104 replies to this topic

[Big Nake]

Yeah, that's part of it.  The pother part is that since I saw no difference from conditioning, I'm honestly trying to understand what it is that makes people do it. to me, there is a downside unless there is a noticeable benefit.  But that's some we each get to decide for ourselves.

Agreed. You know that there are people who say that decoction makes a world of difference and I know your position on that. Just like any number of other homebrewing things where people may not see the same thing. If I weren't able to get my mill to cooperate with my conditioned malt, I might stop doing it. But with a slight adjustment I can condition and have my mill cooperating so I'm all good with it.

[Brauer]

Barke Pils crush today. Malt conditioned at 8ml/# and allowed to rest 10 min.

I might use slightly less water, but this looks like the result I get, which is visibly different from what I see without conditioning. I see a similar effect on lautering, which is not really a problem without conditioning, but faster with conditioning. I prefer a pretty fine mill gap, because I measure higher efficiency with a tighter spacing.

[Big Nake]

I might use slightly less water, but this looks like the result I get, which is visibly different from what I see without conditioning. I see a similar effect on lautering, which is not really a problem without conditioning, but faster with conditioning. I prefer a pretty fine mill gap, because I measure higher efficiency with a tighter spacing.

Brauer... can you shed any light on what you see with conditioning as opposed to not conditioning? Do you do it for a specific reason and do you see a better result with it? FTR, I don't measure the water when I condition. I have my grains in a 6½ gallon bucket and I angle it to expose more of the grain. I mist (4 or 5 pulls on the trigger) and then shake the bucket to expose more dry grain, mist again, repeat until I don't see much in the way of dry grain. Some of the grain wants to stick to the side of the bucket because the sides get wet. I mix it by hand, pour it into the hopper, scrape any stuck grain in the bucket into the hopper and mill it. No clue what the volume of water would be but my goal is uniformity which is where the fine spray comes in.

[denny]

If my lauter went any faster, it would go back in time! 

[HVB]

Barke Pils crush today. Malt conditioned at 8ml/# and allowed to rest 10 min.

 

Do you take the amount of water used to condition the malt off your total water amount? 

[Big Nake]

Do you take the amount of water used to condition the malt off your total water amount?

I don't.

[HVB]

I don't.

I like your answer

[positiveContact]

Do you take the amount of water used to condition the malt off your total water amount? 

 

how much water are these guys using?  I was figuring total was less than an oz or two.

[HVB]

how much water are these guys using?  I was figuring total was less than an oz or two.

Say and IPA with 15#.  At neddles 8ml per # that would be 120ML or about 4oz.

[Big Nake]

Say and IPA with 15#.  At neddles 8ml per # that would be 120ML or about 4oz.

I'm probably using less than one ounce for 10 pounds of grain... not an issue in terms of water adjustment.

[Bklmt2000]

Say and IPA with 15#.  At neddles 8ml per # that would be 120ML or about 4oz.

 

For a 15 lb grist, I'd be using ~5.5 gallons of strike water, which is ~704 fl oz.  4 fl oz/704 fl oz = ~0.01% increase in water volume; not worth worrying about, IMHO. 

[neddles]

I might use slightly less water, but this looks like the result I get, which is visibly different from what I see without conditioning. I see a similar effect on lautering, which is not really a problem without conditioning, but faster with conditioning. I prefer a pretty fine mill gap, because I measure higher efficiency with a tighter spacing.

I am already getting 100% conversion efficiency as predicted by Kai's chart on every batch. (Side note: using that chart has made OG prediction absurdly accurate in my brewing) If I move my mill gap at all (which I dont think I will) it would be to open it. It is visibly different from what I get at the same gap without conditioning. If there is a chance it will reduce the tannic load in the beer, as you have mentioned then it is a no brainer for the little time it takes. Plus 2 minutes saved is 2 minutes saved and I haven't even needed to give the bag a quick squeeze.

Do you take the amount of water used to condition the malt off your total water amount?

I haven't. I guess you could though.

[Brauer]

Narziss calls for 3.2 oz or 100 mL for 10 #. I have a sprayer that I fill with ~50 mL, and I use less than that for a typical 8 # batch. That's plenty to see a noticable difference, for me. I don't really measure. I weigh out 4 #, spray it a couple times, toss it, and spray it a couple times more, toss it again, then pour it into the hopper. Repeat for the next 4 #.

What I'm shooting for is little enough water that the grain is not noticably wet at all, with no grain that sticks to my hand or the bowl I use to weigh.

