Mash and sparge water volume calcs

How much variance is there with water volume for mashing and sparging? So far I'm just following what a recipe tells me but I've seen variation in some books. For example I think I've seen calculations for mash volume from 1qt per pound all the way to 2qts pr pound of grain. What I don't know is whether you are free to pick whatever value you want or if it depends on your equipment and grains.

My goal is to try and keep using my 5g pot for heating water. To do that I need to have volumes less that 5g obviously. I thought if I moved more water into the mash side of things, then my batch sparging volumes could be toned down. I'm just not sure how much freedom I have with this or what guidelines there might be.

There really are no set guidelines for your qt/lb ratio of mash water to grains. Some people use 1 qt/lb, some 1.5/lb, still others use 2+qt/lb. I think that some of it has to do with your equipment as well as personal preference and also what works best for you.

You can use basically whatever you want. Keep in mind that if you steal TOO much from the sparge, you may reduce your latuer eff.

Chew on this. People that use a SET MASH RATIO on thier beers are actually sparging small grain bills MORE and larger grain bills LESS...

1.0qt/lb on an 8lb grain bill is 8 qts in the mash
Mash will absorb 3 qts.
You get 5 qts out
Have to sparge with 23 qts

1.0qt/lb on a 15lb grain bill is 15qts in the mash
Mash will absorb 6 qts
You get 9 qts out
Have to sparge with 19 qts

Odd, isnt it... that the "standard" procedure for determining the mash ratio, has this affect on the sparge. Wouldnt you want to sparge a deeper, larger grain bed with MORE water than a shallower, smaller grain bed? But you will do the inverse if you start your brew with a set mash ratio.

This is why I am working on "balanced sparging" on my system now. Where I first determine the sparge water volume as a ratio of the grain bill size. Then what else it left as far as water requirements for the boil, is used as mash water.

10lb grain bill would use 2.5 gallons of sparge water
8lb grain bill would use 2 gallons
16lb grain bill would use 4 gallons
etc....

This is why lauter eff. seems to suffer in some systems when the grain bills get larger. People are sparging thier larger grain bills with less water than thier smaller grain bills... that doesnt make sense, does it?

"balanced sparging"... my new experiment. Chew on that...

The Pol said:

Odd, isnt it... that the "standard" procedure for determining the mash ratio, has this affect on the sparge. Wouldnt you want to sparge a deeper, larger grain bed with MORE water than a shallower, smaller grain bed? But you will do the inverse if you start your brew with a set mash ratio.

Click to expand...

You make a good point but this gets way more complicated then I was hoping, especially with only 1 AG batch under my belt. I have no clue what science would cover the fluid dynamics of the effect of the deeper grain bed, but in my mind it comes down to the grains being saturated. If the the absorption rate is fixed and you mash to the point where they can't hold any more (plus a bit more for float), then I would assume they are suspended in the water slightly floating. If that level is maintained by constant water additions to match the sparge rate, then the amount of water needed for output should be a fixed amount. None of the grains should absorb any more water than before the sparge. The key would be if the water is restricted because with more grains it has a more resistance from the top to the bottom spigot. But I'm not sure if that makes sense in the science part.

I re-read a bit of Palmer and Papazian and there was some talk about the mash quantity of water translating into more or less body in the resulting wort. So there might be some wiggle room for brewer preference and equipment but there is an effect to the outcome that you should watch out for. I think I need to read up more.

The Pol said:

Chew on this. People that use a SET MASH RATIO on thier beers are actually sparging small grain bills MORE and larger grain bills LESS...
.....

This is why lauter eff. seems to suffer in some systems when the grain bills get larger. People are sparging thier larger grain bills with less water than thier smaller grain bills... that doesnt make sense, does it?
....
"balanced sparging"... my new experiment. Chew on that...

Click to expand...

