Home Distiller

Hi there! I've done a lot of wine/champagne, cider and extract brewing in the past, but am new to all grain. Could you have a look over this method, and critique it for me? Point out anything you would add/take away, or that I haven't understood. thanks!
For a 25gal mash.
Using 25kg 2 row distillers malted barley (milled), and 5kg unmalted barley (milled).
Bring water to 160f strike temp, add grain. Keep at about 155 for 90 minutes. Decant into fermenting vessel. Sparge grains, add sparge water to ferment vessel. cool to pitch temp, add yeast bomb. When ferment finishes, add to still and distill.

I'm also curious as to how far I could push the unmated barley and still get efficient conversion of starch to sugar. Would I be able to go as far as 50/50 ?

Overall you got the basics. I have adopted a more simplistic approach where I batch mash with the full volume and ferment on the grains. The lautering for me then occurs after the ferment. The nice thing is fewer steps, higher converaion and way easier lautering prior to stilln' as the liquid is no longer full of sugar.

I would get a small bottle of iodine from the pharmacy and test the startch conversion vs waiting 90 minutes if you do want to follow the typical beer brewing steps of lautering prior to ferment. Most mashes are done way earlier with the diastatic power of modern malts and fine milling. I have gone as high as 30% unmalted with the described method and still had full conversion. 50% would be worth a 5 gal test batch on the side prior to scalling up to 30 kgs. Just make sure you hit your temps to keep the enzimes happy.

Maybe cereal mash the unmalted grains first?

50/50 or even 40/60 should work. I believe as long as you have a total DP of 30 it should convert.

Some of the mash experts should be along to explain it better.

Edited: for stupid ferking auto correct

The ratio of malted to unmalted will have quite an impact on flavor.
Aim for mashing at lower temps, 140f - 148f, for more fermentables sugars.

snowman_fs wrote:Overall you got the basics. I have adopted a more simplistic approach where I batch mash with the full volume and ferment on the grains. The lautering for me then occurs after the ferment. The nice thing is fewer steps, higher converaion and way easier lautering prior to stilln' as the liquid is no longer full of sugar.

The reason I didn't want to do that is that I might be losing alcohol saturated in the liquid that is left in the grains, but maybe I'm wrong. Which is most efficient do you think? Don't mind extra work to get extra results!

And cornhusker..

MichiganCornhusker wrote:The ratio of malted to unmalted will have quite an impact on flavor.
Aim for mashing at lower temps, 140f - 148f, for more fermentables sugars.

So i should be aiming for a strike temp of about 150 then instead of 160? that about right? And what would be the difference in taste?

Thanks everyone for the replies so far! Your advice is much needed!

Strike temp calcs can be found at many brew websites and as apps for your smartphone.
Strike temps really depend on water/grain ratio, temp of grains. I always aim for 148f.

Here's a good one http://www.brewersfriend.com/mash/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

If you want a convenient free app for your Android phone check out Brewzor. Its a good'n too.

Yup, 148 is perfect for us stillers. Get up closer to 155 and youll make lots of unfermentable dextrines that get left in the boiler. Great for a little sweetness in beer, but dont do stillers any good.

MichiganCornhusker wrote:The ratio of malted to unmalted will have quite an impact on flavor.
Aim for mashing at lower temps, 140f - 148f, for more fermentables sugars.

Ch is right on, not much over 150 and your going backwards

I had great luck with my last AG malt mash. Not technically time efficient but for me very energy and time usage efficient. And a very clean wash with excellent recovery and alcohol production.

Upon waking in the morning I mashed together my malt and water (ratio of 1 lb per quart) at room temperature and put the whole thing in my oven on 'warm'. Every few hours I gave it a stir. Somewhere around 8 hours later it was at 150 F and I turned off the oven and let it set for another couple hours (I wake at 5 am).

I tossed the whole thing in my false bottom lauder tun and sparged with a couple gallons of water 160 F. Counter flow chilled the whole thing and pitched my yeast. The really long conversation gave me a calculated efficiency of 84%! And the best part was without boiling (keeping the enzymes intact) the FG made it down to 0.998.

