You Can’t Do That! It Won’t Work for F**k Sake!

[GuingesRock]

I was on an international BIAB site for 5 months and ran several experiments in shall we say err… fringe brewing. It was fun and I got congratulated at least once for “myth busting”. Working with and getting to know some of the BIAB pioneers was also a great experience.

I have collected a number of strange and wayward brewing habits. But until I compete, I don’t really have a leg to stand on, as all I can say is everyone loves my beer, (and what homebrewer can’t say that). Hence I decided to join this excellent organisation, in the hope of meeting local people and hopefully eventually testing my brewing methods in a local competition.

I thought I would make a thread to post some of this stuff, just in case anyone might be interested. And if anyone else has any unusual brewing habits that work for them, please would you add them and help me with a walk on the wild side of brewing.

[GuingesRock]

I thought I’d talk about single stage fermenting right in the brew kettle. It is something I’ve done for my last 50 or so batches and I love doing it. I single stage ferment for 10 days in kettle with a ball valve, and then keg from the ball valve. The ball valve has a bazooka screen on the inside which works well to keep my leaf hops out of the keg. I allow myself to lift the lid slightly, once only, the following morning to check on the yeast. I haven’t had an infection yet. No airlock, the CO2 just burps the lid.

There’s very little on the net about this. There is a forum thread or two. One or two guys timidly asking if it could be done, followed by a whole lot of put downs, like “should work, but I’d never do it as it would tie up my brew kettle” (get another pot!) and “what’s the point?” One guy made himself a brew kettle with clamps on the lid to seal it and an air trap and proudly posted his pictures. He was pooh-poohed as well, but most of the commenters said you don’t need to seal the lid and you and you don’t need a trap, just let the CO2 “burp” the lid. Poor guy! he’d welded all kinds of clamps to his pot and he was so proud.

Then there was one short post, it’s the one that really pricked up my ears, and I wish I could find it. His post was completely ignored. He said he was busy but he wanted a batch of beer. He put his pot of wort on the step to cool, sprinkled dry yeast on the surface, put the lid on, and left it to ferment. He called it his “lazy beer” and he said “it turned out to be the best beer he ever made”.

The advantages for me are that, there is no fermenting bucket to clean, sanitise and fuss with. No transfer of wort to fermenter. No air trap. Lots of saved time. The brew pot, which then becomes the fermentation vessel is sanitised by the boiling (except the lid, which I heat separately in the oven to sanitise). Spigots on fermenting buckets can be a source of infection, but a ball valve on the kettle, providing it is close enough to the pot, is adequately heated and sanitised during the boil.

[derek]

I'd certainly never say you "can't" do that, but I would have thought that fermenting on the trub could have some negative effects.

i think what you really need to do is run off half of the wort and ferment traditionally, and compare the results. You should be able to find a suitable number of brewnosers to taste test!

Bravo to you, though, for challenging the "known facts".

A lot of what we "know" about brewing is based on hundreds of years of trial and error - but modern malts and equipment make much of that suspect.

[Jimmy]

I'd certainly never say you "can't" do that, but I would have thought that fermenting on the trub could have some negative effects.

i think what you really need to do is run off half of the wort and ferment traditionally, and compare the results. You should be able to find a suitable number of brewnosers to taste test!

It's been done (basic brewing radio I believe). They found the trub half to be just as good, and in many cases, better than the non-trub half. I ferment all of my beer on the trub.

[mr x]

Most people have some trub in the carboy, but the cold break is usually left in the kettle. The only method for 'trubless' I've heard of is the German lager method of racking off the trub for a super clean fermentation.

Sent from Tapatalk 2, a prick of a company.

[LiverDance]

Sounds like my "there is only 1 way to find out" style of brewing

[GuingesRock]

Thanks very much for the discussions above.

In December I started wondering about how important it is to maintain a constant mash temperature. I had read an awful lot about how to do that and noticed an obsession with the importance of maintaining mash temperature. But I didn't understand why the obsession.

If alpha-amylase works best at higher temperatures and beta amylase works best at lower temps, and if constant mash temperatures are compromises that don’t particularly suit either enzyme well: Then why not give both enzymes what they prefer with a slightly higher temperature at the start of the mash to keep the alpha happy and then allow the temperature to drop, without insulating the pot/mash tun, so the beta can work well as the temperature becomes lower.

Alpha amylase is somewhat slower in its action than beta-amylase. Alpha-amylase randomly breaks the starch into smaller pieces. Beta-amylase attacks the non-reducing end of starch and the products of alpha-amylase to yield maltose. I wanted to put the alpha-amylase to work first and let it do the ground work for the beta-amylase. There is a good summary of mash chemistry here.

