I understand you’re going for extremes. But that “10 setting” 0,055” seems massive with lots of intact grains. If I see that after crushing, something is wrong.😂 I’m surprised it’s that close of a call. Really like the Brülosophy content! The website and podcast, and now the TH-cam channel are amazing. So much amazing content. Cheers guys!
It would be interesting to see a trial with the grain bill adjusted for efficiency to hit a target OG. Would having more grain to hit a target gravity at a lower efficiency give different character than less grain at a higher efficiency? I especially wonder about the impact of specialty grains and dark malts. Would it make a big difference if you had to add an extra oz of Chocolate malt or 3 oz of Munich to hit your target gravity?
Typically I usually add only base malts to makeup for inefficiency. However, it would be interesting to see whether that eventually waters down the specialty grains.
Typically I usually add only base malts to makeup for inefficiency. However, it would be interesting to see whether that eventually waters down the specialty grains.
Interesting. So with the fine crush and higher original gravity, how much less grain could you reduce to hit the more course crush og. Maybe that is the important takeaway.
Great video, Martin! I set my Barley Crusher grain mill to 0.032, which is a pretty fine crush but since I do BIAB I don’t have any problems with a stuck mash. Also, the beer tastes great! So I’m sticking with my fine crush.
I started brewing using BIAB right off the bat, but using LHBS crushed grain for the first few brews. Once I got my own grain crusher, I adjusted the mill to a finer crush and immediately noticed a higher OG with my finer crushed grains.
Agreed with many other commenters that 0.055 setting seems hardly crushed at all, unfortunately. You might also try "grain conditioning" to get those starches crushed finer, but give the husk a bit more durability during the crush.
Well, I "grouched" about weird content recently, but this time please accept my compliment - great video and great content/experiment. Thank you and looking forward to next one ...
There are 3 exbeeriments here, all with very different crushing comparisons: 1) Helles Bock: loose is VERY loose. Fine is quite fine (too fine! but it worked) 2) The Stout: loose looks good. fine is WAY too fine (but it worked). Honestly, I'm surprised there was such a difference in this one. 3) American Pale: loose looks perfect! fine is too fine (again, though, it worked). I'm not surprised this one had equal OG's since you are getting all of the extract that is available from the "loose" (aka: perfect) crack. If anything, the fine crush was at risk for worse efficiency due to lautering issues. With all of these, it's hard to draw a conclusion of "loose" vs. "fine" because frankly, the only crack that looks proper is the American Pale's "loose" crack. On top of that, there isn't consistency between what was considered loose vs. fine. In general, there is a point where you will get all of the extract out of your grain, and no need to go beyond that because you're just risking lautering problems; stuck mash and/or channelling. I've brewed professionally for 15 years, and check the crack every brew day (just a visual inspection). I do think you get better flavors by having everything work properly: 1) getting the highest brewhouse efficiency possible based on the pre-boil gravity you're targeting and 2) avoiding stuck mashes or channelling. If you really want to dial in your crack, it's prudent to get a set of sieves and to determine the "correct" mill setting. I've done this while setting up an operation or commissioning a new mill. That being said, it gets you in the ball park and you'll notice you can inch it a little looser or finer to get even more dialed in results; the goal being a relatively quick lauter, free of issues, and ideal brewhouse efficiency. For reference; I would generally get 90-95% efficiency for a 10-13 Plato beer, 75-90 minute lauter, for a 10-20bbl batch. With a higher gravity beer, say 16.5 Plato, efficiency drops to 85%, which makes sense because you're leaving sugar behind. Up to 18.5 Plato, I'm only getting 80%. Obvously, I'm fly sparging. On top of all of that; not every grain is the same size. When I brewed with a significant portion of wheat, for example, I would tighten my mill just for those bags, and put it back to its regular setting for the barley. This was the "pro move," and it increased efficiency, for sure, because it's easy for those little huskless wheat kernels to pass through the rollers without getting properly cracked. Alright, there's my essay
Oh, and by the way, I'm loving this content! I haven't been brewing professionally for a bit, so it's really fun to just think about these things again and see your experiments! Great work
There are two potential issues with a blender. Firstly, the shredded husks will not give an open filter bed, so you risk a stuck sparge. That could potentially be solved by adding rice hulls to the mash. Secondly, the shredded husks can increase tannin extraction and lead to a more astringent beer. You would have to try it yourself to see if it makes a difference to you for the type of beers you make, but I find that shredded husks make pale lagers noticeably astringent in a high efficiency mash.
