Homebrewing mini-disaster please help me break down process

I have not heard any of the folks who conduct basic BIAB mashing report problems so maybe the answer to your question is no?

Below is a discussion from the Beersmith website concerning limitations of BIAB:

“The limitations include:

• Batch Size – All of the grains have to fit in the bag, and the bag has to be lifted out without breaking, so this does place some limitations on high gravity batches. However with a properly stitched grain bag, double batches are possible though a pulley may be desirable.
• Efficiency – Since BIAB is a full volume method, you will lose a few percent efficiency – overall batch efficiency is usually lower than with fly sparge methods. However, this can easily be compensated by adding a little more grain to the batch and formulating your recipes with the appropriate lower brewhouse efficiency estimate. Experienced BIAB brewers have reported efficiency as high as 80% in some cases.
• High Water to Grain Ratio – Mashing at a high water to grain ratio, as is the case here, results in lower levels of beta-amalyse, resulting in more dextrines in the finished beer. This can translate to higher body than desired at the high end of the mash temperature range (156-158F). Conversely, the thin mash also works poorly at the low end (148-150F), creating dry beer. In general BIAB works best in the mid mash temperature range (150-156F). Finally, if you are brewing a beer high in non-barley adjuncts such as flaked wheat, BIAB may not be the best option.”

http://beersmith.com/blog/2009/04/14/brew-in-a-bag-biab-all-grain-beer-brewing/

So, as long as you maintain a mash temperature like 153 degrees F the thin mash should be OK?

I am not a BIAB person so the best I can do is report on what I read.

Maybe a BA who is a BIAB brewer can provide more input here.

Cheers!

 

By my calculations, I think you ended up with closer to 2.1-2.2 gallons after the boil, which would make more sense as to how 1.100 turned out to be 1.042 at 5 gallons (100*2.1/5=42).

Standard ratio these days is getting to be closer to 2 qt/lb. It goes up more every year or so, and some go as much as 3 qt/lb and report no ill effects, and I believe it. My typical ratio now is 1.5-1.75 qt/lb, highest I've gone is about 2 or maybe 2.25. It works. However I've also gone as low as 0.9 qt/lb and that works fine as well, especially for high gravity beers where you want to sparge/rinse as much sugars as possible, so then thicken the mash so you can rinse with more of the preboil volume water.

If your yeast is still active (which I'm sure it is), they'll eat your additional sugars. No worries over mixing, they'll do the mixing themselves.

 

My experience, ymmv.

Biab is always lower efficiency than i plan on.

Reading gravity at greater than 65-75 is not accurate even with a compensation equation. You can speed up the process by putting the hot liquid in a zip top bag, and putting on your freezer and then reading.

Grain crush is my biggest bugaboo in lhbs. I quit buying grain from a particular store. Rice hulls are cheap, crap grain crush is more aggravation than rice hulls.

It is entirely conceivable that if you buy another kit for biab, your efficiency will be the same. So, write that number down and buy enough compensatory dme for your next batch. You might hold of on using it but, ... at least you can only get better.

 

There are BIAB methods that support a more typical sparge - line the mash tun with a bag, essentially:

http://brulosophy.com/2015/06/17/brew-in-a-bag-in-a-cooler-reviewing-the-brew-bags-mlt-filter/

I actually like this idea as a "best of both worlds" kind of approach.

 

Hmm, that is vexing. I would not think that mash conditions should be too critical with respect to Roasted Barley since that malt does not have to be mashed; Roasted Barley is a steepable malt.

Maybe the qualities of the Roasted Barley will be more noticeable in the finished beer?

Here is an article for further reading about dark grains: http://beersmith.com/blog/2011/11/17/brewing-beer-with-dark-grains-steeping-versus-mashing/

Cheers!

 

You might want to start a new thread to ask your questions about the BIAB method. Beyond the mash temperature question you can ask about mash thickness, mash pH topics, how critical is it to obtain the proper grain crush, what efficiencies have folks obtained, etc.

Cheers!

 

I get 55%-60% on no-sparge partial mashes with 2qts/lb

 

Partial mashing will be a bit different than an all grain BIAB. When @JackHorzempa talks about adding your full pre-boil volume with no-sparge BIAB, he's likely referring to AG practice. If you did that with a partial mash, it would give you a super thin mash. The problems with super thin, as I understand it, is you run the risk of the enzymes not fully interacting with your mash and probably ineffective conversion.

 

I doubt mash temp or thickness have much to do with it. It could be a water/ pH thing maybe. But consider whether it might just be an ingredient quality or personal taste thing.

FWIW, I tend to mash everything at 148-152 F for 40-45 minutes. Been doing this for over 10 years and pleased with results. No thinking required in that regard, since these variables really do not make a very big difference in final beer quality.

 

I think differences in final beer character based on mash temperatures are less significant than other variables, assuming one mashes in a reasonable range between about 147-157 F or thereabouts. Mash time is a somewhat more useful and interesting variable. Mash pH is less understood and also deserving of greater exploration.

 

One hour is a good default, although with a good crush of 21st century malts, it is actually overkill. Conversion is about 90% complete in the first 15 minutes at normal mash temp and pH, but the real reason we mash longer than that is not for conversion and mash efficiency but rather for improved fermentability/attenuation. Through experimentation I found that a 30 minute mash time has no adverse impact on efficiency at all but had significant effect of limiting attenuation, i.e., you'll get higher final gravity. At 40 minutes compared to 60 minutes, however, I found that the difference in attenuation is barely detectable, only different by a couple of points. So again I think we get about 90% or more of the benefits of a normal mash regimen within 40 minutes and not 60 as cited as the default by most homebrewers. Save yourself a lot of time on every brewday of your life if you want with no discernible detrimental effects. I love time savings wherever possible. Some don't care and that's fine too. Longer mashes of 75 or 90 minutes or more do indeed help to assure greater attenuation where desired such as for saisons and Belgian styles.

Cheers.

 

Yes, that's pretty much it. Chemical reactions, including biochemical reactions, do not usually occur instantaneously but rather on a curved scale over time. I have not developed all the specific curves but suffice it to say thst in my experience, mash times of more than 40 minutes are largely unnecessary for most styles and homebrew processes, since the benefit beyond that point is very minor.

 

Define minor. Greg Doss' data (for example) shows what I would call a pretty significant difference in apparent attenuation between 45 minutes and 75 minutes. The difference was almost 7%, (i.e. a factor of almost 1.07) (Pilsner malt, 151F.)

Mash time is a powerful attenuation lever, right up there with mash temp.

@Zonk BrewCipher and BeerSmith use Doss and/or Troester mash parameters data to predict attenuation, if you want to play with the numbers.