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

    Homebrewing Facebook Group

My Mash Times

Homebrew Talk

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

C-Rider

Senior Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
4,008
Reaction score
484
Location
Wai
I know this has been discussed a number of times. Here are some measurments from a 2 gallon Robust Porter. BeerSmith says PreBoil should be about 1.048. Mash temp average 152. These readings were taken from drops off the mixing spoon in the bag.

After:
15 min---B=5---SG=20
30 min---B=8.2-SG=33
45 min---B-9.2-SG=38
60 mn---B=11--SG-45.8
75 mn---B=11--SG=45.8
Guess it's done.

Now after draining the cooler/bag into the BK I get:
B=12 SG=50

Should get a little more after I squeeze the grain bag.

Lets see----B=12 SG=1.050

I'm happy! :mug:

Ok boil's over
Pre-Boil Vol---2.74 g
PostBoil Vol---2.1 g HOT SG=74
PostBoil Vol---1.9 g Cold SG=61 (BS said 64 so not bad)
Ferment Vol---1.8 g
Should give me 18 bottles
 
Nice to see incremental gravity readings. Do you happen to have pics of your crush?

Lets count the number of posts till RM-MN

Was thinking the same thing. That's the guy who has his mashes down to like 10min right? I don't own a refractometer, but plan on borrowing a friends for my brew day this weekend. I'll perform the same experiment and see what I get.
 
Was thinking the same thing. That's the guy who has his mashes down to like 10min right? I don't own a refractometer, but plan on borrowing a friends for my brew day this weekend. I'll perform the same experiment and see what I get.

I'll be doing the same over the next few months, hopefully I can get ahold of a cheap refractometer or find someone I can borrow from.

Alternatively, could I just pull the bag, take a sample and measure then return to it to the sweet wort? Or somehow use a filtered vessel to scoop some wort in and measure the og? Are hydrometers okay to use at such temps, or do you need to wait to cool to room temp?
 
I'll be doing the same over the next few months, hopefully I can get ahold of a cheap refractometer or find someone I can borrow from.

Alternatively, could I just pull the bag, take a sample and measure then return to it to the sweet wort? Or somehow use a filtered vessel to scoop some wort in and measure the og? Are hydrometers okay to use at such temps, or do you need to wait to cool to room temp?

There are temp conversion calculators for hydrometer readings, but I've read that anything over 90-100F is sketchy at best.
 
Alternatively, could I just pull the bag, take a sample and measure then return to it to the sweet wort? Or somehow use a filtered vessel to scoop some wort in and measure the og? Are hydrometers okay to use at such temps, or do you need to wait to cool to room temp?

There is no need to pull the bag to get a sample imo. I have found that with a good stir (actually I use a potato masher with up and down motions) that by grabbing a sample from outside the bag (between bag and kettle) works good.

Samples should be cooled down nearest the calibration temperature, as close as possible. Hot doesn't cut it.
 
Was thinking the same thing. That's the guy who has his mashes down to like 10min right? I don't own a refractometer, but plan on borrowing a friends for my brew day this weekend. I'll perform the same experiment and see what I get.

Please do and let us (me) know what you find. Make sure you crush very fine as the amount of time to get full conversion depends mostly on the quality of the crush.

BTW, I believe this is post #8 :D
 
What gap in the mill and how many crushes do you recommend RM-MN?

How tight can you set the mill and still get the grain to feed through? How many times through will you still be making the particles smaller?

Since I use a knock off Corona mill its hard to give advice on a roller mill. I just know that the finer the milling the faster the conversion is over because the enzymes start to work when they get wetted and quit when there is no starch left to convert or the temperature destroys them. Since research has found that at 149F. the beta amylase can only work for about 5 minutes before it is denatured and less than that as the temperature goes up, I would expect that if you could make the barley into flour the conversion would be done pretty quickly.
 
What are the effects, if any, of these finer particles with biab considering there is no lautering?
 
When you raise the bag and especially when you squeeze that bag of grains, the wort will be very cloudy. When the ferment is over the grain particles that make it through the bag settle to the bottom of the fermenter along with the hops and get covered with the yeast.

Many people believe that clear wort is the objective while clear beer is what we are after. Lautering was not originally to make clear wort but to set the grain bed so that the husks and grain particles weren't ending up in the boil. Those of us who have been doing the BIAB thing long enough have seen our beers turn out as clear as those who use a conventional mash tun and lauter until their wort is as clear as the beer they make.