depends what you're trying to achieve; this was more about comparing two methods that people use, not just researching the effect of grain size specifically
Great experiment would also be on time. If you are aiming for SG, which is calculated over 60Mins, you could reduce this down to 40Mins with a Fine Mash and mash out sooner as your extracting your sugars sooner, increasing efficiency and reducing brew day time 😊 Great video as always!
Was going to say this. I brew smaller batches (1.75gal-2.25gal) and I hit full conversion with a fine crush in about 20-25min depending on the grain bill. I discovered in my own experiments some years ago that the majority of conversion takes place in the first 15m, finishing faster or slower depending on the crush size.
In Spain there is a brewery that mills the malt into flour, mash it and filter the mash by using a mud filter plate to get the wort, i guess they do that in order to get a more eficiency
Hi Would like to know in future comparison what was the actual “ perceptible impact on beer” ? That would really help to kind of take decisions on how to brew the beer apart from the OG perspective. Thanks
What was the expected difference? I’d imagine it would only be ABV. For the sake of comparison, you might as well perform the same experiment just scaling down the grain bill to equate to the 1%ABV difference.
The trick isn't in achieving the highest efficiency possible. The trick is knowing what your efficiency is and being able to reliably repeat it. So if you don't have a mill at home or you don't want to twaddle about adjusting roller gap settings... just figure out what efficiency you are getting with what you've got and adjust your grain bill accordingly to achieve the result you are after.
I feel like the grain bill could be adjusted to account for the difference in efficiency to maintain the same OG/FG and ABV removing those as measurable variables in the final beer. Realistically if you get higher efficiency then you put less grain in to hit your target OG anyway, and adjust mash temp and length to hit your target FG.
As a starter brewer this is absolutly interresting! I do wonder, if there would be a difference if both brews had the same starting OG. Maybee by using less grains in the finer batch?
I've actually heavily modified my grain basket from Clawhammer supply because of "stuck" recirculation. They do have a few of these in their videos. Basically, the basket gets clogged and all the liquid underneath the basket gets put on top, and the element starts burning… Errghh.
If all the liquid pools on top, it's not flowing through the grain and extracting properly. Have you tried a coarser crush or adding rice hulls to your grain?
Was this mash a no sparge, or with a sparge? I didn't catch that and couldn't see it in the recipe as well. Martin, would you be kind enough to enlighten us? :)
Enjoyed the vid, but I think you're conflating double crush with finer crush. My thinking is, "double crush" comes from those who want a finer crush, but don't have the control over it - those ordering via internet or LHBS. I think they're crushed a second time at the same gap. And, I would question whether that would provide a significantly finer crush. I mean, if they were crushed through a .04" gap once, how much smaller would they be going through that same gap a second time?
Is 68% efficiency for Clawhammer common? I typically get 75-85% on my homemade RIMS following the old-school Papazian method of a quart of mash water per pound of grain and sparge with 1/2 gallon per pound. I was recently lazy and put all the water in at once to skip the sparge and got a dismal 65%. I wonder if it was lack of sparge or thinness of grist. Sounds like a future experiment!
My last few brews have been between 78% and 87% efficient with a very basic Brew Monk system. Coarse crush, 60 minute single step mash with about 3-3.5 liters of mash water per kg of grain and the rest as sparge water.
@@ferdle89 Yes that may be true for a fine crush. I find that on a coarse crush the extra time can give you a good few extra points. Also the sugar profile changes giving a more consistent and lower FG. This is particularly so if mashing at higher temps where Alpha amylase is dominant.
The OG should reach more or less the same level in under 60 minutes. Either the coarse crush was too coarse (it kinda seems like that to me) or there was something else off about the process.