Brauer... can you shed any light on what you see with conditioning as opposed to not conditioning? Do you do it for a specific reason and do you see a better result with it? FTR, I don't measure the water when I condition. I have my grains in a 6½ gallon bucket and I angle it to expose more of the grain. I mist (4 or 5 pulls on the trigger) and then shake the bucket to expose more dry grain, mist again, repeat until I don't see much in the way of dry grain. Some of the grain wants to stick to the side of the bucket because the sides get wet. I mix it by hand, pour it into the hopper, scrape any stuck grain in the bucket into the hopper and mill it. No clue what the volume of water would be but my goal is uniformity which is where the fine spray comes in.

What I know is that there is less dust (I assume that is due to less shattered husks), and improved lautering. In addition, it probably reduces tannin extraction and improves clarity. Perhaps this is a detectable difference or not, I haven't run the proper experiment and the benefits will probably vary significantly between brewers, but it's such a simple process change that it hasn't been worth the more extraordinary effort of running the experiment.

Edited by Brauer, 03 October 2016 - 03:02 PM.

[Brauer]

I am already getting 100% conversion efficiency as predicted by Kai's chart on every batch. (Side note: using that chart has made OG prediction absurdly accurate in my brewing) If I move my mill gap at all (which I dont think I will) it would be to open it. It is visibly different from what I get at the same gap without conditioning. If there is a chance it will reduce the tannic load in the beer, as you have mentioned then it is a no brainer for the little time it takes. Plus 2 minutes saved is 2 minutes saved and I haven't even needed to give the bag a quick squeeze.

I couldn't agree more with any of that. That OG chart makes things easy, once you get complete conversion. Hell, I probably lose a minute or two, but I'm not bothered. Some brewers, who suffer from slow lauters will probably save a lot of time and some might see more thorough sparging due to reduced channelling.

Edited by Brauer, 03 October 2016 - 03:19 PM.

[Big Nake]

Update: I brewed last week and when it came time to mill my grain, I got my feeler gauges ready and I put the mill back to it's .39 factory setting. I tried to mill my conditioned malt and it would not mill as I expected. I used the feeler gauges to get to about .41. These are very old feeler gauges that I got from my FIL and they're a little tough to work with. But I used the .24 and the .17 gauges together to get to .41. There was a very small amount of play but everything was tightened up properly and when I went to mill the grain, everything milled perfectly the first time. So my guess (only a guess) is that the conditioned malt expands just slightly and the smaller gap on my mill was not wide enough to allow that grain through. A small adjustment corrected it and it seems like I should continue to condition the malt (I planned to anyway) otherwise dry grain going through the mill may be going through a gap that's too large. All of this seems to jive since the mill started acting nutty as soon as I started conditioning the malt. Not sure if .41 lines up with anyone else's gap setting but it seems to be appropriate for my situation. Cheers.

[neddles]

Have you measured any gravities so that you know you are getting the expected conversion from the new gapping? Maybe too small of a change to make a difference? I dunno.

[Big Nake]

Have you measured any gravities so that you know you are getting the expected conversion from the new gapping? Maybe too small of a change to make a difference? I dunno.

I'm not. I haven't taken OG or FG readings in a very long time. I don't think that the setting is significant enough to make that big of s difference. I did carefully inspect the crush of the grain last weekend to see if I saw a lot of whole kernels in there... it looked great to me.

[neddles]

I'm not. I haven't taken OG or FG readings in a very long time. I don't think that the setting is significant enough to make that big of s difference. I did carefully inspect the crush of the grain last weekend to see if I saw a lot of whole kernels in there... it looked great to me.

You're probably fine then.

[Big Nake]

Kids... all the talk in the "step mash" thread about efficiency, conversion, etc. has me thinking a little bit. I mentioned here that my mill was causing trouble so I adjusted it making the gap slightly wider which was a result of my conditioning the malt (probably). Let me ask this... what would I notice if my gap were too wide and my malt was not being crushed/milled thoroughly enough? I ask because I have a beer on tap right now that just seems sort of blah... like something is missing. I went back and checked my notes and see that this was the beer where my mill first started acting up and I got about 75% of the grist crushed and then the mill stopped working altogether and I literally crushed the remaining malt with a rolling pin (which you can assume was not good). If it's just this one beer then I'm not worried. But what might I notice if my crush was not good enough? I have a dark lager and also an Amarillo-Citra pale ale on tap now that were run through the mill after the adjustment and they both seem great so I don't expect an issue but I'm curious about the impact of a poor crush. Thoughts?

[Brauer]

But what might I notice if my crush was not good enough?

Lower conversion efficiency, so lower OG, which would probably result in lower FG and potentially less flavor.

Edited by Brauer, 03 December 2016 - 09:59 AM.