• Please visit and share your knowledge at our sister communities:
  • If you have not, please join our official Homebrewing Facebook Group!

    Homebrewing Facebook Group

2qt./LB Mash...

Homebrew Talk

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The Pol said:
Looking forward to your results. The thinner mash DOES help A LOT with the mash in. Soup is easier to mix than oatmeal.

Well... the results aren't the greatest.

My Post boil SG came to 1.052 which put me at 65% BHE.
9gal @ 90min boil for 5.5gal batch. (same as first recipe)

Maybe if I split the sparge?

I may try that on my next brew (Ray Daniel's Kolsch)

I would not say that this was a failure, just not a raving success.

I will post again after Primary fermentation is complete.

BTW This is a Nut Brown recipe.
 
That is horrible efficiency.

Agreed.
But, I am still learning and very new at this. I am not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. It took me 5 AGs to reach 78%. It may take a few tries at a different approach to get the best results possible.

I refuse to dump more money into a RIMS style system until I get the best results possible consistently with what I am using now.
 
Agreed.
But, I am still learning and very new at this. I am not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. It took me 5 AGs to reach 78%. It may take a few tries at a different approach to get the best results possible.

I refuse to dump more money into a RIMS style system until I get the best results possible consistently with what I am using now.

Perfect attitude... I have been AG brewing for 4 years, still learning with each brew.
 
well, the thinner mash results i got showed a mad improvement for me. although i will say this, i went from pretty much always doing 1.25/lb in my 5 gal MLT, to splitting the mash into two.... two 7.5 gallon mashes @ 2.0/lb.... alot of boiling time... i also did two sparges on each mash, and ended up with a little over 9 gallons into the kettle. went from my normal of 70% to 80% on that brew.

i did not however test my first runnings, and i do not forsee myself doing split mashes again, that was the longest brew day ever!

i think i will stick to smaller brews, or maybe scale back to 4 gallon batches so that i can have the good efficiency of a thinner mash, and not waste grain on thicker mashes...

my thick mashes have proved the point of this thread over and over, i just did not know why i would get super bad efficiency @ the time. i have mashed 14lbs of grain in my 5 gallon igloo and got 62%, and the next day mashed 12lbs and got 70.4%.... no change in crush, as it all came from b3. (their crush is nowhere near as good as brewers wherehouse, and the LHBS for me)
 
I tired this experiment by accident on the last brew( wrong qt. conversion in my head) and it gave me 15 % increase in eff. I finally broke 90%. This was a recipe that I have done before and only got 75%. The only difference was an extra 2.5 gall of mash water. I will be performing this experiment again under more exacting circumstances. The only down side to this happy mistake I made is the perfect 4.5 % APA is now a poorly hopped 6.0% IPA
 
My Post boil SG came to 1.052 which put me at 65% BHE.
9gal @ 90min boil for 5.5gal batch. (same as first recipe)

Am I seeing this right. ~50% boil-off. You should not have to boil that much to get good efficiency.

Let's look at your numbers:

You said that you mashes with 2 qt/lb this means the potential for your first wort gravity was 1.065. You got 1.060 so you realized 92% of that potential (i.e. you left about 8% efficiency in in the spent grain as unconverted starch. This sounds pretty good for a 0.39 crush)

You said that you got 4.25 gal of first wort at 1.060. This is 255 points*gal. Then you got 5 gal at 1.018. This is another 90 points*gal totaling 345 points*gal in the kettle. The 12 pounds of grain have a potential of 432 points*gal as each pound has a potential of 36 points*gal.

345.432 * 100% = 80%

This means you must have had 80% efficiency into the kettle. This is darn good. Where did you loose 15%? How much wort was left in the kettle after transfer?

Note that the total amount of water to be used is the same for thick and thin mashes. The additional water that is used in thin mashes is taken from the amount that would have been used for sparging in thick mashes. Otherwise you need to boil-off too much which isn't good for the beer either.

Kai
 
Am I seeing this right. ~50% boil-off. You should not have to boil that much to get good efficiency.

Let's look at your numbers:

You said that you mashes with 2 qt/lb this means the potential for your first wort gravity was 1.065. You got 1.060 so you realized 92% of that potential (i.e. you left about 8% efficiency in in the spent grain as unconverted starch. This sounds pretty good for a 0.39 crush)

You said that you got 4.25 gal of first wort at 1.060. This is 255 points*gal. Then you got 5 gal at 1.018. This is another 90 points*gal totaling 345 points*gal in the kettle. The 12 pounds of grain have a potential of 432 points*gal as each pound has a potential of 36 points*gal.

