Mash Thickness Confusion

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.
How do people risk wort quality to gain eff. though? That is the part that my simple mind cannot understand. I keep hearing it, but I have never head anyone explain how.

So far I have only heard about extended sparging, which hurts wort quality. Cmon. You are telling me that the difference between a guy getting 65% eff. and 85% eff. is a gallon of dilute 1.008 wort? I dont think the math supports that. Other than oversparging, what are brewers doing that is hurting thier wort quality?

I would agree that oversparging will hurt wort quality, but oversparing isnt going to increase your eff. either, still no correlation.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with this except that I still think about efficiency a lot because consistency is so important. I am still working out sparge techniques and volumes etc, so varying efficiency bites me often! I'm not looking for ways to boost it, just get it the same every time, without regard to mash volume. For example, right now I seem to get a 5-10% efficiency boost when doing 10G batches vs. 5G. I can account for this, but it would be nice to prevent it, so I am looking at the differences - 2 sparges in the case of 10G for example.
 
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!
Click to expand...

Who says we are not thinking about fermentation? This thread got started by mash thickness questions and, at my concern was to answer them and clear up some of the confusion which required touching on efficiency.

Kai
 
FWIW, I can see and agree with what I feel are the major points you're both making. JZ is saying that there is more to making good beer than simply efficiency. OTOH, Kai is definitely not saying that efficiency alone is the end all of good beer....just offering a way to diagnose if someone is having efficiency issues.
 
Picobrew said:
I agree with this except that I still think about efficiency a lot because consistency is so important. I am still working out sparge techniques and volumes etc, so varying efficiency bites me often! I'm not looking for ways to boost it, just get it the same every time, without regard to mash volume. For example, right now I seem to get a 5-10% efficiency boost when doing 10G batches vs. 5G. I can account for this, but it would be nice to prevent it, so I am looking at the differences - 2 sparges in the case of 10G for example.
Click to expand...

That's what I've been concentrating on lately -- consistency. I think it really helps in evaluating your recipes if you can know ahead of time that you're gonna hit your numbers for that batch.

The last three batches have been 72%-75% though, so I think I'm kind of getting a process, and hearing that there's nothing wrong with being in the 70-80 range has always helped.
 
Denny said:
FWIW, I can see and agree with what I feel are the major points you're both making. JZ is saying that there is more to making good beer than simply efficiency. OTOH, Kai is definitely not saying that efficiency alone is the end all of good beer....just offering a way to diagnose if someone is having efficiency issues.
Click to expand...

Thanks for settling this. I think the debate started to get a little too heated and was drifting off.

Kai
 
Denny said:
FWIW, I can see and agree with what I feel are the major points you're both making. JZ is saying that there is more to making good beer than simply efficiency. OTOH, Kai is definitely not saying that efficiency alone is the end all of good beer....just offering a way to diagnose if someone is having efficiency issues.
Click to expand...

I would pay good money to listen to Kai, Jamil, and Denny sit around a bar and discuss beer brewing principles, theories, and applications.

I learn a lot from reading your posts.
 
jamilz said:
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.
Click to expand...

So I'll re-ask one of my questions from earlier in this thread:
Do I do a single batch sparge of say 3.8 gallons, or do I break it up into two 1.9 gallon sparges?

Please bear with me as I try to wrap my brain around this. I've done 6 AG brews so far, all with a double batch sparge according to BeerTools Pro. I'm not trying to win any comps, I just want to brew the best beer I'm capable of.
 
Kaiser said:
When it fits, go for the single sparge. It's less work and only sligtly less efficient.

Kai
Click to expand...

Good enough!

BTW, this is a great thread to read through. Lots of info from some really reputable brewers. Thanks for the advice!
 
mookie1010 said:
What's the efficiency loss? I've been doing 2 and I have room for one.
Click to expand...

If you're trying to rinse soap suds out of a glass with a fixed amount of water (say 1 pint), how many rinses do you do?

3 rinses (1/3rd of a pint each) would probably get all the soap suds (=sugar left in the mash)

2 rinses (1/2 pint each) would get most of it and would be quicker

1 rinse (1 pint) would also get most if it and would be the quickest
 
Kaiser said:
But even if that was the case you can always mash hotter to limit the additional b-amylase activity that you would be getting.[/COLOR]

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.
Click to expand...

Could one vary the mash thickness to coincide with the set mash temperature and thus increase efficiency? Or are you saying your results haven't been conclusive for either way?
 
I have a slightly different approach. I brew strictly 5 gallon batches in a 15 gallon kettle (I hate boil overs). For bigger beers I mash at 1.5 qt/lb and for normal beers I adjust the mash thickness so I have enough strike water to reach my kettle's thermometer so I don't have to futz with my hand held thermometer. Thank you Beersmith for making the temperature calculations for me.

My efficiency (fly sparger) is generally around 72% regardless of mash thickness. I could probably adjust my grain mill and increase that a bit but why risk shredded husks and the risk of increased tannins?
 
homebrewer_99 said:
The only problem is it would confuse you further as they are all right...:D
Click to expand...

True - but that would be awesome confusion with a capital A!

I still think homebrewer's biggest issues with efficiency aren't the ACTUAL efficiency, but the errors in measurements; volume (how many of us rely on the marks on our Ale Pails?), gravities (temp corrected? calibrated?), and thermometers (calibrated?).

I know that's the case for me - the next brew I do - hopefully Monday; I'm gonna get really specific about volume, gravity, and temperature. And if I hit 54% again, I'm buying a barley crusher! :D
 
AZ_IPA said:
True - but that would be awesome confusion with a capital A!

