Mash Thickness Confusion - Home Brew Forums
Home Brew Forums > Home Brewing Beer > All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing > Mash Thickness Confusion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-25-2009, 04:59 PM   #1
ILikeBrew
Recipes 
 
Sep 2009
Oklahoma
Posts: 3


First-time poster.

I am confused as to the effect of thinner mashes on wort. My brother and I have brewed 3 AG batches using single infusion mash with a double batch sparge. We have come out to 75% efficiency each time. Call me greedy, but I am shooting to get 80%. I have read several posts on here and other sites about tips for increasing efficiency with AG batch sparge brewing and the only thing I think I might change is my mash thickness. I have read on Kaiser's website that thinner mashes increase efficiency without affecting the fermentability of the wort. I have read other sites that confirm the increase in efficiency, but warn that thinner mashes create more fermentable wort due to increased diastatic activity.

My question is, if I use a thinner mash, should I adjust my mash temperature to compensate for the increased diastatic activity?



 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 05:16 PM   #2
chode720
Recipes 
 
Feb 2009
Cleveland
Posts: 527
Liked 4 Times on 4 Posts


Personally, I have noticed that with thicker mashes, around 1.25 instead of closer to 1.5, my efficiency has dropped from 75% to 70%. However, i have not noticed any differences in the fermentability of the wort.

The best way to run this experiment is to brew a beer with the exact same mash temperature you used the last time, but increase the water to make it thinner. Then when its done fermenting, compare the OG of that beer to the beer you brewed with the thicker mash. Then you will know for sure if it makes a difference in your system

Also, Welcome to HBT!

Here is some info from www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter14-6.html

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.

A compromise of all factors yields the standard mash conditions for most homebrewers: a mash ratio of about 1.5 quarts of water per pound grain, pH of 5.3, temperature of 150-155F and a time of about one hour. These conditions yield a wort with a nice maltiness and good fermentability.


__________________

Primary1: Pumpkin Ale
Primary2: Christmas Ale
Pimary3: Apfelwein
Secondary: Sour Brown
Drinking: Warrior Pale Ale, Wit, American Rye


 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 05:24 PM   #3
Bobby_M
Vendor and Brewer
HBT_SPONSOR.png
 
Bobby_M's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Aug 2006
Whitehouse Station, NJ
Posts: 23,149
Liked 1622 Times on 1050 Posts


Actually, the best way to figure out if a thinner mash would help is to take a mash efficiency sample and see if you're 100% converted. If you are, thinning out should actually degrade your lauter efficiency. Empirically, I lost a good 10% going from 1.25 to 1.6.
__________________
Welcome to BrewHardware.com. I love you.
BIAB Large Mesh False Bottoms and SS HERMS COILS are IN!!
Chugger Pumps, Pump Kits, Camlocks, Sightglasses, Clear USA made Silicone Tubing, RIMS, Electric Install Parts, etc.

 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 05:32 PM   #4
mkling
Recipes 
 
Nov 2008
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Posts: 743
Liked 9 Times on 8 Posts


My personal recommendation is to be happy with 75% efficiency and spring for the extra 1/2 lb of grain if you want your wort gravity to be a bit higher. Lots of really serious, much more award winner brewers than me have suggested that you run risks of many more bad things than you might get benefits of good things by shooting for efficiency higher than 75% including astringency. Grain is cheap. For most beers the yield difference between 75% & 80% efficiency is only adding 1/2 a pound of base malt to your 75% mash -- that's 60 or so cents. Saving that isn't worth the risk of an astringent batch of beer.
__________________
Currently On Draft: Bamberger Rauch Dunkel, Belgian Blond, Pilsener Urquell clone, Smoked Porter
Bottled: Concord Pyment, Mi'Apa Sparkling Mead, Chimay Blue, Old Simcoe American Barleywine, Old Cantankerous
Fermenting and Conditioning: Pseudo-Decoction Munich Dunkel, Left Hook Bitter
Recently Kicked Kegs: Fresh Hop Pale Ale, Citra Rye IPA
On Deck: Old Rasputin, Northstar IPA, Ur-bock Dunkel

