GUTEN

[golfandbrew]

It seems like a pointless argument but since we can't get past it I would have to agree with WEAL. I would take it one further and say you can't batch sparge unless you have a second vessel with your sparge water to put the malt pipe into and then drain into your first.

Pouring water in batches and letting it drain isn't batch sparging it's just bad fly sparging. Bad fly sparging is about the best you can do by completely removing the malt pipe before sparging.

If one really wanted to do a proper fly sparge with a single vessel they would slowly lift the malt pipe out of the kettle at the same rate the sparge water is added.

 

[kadmium]

Didn't think I would open Pandora's box. Either way, it will be a good experiment because I got the grain at the same time for two batches so I presume they crushed at the same time. I know my full volume efficiency was 56%

This bill also has oats in it, so a handful of rice hulls and a "rinse" will be the only real difference. Should be interesting to see if I get a good boost or not. Will report back.

 

[user 37368]

Pouring water in batches and letting it drain isn't batch sparging it's just bad fly sparging.

Grainfather instructions say to constantly maintain about an inch of water over the screen during sparging which is technically fly sparging is it not? Lautering - Wikipedia

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Didn't think I would open Pandora's box. Either way, it will be a good experiment because I got the grain at the same time for two batches so I presume they crushed at the same time. I know my full volume efficiency was 56%

This bill also has oats in it, so a handful of rice hulls and a "rinse" will be the only real difference. Should be interesting to see if I get a good boost or not. Will report back.

I doubt you will need the rice hulls with full volume and stirring.

 

[2095brewer]

Not in the all in one systems though...
Batch sparging in the all in one systems would just be pouring in batches over the raised malt pipe. As I said, having the malt pipe raised is the equivalent of draining the mash tun in a 3V system.
Fly sparging is continuously and slowly pouring the water over the raised malt pipe - not pouring a heap over all at once and then just waiting for it to drain through.

What kadmium is suggesting doing is the all in one system equivalent of batch sparging

I don’t think that’s the equivalent... you can effectively lauter into another vessel From the bottom ball valve and add sparge water without raising the malt pipe. Stop the lauter when you’re either at your boil volume or at the gravity you want to drop at. Then raise malt pipe (which is lighter now), pump back in and boil.

 

[golfandbrew]

Grainfather instructions say to constantly maintain about an inch of water over the screen during sparging which is technically fly sparging is it not? Lautering - Wikipedia

As previously stated if the malt pipe is completely removed it's just bad fly sparging. So yes, technically correct if you are set on defining it.

Best just to leave it as sparging and not try and put into a box as it's not a good example of either batch or fly.

 

[user 37368]

As previously stated if the malt pipe is completely removed it's just bad fly sparging. So yes, technically correct if you are set on defining it.

Best just to leave it as sparging and not try and put into a box as it's not a good example of either batch or fly.

If I'm technically correct, is that why you want to just leave it without explaining any nuance as to why it is "just poor" or make such an assertion without including the reasoning?

What's the parameters you are using to decide on this? Both worts are in a container, one has a tap controlling flow, the other has a screen and relies on your grist to control flow, in both cases you keep water above the grain bed while slowly lautering.

Additionally why when I look at all the experiences and recipes for many different systems on the internet, is the efficiency not very different? So what parameters are you defining to say it's just poor, seeing it's not efficiency what is it? Don't like how they vourlaf during the mash instead?

Sorry but you felt the need to make the statement publicly, I questioned you and you just waved your hand like some higher caste and cited "as previously stated" with only an assertion, I would like to know how you came to this conclusion.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

We had a similar discussion on the Braumeister forum some years ago, most agreed that there are only 2 ways with the BM, 'full volume' or fly sparge, the batch sparge needed to run off the wort and use the sparge water in its place. Very much as a Parti Gyle except in a batch sparge the grain bed is slowly removed from the sparge water and the wort put back in to join the sparge water in a boil.
It really is a futile discussion, kadmium used a phrase batch sparge, which it isn't, and we are only talking about a litre ore two of water which couldn't fit into the kettle to pour over the lifted grain bed. so as mentioned a poor fly sparge. Which I doubt will have any consequence in washing tannins out of the grain bed. Its not like he is pouring 10 to 15 litres over the grain bed.

If you have two vessels the same i.e 2 Gutens then a batch sparge would be easy, apart from having two vessels to clean.