345.432 * 100% = 80%

This means you must have had 80% efficiency into the kettle. This is darn good. Where did you loose 15%? How much wort was left in the kettle after transfer?

Note that the total amount of water to be used is the same for thick and thin mashes. The additional water that is used in thin mashes is taken from the amount that would have been used for sparging in thick mashes. Otherwise you need to boil-off too much which isn't good for the beer either.

Kai

The siphon in my boil keggle leaves just shy of 3 qts behind. When I was using pellet hops this was just barely enough to keep from getting a sludge filled primary. Leaf hops have taken care of this so I may redo the siphon.
I may not be getting the numbers right.
I let Beer Smith do the math and I am still learning it's capabilities and quirks.
Both recipes that I spoke of were set up in My Recipes in the same format with the same equipment and target temps. I adjusted the grain bill and qt/lb on the mash in.
I initially set things up for sparging @ 2qt/lb and was going to split the sparge. I wound up going with a single 20qt sparge on the spur of the moment. I was not thinking of subtracting the extra strike from the sparge. (newbie with the numbers stuck in my nugget) as I was stuck on finally getting over 70% eff. after going to 2qt/lb sparge.
 
The siphon in my boil keggle leaves just shy of 3 qts behind. When I was using pellet hops this was just barely enough to keep from getting a sludge filled primary. Leaf hops have taken care of this so I may redo the siphon.

Or just leave it like that and filter the trub though a paper towel, freeze the wort and use for future starters. You'll save the DME and nothing is lost.

That's what I do and if I were to report efficiencies into the fermenter I would be in the 60s as well.

Kai
 
Kai, that book I e-mailed you has a chapter on this topic.

I'll copy and paste some of it here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in mash thickness (liquor/grist ratio) have significant effects on mash
performance (Hind, 1950; Hopkins and Krause, 1947; Harris and MacWilliam, 1961;
Muller, 1989; 1991; Table 4.14). Very concentrated mashes, (liquor/grist <2:1 ml/g), are
difficult to mix and pump, extract recoveries are reduced, starch conversion is slowed down, worts are more concentrated and viscous, TSN and FAN are increased and more high molecular weight nitrogenous substances remain in solution, but a lower proportion
of hydrophobic peptides (relative to the amount of extract) are present, causing `high gravity' beers to have poor head retentions (Bryce et al., 1997). In the concentrated mashes both the enzymes and their substrates are more concentrated. Some enzymes (proteolytic enzymes, disaccharidases) are more stable in concentrated mashes producing higher proportions of TSN and hexose sugars respectively. At high mashing temperatures thicker mashes give worts with higher fermentabilities (Muller, 1991; Fig. 4.13). On the other hand, at `normal' mashing temperatures weaker mashes give more fermentable worts. The high concentrations of sugars and dextrins present in thick mashes can inhibit the amylases. Enzyme inhibition is due to the reduced availability of free water as well as to the sugars acting as competitive inhibitors. Brewery worts contain 0ÿ40% more soluble nitrogen than laboratory analytical worts. It was reported that mashes made with 39% solids give worts with maximum extract yields while worts with the highest fermentabilities are given by mashes made with 16ÿ32% solids. The effects of mash concentration on extract yield are also present when adjuncts are included in the mash (Harris and MacWilliam, 1961; Muller, 1991; Fig. 4.14).
As the grist hydrates water is bound, and there is a rise in temperature caused by the
release of heat (the `heat of hydration'). As the mash proceeds water is utilized in
hydrolyses, a water molecule being consumed when any bond is split. Some water is
more or less firmly bound (by hydrogen bonding) to starch, to sugars in solution, to -
glucans, to pentosans and to other substances reducing the concentration of `free' water.
In all-malt mashes and mashes made with 50 : 50 malt and barley or wheat starch the
extract recovered falls very sharply as the liquor/grist ratio is reduced below about 2.5
(Fig. 4.14). Generally, altering the liquor/grist ratio at values over 3 has comparatively
minor effects, but these are not necessarily negligible. In a particular case mashing with a
liquor/grist ratio of 2.5 : 1 gave an extract of 291 l ë/kg, while at a ratio of 7 : 1 the extract
was 311 l ë/kg. The extent of water binding becomes progressively greater as mashes
become more concentrated and there is insufficient free water to permit the gelatinization
of much of the starch. The addition of more enzymes to a very thick mash does not
quickly convert the ungelatinized starch and so does not enhance the extract obtained.
The situation with the maize starch (Fig. 4.14) is complicated because its gelatinization
temperature (70ÿ75 ëC; 158ÿ167 ëF) is above that of the mashing temperature (65 ëC;
149 ëF) and so the conversion of the starch into extract is relatively slow. The potato
starch had a wide gelatinization temperature range (56ÿ69 ëC; 132.8ÿ156.2 ëF), which
spanned the temperature of the mash, and the pattern of extract recovery was different
again (Fig. 4.14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then this part about the quality of the runnings as more and more is pulled.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As run off progresses the quality and concentration of the wort declines. The last
runnings contain extract that has a comparatively poor quality (Hind, 1950; Figs 4.15,
4.16). Relative to the extract more high- and low-molecular weight nitrogenous materials,
ash (including phosphates), silicates (mostly from the silica in the malt husk),
polyphenols and astringent substances are dissolved, all these being favoured by the
increasing pH. The specific gravity of the wort rises then declines as the sparge liquor
emerges. As the wort is diluted the fermentability initially increases and finally falls
sharply. Often the pH rises, (e.g. by 0.2ÿ0.7), as the buffering substances are eluted from
the goods. The rise is particularly marked if a bicarbonate sparge liquor is used. This rise
is undesirable and should be checked and the calcium ion concentration of the liquor
should be maintained (Laing and Taylor, 1984). Experimental thick mashes (liquor/grist
2.5/1, i.e. 28.6%) would not run off unless a high concentration of calcium ions (200mg/l)
was used. Thus the last worts are weak, and are relatively rich in poorly flavoured
extractives and potential haze-forming substances. These last runnings, like the press
liquor from the spent grains (Chapter 3), may be stored hot for a short period (to prevent
spoilage by micro-organisms) and then be added to a subsequent mash to recover the
extract. However, to maintain the quality of the beer the weak wort may need to be
clarified by centrifugation to remove suspended solids (particularly lipids) and/or may be
treated with active charcoal (doses of 10ÿ50 g/hl have been suggested) to reduce the
levels of tannins, nitrogenous substances, colour and harsh flavours before it is added to a later mash (Morraye, 1938; Prechtl, 1967).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here's some of the figure's they are referencing.

