1.100+ beer in a 5 gallon mash tun

[oceanic_brew]

So I've bought all my ingredients to do a barley wine but am having some issues trying to figure out how to go about doing the mash. I've managed to get 15 lbs of grain in it before at 1.25 qts/lb but this bill is just over 20.

I'm thinking I could just mash in a larger 10 gallon cooler I have here, when the mash is complete I'll put half of the mash out into my smaller mash tun and sparge with half of my water. When that's done I'll repeat with the second half.


I can't seem to see any problem with this but I could be overlooking something.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

I should mention that I've already considered equipping the 10 gallon with a manifold and all but I wanna keep that one for camping right now.

 

[jmark]

You could try a double mash... Basically split your grain bill in half... When the first mash is complete, lauter as normal then empty your mash tun and fill with the second batch of grain. Instead of mashing with water for this second half, mash with the wort (heating to strike temp if necessary first) from the first half. Finally lauter as usual.. It'll take a little longer of course, but the gravity will roughly equal the sum of each of the mashes (the grain on the second mash will absorb moisture, but not the sugars from the wort).

 

[Gavin C]

You could try a double mash... Basically split your grain bill in half... When the first mash is complete, lauter as normal then empty your mash tun and fill with the second batch of grain. Instead of mashing with water for this second half, mash with the wort (heating to strike temp if necessary first) from the first half. Finally lauter as usual.. It'll take a little longer of course, but the gravity will roughly equal the sum of each of the mashes (the grain on the second mash will absorb moisture, but not the sugars from the wort).

This is not correct and is very bad advice for a variety of reasons.

You have 3 obvious options.
Back to back (to back) mashes collecting wort from each discarding grains and starting afresh each time.

Make a smaller batch

Get a bigger mash-tun

 

[jmark]

Can you explain why that's bad advice? I've done that myself with excellent results. Jamil Zainasheff and John Blichmann also did a show recently on the BN where they did the same thing... Even extending it to a triple mash.

Here's an article from BYO that talks about the same thing - they call it reiterated mashing:

https://byo.com/bock/item/1317-reiterated-mashing-multiple-mashes-for-massive-brews

 

[d3track]

why not just supplement with DME?

 

[Gavin C]

Can you explain why that's bad advice? I've done that myself with excellent results. Jamil Zainasheff and John Blichmann also did a show recently on the BN where they did the same thing... Even extending it to a triple mash.

Here's an article from BYO that talks about the same thing - they call it reiterated mashing:

https://byo.com/bock/item/1317-reiterated-mashing-multiple-mashes-for-massive-brews

The grains will of course absorb wort, not moisture only, wort. That is the incorrect piece I highlighted. it is a physical impossibility for the grains of the second mash to absorb water only, the will absorb whatever fluid they are immersed in.

Assuming you are maxing out the tun with half and half mashes.

The mash pH of the second one will be difficult to manage. This has the potential to impact mash kinetics and more importantly the qualities of the final beer.

Also, the collected wort, if sparged hot will need to be cooled to strike temp of the second mash. An easy work around would be a cold sparge.

Similarly a mash-out of the first batch is going to be impractical. (is that important?, perhaps)

If the OP has a small MT it is probable that he/she has a small BK. This means that sparging 1 or both mashes will be problematic/impossible owing to volume constraints. The effect on the ensuing lautering and mash efficiency is obvious meaning that even more grain is needed compounding the original equipment size limitation. The no-sparge will have an even greater hit on the lautering efficiency second time round as the grist soaks up the sweet-wort at hopefully the planned preboil SG.

If the OP has a big BK allowing a sparge then a more obvious solution would be to mash in the big BK via a bag as a manifold allowing sparging and normal pH management practices.

Sorry if this is rambling. Seems to me that this "solution" creates more problems than it tries to solve.

if you've got it to work for you and experienced no issues, who am I to argue. How did you control the mash pH of the mashes?

 

[Gavin C]

Can you explain why that's bad advice? I've done that myself with excellent results. Jamil Zainasheff and John Blichmann also did a show recently on the BN where they did the same thing... Even extending it to a triple mash.

Here's an article from BYO that talks about the same thing - they call it reiterated mashing:

https://byo.com/bock/item/1317-reiterated-mashing-multiple-mashes-for-massive-brews

I read that bit about reiterated mashes. The author seems to lack an understanding of mash kinetics/chemistry and the effects of pH and even discusses the fact that this method may in all likelihood result in a poorly tasting beer. In short, I read it to confirm my concerns.

 

[govner1]

The easy answer is to borrow another MLT that 5 gal & do a simultaneous mash w/ both or borrow/buy a 10 gal
MLT.

 

[jmark]

Not rambling... Definitely good info.

