| |
Main
Date: 11 Oct 2006 09:47:57
From: davemchine@gmail.com
Subject: brew volume, moving up
|
I've been doing the standard 10 gallon batches using kegs converted to
cooking pots, but my brewing time is limited so I am considering a move
up. Can I increase my batch volumes to 15 gallons using my current
equipment? I use two kegs currently, one for mashing and one for sparge
and boil. What is the best method to move up to 15 gallons?
Thanks to those who have gone down this road before me.
Dave
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 17:11:38
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
On 11 2006 09:47:57 -0700, <davemchine@gmail.com > wrote:
> I've been doing the standard 10 gallon batches using kegs converted to
> cooking pots, but my brewing time is limited so I am considering a move
> up. Can I increase my batch volumes to 15 gallons using my current
> equipment? I use two kegs currently, one for mashing and one for sparge
> and boil. What is the best method to move up to 15 gallons?
>
> Thanks to those who have gone down this road before me.
I haven't done it, but I think you'll run into trouble trying to boil
a 15 gallon batch in a converted keg. You'll probably want at least
a 20 gallon kettle. Having a mash tun the same size as your batch size
works alright, you'll just be limited on how high your OG can get from
grains alone. I'd estimate that you'll be able to get around 45 lbs of
grain in there using a fairly thick mash.
John.
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 12:18:51
From: strangebrewer
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
> > - Expect a hit on mash efficiency, probably 5-10%.
>
> IMO, more than a 10% efficiency
> loss wouldn't surprise me.
I guess YMMV, but I notice about a 5% efficiency hit on my system -
~75% vs ~80%. I use a slow fly sparge & mashout, which I'm sure helps
effic. I've been using this technique for about 3 years now.
> IMO, using LME/DME to boost the gravity would probably give you results
> more inline with doing a full sparge. Plain sugar (if that's what you
> meant) is going to effect your attenuation.
I only use sugar in styles where it's appropriate, and where I'd
probably be using it anyway -- British ales & Belgians. The advantage
is that you can take a grav reading when you start your boil, and
adjust the amount of sugar you add to hit a target OG.
> Personally, I'd rather get a larger kettle.
Sure. I'm just suggesting a technique that works well, and that
doesn't require any additional equipment investment. I forgot to
mention another advantage: you can dilute some of the wort, while
fermenting the rest at full gravity, essentially making a strong beer
and small beer from the same boil.
Drew
www.strangebrew.ca
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 19:45:15
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
On 11 2006 12:18:51 -0700, <drew.avis@gmail.com > wrote:
>> IMO, using LME/DME to boost the gravity would probably give you results
>> more inline with doing a full sparge. Plain sugar (if that's what you
>> meant) is going to effect your attenuation.
>
> I only use sugar in styles where it's appropriate, and where I'd
> probably be using it anyway -- British ales & Belgians. The advantage
> is that you can take a grav reading when you start your boil, and
> adjust the amount of sugar you add to hit a target OG.
True, but you can do the same thing with LME/DME. IE, take a gravity
reading and then adjust by adding extract to hit your target OG. IMO,
that would work well for styles that didn't call for sugar in the recipe.
John.
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 10:57:57
From: strangebrewer
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> On 11 2006 09:47:57 -0700, <davemchine@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can I increase my batch volumes to 15 gallons using my current
> > equipment? I use two kegs currently, one for mashing and one for sparge
> > and boil. What is the best method to move up to 15 gallons?
>
> I haven't done it, but I think you'll run into trouble trying to boil
> a 15 gallon batch in a converted keg.
It's actually pretty simple to do, and I do it with all my brews now
(except for very high-grav beers, where I'm limited to 10-13 gals).
The secret is to boil a concentrated wort, and dilute it post-boil to
15 gals. I developed the dilution manager in StrangeBrew for this very
purpose.
The caveats:
- Collect as much wort as you can, 13-14 gals will fit in a 15.5 gal
converted keg, but you need to be vigilant to prevent boil-overs.
