![]() ![]() ![]() That would prevent me from hitting the numbers. Please look over the recipe and see if there is something I'm just not seeing This is the third time doing this recipe I've laid an egg as far as efficiency goes. Into one step and drained the mash tun after about five minutes. One thing I did do differently, instead of a two step sparge I combined my sparge water The grain grind was a little finer than usual tooīecause of using a higher RPM drill for the mill.My mash temp started out at 157F. I did everything correct as far as the recipe in Beersmith, but it still came outĤ points low post mash and 17 after the boil. Volume levels in my kettle as well as my buckets. I've gotten very meticulous about volumes and weights in my last few brewsĮven going as far as weighing the water to get accurate volume. I missed the OG by 17 points and I really can't figure out why. Not fun.Brewed a five gallon batch of smoked porter yesterday, and it wasn't I've had stuck iterations with 550 litres of mash. Getting pH correct should help too, according to something I read which I can't find at the moment, so take that as unknown. Although modern malt has most of its beta glucan broken down, each iteration adds beta glucans to the wort, so I'm hoping this can reduce stuck mash issues.Īlso, do a mashout to, again, reduce viscosity. I'm going to try beta-glucan rests to help reduce this. Wort viscosity becomes an issue with second and subsequent iterations. If I remember the Jamil/Blichmann podcast correctly, this is what they found to be true as well. If I do two 1.060 iterations, I will end up with a 1.120 wort. As long as I have accounted for the above mentioned efficiency drop, this has proven to not be the case. So, thinking has been that if you do two 1.060 iterations, you won't end up with a 1.120 wort. In "conventional wisdom", reiterated mashing will not just give you double the gravity. ![]() As I understand it, this is due to the solvent action of water in the first iteration vs the solvent action of wort in the second. I usually calculate grain bill on 75% efficiency on the first iteration, and 60% on the second. I have definitely seen a drop on the second. In my experience, the first iteration runs with normal efficiency. Has anyone done it in a 1V system before on here?Īrticle on reiterated is here: /reiterated-mashing-1/ My plan is to use exact same grain bill in each. I can say figure out first mash will be for example 1.040, then how do you work out second mash OG if mashing in wort of 1.040. I am just unsure how to work put in beersmith what sort of OG you would get in the second mash, or calculate what the OG would be in each cube after water top up. I would then spilt this into two 20L cubes (11L) each and then top up the cubes with 10L each of cooled boiled water. Mash this in the wort for another 60 mins. Toss the grain that has been spent and fill with another 5kg of grain. Sparge with 5L to get the level back up to 20L. Say you end up with 15L left after grain absorption. After 60 mins, pull up the mash tun, let the wort drain. Idea is to do a normal mash, pull up the mash tun and let the wort drain, sparge till you get to hour next mash level.ĮG Say you mash in 5kg of grain in 20L (ease of numbers here). Was just wondering if anyone has tried it with a Robobrew/Grainfather/Braumeister type setup. So I had an idea about doing two mashes in the same wort, found out its called reiterated mash. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |