Author Topic: Water to grain ratio for mash tun.  (Read 20308 times)

Online Kaiser

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Imperial Brewing Geek
    • View Profile
    • braukaiser.com
Re: Water to grain ratio for mash tun.
« Reply #45 on: March 16, 2011, 05:13:08 PM »
Yes, that's a typo.

Thanks for catching that.

Kai

Offline jeffy

  • I spend way too much time on the AHA forum
  • ********
  • Posts: 2766
  • Tampa, Fl
    • View Profile
Re: Water to grain ratio for mash tun.
« Reply #46 on: March 16, 2011, 05:18:25 PM »
Like KGS, I tend to fill my 10 gallon round Rubbermaid cooler with the grist, and then add the water.

Doing it the other way (i.e., adding the grist to the water in the cooler) raises two concerns for me:
1.)  I may not be able to get all the grist in the 10 gallon cooler

I tend to brew high-gravity brews and/or 10 gallon batches, so it is not unusual to see 7 or 8 gallons of dry grist filling the cooler before the water is added.

2.)  More enzyme damage may occur if I add the initial amounts of grist to the entire mash volume of hot water.

High initial "strike" temp of water in the mash cooler could have a disproportionate effect on the first addition of grist and lead to enzyme denaturation.  On the other hand, a quicker drop in strike water temp should occur if strike water is added to the entire amount of grist, and less damage occurs to the enzymes.

What say you?

I say I have no enzyme issues by adding the grist all at once to the hot water in the mash tun.  Pour and stir, then check the temp.
Jeff Gladish, Tampa (989.3, 175.1 Apparent Rennarian)
Homebrewing since 1990
AHA member since 1991, now a lifetime member
BJCP judge since 1995

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 13456
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Water to grain ratio for mash tun.
« Reply #47 on: March 16, 2011, 05:56:29 PM »
I say I have no enzyme issues by adding the grist all at once to the hot water in the mash tun.  Pour and stir, then check the temp.

Agreed.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline malzig

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
    • View Profile
Re: Water to grain ratio for mash tun.
« Reply #48 on: March 16, 2011, 07:23:46 PM »
If the conversion efficiency between both mashes is the same a thin mash will have a better efficiency into the BK due to the larger amount of sparge water available in thick mashes.
Was this a typo?  I would think that more sparge water would lead to higher efficiency so that if you see any effect at all it would be that thicker mashes are more efficient.  Or am I missing a secondary effect here?
One secondary effect is that a lot of brewers are limited, not by sparging efficiency, but by conversion efficiency.  It's really the only way to explain the less than 75% efficiencies that so many homebrewers report.  Mashing thin improves conversion efficiency which can give a lot of people a bigger gain, with a reduced risk of of oversparging, than increasing their sparge volume.

Online Kaiser

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Imperial Brewing Geek
    • View Profile
    • braukaiser.com
Re: Water to grain ratio for mash tun.
« Reply #49 on: March 16, 2011, 08:21:56 PM »
I fully concur with that.

Kai

Offline tschmidlin

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8195
  • Redmond, WA
    • View Profile
Re: Water to grain ratio for mash tun.
« Reply #50 on: March 16, 2011, 11:36:00 PM »
I say I have no enzyme issues by adding the grist all at once to the hot water in the mash tun.  Pour and stir, then check the temp.
I haven't notice any problems when I add half the grist to the hot water, stir, then add the other half.  This tends to happen when I do 10 gallon batches.
Tom Schmidlin

Offline oscarvan

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1707
    • View Profile
Re: Water to grain ratio for mash tun.
« Reply #51 on: March 17, 2011, 01:36:37 AM »
FWIW.... Coleman 70 qt extreme.... 22 pounds of grist for most of what I brew, 10 gallons of water...=1.8 qt/g  All the grain in the cooler, all the water on top, cooler half full. Easy stirring, no spilling lots of room. Careful don't whack the thermometer. Nice soup close lid. RDWHAHB.
Wooden Shoe Brew Works (not a commercial operation) Bethlehem, PA
http://www.woodenshoemusic.com/WSBW/WSBW_All_grain_Setup.html
I brew WITH style..... not necessarily TO style.....

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 13456
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Water to grain ratio for mash tun.
« Reply #52 on: March 17, 2011, 09:10:40 AM »
I fully concur with that.

Kai

I concur also...I've seen it in my own brewing.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline tomsawyer

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Water to grain ratio for mash tun.
« Reply #53 on: March 17, 2011, 09:35:01 AM »
Comparing conversion of 1qt/lb to 3.4qt/lb, the thinner mash increased converson by 16%.  2qt/lb was 9.5% more efficient.  This would definitely compensate for reduced sparge volume resulting from using a higher mash volume.  I'm not sure this aspect was included in the study that concluded that equal runnings were ideal.  I haven't seen that info.
Lennie
Hannibal, MO

Online Kaiser

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Imperial Brewing Geek
    • View Profile
    • braukaiser.com
Re: Water to grain ratio for mash tun.
« Reply #54 on: March 17, 2011, 09:48:34 AM »
Comparing conversion of 1qt/lb to 3.4qt/lb, the thinner mash increased converson by 16%.  2qt/lb was 9.5% more efficient.  This would definitely compensate for reduced sparge volume resulting from using a higher mash volume.  I'm not sure this aspect was included in the study that concluded that equal runnings were ideal.  I haven't seen that info.

No, that aspect has not been included in that analysis and it cannot be included since conversion efficiency is not only a function of mash thickness but also a function of time, temperature, enzymatic strength, crush, mash profile, pH and the ones I forgot to list or don’t know about ;).

Kai

Offline andyi

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: Water to grain ratio for mash tun.
« Reply #55 on: March 17, 2011, 09:57:28 AM »
I need 7.75 gals to boil pot to get a post-boil 6gal batch (5.25 to the fermentor).  My mash ratio is around 1.7qts/1lb an that gives me roughly 50/50 on mash and sparg.

My efficiency is at 75%.  I am more concerned with consistency than max efficiency - also no dough balls.


Offline richardt

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1227
    • View Profile
Re: Water to grain ratio for mash tun.
« Reply #56 on: March 17, 2011, 10:07:24 AM »
Thanks everyone. 

Stirring a thick 10-gallon mash filled to the brim in a 10 Gallon round Rubbermaid with a long plastic spoon is getting old.
Not to mention the long(er) lauters due to grain bed compaction if I over-crush.

I'm thinking there's a Coleman 70 qt extreme cooler-->mashtun on my list of things to ask for Father's Day.
It certainly might make my brewday more enjoyable.

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 13456
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Water to grain ratio for mash tun.
« Reply #57 on: March 17, 2011, 11:29:54 AM »
Comparing conversion of 1qt/lb to 3.4qt/lb, the thinner mash increased converson by 16%.  2qt/lb was 9.5% more efficient.  This would definitely compensate for reduced sparge volume resulting from using a higher mash volume.  I'm not sure this aspect was included in the study that concluded that equal runnings were ideal.  I haven't seen that info.

As Kai says, it wasn't taken into account, but if you'd like to read the data, it's here...

http://home.roadrunner.com/~brewbeer/files/nbsparge.html
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline tomsawyer

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Water to grain ratio for mash tun.
« Reply #58 on: March 17, 2011, 02:14:22 PM »
Thanks Denny, I'd seen the link (I think you posted it) but it hadn't worked for me before.

Kai I'm not sure what you're saying.  Yes there are a number of variables that affect conversion efficiency, I think its reasonable to think that for a given set of conditions, a thinner mash would convert slightly better than a thick mash.  Maybe its not the case, I'm really not even sure why a thinner mash would give better conversion.  I wouldn't have predicted it.  It would be interesting to know the machanism, someone mentioned a postive effect on gelatinization and that seems reasonable.
Lennie
Hannibal, MO

Online Kaiser

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Imperial Brewing Geek
    • View Profile
    • braukaiser.com
Re: Water to grain ratio for mash tun.
« Reply #59 on: March 17, 2011, 03:13:37 PM »
Maybe its not the case, I'm really not even sure why a thinner mash would give better conversion.  I wouldn't have predicted it.  It would be interesting to know the machanism, someone mentioned a postive effect on gelatinization and that seems reasonable.

This is what I have on this:

"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. " (source)

I would not have predicted it either and only after having seen a fairly dramatic effect in my mashing experiments did I start proposing the idea that thinner mashes can give you better efficiency.

Kai