[brewthru]

I normally just follow the recipe recommendations on the qts/lbs ratio.

However, I'd like to understand/know the how/why.

Mash thickness. Thin vs thick. Why? What does thin achieve? What does thick achieve? How to calculate based on thin or thick and the pounds of grains?

[ynotbrusum]

There is quite a lot to this, depending in part on your process (such as recirculated mash, batch sparge, fly sparge) and grist load/composition.

A quick overview:

https://www.brewersfriend.com/2009/03/22/mashing-thick-or-thin/

Cheers.

[brewthru]

I have an eHERMS.

Thanks for the link. I will check it out.

[goose]

I used to use 1.3 qt/lb most of the time, but went with 1 qt/lb when I made my ESB because which was recommended in Ray Daniel's book when I started brewing the style.  The ESB mash was really thick and my efficiency was OK but not really what I expected.  I changed all of my recipes to at least 1.5 qts/lb and found that worked better for my RIMS system. YMMV.

[BrewBama]

Today I used 3.877 qt/lb. I do full volume no-sparge mash, recirculate the entire mash, using a HERMS.

[denny]

In terms of beer quality,  thick vs thin doesn't really matter. Use whatever works for you.

[Megary]

I have found thinner mashes will give me a few extra clicks in efficiency.  But since I full-volume, no-sparge BIAB, mash thickness is out of my hands.  Grain absorption and boil length essentially set my strike volume and water:grist ratio for me.

Now on some smaller beers, I'll shoot past my recipe's pre-boil gravity estimate and just reduce the length of my boil to compensate and hit target OG.

[brewthru]

"In terms of beer quality,  thick vs thin doesn't really matter. Use whatever works for you."

Yes, I understand doing what works best for me. However, I want to understand how/why of thin vs thick as I've not found, until I read thru the link a a prior post, an explanation.

[fredthecat]

I have found thinner mashes will give me a few extra clicks in efficiency.  But since I full-volume, no-sparge BIAB, mash thickness is out of my hands.  Grain absorption and boil length essentially set my strike volume and water:grist ratio for me.

Now on some smaller beers, I'll shoot past my recipe's pre-boil gravity estimate and just reduce the length of my boil to compensate and hit target OG.

same, thinner gives better efficiency pretty reliably for me

unrelated sort of but it has been forever since i checked the gravity of the pre-boil wort.. it always feels like an additional hassle, especially just cooling down that small volume of wort to a temp you can check with a hydrometre... right?? any thoughts or methods?

[Megary]

Post mash, I stick about 8oz of wort in the freezer and 25 minutes later I’m usually close enough temp wise to get a reliable hydrometer reading just before the boil. I’ll make adjustments then if necessary.  Personally, I find taking a post boil gravity reading (OG) LESS important than a pre-boil.  If I’m off post boil, not much I can do about it then.

And no, I don’t have a refractometer, nor do I have plans to buy one.   

[denny]

I have found thinner mashes will give me a few extra clicks in efficiency.  But since I full-volume, no-sparge BIAB, mash thickness is out of my hands.  Grain absorption and boil length essentially set my strike volume and water:grist ratio for me.

Now on some smaller beers, I'll shoot past my recipe's pre-boil gravity estimate and just reduce the length of my boil to compensate and hit target OG.

same, thinner gives better efficiency pretty reliably for me

unrelated sort of but it has been forever since i checked the gravity of the pre-boil wort.. it always feels like an additional hassle, especially just cooling down that small volume of wort to a temp you can check with a hydrometre... right?? any thoughts or methods?

I use a digital refractometer. No cooling needed. Before that, I would put a small sample in a metal cocktail shaker and swirl it in a bowl of ice water. Less than 60 seconds to cool to reading temp.

[brewthru]

Denny "In terms of beer quality,  thick vs thin doesn't really matter. Use whatever works for you."

Why then do we even have a mash ratio? Why don't we simply use an average or "rule of thumb" to simplify things?

[denny]

Denny "In terms of beer quality,  thick vs thin doesn't really matter. Use whatever works for you."

Why then do we even have a mash ratio? Why don't we simply use an average or "rule of thumb" to simplify things?

Because it varies depending on your equipment and goals. What kind of system do you use?  Do you want to do batch, fly, or no sparge brewing? Just a few considerations.

[erockrph]

Denny "In terms of beer quality,  thick vs thin doesn't really matter. Use whatever works for you."

Why then do we even have a mash ratio? Why don't we simply use an average or "rule of thumb" to simplify things?

My guess is that it's a holdover from the early days of homebrewing when everything was based on how commercial breweries do it. I'm sure mash thickness comes into play with things like lautering at the commercial scale. With things like batch sparge, BIAB and all-in-ones at the homebrew scale it's not really a concern.

[ynotbrusum]

I suspect that it also impacts infusions to step mash a batch and allows for calculations of the step additions.  There is an article by Ashton Lewis in the current BYO magazine that discusses mash thickness as a ratio and how to utilize it in the context of various mash regimens.