I worked on this project with a side by side brew on a BIAB forum with comparison gravity readings. Initially when I first suggested the concept, there was a lot of controversy. John Palmer’s e-book was quoted to me, where he says that the enzymes are quickly denatured above their ideal range. But that is not true. For example if YOU mash at 152F and keep your mash temperature constant over a 90 Minute mash, and I start my mash at 152F and let the temperature drop by 1F every 10 minutes (no insulation on the mash tun), then how am I going to lose more enzymes through denaturation than you do?

Since my experiments, I have done all my beers with this BIAB technique which I refer to as "Free Range Mashing". My beers are high ABV IPA's. If I start at 152F, I end up with very dry beers and high efficiency. I have also used "Free Range Mashing" with a starting temperature of 156F and this worked very well for a nice medium bodied beer, again higher efficiency was experienced.

I prefer lighter bodied beers that feature hops, so for me starting at 152F and then letting the mash cool to the 145F without insulating, results in the maximum amount of fermentable maltose. The last brew I did (BIAB) (20th May) was 10.75 BS batch size, with a malt bill of 25lbs Marris Otter and 1lb crystal 80. OG was 1.071 and FG 1.012. The mash started at 152F and finished at 145F after 90 minutes. There was a pound of hops in there too.

Now that I have experience of this and how to work it, I won't change back. It's easier and I get good results.

If you try it, just remember, if you start with a mash temperature suitable for a medium bodied beer (maybe 152F) you will end up with a light dry beer with higher ABV. If you start with a mash temperature that is suitable for a full bodied beer (maybe 156F) you will end up with a medium bodied beer. If you try to make a full bodied beer with this method, your starting temperature will be too high, you will kill your beta amylase and you will end up with a really sweet, full bodied, horrible beer.

[LiverDance]

Interesting. Sounds like something I may try out. You mention above you achieve higher efficiency, is that mash efficiency or possibly attenuation? If not attenuation have you notice an increase in this as well?

[GuingesRock]

LiverDance, both mash efficiency and attenuation. The last brew was supposed to have a FG of 1.015 and it turned out to be 1.012. Since then I adjusted my US-05 attenuation figures in Beersmith to min attenuation 77% max 80% to get BS to work with my results, hoping that it would better predict my next brew. I am also fermenting in the kettle, so YMMV.
It would be great if you would try it. I've wanted someone to do that and report back for the longest time!

[LiverDance]

I've done something similar with overnight mashing, losing about 9 degrees in the process and did notice an increase in attenuation. Not sure about efficiency though since it was a 1.100 beer to begin with so I had to estimate the hit in efficiency for such a large beer. How high have you gone with you OG on this method? I remember making a Lagunitas IPA clone and mashed at 160 (constant) and used 1968 yeast and it turned out very crisp for that high.

[GuingesRock]

That's as high as I have gone, it's all grain and I only have a 16 gal BIAB pot so that is as high as I can go, but my next batch which is all planned out and I am itching to get on with, has the same grain bill but it is getting a kilo of dextrose added to the boil for an ABV of 9%.

I tried overnight mashing, but I made the cardinal mistake of trying two things at once. I was really interested in developing an overnight mash hopping method. I started the mash at 156 and I did insulate overnight. The beer was mash hopped only with no other hopping.
The beer was so full of incredible Styrian Goldings fruity flavours and aromas, it was horribly sweet. Alcoholic at 8.3% ABV. Grain bill for 10 gal, half sack MO only (27lbs). I suspect, but may be wrong, that the beta-amylase gave up the ghost after a couple of hours and the alpha kept on making maltotriose or something.
Initially it tasted interesting and good, but after a glass or so you got sick of it. The only comparison I can think of is it was like drinking vodka and orange juice, or a teenager’s cooler drink maybe.
Incredible flavours from the hops doing that. Maybe it would have worked with a starting temperature of 152. I think the overnight hopping side of it worked. I went off overnight mashing though, just because of the bad experience.

[GuingesRock]

I’m English and we like our beer warm and flat, or so the story goes. CAMRA people get annoyed when you say that. Real Ale is naturally carbonated and served at cellar temperature 12-14 C (54-57 F). You get smoother softer carbonation with smaller bubbles, and together with the slightly warmer temperature, drinking the beer is a more pleasant warming experience, and I think you can appreciate the flavour more. The beer is still “alive” when it is being drunk.

Colder, force carbonated beer, is a harsher experience, but preferred in North America. I’m not trying to say one is better than the other. It’s just a different experience.

There is a nice simple little article here.

Making real ale is complicated and fraught with problems and expense for the home brewer. The problems aren’t insurmountable and can be overcome with cask breathers etc.