 

[kadmium]

We had a similar discussion on the Braumeister forum some years ago, most agreed that there are only 2 ways with the BM, 'full volume' or fly sparge, the batch sparge needed to run off the wort and use the sparge water in its place. Very much as a Parti Gyle except in a batch sparge the grain bed is slowly removed from the sparge water and the wort put back in to join the sparge water in a boil.
It really is a futile discussion, kadmium used a phrase batch sparge, which it isn't, and we are only talking about a litre ore two of water which couldn't fit into the kettle to pour over the lifted grain bed. so as mentioned a poor fly sparge. Which I doubt will have any consequence in washing tannins out of the grain bed. Its not like he is pouring 10 to 15 litres over the grain bed.

If you have two vessels the same i.e 2 Gutens then a batch sparge would be easy, apart from having two vessels to clean.

Didn't mean to start a **** fight. Was just chasing better efficiency than 56. Anywho, today went well. I heated 32L of water, added salts and then drew off 10L for sparging.

Mashed with 22L and hit a ph of 5.5 which is a little higher then I hoped but still in the good zone.

I then sparged with 10L over the grain, hence the rice hulls. Ran through quite quickly probably took less than 10 minutes to do.

Wasn't worried about tannins because I wasn't going to drive the PH up seeing the water for sparging was treated with salts. And I was doing a fixed volume sparge not checking gravity / PH.

I didn't vorlauf either, as it was recirc and was fairly clear.

So in the end I got 20.5L although the last 2.5L was very trubby but I am not concerned with that too much.

Overall efficiency for today was 70% on the dot. So for an extra 10 minutes of my time it's something I will incorporate into my day.

 

[Tubbsy9876]

Quick question,
I've been reading about mashing thickness, and the numbers reported seem to be in the region of 2.5 L/kg of malt. Most of the regular strength beets I'm seeing use around 5-6 kg malt, meaning around 10-18L water.
A lot of the methods I'm reading are using much thinner mashes than those in the resources. Is it an issue? There was something about the stability of the de-branching enzymes being higher when in the enzyme substrate complex, meaning more conversion at higher mash temperatures?

EDIT: Seems to have been answered here: The Mash: Standard vs. Thin Liquor-to-Grist Ratio | exBEERiment Results!

It would seem the changes with thicknesses are tenuous at best, however extraction efficiency is better in a thin mash (for obvious reasons).

 

[kadmium]

Quick question,
I've been reading about mashing thickness, and the numbers reported seem to be in the region of 2.5 L/kg of malt. Most of the regular strength beets I'm seeing use around 5-6 kg malt, meaning around 10-18L water.
A lot of the methods I'm reading are using much thinner mashes than those in the resources. Is it an issue? There was something about the stability of the de-branching enzymes being higher when in the enzyme substrate complex, meaning more conversion at higher mash temperatures?

EDIT: Seems to have been answered here: The Mash: Standard vs. Thin Liquor-to-Grist Ratio | exBEERiment Results!

It would seem the changes with thicknesses are tenuous at best, however extraction efficiency is better in a thin mash (for obvious reasons).

Hey mate, I think it depends on how you want to brew. I think that, in my 'philosophy' of brewing, I will take all reasonable steps to ensure I end up with the best product I can. That means, I do make yeast starters, I do oxygenate, I ferment and transfer under pressure etc.

However, at the same time I am not keen on varying my processes for each brew day. By that, I mean (and the only way to tell for me will be more brews) I would like to nail down a generic process for brew day. This means, I am aiming to always mash at 22L and sparge with around 10. The reason? The marking for 20L on my guten is actually 22L and if I fill to just below the 30L mark, it's 32L.

So, on brew day I can simply fill my Guten to the same spot, draw off till I hit the 20 mark and i'm good to go. I do all my salt additions to the full volume, and if I add lactic acid in future will work out if I do full volume or mash only. Probably full volume. I do my calcs based on 22L mash and 10L sparge.

If I am brewing a much lighter grain bill (this is for around 5.5kg) then I may drop the sparge volume by 1L.

I am not too concerned about getting 2.5L / KG etc, or measuring off my sparging PH or gravity etc.

If this process results in an efficiency that's swings wildly, then I may revisit it. However, if I know I will always be in the 68-72% range, then let's say I always base my numbers of 70% and if I miss a gravity point here or there i'm not super concerned. To me, the ease of process outweighs a gravity point.

The reason I went from the full volume on my first brew was that I hit 56% which to me is just not good enough. I would rather set out and 'experiment' on the first 10 batches I brew, to set up a process which I can repeat in my sleep knowing I get a small range on efficiency.

Perhaps I should be paying more attention to grain ratio, but even at 22L to 5Kg thats 4:1 so who knows haha

 

[golfandbrew]

Hey mate, I think it depends on how you want to brew. I think that, in my 'philosophy' of brewing, I will take all reasonable steps to ensure I end up with the best product I can. That means, I do make yeast starters, I do oxygenate, I ferment and transfer under pressure etc.

