| |
Main
Date: 18 Sep 2006 13:34:36
From: Brian Foster
Subject: Extract VS All Grain
|
My local store put on a little all grain demo this weekend. I have read,
watched DVDs, and listened to a lot of homebrewers about brewing all grain
and my interest was peaked.
I will not say I was disappointed in the demo, but more enlightened. The
major point I took away was the time investment in all grain vs extract
brewing is dramatic.
I brewed a batch of extract on Friday from a very simple recipe. From start
to end of cleanup was just under 2 hrs. The all grain demo this weekend was
6 hours (for a robust Porter) and they told me that 5-6 hours for an all
grain batch is pretty normal.
So a few things appeared to me. My palate is not refined enough yet to taste
the difference between an all grain brew and a good extract brew.
My desire to get involved with this was to learn more about how beer is made
(it's fascinating and simple) and to be able to make beer that was better
and more to my liking than I could buy. I think I have accomplished both of
my objectives.
I'm pleased with my early batches for a few reasons. They didn't taste that
bad (I actually liked them), and in learning about the brewing process I'm
becoming more confident that I can make even better beer.
An added benefit is that I can now consume draft beer in my own home of a
quality and style I really enjoy. In 5 gallon batches :)
I'm the kind of a guy who will watch the food channel to learn how to make
foods that I have no experience with or even to get better at something I
already consider myself pretty good at (Chili for example). I'm not trying
to be the next Wolfgang Puck, Emeril Lagasse. For that matter I'm not trying
to be the next AB or Coors either.
I get a kick out of going to a resteraunt and ordering New England Clam
Chowder and knowing how it is made and what is in it. And knowing that I can
make it just as well as they can (in most instances). I'm now seeing beer
in much the same way.
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 15:21:47
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Extract VS All Grain
|
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:34:36 GMT, <brianfoster@houston.rr.com > wrote:
> I will not say I was disappointed in the demo, but more enlightened. The
> major point I took away was the time investment in all grain vs extract
> brewing is dramatic.
Yeah, that's a major difference. I prefer to brew all grain, but I don't
always have the time (especially since we have kids now). I still do extract
batches when I just don't have the time for all grain.
> I brewed a batch of extract on Friday from a very simple recipe. From start
> to end of cleanup was just under 2 hrs. The all grain demo this weekend was
> 6 hours (for a robust Porter) and they told me that 5-6 hours for an all
> grain batch is pretty normal.
I've seen people say that they can do it in 4 hours. Personally, I don't
rush and it usually takes me longer than normal, probably 6-8 hours. I
could probably get that down to 5-6 if I really tried.
> So a few things appeared to me. My palate is not refined enough yet to taste
> the difference between an all grain brew and a good extract brew.
IMO, it's not a matter of your palate. Extract beers can just as high quality
as all grain beers. Extracts tend to have a bit of a reputation for being
inferior, but I don't believe it's really true. What you do see is that
most all grain brewers are more advanced since people typically start with
extracts before they switch. So, just by itself, that will mean that
all grain beers tend to be a little better. Not because of the method, but
because the people making them are often more experienced.
I don't think of them in terms of all grain being "better tasting" than
extract though. The one big advantage to all grain is that you have
more control to tailor the recipe. It's kind of like baking a cake. You
can go for the box of cake-mix and make a really good tasting cake, or you
can make it from scratch and have a lot more control over the recipe. That
doesn't mean that it will be better or worse, just that you have more options
to do different things.
John.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 08:53:35
From: Scott Lindner
Subject: Re: Extract VS All Grain
|
> My local store put on a little all grain demo this weekend. I have read,
> watched DVDs, and listened to a lot of homebrewers about brewing all grain
> and my interest was peaked.
I'm not trying to be a dick but just helpful. The word you are looking for
is "piqued" and not "peaked". I mention this, because I recently learned I
was spelling it wrong too. :-)
> So a few things appeared to me. My palate is not refined enough yet to
> taste the difference between an all grain brew and a good extract brew.
It's my opinion that all grain brews are better not because the method of
all grain is better, but because the brewer is more experienced. Most
people brew all grain because you are more involved in brewing beer. You're
taking on more of the process. With all grain you also open yourself up to
any style you want to brew. Extract brewing really limits you but that has
been changing slowly. Other motives for people is the material costs are
cheaper per batch, but for very very few of us is all grain brewing cheaper
since we spend a ton more on equipment.