brew.jpg
 
z987k,

Thanks. Since I do have the backing from the brewing science community on this I felt very comfortable making a strong statement about the pros of thin mashing. It was my experiments and what I read in the book you are citing there that inspired me to rewrite my article about mash chemistry in an attempt to digest and present the information which exists about the effects of various mash parameters.

Starch Conversion - German Brewing Techniques

Kai
 
So, if I read table 14-4 correctly, the extract efficiency of the mash is greatest (80%) at 4.0ml/g. However, even at 3.0ml/g efficiency is 77%. 3ml/g is 1.43 qts/lb., and 4ml/g is 1.9 qts/lb. if I'm doing the conversion correctly. Based on this information a mash thickness between 1.5-2.0 qts/lb. will give almost identical results, varying by just 1-2%.
 
So, if I read table 14-4 correctly, the extract efficiency of the mash is greatest (80%) at 4.0ml/g. However, even at 3.0ml/g efficiency is 77%. 3ml/g is 1.43 qts/lb., and 4ml/g is 1.9 qts/lb. if I'm doing the conversion correctly. Based on this information a mash thickness between 1.5-2.0 qts/lb. will give almost identical results, varying by just 1-2%.

Yes, but: This is only for the specific mash conditions that were present for that experiment. The curve may look different for a coarser/finer crush or a different mash pH. When I wrote an article about mash parameters end their effect on conversion efficiency I introduced the idea of “good enough” as we are dealing with a system that has a limit and can hit saturation. This is because there is only so much starch available for conversion and the amount of enzymes present are enough to convert it all given “good enough” conditions. So if your crush it coarser you may be able to compensate with loner mashing and/or thinner mashing b/c both of these parameter changes increase the “power” of the enzymes which is needed to compensate for the increased hurdle of having a coarser crush.

As a result the graphs posted in the literature (including my experiments) should only be used to identify trends and not to get specific parameters for you process. They are great for identifying changes that may make a difference. But if you want to quantify these differences you need to test this in your own process. You may for example find the following:

1.25 qt/lb -> 80% conversion
1.5 qt/lb -> 90% conversion
1.75 qt/lb -> 94% conversion
2.0 qt/lb -> 95% conversion

And this may easily change if you change mash time, crush or malt type.

