Anyone else not a fan of 2qt/lb?

[mgo737]

So everyone seems to be loving this super thin mash. I have now brewed 5 beers with it. Every batch I have brewed with this ratio has had terrible off flavors, mainly metallic and popcorn (diacetyl). Now I realize there are tons of other explanations for these off flavors, but I never dumped a batch prior to starting 2qt/lb mash ratio and am about to dump my 4th and 5th batches with this ratio (already dumped the first 3 batches using this ratio)...

Anyone else have any problems with the uber thin mash?

Sorry to libel the 2qt/lb. I am sure it is just my brewing inadequacy and not the mash thickness...

 

[annasdadhockey]

never tried that thin. I've only done 1.25 Qt/Lb, twice, and both have been awesome(IMHO)

 

[martymoat]

mash thickness has nothing at all to do with any of the off flavors you have in your batches that you are dumping out.


i dont use any ratio for strike water to lbs of grain, I just eye ball it with at temp strike water but i usually run it fairly thin because i like to get a nice whirlpool recirculation going during the entire mash.

 

[ajf]

I usually brew English pale ales using 1 qt per lb. I tried 2 qts per lb once (with a Bohemian lager using a decoction mash) and it definitely tastes very different (thank heavens), but no off flavors that I can detect. I certainly wouldn't like to brew an English pale ale with such a thin mash, and I wouldn't like to try a decoction using 1 qt per lb. I think it depends on what you are brewing, what grains you are mashing with, and what effects you are trying to achieve.

-a.

 

[enderwig]

Another vote for 1.25qts/lb Always used it, always had good beer. I have no reason to mess with my mash thickness.

I also agree, that it is doubtful that your mash thickness has anything to do with off flavors, I would look at other parts of your process.

 

[chefmike]

I have used both, not on the same recipe to compare.... but I would agree that 2qt/lb has not caused off flavors in any way shape or form. It should be more akin to mash temp changes IIRC, can change subtle character of the brew, but NOT create off flavors (ie mashing at 149 vs 158 degrees for variance in fermentables).

 

[The Pol]

I have used 2qt/lb on three beers. All have tasted great, one was a repeat of a brew that I have made several times with a 1.25qt/lb mash. Aside from the better mash eff. there was no difference. I think that naming the mash thickness as the culprit is misleading. Many ppl use thinner mashes, heck BIAB uses a 3 or MORE qt/pound mash and people do that without off flavors.

There is something else awry.

 

[Jeffro]

I do 1:1...

And I like it....

 

[homebrewer_99]

1:1 here also, but I sparge with only 1/2 gal...

 

[HairyDogBrewing]

I recently changed to 2qt/lb and I think the beer is better for it.
I haven't done a controlled experiment or anything.
Definitely no problems, though.

 

[mgo737]

so with the 2:1 ratio do you mash the same length of time? Do you change any of your other brewing parameters with the 2:1 ratio?

 

[The Pol]

so with the 2:1 ratio do you mash the same length of time? Do you change any of your other brewing parameters with the 2:1 ratio?

Nope... just reduce the sparge water to compensate for the increased mash water volume. Nothing else changes.

 

[mgo737]

That's what I thought and been doing...

 

[The Pol]

There are so many variables in AG brewing, from mash time, temp, water chem., crush, ferment temp... etc. What I do know is that I had never heard of such issues with thin mashing before I began doing it, and I have not experienced any issues.

I guess, just go back to thicker mashing.

 

[Schlenkerla]

I'm a 1.33:1 ratio kind of guy. Started with Edworts Haus Pale Ale and then never looked back. I mash out to get back the 10% grain absorption loss then sparge 2.66:1

Works every time for me.

This excerpt is from JP's How To Brew Chapter 14 - How the Mash Works

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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.[/FONT]

 

[Ewalk02]

I started using a 2:1 ratio about 5 beers ago and I've noticed a few things:

1) Since I use a Herms setup recirculation is much easier
2) Beers I previously brewed with a 1.25:1 ratio are coming out with exactly the same taste
3) Efficiency went from about 75% to 88%
4) That is all, everything else comes out the same but my eff is up!

