Mash Thickness: Are new brewers reading too much into it?

[pwndabear]

So I am kind of just starting off doing partial mashes (done a few, came out good). A resource that is VERY helpful for noobs is DeathBrewer's Easy Partial Mash Brewing (with pics) thread. Easy to follow, explained in terms that can be easily understood, etc.

When using this guide for the first time, a new partial brewer will follow each step to a T. In step 1, DeathBrewer mentions that he heats his strike water up to 164°F as he will typically experience a 12°F loss of temp from the grains. He then proceeds to not guarantee that 164°F will bring your mash to the right temp and that we should use Green Bay Rackers Mash Calculator.

No problem here. When a new partial brewer clicks on said link to figure out what his strike water temp should be, he is greeted with a strike temp calculator that asks for your mash thickness. One who is new to partial brewing will have an instant question something along the lines of, "now what in the hell is mash thickness????"

In lurking, I have come to realize that thickness is simply a quart to pound ratio that when input in the calculator will effectively guide you to the correct temp for your strike water to compensate for heat loss from added grain. Great. I get that.

However, how does one determine what thickness to use in the first place? I see that 1.25 is pre-set in the calculator and DeathBrewer uses roughly 2 gallons of water for 5-6 pounds of grain (giving him a thickness of 1.6 for 5 gallons and 1.33 for 6).

Is this a set estimated value (oxymoron anyone?); do people simply stick around 1.25? How does mash thickness effect efficiency over the course of the brew? What are the benefits of using a thicker or thinner mash? Can you think of any other questions that a noob might have?

CONCLUSION (as taken from responses to this thread):
New brewers are worrying to much about this! Follow the directions by DeathBrewer and don't worry too much about your mash thickness if you are just starting out with partial mashing.

Mash thickness is simply a quart to lb ratio of water to grain. A good general guideline is to have a thickness of about 1.25 quarts of water per pound of grain (1.25 for short). If you plan on Brewing In A Bag (BIAB), you can go upwards of 3, but anywhere within the 1-2 range is generally good.

Think of it like this: Imagine you are a youngster and want to play Marco-Polo with some friends, but in this game, you have to try to find as many people as you can. If you play in a too big of a pool, you would spend too much time trying to find everyone and might not even get everyone. Conversely, if you were to play in a kiddie pool, you wouldn't be able to get around to get everyone. Essentially, you are the enzyme trying to find your starch friends to tag them and turn them into sugar. You want to keep the enzymes concentrated and on the starches; not swimming around in some huge pool of water looking for them. You also don't want everything to be so crowded in there that nothing can move.

If you mash to thick (lower ratio), your grains will not get wet enough and there may be too many undissolved starches in your wort. Too thin (higher ratio) and you may have difficulty getting the mash pH low enough, and this could lead to conversion problems. Also, if your mash is too thin, you are going to have less water to sparge with later on.

Different grains or styles may require different thicknesses, but in short, mash thickness is really more a personal preference than a "hard calculation that could ruin your whole brew." Keep in mind your tun size when choosing thickness but really, don't sweat it!

Relax, don't worry, have a homebrew, you newbs!

 

[ThePearsonFam]

I totally think that brewers worry too much. I typically mash around 1.5 water to grist but you'll get a thousand different answers on here. The Brew-in-a-Bag (BIAB) folks mash in much higher ratios and there are others that mash closer to 1.0.

If you're looking for a simple answer, 1.25 is fine.

 

[ayoungrad]

People on here seem to recommend 1.25 to 2.0. 1.25 gives a tight mash and holds the temp well but you MAY get less extraction than you would with 2.0.

If I read correctly though Briggs, I think he even suggests that commerical brewers use upwards of 3 or more.

I don't have that kind of room. I do BIAB as well. I usually do 1.25 to 1.5. It takes up very little room so I can do 12 pounds of grain in my 5 gallon pot and it holds the temp well for 1 hour with the lid on. And I get 70-75% effeciency.

 

[pwndabear]

I'm going to ask the question that every enthusiastic noob asks when they are told that something "just is":

why?

 

[BendBrewer]

I use 1 to 1 ratio as a personal friend/Pro Head brewer told me to when I first started out. I haven't run unto a reason to change. The 1 to 1 ratio does allow me to get a couple more pounds of grain in my 10 gallon cooler. I think most people use 1.25 qts per pound as they read so in a book. Consistency matters I think more than the exact ratio used.

 

[BendBrewer]

Why worry about the ratio at all? You want to keep the enzymes concentrated and on the starches not swimming around in some huge pool of water looking for them.