Agreed that the pH is tougher to control on the second mash and to be honest that may result in issues (I only adjusted my initial mash for pH - I use RO). I know it seems counterintuitive but the grains can't be absorbing the sugars from the wort - at least not to a significant degree - as the gravity after the second mash was almost double the initial mash when I tried it (both halves having the same grain bill), but maybe I'm missing something (wouldn't be the first time and certainly won't be the last!). This also jives with what others using this approach have experienced.

Edit: okay, went and checked my notes and I stand corrected, my second mash didn't double the gravity; my first mash got me to 1.070 and my second got me up to 1.121, so I did obviously lose some efficiency and likely sugars to the grains,

 

[jammin]

if you can mash a solid 15+ lbs @ 1.25 its/lb this is what I'd do:

Mash @ 1 qt/lb and mash as much of the base grain and other malts with diastatic power in your 5g ton. Steep all the other specialty malts separately as they do not need to be mashed.



now, not to get all math nerdy on you - but it appears your MLT has a capacity greater than 5g based on your ability to mash 15lbs @ 1.25qt/lb. The strike water alone there commands 4.69g water and the grain takes of 1.56g of volume. This tells me your MLT can hold at least 6.25g

If your grist is 20.3lbs, then it commands 2.11g of volume leaving 4.14 gallons or 16.5 quarts.

16.5 quarts divided by 20.3 lbs of grain yields a mash thickness of .816 qt/lb. so yes this is thick, but certainly doable. that will leave a lot of sparge water too to rinse out all those sugars and hopefully boost your efficiency.

 

[Gavin C]

Not rambling... Definitely good info.

Agreed that the pH is tougher to control on the second mash and to be honest that may result in issues (I only adjusted my initial mash for pH - I use RO). I know it seems counterintuitive but the grains can't be absorbing the sugars from the wort - at least not to a significant degree - as the gravity after the second mash was almost double the initial mash when I tried it (both halves having the same grain bill), but maybe I'm missing something (wouldn't be the first time and certainly won't be the last!). This also jives with what others using this approach have experienced.

Edit: okay, went and checked my notes and I stand corrected, my second mash didn't double the gravity; my first mash got me to 1.070 and my second got me up to 1.121, so I did obviously lose some efficiency and likely sugars to the grains,

No worries. Fluids just don't behave that way. Once something is disolved in water it remains there unless precipitated out. If I wade into the sea in my clothes they get wet soaking up the salty seawater. They don't selectively soak up fresh water. It is a physical impossibility.

Replace salt water with sugary wort, clothes with a bunch of grains and the identical process happens. They soak up liquid they are immersed in.

Not trying to labor the point but it truly is impossible for a solution to spontaneously separate into solvent and solute. Doing so breaks the laws of thermodynamics.

ETA: For the Op here is a useful link on deciding what size mash-tun would be appropriate for your needs.

 

[oceanic_brew]

if you can mash a solid 15+ lbs @ 1.25 its/lb this is what I'd do:

Mash @ 1 qt/lb and mash as much of the base grain and other malts with diastatic power in your 5g ton. Steep all the other specialty malts separately as they do not need to be mashed.



now, not to get all math nerdy on you - but it appears your MLT has a capacity greater than 5g based on your ability to mash 15lbs @ 1.25qt/lb. The strike water alone there commands 4.69g water and the grain takes of 1.56g of volume. This tells me your MLT can hold at least 6.25g

If your grist is 20.3lbs, then it commands 2.11g of volume leaving 4.14 gallons or 16.5 quarts.

16.5 quarts divided by 20.3 lbs of grain yields a mash thickness of .816 qt/lb. so yes this is thick, but certainly doable. that will leave a lot of sparge water too to rinse out all those sugars and hopefully boost your efficiency.

So I've decided to do a thick mash in my regular cooler. My only concern is with thick mashes having been suggested many times to yield a less fermentable wort, but I have not experienced that with thicker mashes in the past.

Looking back at my notes I actually got 15.5 lbs of grain in it with a 1.25 qts/lb ratio. So yeah it's gotta be bigger than a 5G.

 

[oceanic_brew]

Just checked and my mash tun is 7 gallon. Everything is in and mashing.

Thanks for the replies.

 

[MrHopScotch]

How'd it turn out?

 

[FatDragon]

No worries. Fluids just don't behave that way. Once something is disolved in water it remains there unless precipitated out. If I wade into the sea in my clothes they get wet soaking up the salty seawater. They don't selectively soak up fresh water. It is a physical impossibility.

If only it did work like that... desalinization plants could work with a bunch of ratty old towels, a wringer, and some standard filtration. That would solve California's water crisis in a jiffy!