Whatever reason you want to brew all grain is for you to know and
appreciate. We all have our own reasons that are different. Don't
necessarily think extract brew is inferior. There are plenty enough micro
breweries/brew pubs that do extracts only.
Cheers,
Scott
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 09:34:28
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Extract VS All Grain
|
Brian Foster wrote:
> My local store put on a little all grain demo this weekend. I have read,
> watched DVDs, and listened to a lot of homebrewers about brewing all grain
> and my interest was peaked.
>
> I will not say I was disappointed in the demo, but more enlightened. The
> major point I took away was the time investment in all grain vs extract
> brewing is dramatic.
>
> I brewed a batch of extract on Friday from a very simple recipe. From start
> to end of cleanup was just under 2 hrs. The all grain demo this weekend was
> 6 hours (for a robust Porter) and they told me that 5-6 hours for an all
> grain batch is pretty normal.
Bear in mind, however, that once you know what you're doing (and this
may take a couple of batches) you need not hang around and monitor the
process. Much of what goes on in an all-grain simply involves waiting.
You can generally do other stuff during this time -- clean the hose, mow
the lawn, shave the cat, etc.
>
> So a few things appeared to me. My palate is not refined enough yet to taste
> the difference between an all grain brew and a good extract brew.
There's nothing about all-grain that makes the beer inherently better
than extract (with a full volume boil, anyway). The main advantage of AG
is that you have much more control over the process and ingredients.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 10:33:34
From: Mark R
Subject: Re: Extract VS All Grain
|
"The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty" <mikey666@666swampgas.666com > >
> >
> > So a few things appeared to me. My palate is not refined enough yet to
taste
> > the difference between an all grain brew and a good extract brew.
>
> There's nothing about all-grain that makes the beer inherently better
> than extract (with a full volume boil, anyway). The main advantage of AG
> is that you have much more control over the process and ingredients.
I'll second the Kap'n that AG and extract batches can be equally good. And
as I did, if you find yourself wanting to tweak your recipes a little you
can always steep specialty grains and that will add an extra dimension to
your brewing for less than an hour of added time. I do mini-mash recipes
mashing between 3 and 4 1/2 lbs of 2-row and specialty grains on the stove
top for only about a 90 min addition to my brewing time. Of course like
Salty I find it a perfect time to skin the cat when I've caught one.
Mark R
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 11:05:53
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Extract VS All Grain
|
Mark R wrote:
> "The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty" <mikey666@666swampgas.666com> >
>>> So a few things appeared to me. My palate is not refined enough yet to
> taste
>>> the difference between an all grain brew and a good extract brew.
>> There's nothing about all-grain that makes the beer inherently better
>> than extract (with a full volume boil, anyway). The main advantage of AG
>> is that you have much more control over the process and ingredients.
>
> I'll second the Kap'n that AG and extract batches can be equally good. And
> as I did, if you find yourself wanting to tweak your recipes a little you
> can always steep specialty grains and that will add an extra dimension to
> your brewing for less than an hour of added time. I do mini-mash recipes
> mashing between 3 and 4 1/2 lbs of 2-row and specialty grains on the stove
> top for only about a 90 min addition to my brewing time. Of course like
> Salty I find it a perfect time to skin the cat when I've caught one.
>
You realize that you can probably cut a lot of time there, right? Unless
you're looking to add fermentability you can generally cut the mash time
to 20-30 minutes for higher rest temps (say 156-160F). Of course, that
leaves less time for the cat...
When people mention that AG seems complicated, I like to point out that
it's not much different than making a bowl of instant oatmeal -- a
REALLY big bowl of instant oatmeal...
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 18:27:11
From: David M. Taylor
Subject: Reasonable Extraction, Minimal Time (was: Re: Extract VS All Grain)
|
"The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty" <mikey666@666swampgas.666com >
wrote in message news:450ec3b5$0$9444$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>
> You realize that you can probably cut a lot of time there, right? Unless
> you're looking to add fermentability you can generally cut the mash time
> to 20-30 minutes for higher rest temps (say 156-160F). Of course, that
> leaves less time for the cat...
Hey, cool! Really, you can cut it down to 20-30 minutes? So far I've been
the guy who tells his buddies, 90 minute mash?? HA!! I do most of mine in
45 minutes, never had a problem. But, until now I'd be a bit too squeamish
to try just 20 to 30 minutes. If you're really serious, I think I'm going
to have to try it once to see what happens. Why waste another 20 minutes or
more if you don't have to?? As much as I love to brew, I do like to
minimize my brewing time. Maybe it's the engineer in me, always looking for
faster, easier, more efficient.