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

The mash ratio is used to benefit different enzymes in the mash. It is hard to remember all the science off the top of my head but basically, (someone please correct me if I am wrong or add to this) a thicker mash allows beta glucanase and other initial enzymes to break down long chain proteins, bring starches into solution, and break up gum compounds. The thicker mash allows these enzymes to stay more active at higher temperatures and to have more effect on the mash.

A higher ratio (~1.5:1) favors the beta amylase and the break down of dextrins into maltose, and high ratios (2:1) favor most the alpha amylase for breaking everything else into simple sugars including maltose.

German brewers use all three ratios in a traditional mash to manipulate each stage.

Read "New Lager Brewing" by Noonan for a real break down of the process.

Here is what Palmer says on the topic:

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.

To the original posters concerns about contamination and off flavors due to the higher ratio, I don't think that is the culprit. It will change the beer, and you may not like it as much with a different ratio, but it will not ruin the beer to the point of dumping.

Your metallic and buttery flavors are most likely from your fermentation schedule. What are you using for ferm temps and processes?

 

[goatchze]

I prefer a ratio of 1.85743401 : 1....

Obviously I'm kidding. When I step mash I usualy end up with 2:1, when I'm doing a single infusion I'm usually closer to 1.5:1. Both seem to work well and I can't say that I can contribute any "off" flavors to thinner mashes.

 

[The Pol]

I have not personally noticed a difference in my FGs either.

 

[Boerderij_Kabouter]

I have not personally noticed a difference in my FGs either.

Have you ever brewed the same beer with two different ratios? I have only used one or the other. I would like to know if it really does make a difference.

 

[menschmaschine]

A higher ratio (~1.5:1) favors the beta amylase and the break down of dextrins into maltose, and high ratios (2:1) favor most the alpha amylase for breaking everything else into simple sugars including maltose.

Just to clarify, a thick mash facilitates better alpha amylase activity and a thinner mash facilitates better beta amylase activity.

But in my experience, all other parameters being the same, we're talking a difference in attenuation of </= 1 point of SG.

 

[beerkrump]

Diacetyls come from high initial pitch temps and a warm reproduction phase for the yeast.

 

[Tonedef131]

I think anywhere in between 1:1 and 2:1 is going to create a VERY similar end product. So so go with whatever is easier for you to work with on your individual system. Personally I only go as thin as 2:1 on a turbid mash.

 

[Schlenkerla]

This excerpt is from JP's How To Brew Chapter 14 - How the Mash Works

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.

Here is what Palmer says on the topic:

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.

Copy-Cat!

 

[CBBaron]

I've done both and havn't noticed any significant difference in the final flavor.
I appear to have lost about 5 points of efficiency(80% -> 75%), find it much easier to mash in and I don't usually have to add water before starting my first batch sparge. Therefore I find it easier and the difference in efficiency is not an issue for me.

Craig

 

[Big10Seaner]

I have always mashed at 1.25 qts/lb and have been happy with the results. I don't really want it any thinner than it comes out either.

 

[homebrewer_99]

As an experiment I made a 2 qt per pound batch yesterday.

I know I've made them before, but not on purpose (they just ended up that way).

The next one will be a 1:1 ratio (on purpose).

 

[Sigafoos]

I thought 1.25 was pretty standard... but also if I recall correctly Kaiser from the forums was on Basic Brewing Radio and said something to the effect of 1:1 is generally better. I don't remember why, exactly, and I haven't actually done it yet, but I plan to (my last batch needed more sparge water than I could fit in my HLT so I did 1.25 to reduce how much I'd need to refill it)

 

[homebrewer_99]

In a nut shell (as I understand it) 1:1 makes a maltier brew, but 1+:1 produces more fermentables (extracts more sugar) which leads to a thinner/drier brew.

 

[The Pol]

Have you ever brewed the same beer with two different ratios? I have only used one or the other. I would like to know if it really does make a difference.

Obviously I have, otherwise I wouldnt make that statement, dont ya think? My Haus Ale, which has been brewed numerous times.

I have heard that thicker mashes lead to a maltier beer and thinner to a less matly beer, but my FGs have been the same on identical recipes mashed with 1.25qt and 2.0qt per pound.