Reasonable idea but within bounds of a certain mash thickness range. Certainly you need to keep it fluid for recirculation which you can't do at .75qt/lb for instance. Ideally first runnings volume = sparge volume.

pretzelb said:

You make a good point but this gets way more complicated then I was hoping, especially with only 1 AG batch under my belt. I have no clue what science would cover the fluid dynamics of the effect of the deeper grain bed, but in my mind it comes down to the grains being saturated. If the the absorption rate is fixed and you mash to the point where they can't hold any more (plus a bit more for float), then I would assume they are suspended in the water slightly floating. If that level is maintained by constant water additions to match the sparge rate, then the amount of water needed for output should be a fixed amount. None of the grains should absorb any more water than before the sparge. The key would be if the water is restricted because with more grains it has a more resistance from the top to the bottom spigot. But I'm not sure if that makes sense in the science part.

I re-read a bit of Palmer and Papazian and there was some talk about the mash quantity of water translating into more or less body in the resulting wort. So there might be some wiggle room for brewer preference and equipment but there is an effect to the outcome that you should watch out for. I think I need to read up more.

Click to expand...

This idea has since been proven incorrect.

Bobby_M said:

Reasonable idea but within bounds of a certain mash thickness range. Certainly you need to keep it fluid for recirculation which you can't do at .75qt/lb for instance. Ideally first runnings volume = sparge volume.

Click to expand...

Yes, Bobby, there are limits that will be reached.

Luckily in my system it will work with 7-15 pounds of grain, meaning any batch between 1.041 - 1.087

The Pol said:

This idea has since been proven incorrect.

Click to expand...

Can I ask by who and where? Unless I misunderstand what you are saying, here's what Palmer had to say (which I think is similar to what Papazian also said):

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 make no claim to understand half of this. Plus, like most beginners, Palmer and Papazian are my main published resources right now. My translation of this all is that water ratio does have an affect and therefore cannot be just adjusted willy nilly without consequence. Which is what caused me to ask the question.

The Pol said:

This idea has since been proven incorrect.

Click to expand...

I've wondered about that. I could think of no mechanism that would explain it. Temp converts to sugar. Period? No? I just couldn't understand how that sugar would be different depending on water amount.

OK. Should have read one post more. Aren't the same two things also taken care of by temp/time then?

Well, one thing I can think of as a reason for the typical adages is in the case of a mixture of base grains and adjuncts where base grain enzymes do the work for the whole bill. The thickness is going to determine the concentration of enzymes and conversely their ability to reach non-enzymatic grain particles. In practice, it seems that if you test for conversion in your typical mash (or experimental extremes) and keep getting good conversion, there's no problem going with either preference.

Bobby_M said:

Well, one thing I can think of as a reason for the typical adages is in the case of a mixture of base grains and adjuncts where base grain enzymes do the work for the whole bill. The thickness is going to determine the concentration of enzymes and conversely their ability to reach non-enzymatic grain particles. In practice, it seems that if you test for conversion in your typical mash (or experimental extremes) and keep getting good conversion, there's no problem going with either preference.

Click to expand...

Lets throw recirculation and stirring into the mix. OK. Didn't see that until it was typed. In developing photographic film there is something called 'stand developing'. If you don't agitate the film, the areas of developer doing the greatest work deplete more quickly and you get a different effect. If you agitate it, you get something else. In this case, mixing and recirculation should result in better enzyme action since it will be more uniform?

pretzelb said:

Can I ask by who and where? Unless I misunderstand what you are saying, here's what Palmer had to say (which I think is similar to what Papazian also said):

Click to expand...

By homebrewers doing it, honestly. It has been covered here on HBT in some detail. I beleive that if you talk to Kaiser about it, he has also posted some information regarding testing that he has done.

www.braukaiser.com

I have brewed beers at 1.25qt/lb and then again at 2.5qt/lb and the OG and FG readings were identical. I have done this over and over with different brews. Basically before 2009 I used 1.25qt/lb for my recipes, then in 2009 went to 2-3qt/lb with those same tried and true recipes. Result.. OG and FG were the same.

I also warrants noting that I have also seen conversion happen FASTER in thinner mashes, which again flies in the face of what Palmer and Papazian claim.

I have read the same books as everyone else, but I have also tested a lot of the conventional ideas that were devloped in the 70s and 80s.

There are SO many ideas in both Palmer and Papazians books that have been debunked, it is crazy.