By the way, I have at least one data point thus far that says high mash
temperatures do not result in low attenuation. I recently mashed a pale ale
at about 160 F by accident, but still got 78% attenuation. I figured it
should have been much less attenuated, based on everything I've read. I
just have the one data point so far and have yet to confirm whether high
temps really do anything to fermentability. If I do confirm, you guys will
be the first to know. Low mash temps (<150 F), however, do seem to make the
brew more fermentable in my experience. I wonder if there is some mystical
maximum temperature in the mid 150s, beyond which fermentability is no
longer affected (as long as you keep under 168 F of course). I'll have to
explore this some more.
Bottom line for me is, if you really can shorten your mash time by using a
higher mash temp, then why not go for it? I'll play with the idea and see
what happens.
--
Dave
"Just a drink, a little drink, and I'll be feeling GOOooOOooOOooD!" --
Genesis, 1973-ish
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 00:07:55
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Reasonable Extraction, Minimal Time (was: Re: Extract VS All Grain)
|
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:27:11 -0500, <dmtaylor@SPAM.geocities.SUCKS.com > wrote:
> "The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty" <mikey666@666swampgas.666com>
> wrote in message news:450ec3b5$0$9444$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>> You realize that you can probably cut a lot of time there, right? Unless
>> you're looking to add fermentability you can generally cut the mash time
>> to 20-30 minutes for higher rest temps (say 156-160F). Of course, that
>> leaves less time for the cat...
>
> Hey, cool! Really, you can cut it down to 20-30 minutes? So far I've been
> the guy who tells his buddies, 90 minute mash?? HA!! I do most of mine in
> 45 minutes, never had a problem. But, until now I'd be a bit too squeamish
> to try just 20 to 30 minutes. If you're really serious, I think I'm going
> to have to try it once to see what happens. Why waste another 20 minutes or
> more if you don't have to?? As much as I love to brew, I do like to
> minimize my brewing time. Maybe it's the engineer in me, always looking for
> faster, easier, more efficient.
IMO, this is not a good idea. I think 20-30 minutes is pushing it too far.
Theoretically it's possible for the mash to convert in that short of a time,
but you're really going to be on the edge regarding complete conversion. I
think you're much better off going for at least 45 minutes just to ensure that
everything is done before you sparge.
> By the way, I have at least one data point thus far that says high mash
> temperatures do not result in low attenuation. I recently mashed a pale ale
> at about 160 F by accident, but still got 78% attenuation. I figured it
> should have been much less attenuated, based on everything I've read. I
> just have the one data point so far and have yet to confirm whether high
> temps really do anything to fermentability.
There's more to it than just temp. The mash time factors in as well. Even
at high mash temps, if you leave the enzymes active long enough they will
continue breaking down complex sugars into simple ones. IOW, given enough time
you can still get a very fermentable wort at high mash temps. That's one
reason that some people will do mashouts for their high temp mashes. It starts
the enzyme deactivation process early rather than waiting (a potentially long
time) for the sparge to do it.
John.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 21:19:24
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Reasonable Extraction, Minimal Time
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:27:11 -0500, <dmtaylor@SPAM.geocities.SUCKS.com> wrote:
>> "The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty" <mikey666@666swampgas.666com>
>> wrote in message news:450ec3b5$0$9444$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>> You realize that you can probably cut a lot of time there, right? Unless
>>> you're looking to add fermentability you can generally cut the mash time
>>> to 20-30 minutes for higher rest temps (say 156-160F). Of course, that
>>> leaves less time for the cat...
>> Hey, cool! Really, you can cut it down to 20-30 minutes? So far I've been
>> the guy who tells his buddies, 90 minute mash?? HA!! I do most of mine in
>> 45 minutes, never had a problem. But, until now I'd be a bit too squeamish
>> to try just 20 to 30 minutes. If you're really serious, I think I'm going
>> to have to try it once to see what happens. Why waste another 20 minutes or
>> more if you don't have to?? As much as I love to brew, I do like to
>> minimize my brewing time. Maybe it's the engineer in me, always looking for
>> faster, easier, more efficient.
>
> IMO, this is not a good idea. I think 20-30 minutes is pushing it too far.
> Theoretically it's possible for the mash to convert in that short of a time,
> but you're really going to be on the edge regarding complete conversion. I
> think you're much better off going for at least 45 minutes just to ensure that
> everything is done before you sparge.