- Expect a hit on mash efficiency, probably 5-10%.
- Remember that hop utilization isn't linear... ie, ithe higher the
grav, the lower the utilization. Calculate accordingly
- 34 lbs of grain mashed at a 1 qt/lb ratio takes about 12 gals of
volume. This gives you ~3 gals for a mashout infusion. Or, do a
liquid decion.
- I usually use some sugar in the kettle to boost gravity and help
accommodate blown efficiency estimates
Hope that helps!
Drew
www.strangebrew.ca
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 19:04:11
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
On 11 2006 10:57:57 -0700, <drew.avis@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>> On 11 2006 09:47:57 -0700, <davemchine@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Can I increase my batch volumes to 15 gallons using my current
>> > equipment? I use two kegs currently, one for mashing and one for sparge
>> > and boil. What is the best method to move up to 15 gallons?
>>
>> I haven't done it, but I think you'll run into trouble trying to boil
>> a 15 gallon batch in a converted keg.
>
> It's actually pretty simple to do, and I do it with all my brews now
> (except for very high-grav beers, where I'm limited to 10-13 gals).
> The secret is to boil a concentrated wort, and dilute it post-boil to
> 15 gals. I developed the dilution manager in StrangeBrew for this very
> purpose.
It sounds like you're talking about undersparging, which is not the same
thing as a concentrated boil. Yeah, that's one way of dealing with a kettle
that is too small for your batch size. That wouldn't be my preference
though. The OP should be able to find a relatively inexpensive 20 gallon
kettle (didn't we have a recent thread about this... started by changey?).
> The caveats:
> - Collect as much wort as you can, 13-14 gals will fit in a 15.5 gal
> converted keg, but you need to be vigilant to prevent boil-overs.
> - Expect a hit on mash efficiency, probably 5-10%.
I would have expected the efficiency hit to be higher than that. It
would depend on how much you undersparge though. I think for a normal
15 gallon batch you'd want to collect somewhere around 17 - 18 gallons.
So, with this method you're essentially undersparging by 4 - 5 gallons and
leaving those sugars behind in the mash. IMO, more than a 10% efficiency
loss wouldn't surprise me.
> - I usually use some sugar in the kettle to boost gravity and help
> accommodate blown efficiency estimates
IMO, using LME/DME to boost the gravity would probably give you results
more inline with doing a full sparge. Plain sugar (if that's what you
meant) is going to effect your attenuation.
Personally, I'd rather get a larger kettle.
John.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 09:53:15
From: Dan Listermann
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
"strangebrewer" <drew.avis@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160589476.731680.18200@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> It's actually pretty simple to do, and I do it with all my brews now
> (except for very high-grav beers, where I'm limited to 10-13 gals).
> The secret is to boil a concentrated wort, and dilute it post-boil to
> 15 gals. I developed the dilution manager in StrangeBrew for this very
> purpose.
I do this myself. Just did it last week. I sparge to 1.010 and boil it at
about 12 gallons. When I cut the gas, I just top the kettle with water and
stir if going into a number of smallest fermenters. If going into a single
large fermenter, skip the stirring. This is no different than the
concentrated boils that are common in extract kit brewing.
Dan
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:34:50
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
On Thu, 12 2006 09:53:15 -0400, <dan@listermann.com > wrote:
>
> "strangebrewer" <drew.avis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160589476.731680.18200@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
>> It's actually pretty simple to do, and I do it with all my brews now
>> (except for very high-grav beers, where I'm limited to 10-13 gals).
>> The secret is to boil a concentrated wort, and dilute it post-boil to
>> 15 gals. I developed the dilution manager in StrangeBrew for this very
>> purpose.
>
> I do this myself. Just did it last week. I sparge to 1.010 and boil it at
> about 12 gallons. When I cut the gas, I just top the kettle with water and
> stir if going into a number of smallest fermenters. If going into a single
> large fermenter, skip the stirring. This is no different than the
> concentrated boils that are common in extract kit brewing.