Kai
 
To quote myself:
I need to reconfirm, but I've been playing with water:grain ratios and lost about 5% (brewhouse) as well (93 to 88). On my latest brew, I went back with 1.25 qts and was back up at 93%. Obviously other factors could have been in play and I did do a 90 min. mash, but I didn't change anything else.

I may be brewing again this weekend (if my package arrives in time), so I'll go with 1.75qts and see what happens.

I brewed my Redden Bitter today with 1.75qts/lb. Ended up with high efficiency. One other thing I changed, however, was adding gypsum to the mash water. My water pH is great (5.7), but the mineral content is extremely low, particularly in Calcium (2ppm). I thought I'd try adding enough to bring it up to around 50ppm. My main purpose of doing this was to see if it affects attenuation (beta-amylase), but I suspect it could affect extract efficiency as well.
 
Adding Calcium should help acidify the mash. I would expect a lower mash pH. Did you measure that?

You might want to try CaCl or a combination of CaCl/Gypsum for your Calcium. The Chloride and Sulphate ions 'taste' different.
 
I thought I'd try adding enough to bring it up to around 50ppm. My main purpose of doing this was to see if it affects attenuation (beta-amylase), but I suspect it could affect extract efficiency as well.

Ca alone has little effect on efficiency and even less effect on attenuation. If it had an effect if was b/c of the pH shift. W/o knowing the before and after mash pH numbers it is hard to tell.

It is commonly assumed that mash enzymes need minerals like Ca to work better. But this isn't the case. Ca has no effect on b-amylase and helps to stabilize a-amylase. But the later is not a problem at regular mash temps. Just as an example: the congress mash, which is done to determine the extract potential of the malt, is done with distilled water. And by definition it has 100% efficiency (since it sets the benchmark for our efficiencies).

Kai
 
I was under the impression water minerals such as Ca indirectly improve mash efficiency through their "buffering affect" & influence on the mash pH.

Varying the amount of water used would in turn vary the amount of minerals in the mash which has an affect on mash pH & therefore affects efficiency...right?

Just trying to understand water chemistry's role in this whole water to grain ratio efficiency improvements.
 
I was under the impression water minerals such as Ca indirectly improve mash efficiency through their "buffering affect" & influence on the mash pH.

That's what I have found as well. If the pH is right you don't need minerals from the water for mashing.

Varying the amount of water used would in turn vary the amount of minerals in the mash which has an affect on mash pH & therefore affects efficiency...right?

pH is a logarithmic (base 10) measure of proton concentration. As a result mash pH doesn't change much with changing the concentration within the range that we are talking about.

Based on that, and my experiences, I don't think that thin mashes improve efficiency by shifting the pH. The change in mash thickness has much greater effect on the activity of the enzymes and the gelatinization of the starches than it has on the enzyme activity through pH changes.

Kai
 
I added gypsum to my mash water (which, recall, is 2ppm Calcium) because of the two following reasons:

Fix (regarding "Brewing Liquor"):
Calcium ions also tend to afford thermal protection for mash enzymes. ...

Finally, calcium ions also influence beer fermentation. For example, they favorably affect yeast flocculation and beer clarification during maturation. ...

A widely accepted rule in brewing is to have calcium concentrations of at least 50mg/L [(same as ppm)], and values in the range of 100-150 mg/L are very common.

and Noonan:
In appropriate amounts, calcium is advantageous to the brew. Calcium stimulates enzyme activity and improves protein digestion, stabilizes the alpha-amylase enzyme, helps gelatinize starch, and improves lauter runoff. ...

It is also an essential part of yeast-cell composition. Small amounts of calcium neutralize substances toxic to yeast, such as peptone and lecithin.

I've known my calcium content was low, but I relied on the calcium content in the barley to suffice. After reading the two texts above and putting them together, I thought it would be worth it to add to the mash and see if there were noticeable differences from all of my previous batches where I would only add it to the boil.

As for pH shift, if one considers ~5.2-5.5 pH the optimal range, and my water pH is ~5.7, there isn't a whole lot for it to come down... even if it's more difficult to reduce at lower starting pHs. According to my calculations, the pH drop as a result of my gypsum addition was ~0.1.

