Mash Thickness Confusion

BrewSwag 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I

ILikeBrew

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
First-time poster.

I am confused as to the effect of thinner mashes on wort. My brother and I have brewed 3 AG batches using single infusion mash with a double batch sparge. We have come out to 75% efficiency each time. Call me greedy, but I am shooting to get 80%. I have read several posts on here and other sites about tips for increasing efficiency with AG batch sparge brewing and the only thing I think I might change is my mash thickness. I have read on Kaiser's website that thinner mashes increase efficiency without affecting the fermentability of the wort. I have read other sites that confirm the increase in efficiency, but warn that thinner mashes create more fermentable wort due to increased diastatic activity.

My question is, if I use a thinner mash, should I adjust my mash temperature to compensate for the increased diastatic activity?
 
Personally, I have noticed that with thicker mashes, around 1.25 instead of closer to 1.5, my efficiency has dropped from 75% to 70%. However, i have not noticed any differences in the fermentability of the wort.

The best way to run this experiment is to brew a beer with the exact same mash temperature you used the last time, but increase the water to make it thinner. Then when its done fermenting, compare the OG of that beer to the beer you brewed with the thicker mash. Then you will know for sure if it makes a difference in your system

Also, Welcome to HBT!

Here is some info from www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter14-6.html

The grist/water ratio is another factor influencing the performance of the mash. A thinner mash of >2 quarts of water per pound of grain dilutes the relative concentration of the enzymes, slowing the conversion, but ultimately leads to a more fermentable mash because the enzymes are not inhibited by a high concentration of sugars. A stiff mash of <1.25 quarts of water per pound is better for protein breakdown, and results in a faster overall starch conversion, but the resultant sugars are less fermentable and will result in a sweeter, maltier beer. A thicker mash is more gentle to the enzymes because of the lower heat capacity of grain compared to water. A thick mash is better for multirest mashes because the enzymes are not denatured as quickly by a rise in temperature.

A compromise of all factors yields the standard mash conditions for most homebrewers: a mash ratio of about 1.5 quarts of water per pound grain, pH of 5.3, temperature of 150-155°F and a time of about one hour. These conditions yield a wort with a nice maltiness and good fermentability.
 
Actually, the best way to figure out if a thinner mash would help is to take a mash efficiency sample and see if you're 100% converted. If you are, thinning out should actually degrade your lauter efficiency. Empirically, I lost a good 10% going from 1.25 to 1.6.
 
My personal recommendation is to be happy with 75% efficiency and spring for the extra 1/2 lb of grain if you want your wort gravity to be a bit higher. Lots of really serious, much more award winner brewers than me have suggested that you run risks of many more bad things than you might get benefits of good things by shooting for efficiency higher than 75% including astringency. Grain is cheap. For most beers the yield difference between 75% & 80% efficiency is only adding 1/2 a pound of base malt to your 75% mash -- that's 60 or so cents. Saving that isn't worth the risk of an astringent batch of beer.
 
Bobby_M said:
Actually, the best way to figure out if a thinner mash would help is to take a mash efficiency sample and see if you're 100% converted. If you are, thinning out should actually degrade your lauter efficiency. Empirically, I lost a good 10% going from 1.25 to 1.6.
Click to expand...

Very interesting, Bobby. I've either seen no difference or a slight gain, but I haven't really been tracking it closely. I think maybe I'll start doing that. What size batches do you typically make, and did you see any difference in higher mash ratios based on the OG of the beer?
 
Now that I think of it, my 10% loss can be half correlated to additional deadspace. I should say that I lost 10% going from a cooler with a braid to a keg with a full false bottom. I'm forced to mash thinner to recirculate and I know I leave some wort after a "full" draining due to the nature of the siphon tube. I don't know what portion of that 10% is attributable to which. IOW, my data sucks. I would have to mash thinner in a cooler to test it.
 
Alright, did more reading. Seems to be a lot of different opinions. I am going to try a thinner mash next time because I just used beersmith's setting in my calculation which is 1.25q/lb. I think I'll start by moving it to 1.5 and see if I see an increase in efficiency.

Questions: Do I just now sparge with less water (double batch sparge equal amounts) or do I sparge with the same amount of water and boil off the extra? Also, if I move up to like 2q/lb., it would really decrease the amount of water to sparge with. Will this create a problem? Currently I use my first batch sparge at boiling to bring the temp up to 168ish. How would I do this with smaller batch sparges?
 
I have been going with 1.25qts for my first 17 beers and have been getting anywhere from 63% to 73%. Today I raised it up to 1.50qts and I got 79%. So, I will try again next time with 1.5qts and see what happens.
 
