Floating Mashes

[Kai]

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]

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

I suggest the PoMoGoFloJoNo Stir Mash Method'


Pumpy

 

[Darren]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?