What OG is your recipe if you can sparge all the way down to 1.010 by
only collecting 12 gallons for a 15 gallon batch? I'm assuming this only
works for pretty low OG beers, otherwise I don't see how you can get a full
sparge by collecting less than your intended batch size. Most of the time
you need to sparge to greater than your intended batch size and boil it
down.
John.
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:46:18
From: K Buck
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrneisoc6.2st.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
> On Thu, 12 2006 09:53:15 -0400, <dan@listermann.com> wrote:
> >
> > "strangebrewer" <drew.avis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1160589476.731680.18200@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >
> >> It's actually pretty simple to do, and I do it with all my brews now
> >> (except for very high-grav beers, where I'm limited to 10-13 gals).
> >> The secret is to boil a concentrated wort, and dilute it post-boil to
> >> 15 gals. I developed the dilution manager in StrangeBrew for this very
> >> purpose.
> >
> > I do this myself. Just did it last week. I sparge to 1.010 and boil it
at
> > about 12 gallons. When I cut the gas, I just top the kettle with water
and
> > stir if going into a number of smallest fermenters. If going into a
single
> > large fermenter, skip the stirring. This is no different than the
> > concentrated boils that are common in extract kit brewing.
>
> What OG is your recipe if you can sparge all the way down to 1.010 by
> only collecting 12 gallons for a 15 gallon batch? I'm assuming this only
> works for pretty low OG beers, otherwise I don't see how you can get a
full
> sparge by collecting less than your intended batch size. Most of the time
> you need to sparge to greater than your intended batch size and boil it
> down.
>
>
> John.
I also do 15 gals in a converted sankey. In my experience I usually sparge
about 12 to 13 gallons when I hit 1.010 (uncorrected hydrometer reading). I
don't bother correcting for wort temp when taking a hydrometer reading so I
guess I am undersparging a bit. I still manage to hit a fairly consistent
efficiency of 75 -77%. A typical recipe has between 30 to 35 lbs of grain
for OG of 1.054 - 1.062. The most I have mashed was 40 lbs (OG 1.072) and
that left about two inches in the tun for sparging with a thick mash - I
have a false bottom that takes up space. The boil usually starts with about
14 gallons and ends up around 12. I add water post boil to make 15 gallons
when the wort temp drops below 90 degrees.
All high gravity beers ( > 1.070) are now done in either 5 or 10 gallong
batches.
Kevin
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 18:55:11
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
On Thu, 12 2006 14:46:18 -0400, <kevinbuck@REMOVEpsouth.net > wrote:
> I also do 15 gals in a converted sankey. In my experience I usually sparge
> about 12 to 13 gallons when I hit 1.010 (uncorrected hydrometer reading). I
> don't bother correcting for wort temp when taking a hydrometer reading so I
> guess I am undersparging a bit. I still manage to hit a fairly consistent
> efficiency of 75 -77%. A typical recipe has between 30 to 35 lbs of grain
> for OG of 1.054 - 1.062. The most I have mashed was 40 lbs (OG 1.072) and
> that left about two inches in the tun for sparging with a thick mash - I
> have a false bottom that takes up space. The boil usually starts with about
> 14 gallons and ends up around 12. I add water post boil to make 15 gallons
> when the wort temp drops below 90 degrees.
I don't know, I guess I just must be missing something. It seems contrary
to everything else we usually say about all grain brewing.
If it's possible to sparge a 15 gallon 1.054 - 1.062 beer and hit 75 - 77%
efficiency by only sparging 12 - 13 gallons, then why does everyone
else collect more from the sparge than their intended batch size and
boil it down? Would that imply that everyone else is oversparing all
their beers? Everything I've heard about all grain brewing suggests that
you want to collect more and then reduce the volume back down in the boil
in order to have a decent efficiency.