I researched Real Ale and got quite excited about it, but then in the end I just started kegging my beer after 1 week ferment (it is hoppy IPA that is good drunk fresh), I turned up the controller so my keezer is at cellar temperature, I don’t force carbonate the beer, but I do hook the keg to constant CO2 at a pressure just high enough to enable pouring of the beer ...3-4 PSI. (post edited with PSI 3 - 4)

I call this “Real Ale Simulation” it isn’t Real Ale, but it’s good enough to keep an Englishman happy, albeit a simple one.


[adams81]

I like the idea of your simulation. How much pressure did you have to use?

Real ale is an appealing concept but it seems difficult on the home brew scale. I don't think I'd be able to drink my beer fast enough!


Unless I could find some one gallon casks.....

[GuingesRock]

Thanks adams81,

I can't give an exact pressure, it is somewhere around 2 psi I think, when you are that low the gauge isn't that easy to read/determine. The pressure needed also depends a bit on the length of the beer line. What I do is turn the CO2 off and then slowly turn it on and increase the pressure until there is just enough pressure so that the beer will pour through the lines. I use picnic taps and I also like to pour from a height so there is a better head with the "real ale". I noticed that the pubs in England pour from a height too, they seem to do that rather than using a sparkler. In the pubs, the beer engines when pulled hard, drive the beer out with quite a force which also helps with the head.

Regarding 1 gallon casks you might be interested in polypins. Google them. They are basically a plastic bag with a tap, inside a cardboard box. They solve the problems of real ale for the home brewer too, since the container collapses as the beer is poured and no air is sucked in to spoil the ale. They have a similar thing, but smaller, at Noble Grape that the wine people use. The bags are disposable and don't need cleaning and sanitising which is a bonus.

[pet lion]

With my last couple of brews I left the top off my mash tun. Lost a couple of degrees buy not a lot. I think I'll order a bigger bag from Jimmy and Becky and start mashing in the kettle so I can use more grains (bigger volume) and allowing for cooling from the higher mash in temperature.

[GuingesRock]

With the non-insulated mash, my mash hasn't been dropping as much lately, might be the higher summer temperature. I'm also doing 10 gal batches now and used to do five. The 5 gallon batch cools down more as it has a greater surface area/volume ratio, just like a baby gets hypothermia much quicker than an adult. The most I can really claim is a time saving and less trouble as no need to insulate the BIAB pot. I like the results too but that is subjective. I would be very interested to hear how your efficiency compares and if you get better results. I find better efficiency these days doing it that way but there may be other variables (there are so many potential variables). I could simply be becoming a more efficient brewer.

[GuingesRock]

I've done something similar with overnight mashing, losing about 9 degrees in the process and did notice an increase in attenuation. Not sure about efficiency though since it was a 1.100 beer to begin with so I had to estimate the hit in efficiency for such a large beer. How high have you gone with you OG on this method? I remember making a Lagunitas IPA clone and mashed at 160 (constant) and used 1968 yeast and it turned out very crisp for that high.

LiverDance, That isn't quite the same because your mash was probably at a fairly constant temperature while the enzymes were still active. They lose their activity after an hour or two.
I tried to do overnight mashing twice, as I was trying to develop an overnight mash hopping technique. I thought that the overnight mash hop would give me better hop utilisation which is normally not great in a mash hop. I had wonderful flavours from the hops but horrible sweet beer, although the people I gave it too seemed to like it. I think I failed on the overnight mash side of things. RubberToe has been giving me some pointers from his experience of overnight BIAB mash, and I found a great post by someone: http://www.biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php ... 601#p23064 (also relevant to your post)
I'll report back if I can make a drinkable beer with "overnight mash hopping".

[GuingesRock]

Does anyone use this "One Step" stuff ?

I started using it a couple of months ago and never looked back.

I was looking for an alternative to Starsan, and was looking into hydrogen peroxide as it degrades into water and oxygen only which are totally harmless. Starsan is supposed to degrade into "yeast nutrients" but I wasn't sure that I wanted a whole lot of phosphates in my beer, and I wasn't sure that the yeast in the kegs was still active enough to use it.

"One step" is a hydrogen peroxide based cleaner that degrades into very small amounts of salts that are the same as those used for Burtonizing water.

This stuff actually cleans AND sanitises at the same time!!!, AND it is NO RINSE. So you wash and sanitize at the same time, in one step. And you don't have to rinse! That is a HUGE time saving.

IMHO, PBW and OxyClean are horrible chemicals and you have to rinse like crazy to get them out of your kegs. If you get those chemicals on your hands your skin feels horrible and shrivels up. Starsan is acidic and affects beer lines, it foams in the kegs and I can't tell when the keg is getting full.

