Mash Thickness & Stepping

[LooyvilleLarry]

while diving just a little deeper into my brewing knowledge, I was reading the HBT wikis on mashing.

There seems to be conflicting information. I have used mashes varying from 1:1 to 1.50:1.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Attenuation#wort_production
water to grist ratio: the enzymatic activity of the amylases is affected by the thickness of the mash. Thinner mashes enhance the maltose production and therefore increase the fermentability.


https://www.homebrewtalk.com/wiki/index.php/The_Theory_of_Mashing
water/

water/grist ratio - a thicker mash protects the beta amylase, giving it more time to produce maltose. Thus the fermentability is increased

I thought I'd throw this out to the BS group to provide insight.

Secondary, the thought of using multiple saccharification rests. I have read that the protein rest for modified grains (lets say Briess 2-row) is unneccessary. But I read that higher attenuation is noted if we use a beta phase (say 145*F) and an alpha phase (say 158*F).

If there is no additional burden on the brewer, and rise times are quick (4*/min), is there any reason NOT to do these on every brew?

 

[944play]

If there is no additional burden on the brewer, and rise times are quick (4*/min), is there any reason NOT to do these on every brew?

If you're not after the utmost in fermentability, don't do a ramp mash. Styles like American stout would be pretty harsh with a super intensive mash, I'd venture.

 

[Wolfy]

From memory, one of the last comments in Palmer's book about mashing is that the grain/water ratio is one of the least significant factors when determining the outcome of your mash. If that's true its most likely not something that can easily be tested on a home-brew basis given the variability in other factors (even if you try to do exactly the same thing each time).

In terms of step/ramp mashes, it IS more work and more difficulty and so (I think most people's perspective) is that if you can get virtually the same results with half the effort, then why bother with the extra effort for a tiny gain.

 

[pjj2ba]

In terms of step/ramp mashes, it IS more work and more difficulty and so (I think most people's perspective) is that if you can get virtually the same results with half the effort, then why bother with the extra effort for a tiny gain.

It almost always do a step mash of some sort. It is very easy to do with my set up, it just takes more time. While the gain in flavor etc. might not be a lot, I believe that little extra bit can take a beer from being very good to being phenomenal. I don't want to be just satisfied with my beer, I want it to make my taste buds tremble for more.

 

[Pivovar_Koucky]

I would bet that the enzymatic activity doesn't vary all that much across the realistic concentrations you will be working with in a wort. Especially since you are most likely giving it an hour (probably like 2x the time you really need) to convert anyway. I bet that lowering your mash temperature by 2 degrees would have a bigger effect than adding 25% more mash water.

Now, as for efficiency. That's something I do think could be effected rather profoundly by mash volume.

 

[944play]

I imagine a ramp mash could take less time (and zero extra effort) with a RIMS....

 

[prosper]

I use step mashes to produce starter wort for canning, because it's so much easier. Put the grain in a grain bag, then place the bag in cold water in a pot on the stove. Turn the heat on, and use your kitchen thermometer to beep when it hits 160F.

I don't make full scale batches this way because it's much harder consistently predict what your fermentability will be - depends on batch size, temperature, water to grist ratio, etc.

Making 3 or 4 gallons using the brew in a bag technique is a snap this way.

 

[boss429]

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/thick-mash-vs-thin-mash-56439/index2.html

Greg Noonan from New Brewing Lager Beer in Appendix B, "The Infusion Mash":

"...mash thickness will affect fermentability. The thicker the mash, the more effective the enzymes will be, and the longer their power will last. Alpha-amylase is especially sensitive to mash thickness. When brewing for a dextrinous wort, it is important that the mash be kept thick, so that alpha-amylase will not be degraded before all the malt starch is reduced to at least dextrins. The greater the degree of attenuation desired, the thinner the mash should be. It is common to gradually thin an infusion mash with boiling liquor when it is for a well-attenuated beer."

I've been looking for same answer I think this is pretty good.

 

[boss429]

http://***********/stories/techniqu...rain-brewing/1529-the-science-of-step-mashing

 

[ajf]

I think there could be some factors at work here that are not completely understood.
I brew predominately British style Bitters. I use approximately 95% Maris Otter, and about 5% crystal, and usually use WLP002 yeast.
If I mash at 1 qt / lb (a thick mash) at a temperature of about 150F, then I get what to me tastes like a very dextrinous beer, yet I get between 75% and 78% apparent attenuation, while White Labs specify 63% - 70%
If I decrease the mash thickness to 1.25 qt / lb without changing anything else, I get a beer that tastes very thin. I did this several years ago, and no longer have attenuation figures for those brews.
In no instance did I thin the mash with boiling liquor.

-a.