I just don't get it, but that's OK. Thank you to those that tried to explain
it to me. We don't need to spend more time on this for my benefit if
everyone else understands it. ;)
John.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 13:31:44
From: Lee
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
You guys take all the time you need to get him to understand... I'm
waiting on a few cooler pieces to arrive for my mash/lauter tun, and
maybe next weekend will be my first all-grain after a year of putting it
off. If I can decide on a recipe/style...
Maybe by the time Shag understands it, I'll at least be less confused.
:)
Lee
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> On Thu, 12 2006 14:46:18 -0400, <kevinbuck@REMOVEpsouth.net> wrote:
>> I also do 15 gals in a converted sankey. In my experience I usually sparge
>> about 12 to 13 gallons when I hit 1.010 (uncorrected hydrometer reading). I
>> don't bother correcting for wort temp when taking a hydrometer reading so I
>> guess I am undersparging a bit. I still manage to hit a fairly consistent
>> efficiency of 75 -77%. A typical recipe has between 30 to 35 lbs of grain
>> for OG of 1.054 - 1.062. The most I have mashed was 40 lbs (OG 1.072) and
>> that left about two inches in the tun for sparging with a thick mash - I
>> have a false bottom that takes up space. The boil usually starts with about
>> 14 gallons and ends up around 12. I add water post boil to make 15 gallons
>> when the wort temp drops below 90 degrees.
>
> I don't know, I guess I just must be missing something. It seems contrary
> to everything else we usually say about all grain brewing.
>
> If it's possible to sparge a 15 gallon 1.054 - 1.062 beer and hit 75 - 77%
> efficiency by only sparging 12 - 13 gallons, then why does everyone
> else collect more from the sparge than their intended batch size and
> boil it down? Would that imply that everyone else is oversparing all
> their beers? Everything I've heard about all grain brewing suggests that
> you want to collect more and then reduce the volume back down in the boil
> in order to have a decent efficiency.
>
> I just don't get it, but that's OK. Thank you to those that tried to explain
> it to me. We don't need to spend more time on this for my benefit if
> everyone else understands it. ;)
>
>
> John.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 15:48:35
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
On Sat, 14 2006 13:31:44 GMT, <wersmiley@excite.com > wrote:
> You guys take all the time you need to get him to understand... I'm
> waiting on a few cooler pieces to arrive for my mash/lauter tun, and
> maybe next weekend will be my first all-grain after a year of putting it
> off. If I can decide on a recipe/style...
>
> Maybe by the time Shag understands it, I'll at least be less confused.
It seems to come down to intentionally undersparging. I was confused a bit
by some of the explanations where it sounded like they were doing a full
sparge, but really weren't.
So, basically, yeah you can use a smaller pot than optimal for your
all grain beers, but unless you're doing a fairly low OG batch you're going
to undersparge the grains, which means that your efficiency is going to
suffer. You'll end up spending more on grain (or extract) for each batch in
order to compensate. The choice is whether that is worth it, or if it makes
more sense to get a larger kettle.
Personally, I'd get a larger kettle. But that's just me.
I've never bought from them, but this is the place that was mentioned in
another thread awhile back about large kettles. The've got an 80 qt (20 gal)
aluminum stock pot for $67. IMO, that's a really good price.
http://www.acitydiscount.com/80-Qt-Aluminum-Stock-Pot-New-Update-International-APT-80.0.51769.1.1.htm
John.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 06:56:22
From: strangebrewer
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
> > I only use sugar in styles where it's appropriate, and where I'd
> > probably be using it anyway -- British ales & Belgians. The advantage
> > is that you can take a grav reading when you start your boil, and
> > adjust the amount of sugar you add to hit a target OG.
>
> True, but you can do the same thing with LME/DME. IE, take a gravity
> reading and then adjust by adding extract to hit your target OG. IMO,
> that would work well for styles that didn't call for sugar in the recipe.