However, at the same time I am not keen on varying my processes for each brew day. By that, I mean (and the only way to tell for me will be more brews) I would like to nail down a generic process for brew day. This means, I am aiming to always mash at 22L and sparge with around 10. The reason? The marking for 20L on my guten is actually 22L and if I fill to just below the 30L mark, it's 32L.

So, on brew day I can simply fill my Guten to the same spot, draw off till I hit the 20 mark and i'm good to go. I do all my salt additions to the full volume, and if I add lactic acid in future will work out if I do full volume or mash only. Probably full volume. I do my calcs based on 22L mash and 10L sparge.

If I am brewing a much lighter grain bill (this is for around 5.5kg) then I may drop the sparge volume by 1L.

I am not too concerned about getting 2.5L / KG etc, or measuring off my sparging PH or gravity etc.

If this process results in an efficiency that's swings wildly, then I may revisit it. However, if I know I will always be in the 68-72% range, then let's say I always base my numbers of 70% and if I miss a gravity point here or there i'm not super concerned. To me, the ease of process outweighs a gravity point.

The reason I went from the full volume on my first brew was that I hit 56% which to me is just not good enough. I would rather set out and 'experiment' on the first 10 batches I brew, to set up a process which I can repeat in my sleep knowing I get a small range on efficiency.

Perhaps I should be paying more attention to grain ratio, but even at 22L to 5Kg thats 4:1 so who knows haha

The consistency of your mash is probably closer to others than you think. You have to account for the dead space in your mash tun and single vessel systems have a lot more dead space than most. If you measure the amount of water it takes to reach the bottom screen its about 6.6 litres. If you really wanted to get crazy you could also account for the space around the malt pipe between the kettle but that's probably more trouble than what it's worth. If you subtract this dead space from your total water volume your water to grist ratio is closer to what you see reported for other set ups or systems. So while the numbers help to some degree they don't always tell us the whole story. Something to keep in mind as you you look at other recipes or brewing notes.

 

[kadmium]

The consistency of your mash is probably closer to others than you think. You have to account for the dead space in your mash tun and single vessel systems have a lot more dead space than most. If you measure the amount of water it takes to reach the bottom screen its about 6.6 litres. If you really wanted to get crazy you could also account for the space around the malt pipe between the kettle but that's probably more trouble than what it's worth. If you subtract this dead space from your total water volume your water to grist ratio is closer to what you see reported for other set ups or systems. So while the numbers help to some degree they don't always tell us the whole story. Something to keep in mind as you you look at other recipes or brewing notes.

Yeah, still getting my head around grist ratio and single vessle and dead space etc, cause I have gone from full volume BIAB on the stove in small batches (at around 74% eff) so by no means am I an expert. I just figure MOST of my grain bills are aiming for 5-6% and are around the 5kg mark, so sticking to a generic "fill to 30 mark, treat, drain to 20 mark, rinse" and knowing I will get around 68-72 (or what ever it comes out at) is better than spending my last remaining brain cells working out 2L/kg and account for dead-space and mash absorption etc etc.

If I was chasing a high, consistent efficiency then yeah no worries, but just chasing a relatively average efficiency. And 56% was just too low for me. I don't like waste, even if it's $5 worth of grain, it all adds up. It's like a maccas card, I brew 10 times I get one free

 

[kadmium]

Hey, so I have a question about using the Guten with hops.

When I bought it, I left the hop spider behind as I just don't see using it. Personal preference. I kind of regretted that decision when I did a NEIPA with 100g of hops (50 for bittering and 100 steeped at 82c) commando. When I transferred to the fermenter I ended up with the last 2.5L of wort resembling the bottom of my green bin after mowing the lawns,

As such, I have considered putting my old BIAB into the Guten come boil time and using it as a giant hop sock, however not sure how much this will filter out. Anyone got tips on what to do to keep hop matter manageable?

I'm doing a Czech pils next and plan on using a hop sock as it's 120g of hops but with no whirpool etc, mainly bittering so not super concerned about utilization.

Any thoughts or recommendations?

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Hey, so I have a question about using the Guten with hops.

When I bought it, I left the hop spider behind as I just don't see using it. Personal preference. I kind of regretted that decision when I did a NEIPA with 100g of hops (50 for bittering and 100 steeped at 82c) commando. When I transferred to the fermenter I ended up with the last 2.5L of wort resembling the bottom of my green bin after mowing the lawns,

As such, I have considered putting my old BIAB into the Guten come boil time and using it as a giant hop sock, however not sure how much this will filter out. Anyone got tips on what to do to keep hop matter manageable?

I'm doing a Czech pils next and plan on using a hop sock as it's 120g of hops but with no whirpool etc, mainly bittering so not super concerned about utilization.