To clarify:
It can be done -- but it must be done at a higher temperature, like
156-158. Actually, with a reasonably loose mash and the right ph you can
in theory get conversion at that temperature in as little as 10 minutes,
but that's really pushing it. You get a very dextrinous wort this way,
but with an enzyme rich mash, 20-30 minutes is actually pretty safe.
I should note, however, that even I generally go 45 minutes at the
shortest. This isn't because I'm concerned about conversion not taking
place; it's because I generally want a little more attenuation. I would
*not* recommend such a short mash schedule for a grist rich in munich or
other high-kilned malts.
>
>> By the way, I have at least one data point thus far that says high mash
>> temperatures do not result in low attenuation. I recently mashed a pale ale
>> at about 160 F by accident, but still got 78% attenuation. I figured it
>> should have been much less attenuated, based on everything I've read. I
>> just have the one data point so far and have yet to confirm whether high
>> temps really do anything to fermentability.
>
> There's more to it than just temp. The mash time factors in as well. Even
> at high mash temps, if you leave the enzymes active long enough they will
> continue breaking down complex sugars into simple ones. IOW, given enough time
> you can still get a very fermentable wort at high mash temps. That's one
> reason that some people will do mashouts for their high temp mashes. It starts
> the enzyme deactivation process early rather than waiting (a potentially long
> time) for the sparge to do it.
Time is VERY important, as well as the composition of the grist. I do a
lot of nearly 100% munich beers with no pale malts at all, and it's
difficult to get much over 70% attenuation at any temperature, although
it can be done.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 09:40:28
From: Mark R
Subject: Re: Reasonable Extraction, Minimal Time
|
"The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty" <mikey666@666swampgas.666com > >
> To clarify:
>
> It can be done -- but it must be done at a higher temperature, like
> 156-158. Actually, with a reasonably loose mash and the right ph you can
> in theory get conversion at that temperature in as little as 10 minutes,
> but that's really pushing it. You get a very dextrinous wort this way,
> but with an enzyme rich mash, 20-30 minutes is actually pretty safe.
>
> I should note, however, that even I generally go 45 minutes at the
> shortest. This isn't because I'm concerned about conversion not taking
> place; it's because I generally want a little more attenuation. I would
> *not* recommend such a short mash schedule for a grist rich in munich or
> other high-kilned malts.
My turn to clarify:
I do a mini-mash that includes 2-3 lbs of two row as well as the specialty
grains. It takes about 20 minutes to break out the gear, measure the water,
and balance the temp on an electric stove top. Then I do the mini-mash.
While it's mashing I start some sparge water, set up the propane and propane
accessories, and break out all the other gear I need for the boil and post
boil chill. By the time I've finished all that (and the cat) it's been about
a 60 minute mash. Then about 10 minute to sparge and drain into the pot.
During the boil I clean up the mash mess and sanitize everything I need for
the fermentation. I've heard that conversion can happen much quicker than 60
minute but this schedule gives plenty of time for an unhurried relaxing brew
day. :-)
Mark R
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 09:52:02
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Reasonable Extraction, Minimal Time
|
Mark R wrote:
> "The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty" <mikey666@666swampgas.666com> >
>> To clarify:
>>
>> It can be done -- but it must be done at a higher temperature, like
>> 156-158. Actually, with a reasonably loose mash and the right ph you can
>> in theory get conversion at that temperature in as little as 10 minutes,
>> but that's really pushing it. You get a very dextrinous wort this way,
>> but with an enzyme rich mash, 20-30 minutes is actually pretty safe.
>>
>> I should note, however, that even I generally go 45 minutes at the
>> shortest. This isn't because I'm concerned about conversion not taking
>> place; it's because I generally want a little more attenuation. I would
>> *not* recommend such a short mash schedule for a grist rich in munich or
>> other high-kilned malts.
>
> My turn to clarify:
> I do a mini-mash that includes 2-3 lbs of two row as well as the specialty
> grains. It takes about 20 minutes to break out the gear, measure the water,
> and balance the temp on an electric stove top. Then I do the mini-mash.
> While it's mashing I start some sparge water, set up the propane and propane
> accessories, and break out all the other gear I need for the boil and post
> boil chill. By the time I've finished all that (and the cat) it's been about
> a 60 minute mash. Then about 10 minute to sparge and drain into the pot.