Question for OP. Why do you want to add unmalted barley?

moered wrote:The reason I didn't want to do that is that I might be losing alcohol saturated in the liquid that is left in the grains, but maybe I'm wrong. Which is most efficient do you think?

Large distilleries who are focused on the economics of production are fermenting on the grains (also boiling on the grains) so it can't be that bad or else they would not be doing it. Splitting hairs, if you try and compare the lost sugar prior to ferment to the lost EtOH in the wet grains after. I get 95% efficiency and only lose a few pints of beer to the wet grain. You can get most of the liquid out if you squeeze, press or gravity drain long enough. Something you can never do while making beer. Remember the risk of infection is non-existent if you are heading to the still so go ahead and press all you want.

...herbal extractions bags and alot of racking gets all of the beer when fermenting on the grains..
ps..dont borrow a buddy's thats used it on herbal extraction.

Thanks gain for the replies guys. From the sound of it, I'll just ferment on the grain and gravity drain and maybe build a rack for squeezing after ferment.

Alchemist- I want to add unmated barley to cut down on expense, but only if it's not going to have negative effect on output and taste.

snowman_fs wrote:

moered wrote:The reason I didn't want to do that is that I might be losing alcohol saturated in the liquid that is left in the grains, but maybe I'm wrong. Which is most efficient do you think?

Large distilleries who are focused on the economics of production are fermenting on the grains (also boiling on the grains) so it can't be that bad or else they would not be doing it. Splitting hairs, if you try and compare the lost sugar prior to ferment to the lost EtOH in the wet grains after. I get 95% efficiency and only lose a few pints of beer to the wet grain. You can get most of the liquid out if you squeeze, press or gravity drain long enough. Something you can never do while making beer. Remember the risk of infection is non-existent if you are heading to the still so go ahead and press all you want.

It's clearly a matter of preference. on-grain vs off-grain. 3 distillers, 3 opinions and all. I've done it both ways and hands down like it off grain better. I will grant it was much easier initially on grain, but a pain (for me) removing the grain later. And at the end of the day, I liked the results off grain better. The stripping run was better and the final product was better to my tastes.

Good luck. Basically try both ways and see what you like best or what works for you and your setup.

What was the difference in taste and efficiency in your opinion? I'd imagine a lighter product taste wise?

I think efficiency was the same. With my off grain technique. It was the whole goal for me. To get the efficiency the same as on-grain. The keys being (I believe) very long conversation temperature (tempered by being super easy - its a Belgian ale technique for high OG but low FG), sparging to get the sugars, and not boiling so the enzymes stay active and can continue to work while fermenting.

The on grain was a foaming bastard in my still. Bitch to control. Not nearly so much with the off grain. Even with some anti-foam.

It certainly was not a lighter product. But to my tastes it was a cleaner product. I didn't care for the astringency I got from the grain, nor the funny/foul flavors I got from the sourish grains. The tails were fouler in the on grain and I could go less deep into them (where the smoke was).

For me, the whole experience was nicer off grain. But I'm also set up for it well having done AG for 20 years.

moered wrote:Thanks gain for the replies guys. From the sound of it, I'll just ferment on the grain and gravity drain and maybe build a rack for squeezing after ferment....

I'd be more worried about squeezing out crap I didn't want in the boiler than losing the tiny bit of liquid that might be retained in the husks.

Process it quicker and you can start the next ferment quicker. Then, you won't have to worry so much about quantity and you can focus more on quality.
ss

still_stirrin wrote:I'd be more worried about squeezing out crap I didn't want in the boiler than losing the tiny bit of liquid that might be retained in the husks.

What sort of stuff would be in the husks?

I do all my whiskies on the grain and beers lautered. Prefer the flavor fermenting on the grain, dont get astringent or foul, just a nice grain flavor. And probably a better yield letting the enzymes keep chomping while the yeast is doing its thing.

Ive also both squeezed and ran the cloudy wash and squeezed and let the yeast settle out for a couple days before running. Dont notice a difference, no yeasty flavors that some report.