Absolutely, and this is probably good SOP for your first attempt while
you calibrate your new efficiency. I just dislike using LME/DME
because it costs a lot, and I'm cheap! However, you can easily achieve
normal (~1.050) grav worts with the undersparge/high-grav wort method
(in a 15.5 gal kettle & tun), so it's not something you normally need
to do.
Drew
www.strangebrew.ca
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 12:24:01
From: strangebrewer
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
> If it's possible to sparge a 15 gallon 1.054 - 1.062 beer and hit 75 - 77%
> efficiency by only sparging 12 - 13 gallons, then why does everyone
> else collect more from the sparge than their intended batch size and
> boil it down? Would that imply that everyone else is oversparing all
> their beers? Everything I've heard about all grain brewing suggests that
> you want to collect more and then reduce the volume back down in the boil
> in order to have a decent efficiency.
That's the key point, John -- you lose some efficiency when you
"undersparge", and most people like to have a high efficiency.
Homebrewers are notoriously cheap, haven't you heard? :-) But if
you're willing to blow a couple of buck's worth of extra grain in
exchange for getting 1/3 more wort, then this method is a fair
compromise. I can live with 75% vs 85% for the extra beer.
BTW, George Fix was a fan of undersparging, check out:
http://www.hbd.org/brewery/library/YMltGF92.html
(I know, he was talking about improving malt flavour... but this is
essentially the same procedure some of us are using for dilute
recipes).
Drew
www.strangebrew.ca
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 19:30:08
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
On 12 2006 12:24:01 -0700, <drew.avis@gmail.com > wrote:
>> If it's possible to sparge a 15 gallon 1.054 - 1.062 beer and hit 75 - 77%
>> efficiency by only sparging 12 - 13 gallons, then why does everyone
>> else collect more from the sparge than their intended batch size and
>> boil it down? Would that imply that everyone else is oversparing all
>> their beers? Everything I've heard about all grain brewing suggests that
>> you want to collect more and then reduce the volume back down in the boil
>> in order to have a decent efficiency.
>
> That's the key point, John -- you lose some efficiency when you
> "undersparge", and most people like to have a high efficiency.
I definitely understand losing efficiency when you undersparge. But
sparging until your runnings are 1.010 is not undersparging, that's what
I don't get. I would assume after collecting only 12 gallons for a 1.060
beer that the runnings would be higher than 1.010. That's the only part
of it I don't understand.
John.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 10:23:50
From: K Buck
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrneit65d.2st.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
> On 12 2006 12:24:01 -0700, <drew.avis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> If it's possible to sparge a 15 gallon 1.054 - 1.062 beer and hit 75 -
77%
> >> efficiency by only sparging 12 - 13 gallons, then why does everyone
> >> else collect more from the sparge than their intended batch size and
> >> boil it down? Would that imply that everyone else is oversparing all
> >> their beers? Everything I've heard about all grain brewing suggests
that
> >> you want to collect more and then reduce the volume back down in the
boil
> >> in order to have a decent efficiency.
> >
> > That's the key point, John -- you lose some efficiency when you
> > "undersparge", and most people like to have a high efficiency.
>
> I definitely understand losing efficiency when you undersparge. But
> sparging until your runnings are 1.010 is not undersparging, that's what
> I don't get. I would assume after collecting only 12 gallons for a 1.060
> beer that the runnings would be higher than 1.010. That's the only part
> of it I don't understand.
>
>
> John.
You're right, John and my gravity is higher than 1.010. I stop the sparge
when the hydrometer reads 1.010 regardless of wort temp. Assuming the
runnings are a modest 150^F the corrected gravity would be about 1.029.
Therefore I am undersparging a bit. I have always known this, but being
happy with the efficiency I get I live with it. Besides, not correcting
this gravity is one less thing to worry about. I pretty much keep things
as simple as possible.
Another thing is that I tend to sparge a long time; average of 90 minutes -
not sure if this helps my efficiency or not. I also don't bother with an
inch of water above the grain bed. I fill that tun to the top and slowly
let it drain. When it gets to about an inch I fill it back up. Keeping it
simple.
