hey guys thinking of an all grain barleywine I’m confused though I heard to get a high gravity wort from mash I need to have a thicket water to frost ratio so reduce down to 1 quart to pound of grain ? I’d like to have as little addition and try to get most out of grain as possible
Barleywine mash thickness
- Thread starter RNBEERGUY
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
The maximum possible SG of the wort in the MLT at the end of the mash is just about completely determined by the mash thickness. The table below shows the best you can expect if you get 100% conversion of starch to sugar (100% conversion efficiency.)
If you do a no sparge process, your pre-boil SG can match the table value. If you sparge, then your pre-boil SG will be reduced. OG will be determined by pre-boil volume, pre-boil SG, and post-boil volume (pre-boil volume - boil-off):
OG = 1 + (Pre-Boil SG - 1) * Pre-Boil Volume / Post-Boil Volume
Brew on
I'm just going to throw out some thoughts and you can do with them what you want.
You can just mash normally, with a water:grist ratio of around 1.5qt:1lb, sparge, and do an extended boil. I've heard brewers say that it can take around 3 hours of boiling to get the post-boil gravity that is desired.
Or you could go over-the-top on the grist and do a no-sparge batch. The first wort collected is really high gravity, and as you sparge the gravity gets lower, so if you mash enough grain that the volume of wort you runoff at first is enough for the desired pre-boil gravity, you'll be in good shape. There would be a lot of good stuff left in the mash-tun, so you could parti-gyle and make a small beer as well by sparging in a different kettle.
Or you could just mash with a typical water:grist ratio, sparge, collect your wort, and add some extract. I usually mash as much grain as I can and when I need to increase the gravity further I just add some extract. I made a barleywine with a buddy where we maxed out the mash tun with 6lbs of grain and added another 6lbs of extract. It turned out fine.
Whatever you do, make sure you have a mash tun that can hold all that you want to throw in there.
You can just mash normally, with a water:grist ratio of around 1.5qt:1lb, sparge, and do an extended boil. I've heard brewers say that it can take around 3 hours of boiling to get the post-boil gravity that is desired.
Or you could go over-the-top on the grist and do a no-sparge batch. The first wort collected is really high gravity, and as you sparge the gravity gets lower, so if you mash enough grain that the volume of wort you runoff at first is enough for the desired pre-boil gravity, you'll be in good shape. There would be a lot of good stuff left in the mash-tun, so you could parti-gyle and make a small beer as well by sparging in a different kettle.
Or you could just mash with a typical water:grist ratio, sparge, collect your wort, and add some extract. I usually mash as much grain as I can and when I need to increase the gravity further I just add some extract. I made a barleywine with a buddy where we maxed out the mash tun with 6lbs of grain and added another 6lbs of extract. It turned out fine.
Whatever you do, make sure you have a mash tun that can hold all that you want to throw in there.
RPh_Guy
Bringing Sour Back
I calculate my total water requirement and then just use half to mash and the other half to batch sparge. This normally puts the mash around 1.25 qt/lb for my system, but naturally it gets lower as the OG gets higher, unless I extend the boil time.
What do you mean by over the top with grist ? I appreciate all the advice so your saying to no sparge and maybe keep a 1.5 water to grain ratio ?
o
A grist made up of a lot more grain than what you'd expect for the volume of beer you're trying to make.
But would the water ratio stay the same ? I guess what I’m have trouble grasping is if I use 10 pounds of grain with a water to grain ratio of. 1.5/1 wouldn’t the gravity be the same whether it’s 10 or 20 pounds if I use the same water ratio
Last edited:
Mashes with similar water:grist ratios should yield worts of a similar gravity.
There are some other factors involved, such as the grains used, mash/sparge temperature, and water quality.
There are some other factors involved, such as the grains used, mash/sparge temperature, and water quality.
If you use 10 lb of grain and 3.75 gal of strike water, or 20 lb of grain and 7.5 gal of water, both have a mash thickness of 1.5 qt/lb, and both will have the same SG for the wort prior to any sparging (if they have the same conversion efficiency.) If you get 100% conversion efficiency, a 1.5 qt/lb mash thickness will give you an initial (before any sparging) SG of about 1.082. If you want to get a higher initial wort SG, you need to go to a thicker mash (lower water to grain ratio.)
