Thicker mash for IPA?

[eschatz]

I was reading about doing a thicker mash 1:1 possibly for a Two Hearted Clone that I'm doing in a minute. What do you guys think?

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Minute has past. What'd you end up doing? :cross:

I guess I don;t understand the reasoning to do a thicker mash just for the sake of doing a thicker mash. Enymes need to ride the available "convection currents" in the mash to locate the sugar, cling on, and get to cleaving. From what I understand of it, the thinner the better from an enzymatic perspective.

Now if you have a tun size problem on a really big grain bill, then a thick mash may be the way to go rather than a parti-gyle, a split and blend mash (two smaller mashes blended toghether at runoff), or a Doble-Doble (runoff from first used to mash the second).

 

[eschatz]

Yeah, I've got a 10 gal tun so it's not a space problem. I was just reading that and was wondering the same thing. Thanks!

 

[eddie]

I don't see any need to do a thicker mash as long as the mash tun can handle it.

 

[Yooper]

Well, the theory is that a thicker mash would create more dextrinous wort, I believe. So, it should create a mash that is less fermentable. I actually think that temperature is more important than mash thickness, so unless I'm doing a step mash or decoction, I just go with my standard 1.25 quarts per pound.

 

[Bytor1100]

I QT to 1 LB? I don't see any benefit. A standard 1.25QT to 1 LB seems the most appropriate to me.

 

[JoMarky]

GilaMinumBeer, there's also a theory out there that a thicker mash keeps the enzymes and sugars closer together and thus you get a more effective conversion

 

[Saccharomyces]

Thicker mash = more dextrinous wort, fast conversion
Thinner mash = less dextrinous (more fermentable) wort, slower conversion

 

[TexLaw]

Thicker mashes also tend to promote more protease activity, if that makes any difference.

I see no reason to do a thicker mash for an IPA, though, unless you have more than one infusion step (and I see no reason to do that for an IPA, either.) If you want to just do it for fun, though, go for it!


TL

 

[weremichael]

According to Daniel's Designing Great Beers, IPAs historically were mashed with a 1:1 ratio.

 

[TeleTwanger]

According to Daniel's Designing Great Beers, IPAs historically were mashed with a 1:1 ratio.

Historically Burton IPAs were highly attenuated so I would do a thinner mash or better yet forget the thin/thickness altogether and just do a low(er) temp mash @150F for more attenuation.

 

[ajf]

But the IPAs to which Daniels refers were brewed in Britain which used the Imperial Quart which is nearly 25% bigger than the US Quart.
Just a thought.

-a.

 

[DaleJ]

IPA's historically were rather different that they are today, anyway.

Are you doing a British IPA or an American IPA.
If American, then I'd definitely go for the thinner mash.