Kevin
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 15:25:41
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
On Fri, 13 2006 10:23:50 -0400, <kevinbuck@REMOVEpsouth.net > wrote:
> Another thing is that I tend to sparge a long time; average of 90 minutes -
> not sure if this helps my efficiency or not.
It probably does help. Sparging too fast can definitely hurt your
efficiency, so it seems reasonable that if you have the patience for a
really slow sparge that it would increase it.
> I also don't bother with an
> inch of water above the grain bed. I fill that tun to the top and slowly
> let it drain. When it gets to about an inch I fill it back up. Keeping it
> simple.
The textbooks all say to keep 1 inches above your grain bed, theoretically
having more would compact the grain bed. I doubt it really makes much
difference though. I've never worried about it too much.
John.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 10:42:38
From:
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> On Thu, 12 2006 09:53:15 -0400, <dan@listermann.com> wrote:
> >
> > "strangebrewer" <drew.avis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1160589476.731680.18200@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >
> >> It's actually pretty simple to do, and I do it with all my brews now
> >> (except for very high-grav beers, where I'm limited to 10-13 gals).
> >> The secret is to boil a concentrated wort, and dilute it post-boil to
> >> 15 gals. I developed the dilution manager in StrangeBrew for this very
> >> purpose.
> >
> > I do this myself. Just did it last week. I sparge to 1.010 and boil it at
> > about 12 gallons. When I cut the gas, I just top the kettle with water and
> > stir if going into a number of smallest fermenters. If going into a single
> > large fermenter, skip the stirring. This is no different than the
> > concentrated boils that are common in extract kit brewing.
>
> What OG is your recipe if you can sparge all the way down to 1.010 by
> only collecting 12 gallons for a 15 gallon batch? I'm assuming this only
> works for pretty low OG beers, otherwise I don't see how you can get a full
> sparge by collecting less than your intended batch size. Most of the time
> you need to sparge to greater than your intended batch size and boil it
> down.
>
>
> John.
Just pretend you are brewing 12 gallons of a higher gravity beer (e.g.,
OG 1.070) and dilute with 3 gallons pre-boiled water to your target
gravity (e.g., OG 1.058). No reason you can't collect all your sugar
from the mash tun......
Jack
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 18:23:06
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
On 12 2006 10:42:38 -0700, <jmowbray@bellatlantic.net > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 2006 09:53:15 -0400, <dan@listermann.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > "strangebrewer" <drew.avis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1160589476.731680.18200@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >
>> >> It's actually pretty simple to do, and I do it with all my brews now
>> >> (except for very high-grav beers, where I'm limited to 10-13 gals).
>> >> The secret is to boil a concentrated wort, and dilute it post-boil to
>> >> 15 gals. I developed the dilution manager in StrangeBrew for this very
>> >> purpose.
>> >
>> > I do this myself. Just did it last week. I sparge to 1.010 and boil it at
>> > about 12 gallons. When I cut the gas, I just top the kettle with water and
>> > stir if going into a number of smallest fermenters. If going into a single
>> > large fermenter, skip the stirring. This is no different than the
>> > concentrated boils that are common in extract kit brewing.
>>
>> What OG is your recipe if you can sparge all the way down to 1.010 by
>> only collecting 12 gallons for a 15 gallon batch? I'm assuming this only
>> works for pretty low OG beers, otherwise I don't see how you can get a full
>> sparge by collecting less than your intended batch size. Most of the time
>> you need to sparge to greater than your intended batch size and boil it
>> down.
>>
>>
>> John.
>
> Just pretend you are brewing 12 gallons of a higher gravity beer (e.g.,
> OG 1.070)
Even then, I still don't think you can target a 12 gallon 1.070 beer and
sparge down to 1.010 with only 12 gallons. If this were true then we would
all be oversparging when we normally collect more than our batch size
from the sparge.