 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 06:12 PM   #5
Denny
HBT_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Recipes 
 
Jun 2005
Eugene, OR
Posts: 4,675
Liked 608 Times on 438 Posts


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby_M View Post
Actually, the best way to figure out if a thinner mash would help is to take a mash efficiency sample and see if you're 100% converted. If you are, thinning out should actually degrade your lauter efficiency. Empirically, I lost a good 10% going from 1.25 to 1.6.
Very interesting, Bobby. I've either seen no difference or a slight gain, but I haven't really been tracking it closely. I think maybe I'll start doing that. What size batches do you typically make, and did you see any difference in higher mash ratios based on the OG of the beer?
__________________
Life begins at 60....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

http://www.experimentalbrew.com - "Homebrew All Stars" now shipping!

 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 06:18 PM   #6
Bobby_M
Vendor and Brewer
HBT_SPONSOR.png
 
Bobby_M's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Aug 2006
Whitehouse Station, NJ
Posts: 23,149
Liked 1622 Times on 1050 Posts


Now that I think of it, my 10% loss can be half correlated to additional deadspace. I should say that I lost 10% going from a cooler with a braid to a keg with a full false bottom. I'm forced to mash thinner to recirculate and I know I leave some wort after a "full" draining due to the nature of the siphon tube. I don't know what portion of that 10% is attributable to which. IOW, my data sucks. I would have to mash thinner in a cooler to test it.
__________________
Welcome to BrewHardware.com. I love you.
BIAB Large Mesh False Bottoms and SS HERMS COILS are IN!!
Chugger Pumps, Pump Kits, Camlocks, Sightglasses, Clear USA made Silicone Tubing, RIMS, Electric Install Parts, etc.

 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 06:19 PM   #7
Denny
HBT_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Recipes 
 
Jun 2005
Eugene, OR
Posts: 4,675
Liked 608 Times on 438 Posts


Thanks for the explanation!
__________________
Life begins at 60....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

http://www.experimentalbrew.com - "Homebrew All Stars" now shipping!

 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 08:06 PM   #8
ILikeBrew
Recipes 
 
Sep 2009
Oklahoma
Posts: 3

Alright, did more reading. Seems to be a lot of different opinions. I am going to try a thinner mash next time because I just used beersmith's setting in my calculation which is 1.25q/lb. I think I'll start by moving it to 1.5 and see if I see an increase in efficiency.

Questions: Do I just now sparge with less water (double batch sparge equal amounts) or do I sparge with the same amount of water and boil off the extra? Also, if I move up to like 2q/lb., it would really decrease the amount of water to sparge with. Will this create a problem? Currently I use my first batch sparge at boiling to bring the temp up to 168ish. How would I do this with smaller batch sparges?

 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 08:10 PM   #9
Q2XL
Recipes 
 
Feb 2009
Eastpointe, Michigan
Posts: 509
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts


I have been going with 1.25qts for my first 17 beers and have been getting anywhere from 63% to 73%. Today I raised it up to 1.50qts and I got 79%. So, I will try again next time with 1.5qts and see what happens.

 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 09:53 PM   #10
homebrewer_99
 
homebrewer_99's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Feb 2005
Atkinson (near the Quad Cities), IL
Posts: 17,792
Liked 131 Times on 98 Posts


Question: I know when I mash the grain (nut, whatever) is all mush after sparging.

Does the degree of crush also affect efficiency based upon the smaller grain pieces having more surface to water contact?


__________________
HB Bill

 
Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mash Thickness and Fermentability Orangevango All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing 6 09-09-2009 06:47 PM
Mash thickness question Wild Duk All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing 1 11-01-2008 08:16 PM
Mash Thickness: Questions TwoHeadsBrewing All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing 14 06-12-2008 11:33 PM
Mash Thickness Question Nyxator All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing 4 09-21-2007 01:58 AM
Mash Thickness and Efficiency digdan All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing 3 06-06-2006 05:10 PM


Forum Jump