The Pol said:

By homebrewers doing it, honestly. It has been covered here on HBT in some detail. I beleive that if you talk to Kaiser about it, he has also posted some information regarding testing that he has done.

www.braukaiser.com

I have brewed beers at 1.25qt/lb and then again at 2.5qt/lb and the OG and FG readings were identical. I have done this over and over with different brews. Basically before 2009 I used 1.25qt/lb for my recipes, then in 2009 went to 2-3qt/lb with those same tried and true recipes. Result.. OG and FG were the same.

I also warrants noting that I have also seen conversion happen FASTER in thinner mashes, which again flies in the face of what Palmer and Papazian claim.

I have read the same books as everyone else, but I have also tested a lot of the conventional ideas that were devloped in the 70s and 80s.

There are SO many ideas in both Palmer and Papazians books that have been debunked, it is crazy.

Click to expand...

I glanced around the link and I'm not so sure I'd call that total debunking. What I found was this based on well modified malts:

The thickness of the mash doesn't seem to effect the fermentability of the wort that is produced but thinner mashes can significantly improve the conversion efficiency. As a result brewers who see low efficiency from their mashing may try to use a thinner mash (3-4 l/kg or 1.5 - 2 qt/lb) as they were shown to convert more starches.

Click to expand...

So an attenuation difference wasn't found but a conversion efficiency relationship was found. Both Palmer and that site seem to make a connection between the temperature and time side effects from a thick vs thin mash.

I suppose there could be some nitpicking over the specific semantics, but for me as a beginner, the bottom line seems to be that the ratio has SOME effect on your final product and shouldn't just be decided on a whim. Meaning that while maybe I could adjust to fit my equipment, I will be paying some kind of price.

Or am I reading that info wrong?

pretzelb said:

I glanced around the link and I'm not so sure I'd call that total debunking. What I found was this based on well modified malts:



So an attenuation difference wasn't found but a conversion efficiency relationship was found. Both Palmer and that site seem to make a connection between the temperature and time side effects from a thick vs thin mash.

I suppose there could be some nitpicking over the specific semantics, but for me as a beginner, the bottom line seems to be that the ratio has SOME effect on your final product and shouldn't just be decided on a whim. Meaning that while maybe I could adjust to fit my equipment, I will be paying some kind of price.

Or am I reading that info wrong?

Click to expand...

Palmer sayes that thin mashes will affect fermentability.

Kaiser and I are saying that is simply not true.

Id say what Kaiser writes directly contradicts what Palmer and Papazian said.

If you arent affecting fermentability, you arent affecting body of said beer.

Of course thinner mashes CAN increase conversion eff. But most brewers are already near 100% on this, so in effect, thin mashing doesnt change anything there either, but it CAN if you have conversion problems.

I think I'm failing to understand something on the terms. This is conversion efficiency definition from the site:

Conversion efficiency measures how well the mash extracted the grist (malt and mash tun adjuncts). The benchmark is the fine grind extract that was determined in the laboratory. If all of that is extracted, the mash efficiency is 100%. Conversion efficiency is affected my mash parameters like pH, crush, diastatic power, temperature profile, mash type and mash time and should be close to 100%.

Click to expand...

So then what would the difference be between two batches done where the conversion efficiency was notably different? The ratio can affect the efficiency but I'm not seeing what that means besides statements saying it means nothing about fermentability. My assumption was poor conversion efficiency meant not getting all the sugars possible from the grains, which I thought related to fermentability.

Conversion efficiency and fermentability are not related at all.

Whether you have 75% eff. or 100% eff., one will not be more fermentable than the other, they are not linked in anyway.

Conversion eff. has nothing do to with the length of the chains.

Fermentability of sugars has much to do with the length of the chains.

First off, most brewers are near 100% conversion eff. even at 1.25qt/lb because grist ratio is but a small variable. So, whether you mash at 1.25qt/lb or 3qt/lb, most brewers will still have the SAME conversion eff.

The only difference in a beer with 75% compared to say 100% conversion eff. is that you would use less grain to reach your target OG with higher eff., or just make more beer and boil off less water.

