I ran a Bru'nWater calc on 10 lbs 2-row with 10 gal of strike water for a 5.5 (to fermenter) batch. Starting with RO water and adding 2.5 g gypsum, 2.0 g Mg sulfate, 4.0 g CaCl, and 5.5 ml 88% lactic acid, produced a projected mash pH of 5.36.
View attachment 301250
So, acid addition doesn't seem excessive.
The biggest issue will be boiling off the excess water (as priceless said). At a 1.2 gal/hr boil off rate, you would be looking at a 3 hr boil (using priceless' calculator.)
Brew on
What could go wrong if I use, say a gallon of water per lb of grain, for mashing? I would think that it would increase efficiency?
Hmmmmm, BIAB
I ran a Bru'nWater calc on 10 lbs 2-row with 10 gal of strike water for a 5.5 (to fermenter) batch. Starting with RO water and adding 2.5 g gypsum, 2.0 g Mg sulfate, 4.0 g CaCl, and 5.5 ml 88% lactic acid, produced a projected mash pH of 5.36.
View attachment 301250
So, acid addition doesn't seem excessive.
The biggest issue will be boiling off the excess water (as priceless said). At a 1.2 gal/hr boil off rate, you would be looking at a 3 hr boil (using priceless' calculator.)
Edit: Forgot to note that if you start with high alkalinity water, you will need lots more acid to bring the mash pH down.
Brew on
yes it is but...
why anyone would even have a reason to mash a gallon per pound I have no idea
I wasn't planning to use a gallon per pound but I mentioned it just to serve as an example. So it looks like the primary reason for not going more than 1.5 quarts per lb of grain is to avoid having to boil off a lot of water.
For full volume (no sparge) mashing (typical of BIAB), ratios of 3.0 - 3.25 qt/lb (or a little higher) are not unusual. No reason to go much higher than that. Good results are still obtained.Oh. Yes, 4 qts/lb would be crazy thin. Taking the ratio that high wouldn't be wise. However, you could work with something up to around 2 qts/lb and that should be feasible. I routinely target between 1.5 and 1.75 qts/lb when I brew with my RIMS.
I believe the problem with a very thin mash is that the concentration of enzymes and other reagents gets too low, and they don't their job of conversion as well, so you actually have less efficiency.
I believe the problem with a very thin mash is that the concentration of enzymes and other reagents gets too low, and they don't their job of conversion as well, so you actually have less efficiency.
That theory has been refuted with experimental evidence (http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency#Mash_thickness.)
The problem with the theory is that it takes into account only one factor (enzyme concentration), but ignores what turns out to be a more important factor which is molecular mobility. The molecular mobility has a greater effect on saccharification rate than does enzyme concentration.
Brew on
That theory has been refuted with experimental evidence (http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency#Mash_thickness.)
The problem with the theory is that it takes into account only one factor (enzyme concentration), but ignores what turns out to be a more important factor which is molecular mobility. The molecular mobility has a greater effect on saccharification rate than does enzyme concentration.
Brew on
I wasn't planning to use a gallon per pound but I mentioned it just to serve as an example. So it looks like the primary reason for not going more than 1.5 quarts per lb of grain is to avoid having to boil off a lot of water.
And any savings you may get from a tiny bit of extra efficiency will be thrown out the door with all the extra gas you will need to boil off the extra water.
Interesting. So do you get essentially the same results whether using 1 qt/lb or 2?
And any savings you may get from a tiny bit of extra efficiency will be thrown out the door with all the extra gas you will need to boil off the extra water.
At 2 qt/lb you usually get faster conversion than at 1 qt/lb (this was Kai's result.) Faster conversion gives you a better chance of getting complete, or at least more, conversion in your alloted mash time.
Brew on
Thanks, glad I asked. I'm brewing today, and going to give it a shot. My efficiency needs improving. The larger volume of water will help keep a more even temp in the mash tun -- nice bonus.
Since it seems like there is nothing negative with using a lot of water in the mash besides having to boil all that water off, I will use three or four gallons of water for my partial mash recipe that uses only 4 lbs of grain.
I've done two batches now with 2 qt/lb and about 3 stirs during the hour. I did note that the temperature of the thinner mash seems to stratify -- the thermometer drops a little, but the temp rises again when it's stirred. It's about a one degree difference, so no big deal, but I suspect that if it were much thinner the fluctuations would increase.
Didn't respond as I thought the first 20some had taken care of it but I guess not. I would never add a gallon per pound, never again anyway. I started brewing with full volume biab. I would have about a pound per gallon and ended very tannic due to pH. Many dumped batches based on the fact that "many people do it" on the web. Maybe but it doesn't work for me. I have good water but using all light grains there wasn't enough acidity.
Didn't respond as I thought the first 20some had taken care of it but I guess not. I would never add a gallon per pound, never again anyway. I started brewing with full volume biab. I would have about a pound per gallon and ended very tannic due to pH. Many dumped batches based on the fact that "many people do it" on the web. Maybe but it doesn't work for me. I have good water but using all light grains there wasn't enough acidity.
Enter your email address to join: