Ss Brewing Technologies Giveaway!

Home Brew Forums > Home Brewing Beer > All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing > 2qt./LB Mash...
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-27-2009, 02:32 AM   #31
The Pol
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,616
Liked 54 Times on 51 Posts

Default

Thanks Kaiser... I am going to keep trying this, but this was a HUGE jump for me... 15%. And the system has been dialed in for 70% for a long while.

__________________
The Pol is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-27-2009, 03:41 AM   #32
Kaiser
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Kaiser's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pepperell, MA
Posts: 3,904
Liked 114 Times on 71 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

Pol, you may want to check the first wort gravity. Should come close to what is listed in this table:



It if is there is not much more to get in terms of efficiency unless you start lautering more efficiently. But that can have quality impacts.

Kai

Kaiser is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-19-2009, 01:32 AM   #33
The Pol
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,616
Liked 54 Times on 51 Posts

Default

Just an update... on my last brew I got 85% eff. up from 70%, the only thing I changed was my mash thickness. I wanted to report that I got 72% attenuation as well... so there was no apparent increase in attenuation with this batch at all.

__________________
The Pol is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-19-2009, 02:26 AM   #34
Kaiser
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Kaiser's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pepperell, MA
Posts: 3,904
Liked 114 Times on 71 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Pol View Post
Just an update... on my last brew I got 85% eff. up from 70%, the only thing I changed was my mash thickness. I wanted to report that I got 72% attenuation as well... so there was no apparent increase in attenuation with this batch at all.
Glad to hear that your experiences confirm my findings.

BTW, I have been searching on-line for other brewer's experiences with thin mashes and it is amazing how many brewers are simply afraid to deviate from the 1.25 qt/lb "standard". And many of them cite common home brewing books to say that thinner mashes won't work as well b/c the enzymes are more quickly denatured. This 1.25 qt/lb rule for mash thickness has very deep roots.

Kai
Kaiser is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-19-2009, 03:08 AM   #35
mummasan
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: O'ahu
Posts: 236
Default thin mash results

I usually have my grain milled at my LHBS - it is set at .40 and my typical efficiency into the kettle is in the 60s. My normal mash thickness is 1 or 1.25 qts per pound and I do a mash out plus sparge.

Kai suggested to me in another thread to try a thinner mash. I did just that for my last brew.

With a .40 crush and 2 qt/lb mash I got 74.5% efficiency into the kettle. Plus I skipped the mash out and just sparged once. Not only am I happy with my efficiency, I skipped the mash out (I saved time).

I appreciate the suggestion Kai! My brew day is quicker and easier plus my efficiency is finally good enough where I don't have to tinker with recipes to get the target gravity.

From now on, my standard brewing procedure will be to mash at 2 qt/lb.

Matt

__________________
You should never hesitate to trade your cow for a handful of magic beans.
- from Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas
mummasan is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-19-2009, 03:16 AM   #36
Bobby_M
Vendor and Brewer
HBT_SPONSOR.png
Vendor Ads 
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
 
Bobby_M's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Whitehouse Station, NJ
Posts: 22,019
Liked 980 Times on 654 Posts
Likes Given: 28

Default

I'm not going to throw this idea out for my own process just yet but I stepped from my typical 1.3qt/lb up to 1.75 and lost 5%. I'll try 2qt/lb next time. Granted, I do acknowledge that efficiency isn't what is important. 80% is a solid place to be.

__________________
BrewHardware.com
Sightglass, Refractometer, Ball Valve, Weldless bulkhead, Thermometer, Decals, Stainless Steel Fittings, Compression Fittings, Camlock Quick Disconnects, Scale, RIMS tube, Plate Chiller, Chugger Pump, Super Clear Silicone Tubing, and more!

New Stuff?

