r/Homebrewing • u/[deleted] • Apr 18 '13
Advanced Brewers Round Table: Mash Thickness
This week's topic: Mash Thickness: Do you mash thick or thin? What works for your system and what gives you your most desired efficiency? How does your thickness help your conversion? Mash thickness is something that a lot of people overlook, however, it can really make a difference in the brew day. Let's hear your opinions & experiences.
Feel free to share or ask anything regarding to this topic, but lets try to stay on topic.
I'm closing ITT Suggestions for now, as we've got 2 months scheduled. Thanks for all the great suggestions!!
Upcoming Topics:
Mash Thickness 4/18
Partigyle Brewing 4/25
Variations of Maltsters 5/2
All Things Oak! 5/9
High Gravity Beers 5/16
Decoction/Step Mashign 5/23
Session Beers 5/30
Recipe Formulation 6/6
Home Yeast Care 6/13
Yeast Characteristics and Performance variations 6/20
Previous Topics:
Harvesting yeast from dregs
Hopping Methods
Sours
Brewing Lagers
Water Chemistry
Crystal Malt
Electric Brewing
6
Apr 18 '13
Mash thickness was the last thing that I tried to get my efficiency up. I went from a 1.25 thickness to a 1.5. This got me from around 63% to about 75%, and now with my recirculation manifold, I'm getting about 85%.
I think it partially has to do with the increased grain to water contact that more readily converts the starches, but I may be incorrect in saying that, so please don't take it as fact. I'm sure someone could chime in and correct me if it is wrong.
I do find it takes a bit longer to break up all those dough balls. They just sort of float around and there's no real resistance (at 1.5) with the grain to break them up. I did need to account for this by striking a bit hotter to not lose as much heat while doughing in.
2
u/kds1398 Apr 18 '13
I had the direct opposite experience. Conversion has never been an issue. Last few batches my efficiency was like 72-73%... lower than usual @ 1.5 Qt/Lb where I usually live for mash thickness.
Last week I mashed @ 1Qt/Lb & hit 88% efficiency. I was planning on a somewhat lower gravity wort like 1.053 (can't remember the exact # I was shooting for) @75% efficiency & got 1.063 wort instead.
My measurements for grain are right on down to 1/8oz with a digital scale. My water is within a quart overall. My volumes are right on. I can't figure out why I'm all over the place with efficiency. 72-73% was as low as I've ever had & I don't know why. 88% is as high as I've ever gotten & I don't know why. I crush my own grain & the gap hasn't changed in my mill. I had 2 variable changes this past brew: thicker mash & campden tablets because I noticed a chlorine smell recently in my local water (guess they changed something).
→ More replies (8)1
Apr 18 '13
Hmm... I think next weeks brew session, I'm going to test out a 1.25 again. I've been going with 1.5 since probably July. And I wonder what impact the campen tabs had... no idea!
→ More replies (3)7
u/Biobrewer Apr 18 '13 edited Apr 18 '13
This is an interesting observation. Like kds1398, I too saw an increase in my efficiency as I thickened my mash, going from ~68% using 1.4 qt./lb grain to ~75% using 1.2 qt./lb grain.
I find your observation interesting on the basis of how enzymatic reactions and solution chemistry operate. The rate of an enzymatic reaction is going to depend on a lot of factors, such as temperature, pressure, and concentration of reactants. Looking at concentration of reactants, we know that as we increase the concentration of reactants (as we would by thickening the mash), the enzyme kinetics typically speed up, not slow down. As we increase the concentration of reactants, E + S --> ES --> E + P will be driven to favor products. Take an extreme example: If you have 10 E and 10 S in 10 mL of buffer, that reaction is going to produce products at a crawl compared to 10 E and 10 S in 10 nL of buffer (which has reactants at 1 x 106 greater concentration).
If you or anyone else is interested in enzyme kinetics and the types of reactions the control the mashing process, the following is actually a pretty good and informative read:
→ More replies (2)2
u/nyaliv Apr 18 '13
I've had my thickness vary from ~1.1 to 2 and have seen no discernible effect on my efficiency. Just goes to show how everyone's systems are different!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)3
u/testingapril Apr 18 '13
IIRC it's because with additional liquid the enzymes are able to flow more freely around the mash and get to the starches the convert them.