Any thoughts or recommendations?

When I used my hop spider I made either a Citra or Zombie Dust, can't remember which, and was not nearly as hoppy as my previous attempt without the spider. You will always loose wort to trub, and is best to leave it in the kettle, 2 to 3 litres of trub in a heavily hopped beer is a fair loss. Adding it to a fermenter is asking for trouble, clear wort in = clear beer out. I either use the helix or a pick up tube at an angle, and if using the pick up tube have patience and let everything settle on the bottom of the kettle.

If you don't like any waste, pour the trub/wort into a jug and put in the fridge everything will settle out, pour off the wort into a saucepan bring to the boil and bottle into a pasata bottle, and you have some nice wort for a starter.

 

[kadmium]

I don't really subscribe to the "clear in clear out" but that's just my experience. I will take reasonable steps to get xlear wort and am probably going to buy a helix from KK with a T piece, but having said that I would prefer to have 3L in the fermenter than down the drain, especially when I'm about to load 200g dry hops onto it.

Perhaps for a pils or something I might take more care, and yeah I do prefer to leave trub behind but that was 3L with an elbow. The level was at or above the ball valve. I had like 17L and got 20.5 with the last 2.5 being hop sludge, but there was another 1L at least of really bad trub.

So, perhaps the helix is the answer. Do you find it filters well?

I don't plan on whirpool with the pump cause I find a mash paddle is great at getting a good pool going.

I'll probably let it settle out for a good 30m after cooling too.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

I don't really subscribe to the "clear in clear out" but that's just my experience. I will take reasonable steps to get xlear wort and am probably going to buy a helix from KK with a T piece, but having said that I would prefer to have 3L in the fermenter than down the drain, especially when I'm about to load 200g dry hops onto it.

Perhaps for a pils or something I might take more care, and yeah I do prefer to leave trub behind but that was 3L with an elbow. The level was at or above the ball valve. I had like 17L and got 20.5 with the last 2.5 being hop sludge, but there was another 1L at least of really bad trub.

So, perhaps the helix is the answer. Do you find it filters well?

I don't plan on whirpool with the pump cause I find a mash paddle is great at getting a good pool going.

I'll probably let it settle out for a good 30m after cooling too.

There are lot of compromises one has to make in the pursuit of a perfect beer, leaving trub and some wort in the kettle is one of them. If it is 3 litres so be it.
http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/brewing-methods/trub-seperation-why-and-how/
The helix performs best with no chill, chilling the wort before the fermenter is a bit more tricky and you would need more than one and an elbow onto the tap rather than a tee.
Leaving it 30 minutes may not be long enough, try an hour or more. I have also found leaving the immersion cooling coil in place helps, removing it disturbs the trub again.

 

[kadmium]

There are lot of compromises one has to make in the pursuit of a perfect beer, leaving trub and some wort in the kettle is one of them. If it is 3 litres so be it.

In _your_ opinion it is one of them. Again, I personally am not going to pre chill my wort and rack from one fermenter to another to get crystal clear wort.

Just like squeezing the bag "releases tannins" and BIAB is not possible, and no chill will cause botulism and all the other "essential" things in the pursuit of perfect beer.

 

[Ballaratguy]

There are lot of compromises one has to make in the pursuit of a perfect beer, leaving trub and some wort in the kettle is one of them. If it is 3 litres so be it.
http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/brewing-methods/trub-seperation-why-and-how/
The helix performs best with no chill, chilling the wort before the fermenter is a bit more tricky and you would need more than one and an elbow onto the tap rather than a tee.
Leaving it 30 minutes may not be long enough, try an hour or more. I have also found leaving the immersion cooling coil in place helps, removing it disturbs the trub again.

I have found that the helix (with an elbow) works really well to filter the wort
I don’t do big brews (40Lt Guten) mainly aiming at 4% abv, but I whirlpool then weight for a while to let it settle then pump directly into the fermenter
The amount of trub left behind Is usually about the height of the helix
I find that the flow this way is reduced but not a deal breaker

 

[Coalface]

There are lot of compromises one has to make in the pursuit of a perfect beer, leaving trub and some wort in the kettle is one of them. If it is 3 litres so be it.
http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/brewing-methods/trub-seperation-why-and-how/
The helix performs best with no chill, chilling the wort before the fermenter is a bit more tricky and you would need more than one and an elbow onto the tap rather than a tee.
Leaving it 30 minutes may not be long enough, try an hour or more. I have also found leaving the immersion cooling coil in place helps, removing it disturbs the trub again.

Hi WEAL, struggling to picture the setup of more than one helix and an Elbow? I have a helix with bot ends screwed into a Tee piece. Can you explain the set up?
cheers.