Stirring During Mash - Much Better Efficiency

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.
LVBen

LVBen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
1,339
Reaction score
20
Location
Las Vegas, NV
I decided to try not stirring during my 60-minute Saccharification Rest on my last brew. So many people on HBT claim that the stirring in the middle of the rest doesn't affect anything, and I don't want to waste energy doing something that is unnecessary.

I stirred after adding the grains until the grains were very-well mixed in with the water. Then I let it sit for 60 minutes. I checked the temperature a few times, and it was right around 154°F the whole time.

In the past, I've gotten 90-92% efficiency with the same grain bill and a 2-batch sparge. This time, I did 3 sparges, and my efficiency was only 76%!!!! I used the same ingredients from the same store that I get all of my grains from.

Lesson Learned!!!!!
 
I have seen the same trend. In my beers if I stir one or two times during my mash I get a little spike in efficiency not much but something.

In the book Brewing Science and Practice, the author mentions that stirring the mash gives you better efficiency, but also leads to more astringent bittering flavors coming from the husk of the grain. Though I couldn’t find the other half of his statement, this is the latter of them in which he talks about the possibility of off flavors coming through into the final beer by stirring too much.

“The more a mash is stirred the more fines are produced, the more oxidations are likely to occur (including the cross-linking of gel-proteins), but if stirring is inadequate temperature gradients may occur and mash may settle and burn onto the containing vessel's heating surfaces, so there is a critical, 'compromise' stirring speed (Laing and Taylor, 1984).”

I usually stir the mash at dough in, and then again when I sparge and that is all. I haven’t noticed to much of a difference when I stir more or less. Because of it I would rather not disrupt my mash and have a possible increase of tannins. I think all this is really just nit picking to say the least, but then again that is why we brew to make the best possible brew right. :D
 
i stir until i'm confident my dough balls are gone, and then stir again before sparge like GodsStepBrother. It sounds like the quote above is centered on a direct heated mash tun, in a cooler obviously you wouldn't have the "may settle and burn onto the containing vessel's heating surfaces"
 
I haven't stired during the mash the past couple of brews and got 75 percent eff. I know this isn't great but the batch before I got 61 percent. This is about the time I said screw fly sparging which im obviously not good at and started batch sparging with better results. I have wondered if my stirring during dough in with a plastic spoon has done anything in the way of decreasing my eff. I probably need a mash paddle. :)
 
Repeatable efficiency, that is, consistent efficiency is more important to me than high efficiency. If I have a $20 grain bill and I increase my efficiency from 75% to 80% that's worth about a dollar. If in the quest for higher efficiency I introduce sources of inconsistency, I've sold my control of the brew for a buck. You can adjust for a lower efficiency; you can't adjust for inconsistency. Of course, if I can achieve consistently higher efficiency, why not? Do you stirrers hit pretty consistent numbers?
 
flyerwire said:
i stir until i'm confident my dough balls are gone, and then stir again before sparge like GodsStepBrother. It sounds like the quote above is centered on a direct heated mash tun, in a cooler obviously you wouldn't have the "may settle and burn onto the containing vessel's heating surfaces"
Click to expand...

Well I think the first part of the quote he is talking about just over mixing and producing unwanted byproducts. Too bad I am not at home where my hardcopy of the book is. I have it underlined, where he talks about mixing the mash and the effects it has on the wort.

I’ll post it once I get back home, but basically he gives all these charts and studies showing how mixing the mash gives you higher efficiency but produces more tannin’s and other products. The authors even give results of some test they have performed, where they completely separate the husk from the soft endosperm that makes up modified barely. They then mashed the endosperm almost by itself with minimal husk, and got higher quality wort than normal. Yet when this was done with a large number of husk and small amount of endosperm, a bitter astringent taste followed it. He hints to the fact that the best possible wort to obtain would be with pure endosperm (naturally this is hard to do b/c the microbial colonies on barely husk help set the PH of the mash and help in filtering, as well as the trouble of screening the husk off). He also mentions that since it is financially improbable to separate the endosperm from the husk, to minimize the amount of stirring during the mash.

When I get home ill see if I can find those exact passages and post them. I stir as well till I am confident no dough balls remain.
 
thanks...

i am slowly switching to batch sparge because it saves me time for a small drop in efficiency... i love my time more then an extra dollar in grains
 
That's a interesting difference, This is why I like the RIMS idea of re'circing the mash the hole time. I have a cooler MT also but am really interested in trying out this method to see what kind of a difference in eff I would see...
 
I did not remember to find the info at home. But I did find half of it here at work again with the online copy. In the following quote he explain the results of mashing with mainly the endosperm of the barely, and then he explains what happens with a lot of husk material.


