tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22399565.post8129281424398918331..comments2008-01-30T16:03:45.495-05:00Travishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08293454329758079937noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22399565.post-90741135569973925592008-01-30T16:03:00.000-05:002008-01-30T16:03:00.000-05:00Keith - <BR/><BR/>It's good to hear you were pleased with the results. It was a lot of work and I would hate to not be pleased with the brew. <BR/><BR/>Your method sounds pretty straight forward. I think that would be a "first running" only brew. With some of those the collect the second running and make a lower gravity beer with that.<BR/><BR/>You're right, using DME would be the easier (albeit more expensive) way to go.<BR/><BR/>Cheers!Travishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08293454329758079937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22399565.post-69731271309714348552008-01-30T13:43:00.000-05:002008-01-30T13:43:00.000-05:00I did a reiterated mash a while back, and I got like 52% efficiency. Though it was fun to try a new mashing technique, I was disappointed. Although the resultant beer is great!<BR/><BR/>The method I like to use for extract-free big beer is to do two separate mashes. It's the same basic idea, but rather than use the wort collected from the first mash for the mash liquor of the second mash, I just use water again. I draw half my boil volume from the first mash, and half from the second mash. This also makes it really easy to do a full-sized partigyle batch with two sets of second runnings.<BR/><BR/>In the end, I think it's probably easiest to just do whatever big of a mash your system can handle, and then augment with DME to get to target gravity. If only DME weren't so messy.Keith Brainardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07849611545905792514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22399565.post-74729879675871212912008-01-27T21:42:00.000-05:002008-01-27T21:42:00.000-05:00Beano eh? Hmmm...gotta read about this.Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08522250477305289784noreply@blogger.com