ILikeBrew said:
Alright, did more reading. Seems to be a lot of different opinions. I am going to try a thinner mash next time because I just used beersmith's setting in my calculation which is 1.25q/lb. I think I'll start by moving it to 1.5 and see if I see an increase in efficiency.

Questions: Do I just now sparge with less water (double batch sparge equal amounts) or do I sparge with the same amount of water and boil off the extra? Also, if I move up to like 2q/lb., it would really decrease the amount of water to sparge with. Will this create a problem? Currently I use my first batch sparge at boiling to bring the temp up to 168ish. How would I do this with smaller batch sparges?
Click to expand...

Try just doing a single batch sparge. That's what I do 99.9% of the time and I average 83% efficiency. Also, it's not a big deal to hit 168 for sparging. If you can, great. If you can't, no problem.
 
I love me some thin mashing. No affects on my FGs yet.

Mash as thin as you must to get nearly 100% conversion eff. and stop, anything more will yield no gain in conversion eff. (obviously) and will only steal from your lauter eff. (less sparge water)
 
Odd that Mkling's reply has not been commented on.

It seems that it's very popular among pro am brewers to prefer 70% or 75% because if you over sparge/get a bigger eff then you will extract out the bad with the good and your product will suffer in taste. I'm no AG pro, just passing on what I've read/heard from people in the know.
 
dirt55 said:
Odd that Mkling's reply has not been commented on.

It seems that it's very popular among pro am brewers to prefer 70% or 75% because if you over sparge/get a bigger eff then you will extract out the bad with the good and your product will suffer in taste. I'm no AG pro, just passing on what I've read/heard from people in the know.
Click to expand...

But what is "over sparging"? I mash at 2qt/lb, so my sparge volume is about 3.5 gallons. In order to sparge less, Id have to mash even thinner. My eff. is exactly 82% as it stands. How would I go about sparging less, without mashing REALLY thin.
 
I think I worded that wrong.

"Don't get overly concerned over getting an efficiency above 70-75%" is the main thing I've heard. Some people may attempt to increase their eff by "over sparging" such as having their runoff being as clear/clean as tap water, or having the runoff be below 1.010 roughly. But there are other ways to bump your eff besides sparging it dry as can be.

not sure if i'm making sense...at the end of my 12hr shift..sorry :)
 
You make complete sense.

I moved to the thinner mash to help with the HERMS recirc. and to improve my conversion eff. In doing so, I also realized that I had reduced my sparge length and volume, which would produce a lower PH wort and create less of a chance of extracting undesireables from my mash.

I like to think that I have higher quality wort now than I did with a thick mash and copious sparging, and I increased my conv. eff. to near 100%.

Good points about eff. though. It isnt something to be chased if the persuit causes you to compromise the quality of the product.
 
The reason I didn't reply to Mkling's message is that once again I've heard differing opinions. And to be honest I think I'm like any homebrewer, I know 5% doesn't make much difference... I just always want to improve the process, you know?

I think "over-sparging" doesn't really come in to play with batch sparging though, right?

I haven't been taking a FW measure to determine my conversion efficiency. I will try this next time to isolate which process could be improved (mash or sparge).

Thanks Denny, I'll try the thinner mash with a single batch sparge. I had always read double or even triple batch sparging (equal proportions) produced better sparge efficiency, but it seems like it is working for you.

I'll be aware of the possibility of extracting tannins, etc. If I taste it in the beer, I think I'll just make the mash a little thicker the next batch.
 
ILikeBrew said:
The reason I didn't reply to Mkling's message is that once again I've heard differing opinions. And to be honest I think I'm like any homebrewer, I know 5% doesn't make much difference... I just always want to improve the process, you know?

I think "over-sparging" doesn't really come in to play with batch sparging though, right?

I haven't been taking a FW measure to determine my conversion efficiency. I will try this next time to isolate which process could be improved (mash or sparge).

Thanks Denny, I'll try the thinner mash with a single batch sparge. I had always read double or even triple batch sparging (equal proportions) produced better sparge efficiency, but it seems like it is working for you.

I'll be aware of the possibility of extracting tannins, etc. If I taste it in the beer, I think I'll just make the mash a little thicker the next batch.
Click to expand...

Actually, tannins come into play when you OVER sparge. From what I've read, when fly sparging you sparge (for clarity) until the gravity goes down to 1.008 then you stop. After that you'll start to get tannins because most of the sugar is gone. ;)

I do batch sparging, but I limit it to 1 gal at most.
 
homebrewer_99 said:
Actually, tannins come into play when you OVER sparge. From what I've read, when fly sparging you sparge (for clarity) until the gravity goes down to 1.008 then you stop. After that you'll start to get tannins because most of the sugar is gone. ;)
Click to expand...

It really doesn't have anything to do with sugar. It's because the buffering power of the grains has been "used up".
 