@Margarinetaylorgrease there are some soluble amino acids and such as well, but I'd imaging the ratio of dissolved sugar to dissolved amino acids should be close to constant. At the very least I don't think it explains the whole difference.
Note to self, never trust Martin's tasting abilites again. I joke. Did you get a chamce to talk to the tasters who got it right? If so, what did they pick up on to identify the odd beer out? As for fine vs corse crush, I'm 100% on team fine crush. As a BIAB brewer stuck mashes arent a concern so i might as well get the efficiency bump. At the end of the day consistency is even more important though.
You should have guessed 1,66 times good without drinking the beers :D You also had bottom 13% probability of not getting a single one right without drinking
I like lower alcohol beer. I try to aim for 3-4% (or less). I cannot enjoy two higher ABV ones. So if I used the fine crush (which I don’t think would work with my system) I would modify recipe to keep lower ABV
I understand you’re going for extremes. But that “10 setting” 0,055” seems massive with lots of intact grains. If I see that after crushing, something is wrong.😂 I’m surprised it’s that close of a call.
Really like the Brülosophy content! The website and podcast, and now the TH-cam channel are amazing. So much amazing content. Cheers guys!
It would be interesting to see a trial with the grain bill adjusted for efficiency to hit a target OG. Would having more grain to hit a target gravity at a lower efficiency give different character than less grain at a higher efficiency? I especially wonder about the impact of specialty grains and dark malts. Would it make a big difference if you had to add an extra oz of Chocolate malt or 3 oz of Munich to hit your target gravity?
Typically I usually add only base malts to makeup for inefficiency. However, it would be interesting to see whether that eventually waters down the specialty grains.
Typically I usually add only base malts to makeup for inefficiency. However, it would be interesting to see whether that eventually waters down the specialty grains.
Interesting. So with the fine crush and higher original gravity, how much less grain could you reduce to hit the more course crush og. Maybe that is the important takeaway.
Martin, great content! Thank you for featuring the Blichmann Pro Grain Mill. It's a beast. :)
Great video, Martin!
I set my Barley Crusher grain mill to 0.032, which is a pretty fine crush but since I do BIAB I don’t have any problems with a stuck mash. Also, the beer tastes great! So I’m sticking with my fine crush.
Great one again!! Thanks for making this great content!
Great content Martin!!!
Really interesting content! Thanks mate!
Lovely experiments!
I started brewing using BIAB right off the bat, but using LHBS crushed grain for the first few brews. Once I got my own grain crusher, I adjusted the mill to a finer crush and immediately noticed a higher OG with my finer crushed grains.
Great video Martin!
that's quite an impressive score
Looking forward to what other achievement trophies you got planned!
awesome video as usual. Thank you for the t-shirt plug!! cheers Martin
For those that could distinguish between them, what did they taste that was different?
That's what I came looking for too
What about grain conditioning? That's another variable you could to this test! :)
Agreed with many other commenters that 0.055 setting seems hardly crushed at all, unfortunately. You might also try "grain conditioning" to get those starches crushed finer, but give the husk a bit more durability during the crush.
Well, I "grouched" about weird content recently, but this time please accept my compliment - great video and great content/experiment. Thank you and looking forward to next one ...
I think this just solved my efficiency problem
I been using a blender to grind my grain works fine lol no differences at least not noticeable, brew in a bag method
Hey I’m a home brewer in Raleigh always happy to test beer anytime lol
I assume you modified the hopping to account for the difference in pre-boil gravity?
There are 3 exbeeriments here, all with very different crushing comparisons:
1) Helles Bock: loose is VERY loose. Fine is quite fine (too fine! but it worked)
2) The Stout: loose looks good. fine is WAY too fine (but it worked). Honestly, I'm surprised there was such a difference in this one.
3) American Pale: loose looks perfect! fine is too fine (again, though, it worked). I'm not surprised this one had equal OG's since you are getting all of the extract that is available from the "loose" (aka: perfect) crack. If anything, the fine crush was at risk for worse efficiency due to lautering issues.
With all of these, it's hard to draw a conclusion of "loose" vs. "fine" because frankly, the only crack that looks proper is the American Pale's "loose" crack. On top of that, there isn't consistency between what was considered loose vs. fine.
