes your question redundant and very much gives then impression you know better.

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

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

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

Nickedoff

Well-Known Member
Joined
17/3/18
Messages
88
Reaction score
35
Location
Melbourne
I'm absolutely sure Dr S has very good reasons for recommending a 90 minute mash, he would have thought about it, he even knows what is happening in the mash and still recommends 90 minutes. Sort of makes your question redundant and very much gives then impression you know better.

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

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

Those are compromise times, I know I could get a little more out of my mashes but am fairly happy with brewhouse efficiencies, without pulling any tannins, which I find starts to happen if its pushed much over 85% overall (in fermenter).
Mark
Mate, I'm here to learn which is why is ask questions. I don't think my question is redundant at all, because I now have more information from both you and Kadmium which I can consider.

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

Thanks to all for your helpful information and suggestions.
 

kadmium

Pro
Pro
Joined
12/3/07
Messages
955
Reaction score
638
Mate, I'm here to learn which is why is ask questions. I don't think my question is redundant at all, because I now have more information from both you and Kadmium which I can consider.

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

Thanks to all for your helpful information and suggestions.
Some people are in the camp of "that's how it's always been, that's how it will always be. Dont ask questions, don't question legends, don't experiment for yourself"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MHB

Well-Known Member
Joined
1/10/05
Messages
6,231
Reaction score
3,707
Location
Newcastle
You have my intent entirely arse about!
The way I see brewing it has two very distinct sides, the Art of brewing and the Science of brewing.
I think this holds in any field of endeavor to give a simile, take architecture, anyone can draw a picture of a skyscraper made of bricks. Problem is there is a very real limit to the height you can pile bricks to before the bottom row starts to explode from the weight above. Someone worked this out over 4500 years ago when they were running up the first pyramid (see bent pyramid).
Comes down to some fundamental rules relating to the strength of materials.

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

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

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

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

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

kadmium

Pro
Pro
Joined
12/3/07
Messages
955
Reaction score
638
My opinion is its like baking a muffin and OP said "hey guys, it said to bake at 160, but I think I might do 170 and bake it 5 minutes less"

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

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

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

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

Nickedoff

Well-Known Member
Joined
17/3/18
Messages
88
Reaction score
35
Location
Melbourne
This started of with me replying to Nickedoff, his post makes as much sense to me as a learning baker looking up the most popular muffin recipe going, then suggest changing 2/3 of the basic ingredients and only baking for 2/3 of the time.
Will all the changes make beer? yes but will it be anything like a Dr S's Golden Ale, that is a very open question. I would brew the Golden until I was happy with my ability to make a really good example, then make changes if I wanted to move the finished beer in a given direction. I would spend some time doing a bit of basic research on alternative ingredients and how they need to be handled.

Take Rye, highest Glucan content of any brewing grain, thinnest to. It needs special attention in milling and if there is much in the grain bill it really needs a Glucanase rest or it will play hob with your recirculation/lautering.
Mill it like you do Barley malt and you will be lucky to get half of it potential, without the Glucanase rest at 20% as suggested you could easily find your mash has the consistency of Uncle Tobies.
Your feedback on rye is interesting - thanks. I'm brewing BIAB so no recirculation. In Dr Smurto's rye recipe he doesn't specify a glucanase rest, so what do I do now? Do I take your advice to stick with the recipe or do I take your advice to do a glucanase rest? It's very confusing.

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

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

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

Nickedoff

Well-Known Member
Joined
17/3/18
Messages
88
Reaction score
35
Location
Melbourne
Even though I overshot my mash temp by a couple of degrees, mashed for about 60ish minutes and completely munted the mash out this turned out pretty well. Lovely beer. I ended up using wheat instead of rye because MHB gave me porridge anxiety ;)
 

Latest posts

Top