Thru Thick and Thin

[Brooothru]

Mashes, that is.

Just looking for some opinions and clarity on the topic of Thick verses Thin mash water to grain ratios. It seems like a pretty basic item in all grain brewing that for some unknown reason has usually left me scratching my head. Overall I'm pretty satisfied with my practices and procedures as well as outcomes of my brew sessions, but recently felt the need to revisit the subject. Usually when I'm looking for guidance with something basic in brewing I immediately go to the best basic source of information around, John Palmer's How to Brew. Here's what Palmer said:

"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."

My conundrum is volume. I mash and boil in an all-in-one Braumeister. Even with expanded capacity improvements that came with a low-oxygen kit, I'm pretty much limited to 14# in the grist bill. A recent DIPA I brewed had 7.9 gallon (31.6 qt) pre-boil volume wort to meet my desired 6.3 gallons into the fermenter (batch volume) to yield 5.3 gallons finished beer. All those absorption, boil-off and kettle losses required 9.3 gallons initial mash water to reach my final volume number, based on eight years of brewing with this system and my recorded losses. Happily I hit every number except for a higher than desired final gravity and slightly lower %ABV, due to (my guess) a third generation yeast pitch that pooped out too early. Still within the BJCP criteria, but short of my target 8.5%. The mash thickness (thiness) ratio was 2.66 qt/pound, so quite thin. Due to the system's recirculation mash and extended Hoch-Kurz step mashing, I routinely hit mash efficiencies in the high 80s, and this one was just short of 90%, but my overall brewhouse efficiencies lag far behind in the low 70s. Most of my beers come out drier and crisper (my goal) but not overly so, with good balance in malt and mouthfeel.

I'm at a loss to figure out the contradiction of why my overall BH efficiency lags even though mash efficiency is high. Is it because of larger than normal losses from the kettle to the fermenter and finally the keg, or does it have something to do with a very thin mash ratio? Even though BH efficiency lags behind what I'd like to see, that fact alone doesn't really concern me, except that I sometimes find myself at the limit of how much more grain or strike water I can add to a given batch. Ideas and/or explanations solicited. TIA.

 

[Sammy86]

Mashes, that is.

Just looking for some opinions and clarity on the topic of Thick verses Thin mash water to grain ratios. It seems like a pretty basic item in all grain brewing that for some unknown reason has usually left me scratching my head. Overall I'm pretty satisfied with my practices and procedures as well as outcomes of my brew sessions, but recently felt the need to revisit the subject. Usually when I'm looking for guidance with something basic in brewing I immediately go to the best basic source of information around, John Palmer's How to Brew. Here's what Palmer said:

"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."

My conundrum is volume. I mash and boil in an all-in-one Braumeister. Even with expanded capacity improvements that came with a low-oxygen kit, I'm pretty much limited to 14# in the grist bill. A recent DIPA I brewed had 7.9 gallon (31.6 qt) pre-boil volume wort to meet my desired 6.3 gallons into the fermenter (batch volume) to yield 5.3 gallons finished beer. All those absorption, boil-off and kettle losses required 9.3 gallons initial mash water to reach my final volume number, based on eight years of brewing with this system and my recorded losses. Happily I hit every number except for a higher than desired final gravity and slightly lower %ABV, due to (my guess) a third generation yeast pitch that pooped out too early. Still within the BJCP criteria, but short of my target 8.5%. The mash thickness (thiness) ratio was 2.66 qt/pound, so quite thin. Due to the system's recirculation mash and extended Hoch-Kurz step mashing, I routinely hit mash efficiencies in the high 80s, and this one was just short of 90%, but my overall brewhouse efficiencies lag far behind in the low 70s. Most of my beers come out drier and crisper (my goal) but not overly so, with good balance in malt and mouthfeel.

I'm at a loss to figure out the contradiction of why my overall BH efficiency lags even though mash efficiency is high. Is it because of larger than normal losses from the kettle to the fermenter and finally the keg, or does it have something to do with a very thin mash ratio? Even though BH efficiency lags behind what I'd like to see, that fact alone doesn't really concern me, except that I sometimes find myself at the limit of how much more grain or strike water I can add to a given batch. Ideas and/or explanations solicited. TIA.

As with many things with brewing there is more than one way to skin a cat...you have brewers here who swear by 1.25 qts/gallon while others swear at 1.5 and yet others like myself who are at 2.0 qts/pound of grain.

While I don't have any scientific evidence to support my claims, I found a huge increase in efficiency on my AIO when I upped my water to grist ratio. I know historically the Germans mashed thin 2-2.5 qts/pound along with their step mashes. Since I've been on a German beer kick as of late I've implemented the 2.0 qts/pound ratio and step mashes and like yourself have been between 84-89% BHE.

For me personally, before my AIO i was using a standard cooler mash tun with cpvc filter getting 78% using 1.5/pound ration and it worked. Now with my Brewzilla 65L making 12 gallon batches I want to make sure I'm getting as much efficiency as possible so I up my water, step mash and am very happy with the results.

I believe your BHE is lacking because of what's coming out of the kettle into the fermentor and I'm sure someone smarter than me can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Brooothru]

As with many things with brewing there is more than one way to skin a cat...you have brewers here who swear by 1.25 qts/gallon while others swear at 1.5 and yet others like myself who are at 2.0 qts/pound of grain.

While I don't have any scientific evidence to support my claims, I found a huge increase in efficiency on my AIO when I upped my water to grist ratio. I know historically the Germans mashed thin 2-2.5 qts/pound along with their step mashes. Since I've been on a German beer kick as of late I've implemented the 2.0 qts/pound ratio and step mashes and like yourself have been between 84-89% BHE.

For me personally, before my AIO i was using a standard cooler mash tun with cpvc filter getting 78% using 1.5/pound ration and it worked. Now with my Brewzilla 65L making 12 gallon batches I want to make sure I'm getting as much efficiency as possible so I up my water, step mash and am very happy with the results.

I believe your BHE is lacking because of what's coming out of the kettle into the fermentor and I'm sure someone smarter than me can correct me if I'm wrong.

That's been my feeling also. Since both of my conicals are 7 gallon stainless steel, I'm pretty much limited to 6½ gallons out of the kettle, and to get 6½ out of the kettle I have to boil 7½+ after mashing 9+ gallons with 14# grist, with 14# being the limiting factor due to the malt pipe capacity. I try to avoid sparging (oxidation concerns) so the strike water has to do all the heavy lifting by itself. A two-hour step mash with constant bottom to top circulation is what gives me such efficient extraction, and I only transfer mostly clear wort post boil and typically leave 5 liters or more of settled trub and hops in the kettle when transferring to the fermenter. I know that the BHE takes a serious hit from that. I am able to settle 2~3 liters in a jug in the beer fridge overnight, however, and I use that for a fast ferment check as well as starter wort for stepping up the next yeast propagation so at least it's not totally wasted. Maybe I should include that volume in my BHE computations since it's actually a recoverable amount of wort, but I never have up to this point. It might actually be more reflective of overall efficiency.