2qt./LB Mash...

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.

The Pol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
11,390
Reaction score
117
So, catching up on some Basic Brewing podcasts...

Claims that a thinner mash while not really affecting the attenuation of the wort, can produce a noticeable increase in mash efficiency? Anyone experiment with this? I may try it on my next brew to see for myself.
 
I have my current efficiency dialed in with my current crush. So I should have a good chance of seeing if there is any truth to this. Also, when I get my BC I will be able to increase my efficiency too. B3 has a pretty coarse crush, I have informed them of it, but it never seems to change :eek:
 
I calculate for running off twice - two equal volumes. The mash ratio is usually 1.5 to 2 qts. per lb. My efficiency is usually 75-80% with this method.

Only have to heat water twice. Mash is easy to stir - and no doughballs because it is so thin. Try it - you'll like it.
 
I dont batch sparge... I only heat water once as it is...

#1 I have a SS false bottm
#2 I run an E-HERMS and stirring my mash up will ruin my nice grain bed and clear wort from the recirc.
#3 Before going to B3 for my ingredients I achieved 80% with a 1.25qt/lb mash

So, I am going to check out this thin mash theory, and buy a Barley Crusher, to see what the ol' HERMS can do.
 
I have a hard time getting my brain around this idea. Maybe it's different depending on sparge methods but back when I was using a cooler tun and batch sparging, I used 1.25qt/lb and hit 90% brewhouse often. I had always attributed my high efficiency at least in part, to the larger sparge volume the thicker mash afforded me. I'm certainly willing to modify my understanding with hard data.

Now, I have seen the suggestion from Kai that says a thinner mash will ensure full conversion but that's assuming that I'm NOT fully converting at the 1.25 ratio which is a suspect idea for me at this point.
 
The idea of the thin mash came from Basic Brewing Radio... they used it, and saw noticeable results as well. So, I figured that I would try it as an average homebrewer to see if I have any marked improvement.

My brewhouse efficiency is within 1% each time I brew, so if I see any difference in this upcoming webcast brew... I can almost certainly attribute it to the mash thickness, as nothing else will have been changed.
 
I will post my results on my upcoming E-HERMS brewing vid (Pols Brewing Vids), and in this thread as well.
 
I'm really curious to see what results you get -- I'm a fly sparger and normally mash at 1.00 - 1.25 qts/lb......
 
The efficiency gains, if there are any, of a thin mash are a result of a better conversion efficiency. This means that more starches are converted and contribute to the gravity of the wort. Now that only works if there are more starches available for conversion. If you are already getting into the upper 80s or lower 90s with your efficiency than it is safe to assume that your conversion efficiency is pretty close to 100% and not much gain can be achieved.

The most can be gained from this if your efficiency is in the 60s and 70s and the reason for that low efficiency is that you get less starches converted in the mash. It seems that a thinner mash makes extracting of these starches easier. One fact is that increase sugar concentrations and less available free water increase the gelatinization temp of the starch.

And yes, a thinner mash also means less sparge water. I actually see this as a benefit as subsequent runnings from the mash will always have lower quality than the first wort. As to what extend that actually makes a precievable difference is likely to depend on the actual process and the recipe.

Kai
 
We were just discussing this a week or 2 ago. I posted a comment referring to the end of a 5 gallon mlt. I was told that this was not the case but I never quite understood being able to use a 5 gallon cooler with a 1.060 beer and the 2qts/LB.
Currently: I max out the 5G cooler w/ 12 lbs of grain and 15Qts of water using the 1.25qts/grain lb when brewing a 1.060 beer.
BUT: If I were to use 2 Qts.water / lb grain then I would max out cooler at 8 lbs of grain w/ a 1.040 beer. Correct??
This method only works for lighter beers using a 5 G MLT??????? Am I right. I really want to try this method since I am in the 70% effeciency group. Thanks
 
Balto - you are correct that a larger mash tun is needed for this situation. I use a 10 gallon tun for 5 to 8 gallon brews and a 17.5 gallon tun for bigger brews.
 