> During the boil I clean up the mash mess and sanitize everything I need for
> the fermentation. I've heard that conversion can happen much quicker than 60
> minute but this schedule gives plenty of time for an unhurried relaxing brew
> day. :-)
>
Sounds like a good schedule -- it's what works for you that's important
-- although a real man only mashes 10 minutes, tops.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 09:22:39
From: Don Levey
Subject: Re: Reasonable Extraction, Minimal Time
|
The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com > writes:
>
> Sounds like a good schedule -- it's what works for you that's
> important -- although a real man only mashes 10 minutes, tops.
>
That's not what my wife says...
--
Don Levey $ cd /pub
Framingham, MA $ more beer
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 09:44:04
From: Mark R
Subject: Re: Reasonable Extraction, Minimal Time
|
"Don Levey" <Don_RCB@the-leveys.us > wrote in message
news:m3r6y6u0yo.fsf@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
> The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com>
writes:
>
>
> >
> > Sounds like a good schedule -- it's what works for you that's
> > important -- although a real man only mashes 10 minutes, tops.
> >
> That's not what my wife says...
>
2?
Mark R
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 14:25:07
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Reasonable Extraction, Minimal Time
|
Don Levey <Don_RCB@the-leveys.us > wrote:
>The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com> writes:
>> Sounds like a good schedule -- it's what works for you that's
>> important -- although a real man only mashes 10 minutes, tops.
>>
>That's not what my wife says...
Has she ever used a Mash-Stir(TM)?
--
Joel Plutchak
"Things just fall apart." - Now They'll Sleep (Belly)
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 19:43:55
From: David M. Taylor
Subject: Re: Reasonable Extraction, Minimal Time (was: Re: Extract VS All Grain)
|
"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrnegudd0.i82.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
>
> There's more to it than just temp. The mash time factors in as well.
> Even
> at high mash temps, if you leave the enzymes active long enough they will
> continue breaking down complex sugars into simple ones. IOW, given enough
> time
> you can still get a very fermentable wort at high mash temps. That's one
> reason that some people will do mashouts for their high temp mashes. It
> starts
> the enzyme deactivation process early rather than waiting (a potentially
> long
> time) for the sparge to do it.
Granted, I haven't been very successful getting up to proper mashout
temperatures, but I don't play around either. I think my sparge typically
only takes 15-20 minutes, then it's quickly heated to a boil within 25
minutes or thereabouts. Maybe you are right though, there's just too many
variables... you've also got the water to grain ratio, how well modified the
malts are, etc. etc. Still, I do think some reasonable experiments could be
run that limit the variables. It wouldn't be the first time a well known
"fact" of brewing science has been debunked by homebrewers.
--
Dave
"Just a drink, a little drink, and I'll be feeling GOOooOOooOOooD!" --
Genesis, 1973-ish
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 21:23:42
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Reasonable Extraction, Minimal Time
|
David M. Taylor wrote:
> "John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnegudd0.i82.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
>> There's more to it than just temp. The mash time factors in as well.
>> Even
>> at high mash temps, if you leave the enzymes active long enough they will
>> continue breaking down complex sugars into simple ones. IOW, given enough
>> time
>> you can still get a very fermentable wort at high mash temps. That's one
>> reason that some people will do mashouts for their high temp mashes. It
>> starts
>> the enzyme deactivation process early rather than waiting (a potentially
>> long
>> time) for the sparge to do it.
>
> Granted, I haven't been very successful getting up to proper mashout
> temperatures, but I don't play around either. I think my sparge typically
> only takes 15-20 minutes, then it's quickly heated to a boil within 25
> minutes or thereabouts. Maybe you are right though, there's just too many
> variables... you've also got the water to grain ratio, how well modified the
> malts are, etc. etc. Still, I do think some reasonable experiments could be
> run that limit the variables. It wouldn't be the first time a well known
> "fact" of brewing science has been debunked by homebrewers.
>
Actually the mechanics of the process is pretty well understood,
although some homebrewing texts simplify matters more than they should
-- but as mentioned earlier, there's a lot more to attenuation than mash
temp.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 01:04:52
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Reasonable Extraction, Minimal Time (was: Re: Extract VS All Grain)
|
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:43:55 -0500, <dmtaylor@SPAM.geocities.SUCKS.com > wrote:
> Granted, I haven't been very successful getting up to proper mashout
> temperatures, but I don't play around either. I think my sparge typically
> only takes 15-20 minutes, then it's quickly heated to a boil within 25
> minutes or thereabouts. Maybe you are right though, there's just too many
> variables... you've also got the water to grain ratio, how well modified the
> malts are, etc. etc. Still, I do think some reasonable experiments could be
> run that limit the variables. It wouldn't be the first time a well known
> "fact" of brewing science has been debunked by homebrewers.
