Mash Thickness VS Mash Temperature

Hello everyone in brewing world! I have been dabbling in the fine art of AG brewing, and have come to a crossroads. I would like to emplore improving the body of some of the beers I have made using a few different methods.

In my tinkering, I have been noticing there is quite a bit of information that supports the fact that:

1) The Higher the mash temp, the more dextrins in the wort

2) The thicker the mash (water to grain ratio), the more dextrins in the wort

Now, I guess it might be helpful to know what other peoples experiences are on these two different methods. Do they affect the body in different ways? Is one method preferred over the other, notwithstanding one could do BOTH to end up with a rootin' tootin' sweetish beer.

Anyway, I thought the topic was a worth while discussion.

Thoughts? Experiences?

EDIT: Sorry about that, I amended the #2 factor above

Bump bump... bumpity bump?

I think you're not getting any responses because most people believe mash thickness doesn't have anything to do with it. IIRC, Kaiser's data didn't show any change in fermentability from it.

Hi bumpity bump.

This confuses me?
2) The thicker the mash temp, the more dextrins in the wort

I've read this in How To Brew. But my experience with adjusting mash thickness (like going from 1.25 qts/lb to 2.0 qts/lb) shows no difference in fermentability. Temperature is your biggest factor. Higher temperatures denature beta-amylase more quickly and significantly than a thick mash theoretically favors or preserves alpha-amylase.

IIRC, mash thickness only effects conversion time. But not by much and means little on recirculatory systems.

what about mashing very thick (<1 qt/lb)?

would that make a high-fermentable wort?

add some oats to your grain bill

I've never tried mashing at a temp > 154 F, so I don't know first hand what effect the higher mash temperature has.
On the other hand, I have experimented with different mash thicknesses varying between 1 qt / lb to 2 qts / lb, and have noticed a considerable difference in the flavor of the beer with thick mashes.
With a mash thickness of 1 qt / lb (which is what I usually use), I produce beers with a very malty profile. If I reduce the mash thickness to 1.25 qts / lb, much of the malt flavor is lost. (This is not necessarily a bad thing. When brewing English style special bitters, the malty profile is good, but it is quite out of character for most of the American style beers I have sampled.) Going from 1.25 qts / lb up to 2 qts / lb seems to give a small increase in efficiency (up to about 3%) but has no noticeable impact on the flavor.
Also, the differences in attenuation between mashing at 1 qt / lb and 1.25 qt / lb were not large enough to be noticeable at the time I performed the experiments. I have gotten higher attenuation with the thinner mashes, but they were using different malts and yeasts.
Finally, the 1 qt / lb - 1.25 qt / lb brews were all made with 90 - 95% Maris Otter, which is traditionally mashed thick. I suspect the malts used could have a noticeable effect on the results.

Hope this doesn't confuse you too much.

-a.

GilaMinumBeer said:

IIRC, mash thickness only effects conversion time. But not by much and means little on recirculatory systems.

Click to expand...

+1

The thickness has to do with the ratio of enzymes to total wort volume. If the enzymes are packed in tighter, they can get the job done quicker.

Holding everything else constant (especially mash time), I would think a thinner mash would be less converted (and thus, dryer) than a thicker mash.

PinkyOFloyd said:

Hi bumpity bump.

This confuses me?
2) The thicker the mash temp, the more dextrins in the wort

Click to expand...

Apologies! Geez I must have been tired at work... I changed it to what I was meaning to say

Interesting replys so far, I must say. I will definately try changing my mash thickness for my second run of a recipe of beer I created that my friends love. This recipe has a mash thickness of around 1.3 Qt per pound... I will try 1 QT per pound perhaps, as I myself found the malt character lacking somewhat.

I understand from one of the posters that temperature is a much bigger factor when looking at dextrins, or fermentables, than thickness. This does answer the primary question I was looking at. Perhaps adjusting the mash thickness is still important if tinkering though, to bring out extra malt profile by increasing that thickness.