Ahoy hoy,
Ah yes, the thin mash. Works like a charm for me. If I have 15 lbs of grain, I use 30 qts of water. Yup, sounds like alot, until you take in how much of that stays in the grain after the drain. Wow Im a poet, and dont know it :D
7.5 gallons usually gives me about 5 gallons from the mash, then Ill get about 1.5 gallons from the 2 or so I use to sparge, so I end up with 7-7.5 gallons of wort to boil. I use a bit less in the winter indoors as my on stove boiling is not as good as my propane summer boils, and ill come up with too much juice. So, I aim at 6-6.5 for a 60 minute indoor boil. Now, remember, this is in interior Alaska, and your milage may vary. Bottom line it took alot of experimenting with too much, and not enough, to find just right :mug:
Yo Pol, its almost 10 above today, im in a t shirt running round!
To all I bid a great day!
 
Since I'll probably brew at least another batch or two before I get my Barley Crusher, I'll try 2qt/# on my next batch and see what happens. I consistently average 65-70% efficiency no matter what so any thing a few percent above 70 should confirm it for me.
 
Cool, let us know what happens... I will post my results as well
 
It seems to me that you are jumping into this with a preconceived notion that even though maybe you are helping conversion (and in effect efficiency), what is the end product?

IMO, you have to consider other factors as well when deciding on the viscosity of your mash.

My point is you need to find a happy medium. Is mashing thicker affecting efficiency to the point of hurting the pocket book? On a homebrewer scale, probably not. However, is mashing this thin making your beer better? I'd say probably not. You have one major drawback going against you in this case, because the thin mash will inevitably dry out your beer (simply: denatured enzymes = high concentration of fermentable wort). There ARE ways to counteract this with a balance of mash thickness and temperature, but I think in general you need to consider the quality of the finished product over the advantage of increased efficiency (which seems is the motivation for a thin mash, and this thread).

Of course, if you step mash or decoct then this theory goes out the window because it is a whole new ball of wax as far as enzymes go.

All I ask--is your beer better when all is said and done? Is it worth it in the end?
 
It seems to me that you are jumping into this with a preconceived notion that even though maybe you are helping conversion (and in effect efficiency), what is the end product?

IMO, you have to consider other factors as well when deciding on the viscosity of your mash.

My point is you need to find a happy medium. Is mashing thicker affecting efficiency to the point of hurting the pocket book? On a homebrewer scale, probably not. However, is mashing this thin making your beer better? I'd say probably not. You have one major drawback going against you in this case, because the thin mash will inevitably dry out your beer (simply: denatured enzymes = high concentration of fermentable wort). There ARE ways to counteract this with a balance of mash thickness and temperature, but I think in general you need to consider the quality of the finished product over the advantage of increased efficiency (which seems is the motivation for a thin mash, and this thread).

Of course, if you step mash or decoct then this theory goes out the window because it is a whole new ball of wax as far as enzymes go.

All I ask--is your beer better when all is said and done? Is it worth it in the end?

I think you misunderstood the whole thread. The OP was a question, not a statement of truth or belief. There are no preconcieved notions... ummm. I dont know what it will do, if anything. It is an experiment based on some information from Basic Brewing Radio... where they said that they experienced a rise in efficiency and that they had not seen any increase in the attenuation of the wort at the same time.

Brewing doesnt hurt my pocket book, nor would a pound of grain... otherwise I would not have just put a $400 upgrade into my system :D That is what, 400lbs of pale? Could've solved my cash flow problem right there if I needed to! :D

No no... I think you misunderstood. This is an experiment, that is all that it is. The OP was a question based on some information that I had heard in a podcast... so I am testing it. Nothing nearly as serious as what you are making out to be Dude. :D

If my beer turns out like crap, I will be sure to post the results of my test to that end.
 
Ahoy hoy,
Ah yes, the thin mash. Works like a charm for me. If I have 15 lbs of grain, I use 30 qts of water. Yup, sounds like alot, until you take in how much of that stays in the grain after the drain. Wow Im a poet, and dont know it :D
7.5 gallons usually gives me about 5 gallons from the mash, then Ill get about 1.5 gallons from the 2 or so I use to sparge, so I end up with 7-7.5 gallons of wort to boil. I use a bit less in the winter indoors as my on stove boiling is not as good as my propane summer boils, and ill come up with too much juice. So, I aim at 6-6.5 for a 60 minute indoor boil. Now, remember, this is in interior Alaska, and your milage may vary. Bottom line it took alot of experimenting with too much, and not enough, to find just right :mug:
Yo Pol, its almost 10 above today, im in a t shirt running round!
To all I bid a great day!