This is like asking "what is the difference in a beer brewed with a poor crush as opposed to a good crush"... nothing, except you will need more grain to reach your OG. The difference between the two variables is that the crush is more of a linear variable, whereas it will affect your eff. with even small changes, whereas the water/grist ratio doesnt affect eff. over a large range... over a large range it doesnt affect it at all.

You can mash at 1.25qt/lb and at 3qt/lb and likely have the SAME conversion eff.
You can crush at .045" and .036" and have a 15% difference in conversion eff.

Water/grist ratio is a very weak game changer IMHO when it comes to conversion eff., though I admit it CAN help to a small degree (5% maybe). And since it doesnt seem to affect fermentability, it is a variable without much impact, if any... on the final product.

Hot side aeration doesnt exist either.
Rapid cooling of wort isnt necessary.
Santa isnt real.

The list goes on

The Pol said:

The only difference in a beer with 75% compared to say 100% conversion eff. is that you would use less grain to reach your target OG with higher eff., or just make more beer and boil off less water.

Click to expand...

What would happen if you didn't alter the grain amount but had one at 75% and the other at 100%? What would the difference be between the two?

pretzelb said:

What would happen if you didn't alter the grain amount but had one at 75% and the other at 100%? What would the difference be between the two?

Click to expand...

Just what you quoted.

Higher OG or more beer... it would be up to you which one you chose to have.

The Pol said:

Just what you quoted.

Higher OG or more beer... it would be up to you which one you chose to have.

Click to expand...

Sorry but I was confused by the part I quoted because it said "use less grain" which I interpreted to mean that you were changing another input variable (grain amount) in order to end up with the exact same result. I wasn't sure if this meant literally you'd have to add more grain (and change another variable) or that (with grain amount being constant) the percent of the grain utilized would be different.

Is it correct then to say the water ratio affects conversion efficiency which in turn has an affect on OG?

pretzelb said:

Sorry but I was confused by the part I quoted because it said "use less grain" which I interpreted to mean that you were changing another input variable (grain amount) in order to end up with the exact same result. I wasn't sure if this meant literally you'd have to add more grain (and change another variable) or that (with grain amount being constant) the percent of the grain utilized would be different.

Is it correct then to say the water ratio affects conversion efficiency which in turn has an affect on OG?

Click to expand...

No, that is not a correct statement.

The Pol said:

No, that is not a correct statement.

Click to expand...

OK, I give up.

I was pretty sure I took baby steps on each point to build that final statement, which I thought just re-iterated the quoted established replies.

Clearly this is beyond me so I'll just drop it.

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 wonder if this is where some of the debate/misinformation stems. If you do a multirest mash that has a rest at say; 146-149 (in that ballpark*) then you aren't really worried about denaturing alpha. But if two mashes, one thick and one thin, had denatured different amounts of beta and then were rested for the same amount of time (at that temp that favors beta-amylase) then it seems that would affect the fermentability of those two brews.

* - Don't hold me to that range...I was just trying to find a range where alpha-amylase would not be denatured but beta-amylase could be at least partially denatured.

The Pol said:

By homebrewers doing it, honestly. It has been covered here on HBT in some detail. I beleive that if you talk to Kaiser about it, he has also posted some information regarding testing that he has done.

www.braukaiser.com

I have brewed beers at 1.25qt/lb and then again at 2.5qt/lb and the OG and FG readings were identical. I have done this over and over with different brews. Basically before 2009 I used 1.25qt/lb for my recipes, then in 2009 went to 2-3qt/lb with those same tried and true recipes. Result.. OG and FG were the same.

I also warrants noting that I have also seen conversion happen FASTER in thinner mashes, which again flies in the face of what Palmer and Papazian claim.

I have read the same books as everyone else, but I have also tested a lot of the conventional ideas that were devloped in the 70s and 80s.

There are SO many ideas in both Palmer and Papazians books that have been debunked, it is crazy.

Click to expand...

Sorry to revive an old thread, but just wondering if you noted any flavour changes with your 1.25 vs 2.5 experiment??

Thx

-Jeremy.