Its not a tiny bit of liquid in the grain bed (fermenting on grain). I do 70lb of grain batches with 28gal water. I pull 25-26 gallon out of that. If I didnt squeeze Id pull half that and leave half in the grain. 70 lbs of grain holds a LOT of liquid. If youre mashing at 1lb/qt and lautering with another qt/lb your grain bed will be left with very low gravity liquid. No great loss, or you could add a 3rd waters and use the runnings to start a new mash, which is what the scots do.

Jimbo wrote:Ive also both squeezed and ran the cloudy wash and squeezed and let the yeast settle out for a couple days before running. Dont notice a difference, no yeasty flavors that some report.

Just did that on a plum thing. Ran it cloudy after a squeeze and the distillate ended up very yeasty... I'm hoping time will be forgiving. Got another one going now to compare.

still_stirrin wrote:I'd be more worried about squeezing out crap I didn't want in the boiler than losing the tiny bit of liquid that might be retained in the husks.

Hey all- I originally thought the same thing, that squeezing the hell out of the grains after mashing would produce a lot of unwanted junk. But, I'm making a mash press using a 12 ton bottle jack (more on this later) and the last bit of fluid (say, the last gallon of fluid from a 9 gallon mash) that I squeeze out of an all grain mash is really amazing. Crystal clear, deep amber, and sweet as syrup. In fact, syrup is a good descriptor. I can't tell you yet about the taste of the final distilled product because I'm still fermenting. But what I assumed would be bitter astringent fluid upon some serious pressure on the grains turned out to be really sweet, clear, tasty syrupy stuff. I want this going into the still.
Just an observation!
Bd

Bobdoe wrote:...I'm making a mash press using a 12 ton bottle jack (more on this later) and the last bit of fluid (say, the last gallon of fluid from a 9 gallon mash) that I squeeze out of an all grain mash is really amazing. Crystal clear, deep amber, and sweet as syrup. In fact, syrup is a good descriptor. I can't tell you yet about the taste of the final distilled product because I'm still fermenting.Bd

I was thinking I might adapt my cider press for the job!

Hey Moered, so tell us..... how did it turn out?

When I visited Jamieson's Distillery in Ireland the tour guide found out for me that their mash was 55 % malted and 45% unmalted barley if that helps you with conversion question and a good start if you want to try to duplicate anything commercial.

Anyone tried with liquid barley malt extract?

Kronfels wrote:Anyone tried with liquid barley malt extract?

I haven't...because I have other options. But why not? Make a beer, but you can/should omit the hops and run it. I think you'll like the product. Barley malt (including DME and liquid malt extract) will make great whiskey. Go for it.
ss

Yes. It works fine. Its mashed at a beer mashing temps for a little sweetness in the beer, so you wont get it to ferment fully dry but youll get close, maybe 1.012. Makes a tasty whiskey.

Jimbo wrote:Yes. It works fine. Its mashed at a beer mashing temps for a little sweetness in the beer, so you wont get it to ferment fully dry but youll get close, maybe 1.012. Makes a tasty whiskey.

If you add in some amylase while fermenting, it should go sub 1.00 shouldn't it? I mash for washes just like I do for ale. The only difference I see is the active enzymes in the wash and it always goes to 0.995 or so.

Alchemist wrote:

Jimbo wrote:Yes. It works fine. Its mashed at a beer mashing temps for a little sweetness in the beer, so you wont get it to ferment fully dry but youll get close, maybe 1.012. Makes a tasty whiskey.

If you add in some amylase while fermenting, it should go sub 1.00 shouldn't it? I mash for washes just like I do for ale. The only difference I see is the active enzymes in the wash and it always goes to 0.995 or so.

In DME or LME the malt is mashed to allow about 1/4 lb/5gal brew of unfermentable sugars, mainly maltodextrin. This gives body and mouth feel to a beer and the nice "lace" on the side of the glass. It does nothing for a wash as these sugars provide no flavor. I don't know if there is enough amylase left in the malt extracts to still affect the wash.

I think you missed my point kiwi. I know there isn't active enzymes left in DME or LME. I'm talking about adding them in.

Ooooooooooh! COOL!