To quote Palmers book in Chapter 14:

Manipulating the Starch Conversion Rest
There are two other factors besides temperature that affect the amylase enzyme activity. These are the grist/water ratio and pH. Beta amylase is favored by a low wort pH, about 5.4. Alpha is favored by a higher pH, about 5.7. However, a Beta-optimum wort is not a very fermentable wort, Alpha amylase is needed to break up the larger chains so Beta can work on them. A good analogy is to visualize making firewood from a stand of oak trees. If you picture Alpha as being a chainsaw and Beta being a splitting maul, you can understand that you need both tools to make the firewood. The chainsaw can cut off the branches and cut the logs to lengths that the maul can split into useful pieces.

...

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.

As always, time changes everything; it is the final factor in the mash. Starch conversion may be complete in only 30 minutes, so that during the remainder of a 60 minute mash, the brewer is working the mash conditions to produce the desired profile of wort sugars. Depending on the mash pH, water ratio and temperature, the time required to complete the mash can vary from under 30 minutes to over 90. At a higher temperature, a stiffer mash and a higher pH, the alpha amylase is favored and starch conversion will be complete in 30 minutes or less. Longer times at these conditions will allow the beta amylase time to breakdown more of the longer sugars into shorter ones, resulting in a more fermentable wort, but these alpha-favoring conditions are deactivating the beta; such a mash is self-limiting.

To quote Kaiser

http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/inde...ity_and_efficiency_in_single_infusion_mashing

"The results for mash thickness were somewhat surprising. Contrary to common believe no attenuation difference was seen between a thick mash (2.57 l/kg or 1.21 qt/lb) and a thin mash (5 l/kg or 2.37 qt/lb). Home brewing literature suggests that thin mashes lead to more fermentable worts, but technical brewing literature suggests that the mash concentration doesn't have much effect in well modified malts [Narziss, 2005]. Briggs cites data that doesn't show a change in fermentability when the mash thickness is changed [Briggs, 2004]. This was confirmed by these eperiments where all the data points were on the same curve that had already been established in the temperature experiment."

[Narziss, 2005] Prof. Dr. agr. Ludwig Narziss, Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Werner Back, Technische Universitaet Muenchen (Fakultaet fuer Brauwesen, Weihenstephan), Abriss der Bierbrauerei. WILEY-VCH Verlags GmbH Weinheim Germany, 2005
[Briggs, 2004] Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes, Roger Stevens, Brewing Science and Practice, Published by Woodhead Publishing, 2004

Scimmia said:

To quote Kaiser

http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/inde...ity_and_efficiency_in_single_infusion_mashing

"The results for mash thickness were somewhat surprising. Contrary to common believe no attenuation difference was seen between a thick mash (2.57 l/kg or 1.21 qt/lb) and a thin mash (5 l/kg or 2.37 qt/lb). Home brewing literature suggests that thin mashes lead to more fermentable worts, but technical brewing literature suggests that the mash concentration doesn't have much effect in well modified malts [Narziss, 2005]. Briggs cites data that doesn't show a change in fermentability when the mash thickness is changed [Briggs, 2004]. This was confirmed by these eperiments where all the data points were on the same curve that had already been established in the temperature experiment."

[Narziss, 2005] Prof. Dr. agr. Ludwig Narziss, Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Werner Back, Technische Universitaet Muenchen (Fakultaet fuer Brauwesen, Weihenstephan), Abriss der Bierbrauerei. WILEY-VCH Verlags GmbH Weinheim Germany, 2005
[Briggs, 2004] Dennis E. Briggs, Chris A. Boulton, Peter A. Brookes, Roger Stevens, Brewing Science and Practice, Published by Woodhead Publishing, 2004

Click to expand...

Hmmm that is very good to see, considering the science backing up Kaiser.

Well, this is good news since that means I can leave my mash thickness alone in general since my conversion rate is quite good for my purposes.

I hope this helps others as well.