If you used the same amount of strike water for a 10 lb grist and a 20 lb grist, the initial SG will be 2X higher for the 20 lb grist (if conversion efficiency is the same.) You will also get 2X the grain absorption with the 20 lb grist, so will recover less wort from your first run off.
Brew on
So what your saying then is mash at a lower water grist ratio and no sparging?
The thickness of the mash is not as important as you seem to think it is. It will help to know more about your system and brewing practices. What method do you use for lautering and sparging? How large is your mash tun? What size batch do you make?
If you use 10 lb of grain and 3.75 gal of strike water, or 20 lb of grain and 7.5 gal of water, both have a mash thickness of 1.5 qt/lb, and both will have the same SG for the wort prior to any sparging (if they have the same conversion efficiency.) If you get 100% conversion efficiency, a 1.5 qt/lb mash thickness will give you an initial (before any sparging) SG of about 1.082. If you want to get a higher initial wort SG, you need to go to a thicker mash (lower water to grain ratio.)
If you used the same amount of strike water for a 10 lb grist and a 20 lb grist, the initial SG will be 2X higher for the 20 lb grist (if conversion efficiency is the same.) You will also get 2X the grain absorption with the 20 lb grist, so will recover less wort from your first run off.
Brew on
Thanks
so to get what I need more grain less water or do the same grain same water and longer boilingFor a barley wine they said only two gallon batches have a 10 gallon mash/ lauter ton
Yes. You can always increase your OG by boiling off more water. You don't lose any sugar by evaporation.Thanks
Brew on
That is *one* method you could use to make a high-gravity wort. But you'll need to remember that the grain absorbs some water, and the enzymes need some amount of liquid to work in. I think the thickest mash I've been able to work with is 1.35qt:1lb.
Ok, so if you are making a 2 gallon batch you will likely need about 2.5 gallons in the kettle at the end of the boil. Assuming a target OG of 1.110 you will need 9 pounds of malt if you sparge it well and get an 80% yield. If you use the no-sparge method suggested by @doug293cz then the mash thickness will indeed need to be 1.5:1 as mentioned by @Kent88. In this case you will need about 20 pounds of malt to get the gravity you need and 3 gallons of runoff at about 1.080. This leaves a lot of fermentables in the mash tun that you could recover with a second mash (parti-gyle) on the same malt, i.e., make two beers out of all that malt. Since barleywine gets a lot of hops you could reuse the hops as well. Just leave all the hops in the kettle and use them as first-wort hops for the second batch. Add some new late addition hops if desired.
If I choose to spare with 9 pounds how much water should I use per pound of grain ?
If you sparge you have more freedom for the mash thickness. Anything in the usual range will work. I tend to mash at about 1.25:1 or 1.33:1 dependg on style. You will need a lot of sparge water and end up with about 7 gallons in the boil kettle which the will need to be boiled down to the final volume.
Thank you so much for advice I hope I didn’t annoy you I lll let you know how the barley wine turns or
If you are referring to total water, not just water used during the mash, then there are a few guidelines out there for how much water you can use, but you really should have a means to test the gravity of the wort throughout the sparging process and stop when the wort you collect is around 1.010 (I usually try to stop when I consistently see readings of 1.012). You can stop earlier if you reach your desired pre-boil gravity and volume.
If you choose to sparge, then in a case like this I'd recommend you collect the wort from each time you drain wort (each running) into different kettles and blend to get the pre-boil gravity that you want. I believe the pearson square method is good for blending like this.
You can play around with how things like sparge process, boil off rate, etc. affect the required gain amount to achieve a target OG by using this spreadsheet (only works for no-sparge or batch sparge, not fly sparge.) You should download a copy in either Excel or OpenDocument Format (depending on your installed office suit) in order to be able to use the "Goal Seek" tool. Put in your desired Post Boil Volume, Boil Off Rate, Boil Time, MLT Undrainable Volume (as appropriate for your equipment), and Number of Sparge Steps. Then kick off the "Goal Seek" tool. Select cell "K59" (Post-Boil SG) as the variable or formula cell. Enter your desired OG into the target value box. Select cell "B5" (Total Grain Weight) as the cell for goal seek to modify. Then hit the Go button for goal seek. Cell B5 should then be updated with the amount of grain needed to reach your target OG, given the process parameters you specified.