 

[Mysticmead]

right now since I BIAB, I'm probably right at 3qt/lb but.....I do have a cooler that I will convert and start using since I just finished my Keggle and don't like the idea of lifting a bag of grains used to make a 10 gallon batch of beer. as it was said above.. you'll get many different answers to the question of how much water it the right amount. use what ever works for you and helps YOU make great beer

 

[pwndabear]

Why worry about the ratio at all? You want to keep the enzymes concentrated and on the starches not swimming around in some huge pool of water looking for them.

i like this answer. makes sense this way. so one way to think about it, the more water, the less conversion and/or the longer it will take?

 

[ThePearsonFam]

The only real concern is if you get conversion.

Read this: http://www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter14-6.html

John Palmer's "How to Brew, version 1"

 

[devilishprune]

So I quote Kai's website all the time, because it's great. Here is the information that you seek, with empirical data to support it: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.ph...ncy_in_single_infusion_mashing#Mash_thickness

In a nutshell: No, mash thickness doesn't really matter too much on wort fermentability and thus doesn't have too much bearing on the end product in and of itself.

Mash thickness does, however, have other pragmatic implications for the rest of your process.
For instance, if you mash with 3.0 qt/lb, then you are going to have much less water to sparge with than if you mashed with 1.0 qt/lb. This is not necessarily a good or bad thing, but it really comes down to personal preference.
Another reason thickness may matter is the size of your tun. If you have a small tun, you have to mash thicker so that you can fit all of your grain in there.
A third reason is that water retains heat better than grains, so the more water you have in there, the more stable your temperature should remain. I usually mash at around 2.0 qt/lb because I have a larger tun than is usually called for and the higher ratio helps me retain heat a little better.

Hope that helps!

 

[BendBrewer]

From How To Brew:

http://www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter14-6.html

 

[michaeltrego]

I typically shoot for a thickness of 1.5 qts/lb, which would be approx. 3.1 liquor-to-grist ratio by weight. This seems to be a good balance of the thick/thin pros and cons, when it comes to happy enzyme activity in the mash. It would be considered a medium-thick mash.

Here is a good article in BYO that goes into detail:
Make Those Enzymes Dance

 

[sudsmcgee]

Wouldn't a really thick mash (1 qt/lb) leave too little water for the sugars to dissolve into? Will diastatic enzymes work on undissolved starches?

 

[pwndabear]

this thread should be stickied. every new-to-partial-mashes brewer i have been speaking with has this question

 

[ajf]

If you try to mash too thick (much more than 1 lb grain per qt water), then you will not be able to adequately wet all the grains, and you will end up with undissolved starches in the wort.
If you mash too thin (and I'm not going to guess what too thin is), then you may have difficulty getting the mash pH low enough, and this could lead to conversion problems.
I usually mash at 1 qt water per lb grain, but have gone as far as 2 qt per lb. At both extremes (and all tested points in between), I have had no difficulty in achieving 85% brewhouse efficiency or greater.
Several people have said that a thick mash will not denature the enzymes as quickly as a thinner mash.
Palmer says that a thicker mash results in a more dextrinous (less fermentable) wort.
Noonan says a mash thickness of < 0.3 g water per lb grain produces the maximum extraction, but that the wort will be less fermentable.
Daniels says that British Ales are traditionally mashed at a low temperature with a mash thickness of ~= 1 lb per qt.
Several people on this forum have stated that they get better efficiency with a thin mash. This seems to contradict Noonan.
I've mashed with English malts using between 1 qt per lb and 1.5 qt per lb.. I've never noticed any measurable difference in efficiency or attenuation, but I have noticed a very big difference in flavour as the thickness approaches 1 qt / lb. At 1.25 qt / lb or greater, I only get flavor. Anybody who has sampled cask conditioned English bitters and American pale ales should know what I mean.
I've mashed with Pilsner malt with thicknesses between 1.3 and 2 qts per lb. Again, I was unable to detect any difference in efficiency or attenuation.
In short, I wouldn't like to make an English bitter with a thin mash, and I don't think (although I've never tried it) I'd like to make a Pilsen style lager with a thick mash. I have never been able to detect any difference in efficiency or attenuation between a thick and thin mash, but when using English malts, there is a marked difference in flavour/flavor.

-a.

