I mill my grain into my tun then add strike water after, I just heat the strike water accordingly and stir well.I can do 5 including clean up but that's with mrs. zym helping a little bit with clean up. The main area where I lose time is heating my strike water and then putting it in the cooler and waiting for it to stabilize so I can toss the grain in and hit my mash temp.

maibock
#61
Posted 10 November 2010 - 12:50 PM
#62
Posted 10 November 2010 - 01:47 PM
I like to let the strike water stabilize in the tun which means I have to overshoot on heating my stike water so that the tun can absorb some of the heat. This seems to lead to very predictable mash temps for me although it takes a little more time to get the mash started.I mill my grain into my tun then add strike water after, I just heat the strike water accordingly and stir well.
#63
Posted 10 November 2010 - 02:12 PM
I would definitely mash a little higher. I'd aim for 155 but as low as 153 is probably ok.so the mashing low and long (that's what she said) thread got me thinking. should I maybe mash a little lower for this or is the lack of crystal and/or carapils mean I should indeed keep my mash temps up a little higher?
#64
Posted 11 November 2010 - 06:04 AM
#65
Posted 11 November 2010 - 06:08 AM
I think the only reasonable way I could accomplish this would be a decoction since I'm mashing in a cooler.Traditionally, a Maibock was probably made with a 55-65-75 schedule, I assume, so it was probably mostly mashed around 149F. I'd probably go with 149F for 30-40 minutes and 155-158F for the remainder. That would be my best chance of getting a reasonably dry finish with a little residual body and might give me a chance of coming close to the 3.5-4 Plato FG I'd hope for.
#66
Posted 11 November 2010 - 06:14 AM
just to be clear - I guess I would still consider doing a decoction simply as a means to do a step mash. I would probably just get the pulled grains up to boiling and not hold it for long and throw them back in. Does that sound reasonable?I think the only reasonable way I could accomplish this would be a decoction since I'm mashing in a cooler.
#67
Posted 11 November 2010 - 07:45 AM
I've done that style of three-step mash using infusions in a Gott cooler (see post #23 in this thread for the details).I think the only reasonable way I could accomplish this would be a decoction since I'm mashing in a cooler.
#68
Posted 11 November 2010 - 07:49 AM
wouldn't this cause a difficulting in calcuating the mash chemistry stuff?I've done that style of three-step mash using infusions in a Gott cooler (see post #23 in this thread for the details).
#69
Posted 11 November 2010 - 08:03 AM
No. Mash chemistry is REALLY forgiving, as long as you have the right final concentrations of ions in the beer. Just add the same amount of salts that you would normally add (for a maibock, I would just add a 1/2 teaspoon of gypsum to typical New England soft water) at the beginning, and everything will even out in the end.wouldn't this cause a difficulting in calcuating the mash chemistry stuff?
#70
Posted 11 November 2010 - 09:11 AM
I'll have to check but I think palmer's spreadsheet relies on the water/grain ratio when doing the calcuations. Which ratio do I use? The first, second, or third?No. Mash chemistry is REALLY forgiving, as long as you have the right final concentrations of ions in the beer. Just add the same amount of salts that you would normally add (for a maibock, I would just add a 1/2 teaspoon of gypsum to typical New England soft water) at the beginning, and everything will even out in the end.
#71
Posted 11 November 2010 - 09:24 AM
I would use the second ratio for mash chemistry, but the final post-boil volume for things like carbonate and sulfate concentrations.I'll have to check but I think palmer's spreadsheet relies on the water/grain ratio when doing the calcuations. Which ratio do I use? The first, second, or third?
#72
Posted 11 November 2010 - 09:27 AM
yeah - I never fully got that. why does the palmer spreadsheet talk about those ratios (carbonate and sulfate) when you are talking about the mash? shouldn't you be calculating those for the final volume? or maybe he is? Maybe I should trace through his excel equations and check...I would use the second ratio for mash chemistry, but the final post-boil volume for things like carbonate and sulfate concentrations.
#73
Posted 11 November 2010 - 10:02 AM
#74
Posted 11 November 2010 - 10:26 AM
not really dry but I'd like to keep it around 1.015 or so for the FG. I'm just guessing that I might have a hard time with a lager yeast and a beer of this OG with getting the FG down. Maybe I'm being paranoid though.I'm wondering why you're trying to get a dry finish.
#75
Posted 11 November 2010 - 10:38 AM
Lager yeasts tend to finish dryer to begin with because they can ferment malto-triose and most ale yeasts can't.not really dry but I'd like to keep it around 1.015 or so for the FG. I'm just guessing that I might have a hard time with a lager yeast and a beer of this OG with getting the FG down. Maybe I'm being paranoid though.
#76
Posted 11 November 2010 - 10:39 AM
why do we have to pitch so much more yeast for lagers then? Are you comparing lager yeast at lager yeast temps with ale yeast at ale yeast temps?Lager yeasts tend to finish dryer to begin with because they can ferment malto-triose and most ale yeasts can't.
#77
Posted 11 November 2010 - 10:41 AM
Because lager yeast will not propagate as much at lager temps. Yes.why do we have to pitch so much more yeast for lagers then? Are you comparing lager yeast at lager yeast temps with ale yeast at ale yeast temps?
#78
Posted 11 November 2010 - 10:44 AM
so it ferments well but doesn't propagate well (all at lager yeast temps) - got it!Because lager yeast will not propagate as much at lager temps. Yes.

#79
Posted 11 November 2010 - 10:48 AM
#80
Posted 04 March 2011 - 12:39 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users