Want another heresy? You don't have to chill quickly to get clear beer either. Shocked? No chill brewing gets clear beer too, even the one that spent 36 hours coming to pitching temperature. The point of chilling quickly is to get your beer through the food danger zone, that temperature range between 140 and 32 where bacteria can live to infect your beer. No chill avoids this by pasteurizing the air in the container so there is no bacteria to infect that sweet wort.
 
Ah so you mill finer than your bag can catch even.
Do these small grains not cause off flavors from being in their at such high temps?
 
Ah so you mill finer than your bag can catch even.
Do these small grains not cause off flavors from being in their at such high temps?

I suspect that your are thinking of tannins where you ask about off flavors and high temps. Tannins are extracted by a combination of too high of pH and the high temperatures. The typical mash will be low enough pH that extraction won't happen. Boiling the grain particles is not a problem, if it were, you wouldn't eat oatmeal since it is boiled too. No matter what mill you use, there will be flour and tiny particles that the bag will not catch.
 
When you raise the bag and especially when you squeeze that bag of grains, the wort will be very cloudy. When the ferment is over the grain particles that make it through the bag settle to the bottom of the fermenter along with the hops and get covered with the yeast.

Many people believe that clear wort is the objective while clear beer is what we are after. Lautering was not originally to make clear wort but to set the grain bed so that the husks and grain particles weren't ending up in the boil. Those of us who have been doing the BIAB thing long enough have seen our beers turn out as clear as those who use a conventional mash tun and lauter until their wort is as clear as the beer they make.

Want another heresy? You don't have to chill quickly to get clear beer either. Shocked? No chill brewing gets clear beer too, even the one that spent 36 hours coming to pitching temperature. The point of chilling quickly is to get your beer through the food danger zone, that temperature range between 140 and 32 where bacteria can live to infect your beer. No chill avoids this by pasteurizing the air in the container so there is no bacteria to infect that sweet wort.

I agree with all of this! I crush pretty fine and usually have a good bit of trub. I leave some in the kettle, but don't stress over getting some or even a lot in the fermenter. I counter this by shooting for 5.25-5.5 gallons of wort in the fermenter. In the end, after my beers sit in the keg, cold for a week or two, they start to clear up. I don't obsess over clear wort in the kettle or fermenter or even crystal clear beer for that matter. But they do clear with cold conditioning time.

I always get a good laugh at post that suggest that crystal clear wort leads to crystal clear beer. I have not found that to be true at all. The individuals brewing process and grist is WAY more important.... but hey, I'm just some guy typing on a forum. To each his own.
 
Please do and let us (me) know what you find. Make sure you crush very fine as the amount of time to get full conversion depends mostly on the quality of the crush.

BTW, I believe this is post #8 :D

I'll crush as I normally do, which is pretty fine, but I'm not trying to make flour. I already get efficiencies in the mid to upper 80's. So I'd like to think my crush is pretty fine. I'm hoping I do show full conversion in well under an hour.... 30min would be great, but I'm still doubting it. I mash thin (1.5 - 2qt/lb) and continue to read that a thinner mash will lead to higher conversion and efficiency, but is a slower process due to the dilution of enzymes in the thinner mash.

I'll give it a shot this weekend using the same timeline for gravity checks as the OP and report back next week.
 
I'll crush as I normally do, which is pretty fine, but I'm not trying to make flour. I already get efficiencies in the mid to upper 80's. So I'd like to think my crush is pretty fine. I'm hoping I do show full conversion in well under an hour.... 30min would be great, but I'm still doubting it. I mash thin (1.5 - 2qt/lb) and continue to read that a thinner mash will lead to higher conversion and efficiency, but is a slower process due to the dilution of enzymes in the thinner mash.

I'll give it a shot this weekend using the same timeline for gravity checks as the OP and report back next week.

I've seen it mentioned more than once that the thinner mash makes the process slower but finding exactly what they mean by slower is hard. Here's a bunch of info from a noted beer researcher. See what you can make of it.

"The concentration of the mash (water to grist ratio) can have a significant impact on the mash performance. Very thick mashes ( < 2 l/kg or 1 qt/lb) are difficult to stir and extract recoveries are reduced while starch conversion is slowed [Briggs, 2004].

A wide range of mash concentrations may be used in brewing. Traditional English mashes for example tend to be rather thick (2-2.5 l/kg; 1 - 1.25 qt/lb) while German mashes tend to be on the thinner side (3.5 - 5 l/kg; 1.75 - 2.5 qt/lb). One reason for the difference is the equipment that these mashes are used in. Traditional English brewing uses a single unheated mash tun that was also used for lautering while German brewers used directly heated mash vessels that require stirring the mash. The mash also has to be pumped from and to a decoction vessel and the lauter tun.