 

[bob1852]

so then Pol, that would equate to the only advantage of a thinner mash in your opinion is less sparge water?

thx

 

[Drummin101]

i did about 1.50 today for a IIPA and everything turned out exactly as planned. I think (at least for this style) I am going to continue using this ratio.

 

[The Pol]

so then Pol, that would equate to the only advantage of a thinner mash in your opinion is less sparge water?

thx

Absolutely not!! I wrote a great article about this on Brewers Friend, check it out. The benefit is better conversion eff. Just because the FG doenst change, doesnt mean that your eff. isnt better. You can have the same FG with 65% as you do with 85% eff. you are just using less grain.

I also would not call LESS sparge water, a benefit. There is a point in everyones system, and it will differ, where the increase in mash water (to obtain better conversion eff.) will then steal too much water from the sparge, this reducing the lauter eff. The combination of these two make up your eff. so you want to maximize both, without hurting one or the other, there is a balance.

 

[chefmike]

There is a point in everyones system, and it will differ, where the increase in mash water (to obtain better conversion eff.) will then steal too much water from the sparge, this reducing the lauter eff. The combination of these two make up your eff. so you want to maximize both, without hurting one or the other, there is a balance.

Well put, Pol!

That is exactly what I have experienced, though I was too slow to put words to it! It is amazing how little tweaks can make great differences in a system... and we all use slightly different systems.

 

[The Pol]

Well put, Pol!

That is exactly what I have experienced, though I was too slow to put words to it! It is amazing how little tweaks can make great differences in a system... and we all use slightly different systems.

Bingo... people like to put down blanket "rules", but you cant. Each system is different. My optimum may be 2qt/lb for the mash, yours may be 1.75qt.lb because you NEED more of the water to obtain good lauter eff.

Like I said, using info from a thread that I started and Kai contributed to, I wrote a simple summary of how to experiment and look at mash and lauter eff. and ways to tweak them using thinner mashes. It is over at Brewers Friend, easy read.

Since I began contributing content over there, I have learned A LOT, and I have been AG brewing for 4 years, there is so much to learn.

 

[pjj2ba]

Actually I believe Kaiser likes to do 2 qts/lb, at least for lagers. When I do lagers, I typically do a protein rest and start out around 1.3:1. As I ramp up to my saccharification temp, I add more water to thin the mash to around 2:1

 

[bob1852]

thx Pol - it makes sense now that I've re-read everything. I'm not convinced that my conversion efficiency is as high as it could be - I'm gonna bump my mash ratio up a little and see if it helps.

 

[rico567]

Speaking as someone new to AG brewing, I elected to go with a pretty thin mash (1.75 qt. / lb. for my first batch, brewed yesterday. I seriously flubbed my strike temperatures, first achieving 160F, then adding ice and ending up at 148F, and finally getting about where I wanted to be. By the time I was finished, I expect I had mashed at 2.0 qt one way or the other. After an hour, I was very concerned from my refractometer readings that I was getting lousy conversion. However, the boil ended up starting at 6.5 gal and ending about on the money at 5.5, and the primary is now bubbling furiously. From the graph that "Kaiserbrew" put up -somewhere- with my single sparge I achieved an efficiency well up in the 80's. This is from an OG of 1.051, which hits MW's spec for their kit (Amarillo Ale) right on the money. That'll sure do me. As for how it affects the taste of the beer......wait & see, but it sure smell scrumptious at the top of that airlock.

 

[The Pol]

thx Pol - it makes sense now that I've re-read everything. I'm not convinced that my conversion efficiency is as high as it could be - I'm gonna bump my mash ratio up a little and see if it helps.

Kai has a chart on here somewhere that will help you determine your conversion eff. by meausuring your first wort gravity....

 

[bob1852]

Kai has a chart on here somewhere that will help you determine your conversion eff. by meausuring your first wort gravity....

yeah, I have that saved on my desktop somewhere. Kai and I have had some dialogues in other threads that leave me to believe my lauter eff is fine, and that I may be a little weaker than desired in the conversion eff.