I think this is one that's been confirmed by a lot of homebrewers already
though. I don't doubt your results, but there was probably something else
going on other than the idea that high temps don't reduce attenuation, all
else being equal.
John.
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 09:08:22
From: alebrewer
Subject: Re: Extract VS All Grain
|
Brian Foster wrote:
> My local store put on a little all grain demo this weekend. I have read,
> watched DVDs, and listened to a lot of homebrewers about brewing all grain
> and my interest was peaked.
>
> I will not say I was disappointed in the demo, but more enlightened. The
> major point I took away was the time investment in all grain vs extract
> brewing is dramatic.
Yes, but the return on that investment can be equally dramatic.
You want your next batch to be a bit maltier? Mash 5 degrees higher
You want it a bit drier? Lower your mash 5 degrees
Want to add body but keep it drier? Add flaked barly
Want to thin it down a lot? Add some rice
All this is in addition to the use of specialty grains and other
adjuncts.
When I brewed with extract, I could come home from work (7 PM) and have
cleanup completed before going to bed. With AG, I have to get started
by 3 PM (no brewing on workdays). I have absolutely nothing against
extract brewing (I've even been known to add extract to my AG batches
if I have a "sparging accident" and lose part of the runoff). But,
having control of the mashing adds an entire dimension to brewing that
does not exist with extract brewing.
Yes, AG is a big time investment over extract. But, for me, it is
worth it in the results. Not that the product is really any "better",
but it is more satisfying. I probably will make more extract batches
in the future, but, now that I am set-up for AG, if I have the time,
I'll be mashing.
ab
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 18:56:55
From: Scott Sellers
Subject: Re: Extract VS All Grain
|
Brian Foster <brianfoster@houston.rr.com >:
>My local store put on a little all grain demo this weekend. I
>have read, watched DVDs, and listened to a lot of homebrewers
>about brewing all grain and my interest was peaked.
>I will not say I was disappointed in the demo, but more
>enlightened. The major point I took away was the time investment
>in all grain vs extract brewing is dramatic.
>I brewed a batch of extract on Friday from a very simple recipe.
>From start to end of cleanup was just under 2 hrs. The all grain
>demo this weekend was 6 hours (for a robust Porter) and they
>told me that 5-6 hours for an all grain batch is pretty normal.
That's about my experience. If I push it, I could probably do a
batch in 5 hours. A little over 6 hours makes for a much more
relaxed brew morning. Like Artist...Kap'n Salty said, there is
some spare time in the process. I start early, take it
reasonably easy, and still have half of the day free. Starting
an allgrain at late-morning/noonish would be a drag, but that's
just my preference.
>So a few things appeared to me. My palate is not refined enough
>yet to taste the difference between an all grain brew and a good
>extract brew. My desire to get involved with this was to learn
>more about how beer is made (it's fascinating and simple) and to
>be able to make beer that was better and more to my liking than
>I could buy. I think I have accomplished both of my objectives.
>I'm pleased with my early batches for a few reasons. They didn't
>taste that bad (I actually liked them), and in learning about
>the brewing process I'm becoming more confident that I can make
>even better beer.
>An added benefit is that I can now consume draft beer in my own
>home of a quality and style I really enjoy. In 5 gallon batches
>:)
>I'm the kind of a guy who will watch the food channel to learn
>how to make foods that I have no experience with or even to get
>better at something I already consider myself pretty good at
>(Chili for example). I'm not trying to be the next Wolfgang
>Puck, Emeril Lagasse. For that matter I'm not trying to be the
>next AB or Coors either.
>I get a kick out of going to a resteraunt and ordering New
>England Clam Chowder and knowing how it is made and what is in
>it. And knowing that I can make it just as well as they can (in
>most instances). I'm now seeing beer in much the same way.
I think the biggest benefit to allgrain is that you can customize
attenuation vs. extract, where characteristics that is locked in.
My lhbs had extract in bulk, and it always seemed to
under-attenuate. That's probably the main reason I went
allgrain. Instead of searching out different extract, I decided
to pick up a sack of Marris Otter and learn allgrain.
I think using specialty grains is easier with allgrain. Just put
them in the mash, and you're done. This vs. mini-mash or
steeping. Looking back, the few times I mini-mashed seemed more
harried, and more complicated, than doing an allgrain mash ends
up being now. Cooler mashing is *so* easy.
All that being said, there's no doubt you can make quality beer
with extract.
Scott S
--
Scott Sellers
|
|