 

[Yooper]

If you try to mash too thick (much more than 1 lb grain per qt water), then you will not be able to adequately wet all the grains, and you will end up with undissolved starches in the wort.
If you mash too thin (and I'm not going to guess what too thin is), then you may have difficulty getting the mash pH low enough, and this could lead to conversion problems.
I usually mash at 1 qt water per lb grain, but have gone as far as 2 qt per lb. At both extremes (and all tested points in between), I have had no difficulty in achieving 85% brewhouse efficiency or greater.
Several people have said that a thick mash will not denature the enzymes as quickly as a thinner mash.
Palmer says that a thicker mash results in a more dextrinous (less fermentable) wort.
Noonan says a mash thickness of < 0.3 g water per lb grain produces the maximum extraction, but that the wort will be less fermentable.
Daniels says that British Ales are traditionally mashed at a low temperature with a mash thickness of ~= 1 lb per qt.
Several people on this forum have stated that they get better efficiency with a thin mash. This seems to contradict Noonan.
I've mashed with English malts using between 1 qt per lb and 1.5 qt per lb.. I've never noticed any measurable difference in efficiency or attenuation, but I have noticed a very big difference in flavour as the thickness approaches 1 qt / lb. At 1.25 qt / lb or greater, I only get flavor. Anybody who has sampled cask conditioned English bitters and American pale ales should know what I mean.
I've mashed with Pilsner malt with thicknesses between 1.3 and 2 qts per lb. Again, I was unable to detect any difference in efficiency or attenuation.
In short, I wouldn't like to make an English bitter with a thin mash, and I don't think (although I've never tried it) I'd like to make a Pilsen style lager with a thick mash. I have never been able to detect any difference in efficiency or attenuation between a thick and thin mash, but when using English malts, there is a marked difference in flavour/flavor.

-a.

I generally use a mash of 1.25-1.5 quarts per pound with good results on all beers. If I'm doing some step mashing, that will often change. I do have pH issues if I go thinner, as my pH climbs with more water and less grain.

I think when 1.25-1.5 quarts of water per pound of grain is advised, it's because it's the "sweet spot". Generally thin enough to get good conversion, and thick enough to not have pH problems, it's a good rule of thumb.

 

[jaginger]

I've mashed with English malts using between 1 qt per lb and 1.5 qt per lb.. I've never noticed any measurable difference in efficiency or attenuation, but I have noticed a very big difference in flavour as the thickness approaches 1 qt / lb. At 1.25 qt / lb or greater, I only get flavor. Anybody who has sampled cask conditioned English bitters and American pale ales should know what I mean.

can you explain the flavor differences you are referring to? i don't understand what you mean.
thanks

 

[Mysticmead]

i like this answer. makes sense this way. so one way to think about it, the more water, the less conversion and/or the longer it will take?

with BIAB and a VERY VERY thin mash at 3qt/lb or more... you get full conversion and it occurs faster...

 

[ThePearsonFam]

I think most of the experienced brewer will agree that water to grist ratios are mostly personal preference based on experience on the individual's system. For me, I like 1.5 quarts per pound. It works well for my system since I direct fire my mash tun while recirculating my wort from the bottom of the mlt to the top. I'd say that the majority of your conventional batch/fly spargers stay between (generalization here) 1.0 and 2.0. Mysticmead said that 3.0 isn't unheard of for the BIAB folks (which I've heard on BN podcasts).

Bottom line? Don't sweat it.

 

[Mysticmead]

I think most of the experienced brewer will agree that water to grist ratios are mostly personal preference based on experience on the individual's system. For me, I like 1.5 quarts per pound. It works well for my system since I direct fire my mash tun while recirculating my wort from the bottom of the mlt to the top. I'd say that the majority of your conventional batch/fly spargers stay between (generalization here) 1.0 and 2.0. Mysticmead said that 3.0 isn't unheard of for the BIAB folks (which I've heard on BN podcasts).

Bottom line? Don't sweat it.

exactly... and as the title of this post says.. Are new brewers reading to much into it? Probably. What the new brewers need to understand is, the grains can be very forgiving. There are many ways of accomplishing the same goal and all of them are just as valid as the way they're doing it.

 

[pwndabear]

thanks everyone who contributed!

 

[BOBTHEukBREWER]

3 quarts to the pound of grain, no sparging at all - I use an Igloo 100 quart cooler.

 

[pjj2ba]

I mash beers that have a lot of pilsner malt in them a little thinner. My reason is simply for ease of hitting my final volume. The extra water I add is to compensate for losses during a 90 min. vs a 60 min. boil. All my heavy pils beers get a 90 min, boil to drive DMS precursors off.