The amylase enzymes are more stable in thicker mashes (Figure 8). Which is especially important to the more heat liable &#946;-amylase and as a result thicker mashes give more fermentable worts than thinner mashes when mashing at high mashing temperatures [Briggs, 2004]. But while thick mashes offer better protection for the enzymes, they also inhibit the enzymatic activity through the reduced availability of free water and the sugars acting as competitive inhibitors [Briggs, 2004]. In addition to that the gelatinization of starch is also slower and happens at higher temperatures in thick mashes and as a result thinner mashes are known to give more fermentable worts at normal mashing temperatures.
The results for mash thickness were somewhat surprising. Contrary to common believe no attenuation difference was seen between a thick mash (2.57 l/kg or 1.21 qt/lb) and a thin mash (5 l/kg or 2.37 qt/lb). Home brewing literature suggests that thin mashes lead to more fermentable worts, but technical brewing literature suggests that the mash concentration doesn't have much effect in well modified malts [Narziss, 2005]. Briggs cites data that doesn't show a change in fermentability when the mash thickness is changed [Briggs, 2004]. This was confirmed by these eperiments where all the data points were on the same curve that had already been established in the temperature experiment.

Note, that the experiments for the 2.57 l/kg mash were run twice because the initial experiment resulted in a small mash volume that lost 5 degree Celsius over the duration of the mash. To keep the temperature drop between the experiments the same the mash volume was increased and the result was a 2 degree Celsius temperature drop which matched the temperature drop for the 5 l/kg mash. But in the end that didn't make a difference.

A significant difference was however found in the efficiency. The brewhouse efficiency of the thick mashes remained almost constant between 58 and 60% over the temperature range of the experiments, but the brewhouse efficiency for the thinner mash showed a strong dependency on the temperature and was always better than the efficiency of the thick mash. That leads to the conclusion that thinner mashes perform better and allow for better extraction of the grain. Briggs also reports that thinner mashes can convert more starch but that most of the conversion potential is reached at a water to grist ratio of 2.5 l/kg [Briggs, 2004] "
 
The one problem I have with a lot of literature is mixing results found in large breweries and on a smaller home brew scale. I realize some aspects will be constant regardless of scale, but I also have to think that some aspects will be greatly effected by it. Just my initial thought. The article itself talks about the different types of mashing when comparing English and German styles and also mentions findings/reports in the home brewing community. So this really aren't constants.

Either way, I'm now very excited for my brew day this weekend. I really hope your findings are true and I can reduce my brew days by 30mins or more. If not, no big deal. I have a pretty good feel for my estimated efficiencies since really dialing in my system over the last 8 months or so. Since October I've purchased a larger brew pot (10gal), a grain mill, and a larger mashing bag. Since these changes I've really been able to dial in my expected efficiency, so I'm pretty confident I'll be able to get good results this weekend and can then post what I discover.
 
Ok so assuming there is more acceptable junk in the wort post boil, if I needed to wait longer for my hot break and hops to tsettle post whirlpool and pre plate chiller, say an hour, how will this impact my flavor and aroma hops? i.e. will I need to add thwm a little later than before?
 
Just confirmed I am able to borrow my buddies refractometer for my brew day on Saturday. I'll try to take readings every 5 minutes for the first 30 minutes, then maybe a reading every 10-15 for the last 30 minutes. I'll report back.

I really need to get my own refractometer. How to drop a hint to my wife for a father's day gift? :)
 
Good going C-Rider.

Here is one of mine;
30 minutes, my gravity reading was... 1.056 ; 13.8 brix
60 minutes, my gravity reading was... 1.059 ; 14.6 brix
90 minutes, my gravity reading was... 1.061 ; 15.0 brix
 
Just confirmed I am able to borrow my buddies refractometer for my brew day on Saturday. I'll try to take readings every 5 minutes for the first 30 minutes, then maybe a reading every 10-15 for the last 30 minutes. I'll report back.

I really need to get my own refractometer. How to drop a hint to my wife for a father's day gift? :)

Start sooner and take readings more frequently. When I tried using iodine, it showed conversion was done in less than 5 minutes. See if you can get a reading every 2 minutes. Make sure to log them so you can look back and say, it was really done in ____minutes.
 
Good going C-Rider.