I still think homebrewer's biggest issues with efficiency aren't the ACTUAL efficiency, but the errors in measurements; volume (how many of us rely on the marks on our Ale Pails?), gravities (temp corrected? calibrated?), and thermometers (calibrated?).

I know that's the case for me - the next brew I do - hopefully Monday; I'm gonna get really specific about volume, gravity, and temperature. And if I hit 54% again, I'm buying a barley crusher! :D
Click to expand...

I was doing a rye ale once where I brain farted and threw the rye in with the base and specialty malts before crushing it, and I should have crushed the rye separately. This was at the LHBS where I usually measure and crush myself just because I'm funny that way. So I sent it through the mill twice at the suggestion of the owner.

The double crush upped my efficiency from the mid 60's into the mid 70's. Dunno how you're getting grain, and I wasn't even trying to increase my efficiency at the time, but I double crush at the LHBS now all the time, and have been consistent since then.
 
DNW said:
This may be an indication that their mill is not adjusted correctly...
Click to expand...
Oh, surely. As noted by others, if I increase my efficiency, I buy less of their grain. Over time, that can add up (or what I call "The Office Space Principle.")
 
mookie1010 said:
Oh, surely. As noted by others, if I increase my efficiency, I buy less of their grain. Over time, that can add up (or what I call "The Office Space Principle.")
Click to expand...

I don't think that this is necissarily the case. Home brew shops don't make thei r money selling grain. A bad reputation from a bad crush would be more damaging than the upside of selling more gain. I do however believe that home brew shops err on the side of a coarser crush b/c they don't want to field the calls fom all the brewers with stuck mashes if the mill the grain too tight.

Kai
 
Kaiser said:
I don't think that this is necissarily the case. Home brew shops don't make thei r money selling grain. A bad reputation from a bad crush would be more damaging than the upside of selling more gain. I do however believe that home brew shops err on the side of a coarser crush b/c they don't want to field the calls fom all the brewers with stuck mashes if the mill the grain too tight.

Kai
Click to expand...

Potato, Po-tah-to.

Whatever the motivation, the result is the same in the end.
 
I'm pretty sure I have the gist of the ideas going on in this thread. I've read it a few times now, so I at least hope I do.

That being said, I have some questions. Is the thinner or thicker mash considered to be the volume of water when you start the verlauf, or the first addition of water to grains?

I did my first all grain this past week, and I had 50% efficiency on my first runnings, then I put about 1 1/2 gallons of water at about 180 degrees or so (I have the equations from somewhere, as well as the temperature I put in, written down, but not near me right now) and that ended up getting another 25% out. My temperatures were on when I did the infusions, and I lost about 2 degrees over the 45 minutes I let it sit, starting at 155.

So, I want to know if I'm correct in assuming that the final volume of water is what you guys are referring to for the ratio of water to grain or the strike water. I only have a 4 gallon brewpot, but I have a 2 gallon as well. Should I split use more strike water, ending up with more in the infusions and the verlauf, then split the first runnings into the two pots and let one boil down a bit while I sparge with with the other, then sparge with more clear water for the second runnings?

I know I should have a larger brewpot to do a five gallon all grain batch, but you guys can try to convince my wife of that. I already failed. I'd prefer to not spend the same time to get less beer, so if there's any way you know of to keep with the five gallons without a new brewpot let me know!
 
Old thread, but helpful. I take the approach of the chemical industry; constant flux for best reaction. I put 8 gallons of 155* ish temp water in my mash tun, add all my grains and switch on the pump. I recirculate through my HERMS coil in the HLT and keep the temp ~150* +/- depending on style. I just keep that water going around and around...... Every now and then I'll get a stuck mash, but a good stir or a shot of air clears it. With the chugger style pump being magnetically driven, I'm not worried about jamming it up. So far so good; efficiencies in the 80% to 90% range. I mash for about 90 minutes to take into account the more dilute concentration of enzymes. Conversely, I think the constant movement of the water through all the grain more evenly exposes the starch to the enzymes and provides constant "washing" of the good sugars out of the grist. I find the degree of milling to be the much larger variable in my efficiency - I have my guy Henry double grind for me...

I then slowly pump out of the mash tun and into the boil kettle. I get about 5-6 gallons on this pass. I then compress the grain bed and get another gallon or so. I then manually sparge a quart at a time, stirring up the grain bed and then compressing again, until I reach ~7.5 gallons of boilable wort. While I take gravities all along the way and do the math, at the end of the day I drink VOLUME not numbers :) I boil to a volume of 5+ gallons and ferment in a corny. I have done checks and the drop off of the gravity reading for the sparge volumes is immense, confirming that the bulk of the sugars went in the main volume of wort.
 
Having just completed a Kolsch brew day.... there is a problem with my system (and any other I would presume) when the grind is too fine. Usually Henry's grind is too coarse so I have him run it twice. This time he must have tightened it up because I got VERY fine. This plugs up the false bottom in a heartbeat. I was blowing compressed air, stirring like a bandit, I even dumped out of the mash tun to make sure everything was still all plumbed! Luckily I'm making a "low and slow" on the mash and fermenter. Efficiency ended up being about 83%, so I can't complain about that. Even if I mashed much dryer, the mash out process would be a bear with it this fine. I need to give some thought to a mash tun redesign to accommodate this since I like the ease of the very wet mashing and the quickness of changing the temperature. What I really need is a hot water jacketed mash tun..... hummmm. Need to figure it out quick; next one has nearly a 20lb grain bill!!!!!!!!!
 

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
724
Deadalus
Deadalus
T
Mash Volume Higher than Boil Volume eHERMS
Replies
5
Views
541
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
Brewer's Friend 300

Latest posts

Back
Top