Newest Threads

J187 · 10-18-2012, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stratslinger

What's your primary concern here? Boil size or grain bill? Not quite sure what you're going for, so not sure which way to point you...

I mean, if you're trying to mash with one gallon of water, you could easily mash 2 or 3lbs of grain in that volume, then sparge with few quarts or what have you (the full 2 gallons may be overkill), then top off your volume to 3 gallons and bring it up to a boil from there.

If you were dead set on mashing just 1lb (you're really not going to get a whole lot of fermentables or enzymes from just 1lb, but we'll go with it for purposes of the example), you could still do so with 1/2 gallon of water, sparge with another couple quarts, and still then top that off with enough water to reach your 3 gallon boil.

But it'd really help to know what you're trying to get out of this thought experiment.

Your confusion is warranted, because I'm not dealing in terms of a practical recipe. However, I was thinking about the whole mini mash process and was trying to understand it better - including parameters and such. I was thinking that I always see people mashing 5lbs, 6lbs of grain in a mini, but was wondering if there was ever a reason to mash much less and also, if from a logistic standpoint, it was a viable option. I was thinking about someone perhaps taking an extract brew that they may just want to add something to it that wouldn't steep - for example oats in a stout - you can steep oats for mouthfeel, but if you had an extract recipe and just wanted to get a little bit of the conversation from say a lb of oats.

**stratslinger** · 10-18-2012, 05:28 PM

Gotcha - but if you wanted that, you'd in turn also need to add some base malt to get the enzymes to do the conversion. And if you're going to do a mini-mash anyway, why not just do a 4 or 5lb grain bill? Sure, you could do it with only a pound or two, but it seems like you'd be potentially making it harder on yourself working in smaller increments.

J187 · 10-18-2012, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stratslinger

Gotcha - but if you wanted that, you'd in turn also need to add some base malt to get the enzymes to do the conversion. And if you're going to do a mini-mash anyway, why not just do a 4 or 5lb grain bill? Sure, you could do it with only a pound or two, but it seems like you'd be potentially making it harder on yourself working in smaller increments.

That makes a lot of sense.

**ajf** · 10-18-2012, 08:18 PM

There is a lower limit to the amount of strike water you can use while mashing. If you go much below 1 qt water per lb grain, you won't have sufficient water to wet the grains thoroughly and the mash will probably not convert properly. I would suggest somewhere between 1.25 and 2 qts per lb because with a thick mash, it is more difficult to break up the dough balls.

-a.

J187 · 10-18-2012, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajf

There is a lower limit to the amount of strike water you can use while mashing. If you go much below 1 qt water per lb grain, you won't have sufficient water to wet the grains thoroughly and the mash will probably not convert properly. I would suggest somewhere between 1.25 and 2 qts per lb because with a thick mash, it is more difficult to break up the dough balls.

-a.

Thanks for the reply- I think you've confused the question a bit. I fully understand the limitations regarding the lower grain to water ratios... what I was questioning is the lowest amount of grain that can be used, so that there isn't a pitiful amount of water in the pan - since there is such little grain.

gr8shandini · 10-18-2012, 09:56 PM

You could do one ounce if you wanted to. If you keep the ratio the same, you'll always have enough water in the mash whether you're doing 1 lb or 1000.

**ajf** · 10-19-2012, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J187

Thanks for the reply- I think you've confused the question a bit. I fully understand the limitations regarding the lower grain to water ratios... what I was questioning is the lowest amount of grain that can be used, so that there isn't a pitiful amount of water in the pan - since there is such little grain.

I know that you believe you understand what you asked, but I'm not sure you realize that what you believe you asked is not actually what you meant.

(apologies to Robert McCloskey)
See http://thinkexist.com/quotation/i_know_that_you_believe_you_understand_what_you/14623.html

I was answering your question in post 6
"thinking about the water to grain ratio, I became curious as to whether there was a low limit with such a thing"

-a.

moski · 11-13-2012, 03:21 AM

Another way to ask is, what is the max amount of water you can effectively use per pound of grain? Would you loose or gain from water amounts over 1.25qt per pound?

J187 · 11-13-2012, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moski

Another way to ask is, what is the max amount of water you can effectively use per pound of grain? Would you loose or gain from water amounts over 1.25qt per pound?

The question was more about the grain than the water. I was asking if it was normal to mash only one lb of grain - since that would leave you with a small amount of water. Ultimately, I ended up mashing 3lbs that time and 5 lbs each subsequent time.

**stratslinger** · 11-13-2012, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moski

Another way to ask is, what is the max amount of water you can effectively use per pound of grain? Would you loose or gain from water amounts over 1.25qt per pound?

I think the typical range is somewhere between 1 and 1.5qts, so you can go at least a bit beyond 1.25 without any trouble. I couldn't really tell you where the effective limit is, though I believe Yooper suggested earlier in this thread that as much as 2 gallons per pound would work also - not sure if that'd start to eat into your efficiency at that point though, which I guess goes to your question.