The amount of sparging you need to do in order to get it down to 1.010
is basically dependent on the OG. The higher the OG the more you need to
sparge. The lower the OG the less you need to sparge. That's why I
was curious what Dan's OG was when he did this. I assume it would have to
be fairly low, and I know that Dan tends to do a lot of low OG brewing
anyway (Milds, etc).
John.
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 07:11:37
From: strangebrewer
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
> I definitely understand losing efficiency when you undersparge. But
> sparging until your runnings are 1.010 is not undersparging, that's what
> I don't get. I would assume after collecting only 12 gallons for a 1.060
> beer that the runnings would be higher than 1.010. That's the only part
> of it I don't understand.
Ok, yeah, I see that in Dan's post. I don't get down anywhere near
1.010 on my system -- typically it's 1.020-1.030. I collect extra
runnings to use for starters. Not sure why Dan is going so low, except
maybe he's brewing lower grav beers.
Drew
www.strangebrew.ca
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 21:53:44
From:
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
On 12, 2:23 pm, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <s...@shagg.net > wrote:
> On 12 2006 10:42:38 -0700, <jmowb...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 2006 09:53:15 -0400, <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> >> > "strangebrewer" <drew.a...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:1160589476.731680.18200@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> It's actually pretty simple to do, and I do it with all my brews now
> >> >> (except for very high-grav beers, where I'm limited to 10-13 gals).
> >> >> The secret is to boil a concentrated wort, and dilute it post-boil to
> >> >> 15 gals. I developed the dilution manager in StrangeBrew for this very
> >> >> purpose.
>
> >> > I do this myself. Just did it last week. I sparge to 1.010 and boil it at
> >> > about 12 gallons. When I cut the gas, I just top the kettle with water and
> >> > stir if going into a number of smallest fermenters. If going into a single
> >> > large fermenter, skip the stirring. This is no different than the
> >> > concentrated boils that are common in extract kit brewing.
>
> >> What OG is your recipe if you can sparge all the way down to 1.010 by
> >> only collecting 12 gallons for a 15 gallon batch? I'm assuming this only
> >> works for pretty low OG beers, otherwise I don't see how you can get a full
> >> sparge by collecting less than your intended batch size. Most of the time
> >> you need to sparge to greater than your intended batch size and boil it
> >> down.
>
> >> John.
>
> > Just pretend you are brewing 12 gallons of a higher gravity beer (e.g.,
> > OG 1.070)Even then, I still don't think you can target a 12 gallon 1.070 beer and
> sparge down to 1.010 with only 12 gallons. If this were true then we would
> all be oversparging when we normally collect more than our batch size
> from the sparge.
>
> The amount of sparging you need to do in order to get it down to 1.010
> is basically dependent on the OG. The higher the OG the more you need to
> sparge. The lower the OG the less you need to sparge. That's why I
> was curious what Dan's OG was when he did this. I assume it would have to
> be fairly low, and I know that Dan tends to do a lot of low OG brewing
> anyway (Milds, etc).
>
> John.- Show quoted text -
Never know what the gravity is at the end of sparge - I just stop when
my kettle is full....
Jack
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 15:27:33
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: brew volume, moving up
|
On 13 2006 21:53:44 -0700, <jmowbray@bellatlantic.net > wrote:
>> The amount of sparging you need to do in order to get it down to 1.010
>> is basically dependent on the OG. The higher the OG the more you need to
>> sparge. The lower the OG the less you need to sparge. That's why I
>> was curious what Dan's OG was when he did this. I assume it would have to
>> be fairly low, and I know that Dan tends to do a lot of low OG brewing
>> anyway (Milds, etc).
>>
>> John.- Show quoted text -
>
> Never know what the gravity is at the end of sparge - I just stop when
> my kettle is full....
That's pretty much how I do it too. The only time I'd check is if I'm
doing a really low OG batch, where the possibily of oversparging exists.
For most batches, just collecting until you hit your volume works fine.
John.
|
|