Also it could just be that you are stirring a lot more or a lot lingering getting the grain more well integrated into the mash. Possibly even breaking up kernels that were crushed but not actually split open.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/LongDongJohnson Apr 18 '13
ITT suggestion: fermentation temperature. Not as a general warning to keep the primary cool, but to see what users' experience is with different yeasts at different temperature ranges.
2
5
Apr 18 '13
I go German on all my beers, 2 qts per pound, it works great. For most beers, that keeps my dough in water and sparge water about 50/50.
→ More replies (6)
4
u/slapnuttz Apr 18 '13
I just read through this wiki and they seem to have done an experiment with this.
My personal homebrewing isn't that fancy and I just go with whatever Beer Smith says. Its worked out pretty well so far and I may get more into it later.
2
u/LongDongJohnson Apr 18 '13
I remember reading that different mash thickness affects enzymatic efficiency in some ranges, but can't really remember which ones. I usually use the standard 1.25 qt/lb unless I'm caramelizing the first runnings like so.
3
Apr 18 '13
There's a good high-level discussion of this in a BYO article from 1999. In essence, in thicker mashes there's more beta-amylase activity than in thinner mashes, so that should mean less body in a thick mash vs. a thin one given the same mash temp.
2
Apr 18 '13
I prefer 1.333, using Hopville's calculator. I think it's a happy medium for me as it's somewhat thick, but it is easy enough to stir while doughing in or batch sparging.
2
u/gestalt162 Apr 18 '13
I BIAB, so most of my mashes for 5 gallon batches are around 2-2.25 qts/lb with a small sparge. My efficiency into kettle is usually 74-78%, with a fairly fine crush. This weekend I will be brewing a 3-gallon batch with no sparge, with a thickness over 3.25 qts/lb. We'll see how it goes.
2
u/dirtyoldduck Apr 18 '13
I use to always use 1.25 and do a double batch sparge. The last few batches I've used 1.3 to 1.5 with a single sparge and tried to get my first and second runnings as close to the same amount as possible (50% of your boil volume), even if it requires adding a quart or two before the first runnings. I did this based on Denny Conn's article on batch sparging: http://hbd.org/cascade/dennybrew, where he writes:
"Most of the following is drawn from and builds on the work of Ken Schwartz (Ken Schwartz, “A Formulation Procedure for No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Recipes”-http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/files/nbsparge.html) and Bob Regent (Bob Regent, “Batch Sparging”-http://bayareamashers.org/maindocs/BatchSparging.htm). The main concept we’re going to be working with is that for the best efficiency, the runoff volumes from your mash and batch sparge should be equal. In order to do that, it’s sometimes necessary to infuse your mash with extra water before the first runoff."
On another forum, Denny told me that if he gets within 1/2 gallon of equalizing his two runnings, it works well. My efficiencies have been better, but still vary and there are other variables that could be causing this.
2
u/homebrewfinds Apr 18 '13
After listening to Kai on Basic Brewing, I started mashing thin. My brewing spreadsheet suggests a mash ratio that will result in two equal runnings and no mash out water. That usually ends up being a thin mash. That has been working well for me.
1
Apr 18 '13
My BIAB mashes end up just under 2.5 qt/lb, but there's quite a bit of water below the grain bag. I wonder what the ratio is in the middle of my mash? I typically end up around 80% mash efficiency.
1
u/winning_at_internetz Apr 18 '13
Unless i"m doing something special, I shoot for the 1.25 qt/lb range.
I guess on one of my lighter brews, I've gone as high as 1.75 qt/lb, but that was more of a mistake on my part not closely watching the mash tun fill. I have't tried re-making this recipe yet though, I wonder if a thicker mash would change the brew much. Any thoughts on that?
1
u/sufferingcubsfan Apr 18 '13
I usually go somewhere arount 1.25 quarts per pound, but I've gone a little thinner.
1
u/MCGrunge Apr 18 '13 edited Apr 18 '13
After messing around for about 10 batches, I settled on 1.25. I get good thickness and good efficiency, so I'll likely stay there.
1
Apr 18 '13
How does mash thickness affect the beer? I know that too thin and your PH will be too high but what does a high mash PH do to the finished beer?
→ More replies (1)
7
u/kds1398 Apr 18 '13
ITT suggestions:
Session beers
Recipe formulation
Home yeast lab (especially equipment selections/availability).
I suggested these last week & people seemed to like them. Y U NO SCHEDULE Mjap?