It has taken a lot of the monotony out of my keg maintainence. I not sure if it is correct practice but I run some out through the gas post and dip tube, and leave the kegs pressurised and full of 1 Step solution until I am ready to keg beer, and then I simply dump it out. I also leave it in the lines and it doesn't seem to harm them or make them go cloudy. I have been using one heaped tablespoon per 5 gallon keg.

It's a lot cheaper than PBW too. I got mine from here (only place in Canada I could find it)

If anyone is interested in researching it: here are some links:

http://www.beer-wine.com/products/one-step-cleanser

http://www.ecologiccleansers.com/one-step.php

It's worth clicking on the product reviews on this link:

http://www.northernbrewer.com/shop/one-step.html

It’s not FDA rated as a sanitizer, but it’s apparently because the company “didn’t want to go through the process”. It is my understanding, from what I have read, that no human pathogens can survive in beer because the alcohol kills them. FDA regulations for sanitizers would be very stringent to prevent things like salmonella, E.Coli etc. All brewers need to do is avoid “spoiled” beer.

I've used it for a couple of months with clean kegs and lines and no infections. Has anyone else had good luck with it for longer?

[GuingesRock]

I mentioned above that I single stage ferment in the brew kettle. Just remembered I forgot to say that I leave all the hops in there too. The kettle has a bazooka screen which keeps leaf hops out of the keg. If I use pellet hops, only a few flecks of hop get through into the kegs. I only ferment for 7 days and then keg (got that from the real ale breweries in the UK when I was there). If you ferment for longer than that and use pellet hops then the bazooka can clog with the trub/hop mixture which will become quite firm after a longer time, and you will need to reach down with a long sanitized spoon to scrape a path along the top of the bazooka to let the beer through. A mixture of pellet and leaf hops prevents that happening also.

I like the results, and believe that I get more flavour doing that as there is flavour and goodness in hops that can only be extracted by alcohol. Also it is easier, and no fussing around which is a bonus.

[GAM]

I can't argue with the taste mark.

Sandy

[GuingesRock]

Thanks Sandy, If I remember right, you asked me if it was a "fruit beer" and I said "no, that's just the flavour from the hops". Sorry I got you a bit tipsy at breakfast time. Was really exciting to have a Brewnoser visit and try my beer. The one I just kegged is so good, full of "fruity" hop flavours, it is all FWH (with no other hopping) 8oz Cascade leaf and 8 oz Styrian Goldings pellet for 10 gallons into kegs, 9.5% ABV, grain bill half sack of MO and 1kg dextrose. Mash start temp 152F with free range mash. Best one yet! I was brewing that one when you were here 7 days ago picking up the English pump fittings. I hope the fittings worked out ok.

Recipe attached. Please report back here if you try it.

[Targos]

Interesting techniques GuingesRock, I will have to try that out sometime

I have to say, wow you like your beer strong

I have been creeping that way too though not as high as yours ... yet. I find I only have time for 1 or 2 beers in a evening so I'd like to make them count heheh.

I would be interested to hear about a experiment and tasting notes if anyone were to take it on, maxi biab vs traditional mash -> kettle -> fermenter -> keg

Cheers keep it up great stuff.

[GuingesRock]

Thanks Cory. Yes, I like the taste of high AVB beer.

My theory is that if you make your beer twice as strong, which is easy to do, you drink half as much and therefore spend 50% less time brewing.

My theory isn’t right though. What actually happens is you get twice as drunk and have to brew the same amount, but now you have to brew with a hangover which is twice as hard.

Another time saving theory I had is it takes the same amount of time to make 10 gallon batches as it does to make 5 gal = 50% less time brewing for a 10 gal batch. That one doesn’t work either. You end up with more beer, so you drink more, have friends around more and you give more away.

There is no rest for the wicked.

[Tony L]

There is no rest for the wicked.

A very favorite saying of my fathers..

I actually prefer lower alcohol to tell the truth.. that way I can drink more, but sadly it can't be so. You actually need the alcohol to make the beer taste like beer.
I had a 6 er of DFH 90 a few months ago and found it too much and really preferred the DFH 60. 9% vs 6% meant I could enjoy a 3rd more beer before being wasted.

[LeafMan66_67]

I'm like Tony - I prefer the lower ABV beers - it doesn't mean they have to be without flavour. Milds, bitters, APA, and IPA's can be from 3.3% to 7% and still be packed with flavour. I usually enjoy a few beer while prepping and cooking. Lower ABV beers allow me to do that and still remember the meal!

Sent from my Q10 using Tapatalk 2