Let me know if you have questions.
Brew on
Let me know if you have questions.
Brew on
I just made a Barleywine and was disappointed with my low SG. I ended with 1.087 and was hoping for right around 1.100. I don’t have a refractometer so I don’t know where I started. I was trying no sparge, no squeeze, full volume, single vessel BIAB for the first time. I ended with 1.3 gallons of wort after starting with 9.2 quarts of water and 6.25 lbs. of grist. .25 lbs was dextrin malt, so that would affect efficiency.
Assuming 1.3 gal was your post boil volume (or fermenter volume with 0 kettle loss), and a typical 0.11 gal/lb grain absorption rate for unsqueezed BIAB, you conversion efficiency was around only 83%, which is pretty low. Had you gotten 100% conversion efficiency, your OG would have been about 1.103 (pre-boil SG of 1.083.)
Crush and/or too short a mash time are the most likely culprits for the low conversion efficiency. I doubt the dextrin malt had much to do with your low conversion efficiency, as dextrins are soluble, so contribute to SG. Dextrins are not fermentable, so they raise the FG.
Brew on
I ran across some barleywine info and a recipe on Expiramental Brewing. Denny provides some insight into his mash technique late in the podcast.
https://www.experimentalbrew.com/recipes/dennys-old-stoner-barleywine
https://www.experimentalbrew.com/podcast/episode-12-going-stale
https://www.experimentalbrew.com/recipes/dennys-old-stoner-barleywine
https://www.experimentalbrew.com/podcast/episode-12-going-stale
Last edited:
I think you are right. I had an experience where my crush was a lot higher and I mashed for 90 minutes for a base style English Barleywine Christmas beer. In spite of my higher mash temp the beer came out too thin. This Barleywine I’m making I mashed at 150 for 60 minutes with a standard crush. I think that my conversion efficiency was probably pretty good, but that my apparent conversion efficiency was affected by my abysmal extract efficiency. If my FG ends up being high, I will know if the problem was with conversion rather than extraction. My beer is still active in primary fermentation right now. It’s only been a week, so I won’t know for some time. I think it might turn out ok though because I’m using Nottingham and suspect it would be more done right now if my FG was going to end up high. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
What is your definition of "extract efficiency"? The definitions I always use (which are consistent with BeerSmith and BrewersFriend) are:
Conversion Eff = Extract Created in Mash / Max Potential Extract from Grain Bill
Mash Eff = Amount of Extract Transferred to the BK / Max Potential Extract from Grain Bill
Extract is all dissolved solids in the wort. Extract is about 90% sugar (the balance is protein and other stuff), and folks (including me) often say sugar when they are actually talking about extract.
(i.e. what percentage of the starch did you actually convert to sugar in the mash.)
Lauter Eff = Amount of Extract Transferred to the BK / Extract Created in MashMash Eff = Amount of Extract Transferred to the BK / Max Potential Extract from Grain Bill
= Conversion Eff * Lauter Eff
If your definition of "extact efficiency" is the same as my definition of "lauter efficiency," then the conversion efficiency I estimated for your barleywine (83%) accounts for the low lauter efficiency of a no-sparge, no-squeeze, process (about 62% in your case.) Your mash efficiency was only about 51%. These estimates were achieved by playing with various "Goal Seek" cominations in the spreadsheet I linked a few posts above.
Brew on
imasickboy
Drinkasaurus extraordinarius
The lauter efficiency is where a barleywine, or other high OG beer will suffer. After using your typical water volumes, you're left with too little volume to effectively sparge. You'll leave behind a fair amount of sugars. If you sparge with a larger amount of water in order to capture those gravity points, you'll need a longer boil to get rid of that excess water. This is why some people start with a bunch of extra grain, knowing they'll get a lower lauter efficiency, but hopefully hitting their OG without having to use the extra water and extended boil.