In general, there is a point where you will get all of the extract out of your grain, and no need to go beyond that because you're just risking lautering problems; stuck mash and/or channelling.
I've brewed professionally for 15 years, and check the crack every brew day (just a visual inspection). I do think you get better flavors by having everything work properly: 1) getting the highest brewhouse efficiency possible based on the pre-boil gravity you're targeting and 2) avoiding stuck mashes or channelling. If you really want to dial in your crack, it's prudent to get a set of sieves and to determine the "correct" mill setting. I've done this while setting up an operation or commissioning a new mill. That being said, it gets you in the ball park and you'll notice you can inch it a little looser or finer to get even more dialed in results; the goal being a relatively quick lauter, free of issues, and ideal brewhouse efficiency.
For reference; I would generally get 90-95% efficiency for a 10-13 Plato beer, 75-90 minute lauter, for a 10-20bbl batch. With a higher gravity beer, say 16.5 Plato, efficiency drops to 85%, which makes sense because you're leaving sugar behind. Up to 18.5 Plato, I'm only getting 80%. Obvously, I'm fly sparging.
On top of all of that; not every grain is the same size. When I brewed with a significant portion of wheat, for example, I would tighten my mill just for those bags, and put it back to its regular setting for the barley. This was the "pro move," and it increased efficiency, for sure, because it's easy for those little huskless wheat kernels to pass through the rollers without getting properly cracked.
Alright, there's my essay
Oh, and by the way, I'm loving this content! I haven't been brewing professionally for a bit, so it's really fun to just think about these things again and see your experiments! Great work
Fantastic video!!
Im just getting into brewing beers again, ive never done whole grain. Can i turn it into flour with a blender, or is thst going too far?
There are two potential issues with a blender. Firstly, the shredded husks will not give an open filter bed, so you risk a stuck sparge. That could potentially be solved by adding rice hulls to the mash. Secondly, the shredded husks can increase tannin extraction and lead to a more astringent beer. You would have to try it yourself to see if it makes a difference to you for the type of beers you make, but I find that shredded husks make pale lagers noticeably astringent in a high efficiency mash.
My 1st thought was why wouldn't you run the course through the same setting twice, to keep that even?
depends what you're trying to achieve; this was more about comparing two methods that people use, not just researching the effect of grain size specifically
Great experiment would also be on time. If you are aiming for SG, which is calculated over 60Mins, you could reduce this down to 40Mins with a Fine Mash and mash out sooner as your extracting your sugars sooner, increasing efficiency and reducing brew day time 😊 Great video as always!
Was going to say this. I brew smaller batches (1.75gal-2.25gal) and I hit full conversion with a fine crush in about 20-25min depending on the grain bill. I discovered in my own experiments some years ago that the majority of conversion takes place in the first 15m, finishing faster or slower depending on the crush size.
it was interesting and entertaining at the same time :)
In Spain there is a brewery that mills the malt into flour, mash it and filter the mash by using a mud filter plate to get the wort, i guess they do that in order to get a more eficiency
Which one? Maybe to spend less grain 😅
Hi
Would like to know in future comparison what was the actual “ perceptible impact on beer” ?
That would really help to kind of take decisions on how to brew the beer apart from the OG perspective.
Thanks
What was the expected difference? I’d imagine it would only be ABV. For the sake of comparison, you might as well perform the same experiment just scaling down the grain bill to equate to the 1%ABV difference.
The trick isn't in achieving the highest efficiency possible. The trick is knowing what your efficiency is and being able to reliably repeat it. So if you don't have a mill at home or you don't want to twaddle about adjusting roller gap settings... just figure out what efficiency you are getting with what you've got and adjust your grain bill accordingly to achieve the result you are after.
I feel like the grain bill could be adjusted to account for the difference in efficiency to maintain the same OG/FG and ABV removing those as measurable variables in the final beer. Realistically if you get higher efficiency then you put less grain in to hit your target OG anyway, and adjust mash temp and length to hit your target FG.
then there shouldnt be a difference.
@@starwars1357 And you could get the same amount of indistinguishable beer for less money.
@@Leo99929 i mean it was better for the experiment. Although i Think it would be different result for hop forward beer.