Last edited by Bobby_M; 02-19-2009 at 03:18 AM.
Bobby_M is online now
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-19-2009, 05:11 AM   #37
Kaiser
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Kaiser's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pepperell, MA
Posts: 3,904
Liked 114 Times on 71 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby_M View Post
I'm not going to throw this idea out for my own process just yet but I stepped from my typical 1.3qt/lb up to 1.75 and lost 5%. I'll try 2qt/lb next time. Granted, I do acknowledge that efficiency isn't what is important. 80% is a solid place to be.
Bobby, interesting numbers to have in this case would be the first wort gravity of the 1.3 qt/lb and 1.75 qt/lb mashes. They can be used to calculate the conversion efficiency (efficiency before lauter losses). If these efficiencies are close then the thinner mash will cause you to loose efficiency into the kettle. In the cases where brewers report an increase in efficiency into the kettle when going to a thin mash the rise of the conversion efficiency (amount of starches converted) outweighed the increased loss of extract in the lauter.

As a result I'm not saying that a thinner mash will always increase efficiency. The better your efficiency already is, the less likely the chance that a thin mash is going to increase it.

Kai
__________________
BrauKaiser.com - brewing science blog - Twitter - water and mash chemistry calculator
Kaiser is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-19-2009, 11:52 AM   #38
The Pol
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,616
Liked 54 Times on 51 Posts

Default

I am going to continue to explore this with my future brews... I am recording my findings and I will be creating an article for BrewersFriend.com regarding this experiment.

Thanks Kaiser for the input, I will be using your chart there for my future brews as well.

85% eff. is pretty darn good for me, it will be sad when I run the control brews and go back to a seemingly lower eff.

__________________
The Pol is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-19-2009, 12:49 PM   #39
Bobby_M
Vendor and Brewer
HBT_SPONSOR.png
Vendor Ads 
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
 
Bobby_M's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Whitehouse Station, NJ
Posts: 22,019
Liked 980 Times on 654 Posts
Likes Given: 28

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser View Post
Bobby, interesting numbers to have in this case would be the first wort gravity of the 1.3 qt/lb and 1.75 qt/lb mashes. They can be used to calculate the conversion efficiency (efficiency before lauter losses). If these efficiencies are close then the thinner mash will cause you to loose efficiency into the kettle. In the cases where brewers report an increase in efficiency into the kettle when going to a thin mash the rise of the conversion efficiency (amount of starches converted) outweighed the increased loss of extract in the lauter.

As a result I'm not saying that a thinner mash will always increase efficiency. The better your efficiency already is, the less likely the chance that a thin mash is going to increase it.

Kai
Kai, agreed. I just wanted to pose a lone dissenting voice so that everyone doesn't think it's a fix-all. I'm pretty sure my crush is so fine that the enzymes have an orgy at minute #1.
__________________
BrewHardware.com
Sightglass, Refractometer, Ball Valve, Weldless bulkhead, Thermometer, Decals, Stainless Steel Fittings, Compression Fittings, Camlock Quick Disconnects, Scale, RIMS tube, Plate Chiller, Chugger Pump, Super Clear Silicone Tubing, and more!

New Stuff?
Bobby_M is online now
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-19-2009, 01:10 PM   #40
menschmaschine
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Delaware
Posts: 3,278
Liked 31 Times on 26 Posts

Default

I need to reconfirm, but I've been playing with water:grain ratios and lost about 5% (brewhouse) as well (93 to 88). On my latest brew, I went back with 1.25 qts and was back up at 93%. Obviously other factors could have been in play and I did do a 90 min. mash, but I didn't change anything else.

I may be brewing again this weekend (if my package arrives in time), so I'll go with 1.75qts and see what happens.

__________________

END TRANSMISSION

menschmaschine is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply



Quick Reply
Message:
Options
Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How much mash can a mash tun mash? Need Help for Tomorrow's Brew! ryan_pants Equipment/Sanitation 8 09-19-2014 05:39 PM
Keeping Mash temp during 90min Mash in 5gal Cooler MLT KYB All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing 13 01-30-2013 04:57 AM
Noob Mash/sparge questions (partial mash) billpa Beginners Beer Brewing Forum 7 08-03-2011 06:41 PM
Mash in Keggle - False Bottom vs. amount of mash water Griffsta All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing 2 03-24-2009 01:09 PM
partial mash.OG,break material,mash tun efficiancy questions dzlater All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing 9 07-07-2008 12:15 AM