Medo, buddy... first SS for the HERMS coil, and now a t-shirt? YOU NEED HELP!
 
Do you have the ability to check the pH of your mash, Pol?

I'd be interested in seeing how much the pH rises at 2qt/lb.
 
I use 5.2 Buffer... so I dont think it wavers much.
 
You have one major drawback going against you in this case, because the thin mash will inevitably dry out your beer (simply: denatured enzymes = high concentration of fermentable wort).

A thicker mash should actually lead to a thinner beer as the enzymes (in particular the protein converting ones and the beta amylase) will be better protected and stay active for longer. But that's not what I have been experiencing. I'm also not saying that every beer should be mashed thin. I do however say that brewers should give it a try (especially for styles that are traditionally mashed think like almost every German style) and see for themselves.

Kai
 
So I tried this 2qt/lb deal today. Now, I broke rule number 1 and also changed my gap on the barley crusher and cut my tap water with RO water (50/50). I put together a recipe based on 70% and well, got 70%. All my numbers hit except my final volume (off by 1/2 gallon and still trying to fine tune that). So I can't say it was a great success, but it really didn't hurt either.

I'll try this again for sure though. This time only changing this aspect of the brew process.
 
Brian,

If you want to troubleshoot where you are loosing efficiency, I recommend taking a gravity reading of the first wort. From the mash thickness and the first wort strength you can calculate how much of the starches were converted in the mash. This gives you an idea if a thinner mash can help or not.

Details are here: Troubleshooting Brewhouse Efficiency - German Brewing Techniques

Kai
 
Hey all... brewed today, have a full thread up with commentary, stats, pics and vids.

I DID do a 2qt/lb mash today and achieved 85% eff. Keep in mind that I brewed this same brew a couple months ago, along with about 6 other brews and only recieved 70% eff. on ALL of them.

I way overshot my OG... by 12 points to be exact. Check out my hydro pic in my brew thread posted today.

I have ALWAYS gotten 70% eff. on my HERMS, and I have always done 1.15 - 1.25qt/lb mashes. I can say, it is MUCH easier to mash in and break up dough balls in a SOUP than in OATMEAL :D

I am going to take note of my FG and attenuation, and do 2qt/lb mashes in the future to track more results.
 
Hey all... brewed today, have a full thread up with commentary, stats, pics and vids.

I DID do a 2qt/lb mash today and achieved 85% eff. Keep in mind that I brewed this same brew a couple months ago, along with about 6 other brews and only recieved 70% eff. on ALL of them.

I way overshot my OG... by 12 points to be exact. Check out my hydro pic in my brew thread posted today.

I have ALWAYS gotten 70% eff. on my HERMS, and I have always done 1.15 - 1.25qt/lb mashes. I can say, it is MUCH easier to mash in and break up dough balls in a SOUP than in OATMEAL :D

I am going to take note of my FG and attenuation, and do 2qt/lb mashes in the future to track more results.

I appreciate you providing the data points on this experiment Pol.

I am curious about the decrease in the sparge volume. It just seemed logical to me to try to minmize this ratio so that I could maximize sparge volume.

The last batch I did I actually experimented with this by decocting for the mashout instead of infusing. Then I was able to add close to 2 gallons of extra sparge water. My efficiency went up from 74% on my last batch to 79% on this latest batch with this method.

So it seems you might get better conversion efficiency but I still wonder about the brewhouse efficiency because you are not rinsing the sugar out of the grain as well?
 
My final runnings were at 1.008... that is about as dilute as I want to go.

All I know is that I got 85% into the fermentor, compared to 70% on my SIX previous brews... it is worth trying again, and again...
 
Yet another case that supports mashing thin. Thanks for trying this Pol.

dontman, If you maximize the sparge volume you are also maximizing the extraction of unwanted compounds from the malt.

The efficiency equation looks like this:

efficiency = conversion efficiency * lauter efficiency

increasing the sparge volume aims at increasing the lauter efficiency while increasing the strike volume aims at increasing the conversion efficiency. If I have a choice (and I do) I choose increasing the conversion efficiency. The best quality wort comes from the first wort. So I want to maximize that volume instead of sqeazing the last bit of extract from the grains through more sparge water.

Obviously there are limits. Especially if you want to brew higher gravity beers and want to have decent efficiency.

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

First_wort_gravity.gif


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
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top