As a starter brewer this is absolutly interresting! I do wonder, if there would be a difference if both brews had the same starting OG. Maybee by using less grains in the finer batch?
I've actually heavily modified my grain basket from Clawhammer supply because of "stuck" recirculation. They do have a few of these in their videos. Basically, the basket gets clogged and all the liquid underneath the basket gets put on top, and the element starts burning… Errghh.
If all the liquid pools on top, it's not flowing through the grain and extracting properly. Have you tried a coarser crush or adding rice hulls to your grain?
Great vid. my friends dont yet have a refined pallet so I can just do the lazy side of the house. haha
Great content!
What about almost flour? I use an industrial coffee grinder.
Ive tried this before and got a stuck mash hahah no fun!
Why do they prefer the coarse crushed beer?
What is a 'sedding'?
I wonder if the target original gravity makes a difference
Awesome!
How do you all collect sensory data? Compusense, redjade, draught labs, or something else?
Was this mash a no sparge, or with a sparge? I didn't catch that and couldn't see it in the recipe as well. Martin, would you be kind enough to enlighten us? :)
No sparge
Enjoyed the vid, but I think you're conflating double crush with finer crush. My thinking is, "double crush" comes from those who want a finer crush, but don't have the control over it - those ordering via internet or LHBS. I think they're crushed a second time at the same gap. And, I would question whether that would provide a significantly finer crush. I mean, if they were crushed through a .04" gap once, how much smaller would they be going through that same gap a second time?
Is 68% efficiency for Clawhammer common? I typically get 75-85% on my homemade RIMS following the old-school Papazian method of a quart of mash water per pound of grain and sparge with 1/2 gallon per pound. I was recently lazy and put all the water in at once to skip the sparge and got a dismal 65%. I wonder if it was lack of sparge or thinness of grist. Sounds like a future experiment!
I usually get 70 to 73% mash efficiency with my Clawhammer System. I crush my grains pretty fine though.
My last few brews have been between 78% and 87% efficient with a very basic Brew Monk system. Coarse crush, 60 minute single step mash with about 3-3.5 liters of mash water per kg of grain and the rest as sparge water.
Pretty sure he was talking about Brewhouse efficiency which is lower than mash efficiency
It's not surprising that 13 people found the difference in that final beer. The fine crush was 20% stronger!
I wonder if a 90 minute mash would of made the conversation closer.
Conversion curve levels off pretty well after the 30 minute mark.
@@ferdle89 Yes that may be true for a fine crush. I find that on a coarse crush the extra time can give you a good few extra points. Also the sugar profile changes giving a more consistent and lower FG. This is particularly so if mashing at higher temps where Alpha amylase is dominant.
The OG should reach more or less the same level in under 60 minutes. Either the coarse crush was too coarse (it kinda seems like that to me) or there was something else off about the process.
@@Sibula From what I can gather OG isn’t always sugar it can also be dissolved solids.
@Margarinetaylorgrease there are some soluble amino acids and such as well, but I'd imaging the ratio of dissolved sugar to dissolved amino acids should be close to constant. At the very least I don't think it explains the whole difference.
Try a low abv beer (let's say 3,5%) and then a less low abv beer (4,5%) and I bet you will taste the difference
Note to self, never trust Martin's tasting abilites again. I joke. Did you get a chamce to talk to the tasters who got it right? If so, what did they pick up on to identify the odd beer out?
As for fine vs corse crush, I'm 100% on team fine crush. As a BIAB brewer stuck mashes arent a concern so i might as well get the efficiency bump. At the end of the day consistency is even more important though.
Fine crush forever brother.
You should have guessed 1,66 times good without drinking the beers :D You also had bottom 13% probability of not getting a single one right without drinking
Little did he know the kid put same beer in all 3 cups.
Did you ask people to describe their perceived differences?
Should've been better if the participants were trained judges.
It would be great to measure other fermentation products, not only ABV.
I like lower alcohol beer. I try to aim for 3-4% (or less). I cannot enjoy two higher ABV ones. So if I used the fine crush (which I don’t think would work with my system) I would modify recipe to keep lower ABV