What is your definition of "extract efficiency"? The definitions I always use (which are consistent with BeerSmith and BrewersFriend) are:
Conversion Eff = Extract Created in Mash / Max Potential Extract from Grain Bill
(i.e. what percentage of the starch did you actually convert to sugar in the mash.)Lauter Eff = Amount of Extract Transferred to the BK / Extract Created in Mash
Mash Eff = Amount of Extract Transferred to the BK / Max Potential Extract from Grain Bill
Extract is all dissolved solids in the wort. Extract is about 90% sugar (the balance is protein and other stuff), and folks (including me) often say sugar when they are actually talking about extract.= Conversion Eff * Lauter Eff
If your definition of "extact efficiency" is the same as my definition of "lauter efficiency," then the conversion efficiency I estimated for your barleywine (83%) accounts for the low lauter efficiency of a no-sparge, no-squeeze, process (about 62% in your case.) Your mash efficiency was only about 51%. These estimates were achieved by playing with various "Goal Seek" cominations in the spreadsheet I linked a few posts above.
Brew on
Yes I see what you are saying. I was considering lautering efficiency as having no connection with conversion efficiency. I see now that it directly affects conversion efficiency. Your numbers BTW are close to what I was seeing on the OG FG calculator on brewers friend. Does your spreadsheet predict an FG?
Lauter efficiency IS (almost) completely independent from conversion efficiency. Mash efficiency is completely dependent on both lauter and conversion efficiency, and nothing else.
My spreadsheet does not attempt to predict FG. There are too many interacting variables, that are different for each brewer's system, to make any theoretically sound predictions of FG. All FG predictions are based on a bunch of curve fit correlations that are usually acceptably close, but can frequently be wildly off. My spreadsheet (and others' similar calculators) are based on simple dilution theory, and doing mass balance calculations. There are some fairly simple to meet constraints (assumptions) that must hold for the results to be really accurate, but the calculations can provide quite a few useful insights even in cases where the constraints are not met. The only curve fit correlation used is the equations that translate between Plato and specific gravity, and those are pretty damn accurate.
The only thing that isn't really rock solid is the assumption that the grain absorption rate is the same for every run-off. However, if you have data that shows different grain absorption rates for different run-off steps, those could be incorporated into the calculations. I haven't bothered since the other measurements have enough measurement error that the efficiencies calculated only have an accuracy of +/- 3 - 4 percentage points. Any efficiency calculator based on homebrewer volume and SG measurements, and relying on historical, rather than actual lot, data for grain potential and moisture content will have the same level of uncertainty. Some are known to have larger errors due to incorrect application of formulas or definitions.
I think I've gotten far enough off track, so I stop now.
Brew on
aeviaanah
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2012
- Messages
- 1,686
- Reaction score
- 217
Lauter efficiency IS (almost) completely independent from conversion efficiency. Mash efficiency is completely dependent on both lauter and conversion efficiency, and nothing else.
My spreadsheet does not attempt to predict FG. There are too many interacting variables, that are different for each brewer's system, to make any theoretically sound predictions of FG. All FG predictions are based on a bunch of curve fit correlations that are usually acceptably close, but can frequently be wildly off. My spreadsheet (and others' similar calculators) are based on simple dilution theory, and doing mass balance calculations. There are some fairly simple to meet constraints (assumptions) that must hold for the results to be really accurate, but the calculations can provide quite a few useful insights even in cases where the constraints are not met. The only curve fit correlation used is the equations that translate between Plato and specific gravity, and those are pretty damn accurate.
The only thing that isn't really rock solid is the assumption that the grain absorption rate is the same for every run-off. However, if you have data that shows different grain absorption rates for different run-off steps, those could be incorporated into the calculations. I haven't bothered since the other measurements have enough measurement error that the efficiencies calculated only have an accuracy of +/- 3 - 4 percentage points. Any efficiency calculator based on homebrewer volume and SG measurements, and relying on historical, rather than actual lot, data for grain potential and moisture content will have the same level of uncertainty. Some are known to have larger errors due to incorrect application of formulas or definitions.
I think I've gotten far enough off track, so I stop now.
Brew on
Where can i find your spreadsheet?
Similar threads