Here is one of mine;
30 minutes, my gravity reading was... 1.056 ; 13.8 brix
60 minutes, my gravity reading was... 1.059 ; 14.6 brix
90 minutes, my gravity reading was... 1.061 ; 15.0 brix

Yea I would feel comfortable saying this was "done" by 30 minutes. Rather use 2-3 oz more grain at that point lol .05 OG difference is nothing imo.
 
Afterwards...

I did a slow mash-out to 170 F which took ~16 minutes. After I pulled my bag my gravity reading was... 1.063

I must be doing something wrong, lol.
 
Start sooner and take readings more frequently. When I tried using iodine, it showed conversion was done in less than 5 minutes. See if you can get a reading every 2 minutes. Make sure to log them so you can look back and say, it was really done in ____minutes.

Nah, gonna stick with 5min readings. I'm not trying to take a reading every 2 minutes for a total of 30+ readings. I still need time to make sure I'm brewing a good beer (hop additions, chiller, nutrient addition, etc). I also don't want to be stirring the mash every 2 minutes. Worried about too much heat loss.
 
45min in and the gravity is still rising. Once I get the boil going I'll start a new thread (to stop the hijacking of this thread) and post my full results/numbers. I'll post a link here.
 
I've seen it mentioned more than once that the thinner mash makes the process slower but finding exactly what they mean by slower is hard. Here's a bunch of info from a noted beer researcher. See what you can make of it.



"The concentration of the mash (water to grist ratio) can have a significant impact on the mash performance. Very thick mashes ( < 2 l/kg or 1 qt/lb) are difficult to stir and extract recoveries are reduced while starch conversion is slowed [Briggs, 2004].



A wide range of mash concentrations may be used in brewing. Traditional English mashes for example tend to be rather thick (2-2.5 l/kg; 1 - 1.25 qt/lb) while German mashes tend to be on the thinner side (3.5 - 5 l/kg; 1.75 - 2.5 qt/lb). One reason for the difference is the equipment that these mashes are used in. Traditional English brewing uses a single unheated mash tun that was also used for lautering while German brewers used directly heated mash vessels that require stirring the mash. The mash also has to be pumped from and to a decoction vessel and the lauter tun.



The amylase enzymes are more stable in thicker mashes (Figure 8). Which is especially important to the more heat liable &#946;-amylase and as a result thicker mashes give more fermentable worts than thinner mashes when mashing at high mashing temperatures [Briggs, 2004]. But while thick mashes offer better protection for the enzymes, they also inhibit the enzymatic activity through the reduced availability of free water and the sugars acting as competitive inhibitors [Briggs, 2004]. In addition to that the gelatinization of starch is also slower and happens at higher temperatures in thick mashes and as a result thinner mashes are known to give more fermentable worts at normal mashing temperatures.

The results for mash thickness were somewhat surprising. Contrary to common believe no attenuation difference was seen between a thick mash (2.57 l/kg or 1.21 qt/lb) and a thin mash (5 l/kg or 2.37 qt/lb). Home brewing literature suggests that thin mashes lead to more fermentable worts, but technical brewing literature suggests that the mash concentration doesn't have much effect in well modified malts [Narziss, 2005]. Briggs cites data that doesn't show a change in fermentability when the mash thickness is changed [Briggs, 2004]. This was confirmed by these eperiments where all the data points were on the same curve that had already been established in the temperature experiment.



Note, that the experiments for the 2.57 l/kg mash were run twice because the initial experiment resulted in a small mash volume that lost 5 degree Celsius over the duration of the mash. To keep the temperature drop between the experiments the same the mash volume was increased and the result was a 2 degree Celsius temperature drop which matched the temperature drop for the 5 l/kg mash. But in the end that didn't make a difference.



A significant difference was however found in the efficiency. The brewhouse efficiency of the thick mashes remained almost constant between 58 and 60% over the temperature range of the experiments, but the brewhouse efficiency for the thinner mash showed a strong dependency on the temperature and was always better than the efficiency of the thick mash. That leads to the conclusion that thinner mashes perform better and allow for better extraction of the grain. Briggs also reports that thinner mashes can convert more starch but that most of the conversion potential is reached at a water to grist ratio of 2.5 l/kg [Briggs, 2004] "


So you bash me for posting that info, then go post it here.......sure.


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew
 
So you bash me for posting that info, then go post it here.......sure.


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew

I was mostly bashing Briggs for writing so poorly or conducting the experiment poorly. I've read through it 5 times now and I still don't know if a thick mash makes a wort more fermentable than a thin mash or if you get better conversion from thick or thin.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top