The Pol said:
He mashes thin, and only sparges with ONE gallon of water, it is easy.
Click to expand...

For me to require only a 4 qt sparge, I would have to mash at 3.7qts/Lb . I have never heard of mashing that thin.

I've wanted to play around with all this - what is the cheapest/easiest way to test for conversion?
 
Picobrew said:
For me to require only a 4 qt sparge, I would have to mash at 3.7qts/Lb . I have never heard of mashing that thin.

I've wanted to play around with all this - what is the cheapest/easiest way to test for conversion?
Click to expand...

Take a gravity reading from the mash, and use Kai's chart.

3.7 is thin, but it is no different than what is done in BIAB.
 
This has been a really helpful topic. I just mashed in my oatmeal stout at 1.46qt/lb. to compensate for the flaked oats and rice hulls. I'll still do a double batch sparge, but with less than 2 gallons each. My total strike volume was 4.93 gallons for 13 lbs of grist.
 
KayaBrew said:
All 3.8 gallons in one sparge? If that is a solid way to do it, then let me know because the water's heating as I type.
Click to expand...

Too late now, I did 2 sparges. But how about for future reference?
 
Heck yes, why not? I often do 4-5 gal sparges. I average about 83% efficiency, so I'm not worried about getting more from multiple sparges. The only time I do more than one is if I'm using so much grain that I can't get all the sparge water in at once. As long as I can get it all in at once, I do only a single sparge.
 
Denny said:
Heck yes, why not? I often do 4-5 gal sparges. I average about 83% efficiency, so I'm not worried about getting more from multiple sparges. The only time I do more than one is if I'm using so much grain that I can't get all the sparge water in at once. As long as I can get it all in at once, I do only a single sparge.
Click to expand...

Cool. I'll try single batch sparging for the next few brews, as well as a thinner mash.
 
Lot’s of good info here. I’m glad to see that the thin mashing is stating to get some more traction. It has helped me a lot and made my brewing easier. I also only have 12 qt pot for heating sparge water which limits the amount of water I can sparge with if I don’t want to keep heated sparge water in a separate cooler

chode720 said:
Here is some info from www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter14-6.html

The grist/water ratio is another factor influencing the performance of the mash. A thinner mash of >2 quarts of water per pound of grain dilutes the relative concentration of the enzymes, slowing the conversion, but ultimately leads to a more fermentable mash because the enzymes are not inhibited by a high concentration of sugars. A stiff mash of <1.25 quarts of water per pound is better for protein breakdown, and results in a faster overall starch conversion, but the resultant sugars are less fermentable and will result in a sweeter, maltier beer. A thicker mash is more gentle to the enzymes because of the lower heat capacity of grain compared to water. A thick mash is better for multirest mashes because the enzymes are not denatured as quickly by a rise in temperature.
Click to expand...


I Palmer’s explanation is where most of the confusion around thin mashes and thin beers comes from. In my experiments I have not seen that relation and many text books agree with that. I’m not sure what John’s latest edition says on that subject. But even if that was the case you can always mash hotter to limit the additional b-amylase activity that you would be getting.

The opposite should actually be true. b-amylase is less stable in thinner mashes and as a result should be denatured earlier which should leave the wort from thin mashes less fermentable. In fact I have come across all 3 variants: wort from thin mashes is more, less or equally fermentable.

Aside from that, the other questions have been answered.

This 70-75% is best for your beer won’t die. I do respect Jamil a lot and he know his ****, but the recommendation that you should blindly shoot for 70-75% efficiency for the best beer is something that I have a hard time agreeing with.

What you gain in conversion efficiency, and that is what can be improved by thin mashes, won’t hurt wort quality. In fact, the reduced amount of sparge water will reduce sparging and improve your wort quality.

Kai
 
I certainly don't say you should "blindly shoot for 70-75%." Where have I ever said that? I think you're getting worked up over nothing.

I do believe that you're fine if you're in the 65 to 85% range and I wouldn't even think about efficiency if that is the case. THINK about fermentation!

That is what I keep repeating.

My whole reason for mentioning efficiency is that there seems to be a bunch of people in search of high efficiency at the cost of beer quality. That just seems very foolish to me. All those folks boasting of 90%+ efficiency have the wrong focus when it comes to brewing quality beer.
 
Kaiser said:
Lot&#8217;s of good info here. I&#8217;m glad to see that the thin mashing is stating to get some more traction. It has helped me a lot and made my brewing easier. I also only have 12 qt pot for heating sparge water which limits the amount of water I can sparge with if I don&#8217;t want to keep heated sparge water in a separate cooler



I Palmer&#8217;s explanation is where most of the confusion around thin mashes and thin beers comes from. In my experiments I have not seen that relation and many text books agree with that. I&#8217;m not sure what John&#8217;s latest edition says on that subject. But even if that was the case you can always mash hotter to limit the additional b-amylase activity that you would be getting.