“The fractions have different compositions and yield different worts when mashed separately. So, for example, fine flour derived mainly from the inner starchy endosperm saccharifies well when mashed alone, and yields an exceptionally high extract (e.g. 96%), and gives pale beers with very fine, pure and fresh flavours but lacking in body, low in phenolic tannins and resistant to the formation of chill haze. In contrast the fraction enriched with
the outer parts of the starchy endosperm yields more soluble nitrogen, has an extract of about 80%, an intermediate colour and gives a beer that is full bodied and with a fresh flavour but having a harsh, clinging, astringent or bitter after-taste (Kieninger, 1969,
1972).” (page 96.)


In the following quote the authors notes what happens when brewing with only endosperm material.


“Also, by removing part or all of the husk material, brewing with the remainder of the grist would be more rapid, the beers produced would be paler and have a higher haze stability and a `finer' flavor.” (Page 96).


And I cannot find the reason for not over mixing the mash. That one will have to wait again till I go home! (and I remember to look through my hardcopy this time). :ban:
 
Pilgarlic said:
Repeatable efficiency, that is, consistent efficiency is more important to me than high efficiency. If I have a $20 grain bill and I increase my efficiency from 75% to 80% that's worth about a dollar. If in the quest for higher efficiency I introduce sources of inconsistency, I've sold my control of the brew for a buck. You can adjust for a lower efficiency; you can't adjust for inconsistency. Of course, if I can achieve consistently higher efficiency, why not? Do you stirrers hit pretty consistent numbers?
Click to expand...

You're right that the 'not repeating' of my efficiency is a big part of my problem. I thought I could use the same recipe and not stir during the entire 60 minutes and get the same efficiency. What happened to me accounts for what is probably $3 extra added to an $8 grain bill, but it did make a noticeable difference in my recipe. With all of the other costs added in, and all of the time I put into it, $3 is pretty insignificant, but it is definitely $3 that's I'd rather have in my pocket than in somebody else's after the yeast is pitched.
 
I mash in a 10 gal Rubbermaid cooler and after the mash is thoroughly mixed and the temperature settles down, I leave it alone and throw a furniture pad over the cooler. I don't particularly care about measuring efficiency, but I always get complete starch conversion, and hit my numbers (e.g., my first two spring batches hit the OG range for the recipe right in the middle), which is close enough for me.
 
I would think hitting efficiency levels in the 90% range would make your beer taste grainy. I like my consistent 75% efficiency
 
GodsStepBrother said:
I did not remember to find the info at home. But I did find half of it here at work again with the online copy. In the following quote he explain the results of mashing with mainly the endosperm of the barely, and then he explains what happens with a lot of husk material.


“The fractions have different compositions and yield different worts when mashed separately. So, for example, fine flour derived mainly from the inner starchy endosperm saccharifies well when mashed alone, and yields an exceptionally high extract (e.g. 96%), and gives pale beers with very fine, pure and fresh flavours but lacking in body, low in phenolic tannins and resistant to the formation of chill haze. In contrast the fraction enriched with
the outer parts of the starchy endosperm yields more soluble nitrogen, has an extract of about 80%, an intermediate colour and gives a beer that is full bodied and with a fresh flavour but having a harsh, clinging, astringent or bitter after-taste (Kieninger, 1969,
1972).” (page 96.)


In the following quote the authors notes what happens when brewing with only endosperm material.


“Also, by removing part or all of the husk material, brewing with the remainder of the grist would be more rapid, the beers produced would be paler and have a higher haze stability and a `finer' flavor.” (Page 96).


And I cannot find the reason for not over mixing the mash. That one will have to wait again till I go home! (and I remember to look through my hardcopy this time). :ban:
Click to expand...

thanks for looking this up!
 
I know this thread was a while back, but here is some more interesting facts about husk and tannins. This is a mashing schedule that is no longer used, but still funny they would go through the trouble of separating the husk from the endosperm of the barely just to avoid boiling the husk when doing decoction mashes.

“In the Kubessa process the grist is divided into flour, grits and husk fractions. The husk fraction is mashed separately at 122 F and is held at this temperature while the flour and grits are mashed using a rising temperature programme, with the rest at appropriate temperatures, until the mix is boiled. Then the two mashes are combined to give a mixed mash at about 158 F. After a stand the temperature is raised to 172.4 F and the wort is collected. This process, which is little used, avoids boiling the husk material and gives beer with a better flavor. “

I wonder if any homebrewer has ever tried this?
 

Similar threads

S
In search of...predictable mash efficiency for differing batch sizes & gravities
Replies
11
Views
802
Deadalus
Deadalus
N
Stuck recirculation BM’s Cream of 3 Crops
Replies
10
Views
1K
Niatras
N
iandanielursino
Lots of grain mush in the wort and scorching
Replies
15
Views
641
iandanielursino
iandanielursino
wepeeler
Advantage of clear wort during mash recirculation?
Replies
20
Views
547
odie
odie
GirthySquirt
Brewing: Low Efficiency Desirable Benefits Possible? Can Tanking Efficiency INCREASE Flavor?
Replies
15
Views
1K
Bobby_M
Bobby_M
InkBird 300

Latest posts

Back
Top