My pH and efficiency have never been an issue. It's just that yesterday, my efficiency was through the roof. I've done the 1.75 qts/lb before and was within the range of my standard efficiency. The only thing I've never done before yesterday was add minerals to the mash water.

I'm not saying for sure what was the determining factor of my high efficiency yesterday. I think all factors are worth consideration.
 
I'm not saying that you shouldn't add minerals to the mash I'm just saying that the effect of minerals in the mash is overstated (especially at the temps that we mash at) and that many brewers think that you can't mash with distilled water.


Interesting that your efficiency suddenly jumped when you added minerals. Was this the only thing you changed? Do you measure mash pH? Because the pH of the water itself doesn't matter much for mash pH.

Kai
 
No, ashamedly, I did not take measurements. I even have the freakin' pH strips. I was just more concerned with finishing due to a late start.:eek:

But, if we take my source water pH to be 5.7, factor in the gypsum addition to reduce it to 5.6, we can at least have a decent presumption for the brewing liquor pH.

And just to come clean, my efficiency was calculated at 99%. I'm wading through my process details to try to find something that gave it a false high, but, nothing jumps out at me. Weight measurements were accurate (scale calibrated), volume/temperature measurements were accurate...:confused:

My recipe included an amount of Lyle's Golden Syrup. I'm wondering if Beersmith's included parameters are accurate for it. I used 0.6 lbs, and made sure to measure the weight accurately on the scale. Also, my base malt, Crisp Marris Otter, I do not have the malt analysis for like I have until recently (last year's stock up). So that could have affected it.
 
But, if we take my source water pH to be 5.7, factor in the gypsum addition to reduce it to 5.6, we can at least have a decent presumption for the brewing liquor pH.

It is difficult to say where the gypsum, the malt and the water took your pH w/o measuring it.


And just to come clean, my efficiency was calculated at 99%. I'm wading through my process details to try to find something that gave it a false high, but, nothing jumps out at me. Weight measurements were accurate (scale calibrated), volume/temperature measurements were accurate...:confused:

My recipe included an amount of Lyle's Golden Syrup. I'm wondering if Beersmith's included parameters are accurate for it. I used 0.6 lbs, and made sure to measure the weight accurately on the scale. Also, my base malt, Crisp Marris Otter, I do not have the malt analysis for like I have until recently (last year's stock up). So that could have affected it.

Do you have post mash and pre syrup addition numbers? This way we can compare the efficiency into the kettle and leave all the parameters that don't affect lautering and mashing out of the equation.

Kai
 
It is difficult to say where the gypsum, the malt and the water took your pH w/o measuring it.
I added ~8 grams of gypsum to 18.87L water. I calculated roughly a 0.1 pH drop, maybe slightly more. Do you get something different?
Do you have post mash and pre syrup addition numbers? This way we can compare the efficiency into the kettle and leave all the parameters that don't affect lautering and mashing out of the equation.
No and no.:eek: I was in a bit of a rush and trying to get tasks done in advance to finish as fast as possible, so the only SG reading I took was after final cooling.
 
I added ~8 grams of gypsum to 18.87L water. I calculated roughly a 0.1 pH drop, maybe slightly more. Do you get something different?

You do have a point with that. The mash pH will be lower than your water's pH and b/c the water's pH was at the upper end of the optimum pH I agree that adding gypsum could only make it worse (i.e. lowering the pH too much).

If only we had the right numbers ;)

Kai
 
just out of curiosity, what source of water are you using that has a pH of 5.7?

I usually treat my water to mimic a source where the beer style originated from, but not really for the pH. More on the effects that the different minerals have to do with color, fermentation and final perceived taste. However, when doing really light beers, my mash pH (w/o salts)never gets below about 5.6, which is a decently acceptable range, could be a touch lower, and if the mineral addition doesn't get it down prior to mashing in(which is almost always the case), I usually will mash in at an acid rest for those beers.
 
Doesn't the extract yield analysis of the malt pretty much indicate the maximum efficiency you can get from a malt? Maybe I don't understand the science correctly but if that is true than anything over that optimum value (whatever the analysis is) can't be done.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding.
 
Doesn't the extract yield analysis of the malt pretty much indicate the maximum efficiency you can get from a malt? Maybe I don't understand the science correctly but if that is true than anything over that optimum value (whatever the analysis is) can't be done.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding.

More or less- yes, but if you don't have the malt analysis for the lot from which your malt came and rely on software's numbers, it could be different. The software just uses a statistical/historical average.
 
Back
Top