The opposite should actually be true. b-amylase is less stable in thinner mashes and as a result should be denatured earlier which should leave the wort from thin mashes less fermentable. In fact I have come across all 3 variants: wort from thin mashes is more, less or equally fermentable.

Aside from that, the other questions have been answered.

This 70-75% is best for your beer won&#8217;t die. I do respect Jamil a lot and he know his ****, but the recommendation that you should blindly shoot for 70-75% efficiency for the best beer is something that I have a hard time agreeing with.

What you gain in conversion efficiency, and that is what can be improved by thin mashes, won&#8217;t hurt wort quality. In fact, the reduced amount of sparge water will reduce sparging and improve your wort quality.

Kai
Click to expand...

I agree whole heartedly here. Getting near 100% conversion eff. and then nailing down an effective sparge process so that you can EVENLY sparge the grain bed will both drastically improve your eff. and wort quality.

I can have an ill designed manifold in my MLT and nail 65% eff... but I could also have a falsie or a properly designed manifold and increase my eff. and IMPROVE my wort quality.

If you have an ill managed lauter process you are very likely oversparging some of your mash and under sparging others, costing you wort quality AND efficiency. In this case, improving your conversion eff. AND your lauter eff. would actually increase your wort quality.(increasing the first wort volume AND reduction in OVERsparging areas of the mash) In a sense, improving your eff. by improving your process actually holds keys to improving your wort quality.

Pulling out dilute wort because 25% of the grain bed isnt even getting sparged while the other 75% is getting over sparged will give you 65% eff. perhaps, but low eff. is not an idication of wort quality, it could be quite contrary.

To this end... someone achieving 65% eff. could very well have poorer wort quality than someone achieving 85% efficiency, easily. The 85% guy is getting 100% conversion eff, mashing thinner, increasing the volume of first wort AND he is evenly sparging his grain bed. He is doing everything in his power to INCREASE wort quality IMHO. The 65% guy COULD have excellent wort, but loss of eff. means either poor conversion eff (thicker mash, less first wort volume) or poor lautering (over sparging some areas and under sparging others) both of which will not lead you to better wort.
 
You're all putting too much emphasis on the mash parameters and not enough on the sparging and crush. The difference between pH and temp and water is not enough to make up for a crappy manifold. You won't end up with 70% because you have the right pH. For efficiency almost everything is determined by the crush and how effectively you can rinse the sugars. All of the other factors are so forgiving, that you really don't need to fret so much about them. If you get the crush and the wort collection right, then everything else is very forgiving. This is one reason batch sparging works so well for most home brewers that don't know anything about the other parameters. It is easy, don't make it hard.
 
Jamil,

Just giving a brewer the advice to crush finer, is oversimplifying the problem. When I ran experiments and published my work about efficiency it was to raise awareness that there is more to just crushing finer. In particular to provide a systematic approach for troubleshooting efficiency. In some cases a brewer may not be able to just crush finer. Either because he doesn't own a mill or would get a stuck sparge. In this case it is good to know how else efficiency can be improved and a how mash performance can be assessed.

The goal is not to get everybody in the upper 80s, just because I'm there. The goal is to give everybody enough knowledge about what affects efficiency so he/she can make their own decision what a good efficiency target is for a particular beer.

When it comes to pH, I don't think brewers should obsess about it. The window that is good for mashing is fairly wide. But at some point in their advancement in brewing they should at least be aware of its effects and test it. Low efficiency can be an indication of suboptimal pH which can easily be the cause of other problems.

Kai
 
jamilz said:
I do believe that you're fine if you're in the 65 to 85% range and I wouldn't even think about efficiency if that is the case. THINK about fermentation!

That is what I keep repeating.

My whole reason for mentioning efficiency is that there seems to be a bunch of people in search of high efficiency at the cost of beer quality. That just seems very foolish to me. All those folks boasting of 90%+ efficiency have the wrong focus when it comes to brewing quality beer.
Click to expand...

PREACH IT, BRO! AMEN!!!
 

Similar threads

SRJHops
Mash Thickness and Efficiency
2 3 4
Replies
140
Views
7K
doug293cz
doug293cz
N
End results with low mash efficiency
Replies
13
Views
785
doug293cz
doug293cz
S
In search of...predictable mash efficiency for differing batch sizes & gravities
Replies
11
Views
725
Deadalus
Deadalus
T
Mash Volume Higher than Boil Volume eHERMS
Replies
5
Views
542
Town9
T
F
do you still need to heat sparge water if you mash out at 170 for 20 mins
Replies
13
Views
1K
passedpawn
passedpawn
BrewSwag 300

Latest posts

Back
Top