[Slowbrew]

I believe that. Has to be a reason why the big breweries stir throughout the mash.

Because they're not homebrewers and their systems are different?  I haven't found any benefits to stirring half way through.  That's not to say that it doesn't work for others.

I haven't done any formal testing so I'm definitely not saying its a wonder cure.  I've just seen my OG end a little higher when I do than when I don't stir.  A coupe .001s here or there so not a whole lot of difference.  I happened to have done the same 2 beers on two different brew days with the only difference being stirring.  Same bags of grain and .002 to .003 higher OG.  One of those things that made me go "Hmmmm?".

Paul

[denny]

While their systems are obviously different from ours, stirring is stirring and you don't include extensive mechanics in a system unless there is a pay back of some kind. I've thought many times about including a stirrer in my system, but I just can't figure out how to do it neatly and inexpensively.

Obviously there are benefits for them, and for others.  But I've tried stirring the mash half way through a number of times and all it does for me is lose heat from the mash.

[a10t2]

I just can't believe that m is leading in the poll.

[stlaleman]

I just can't believe that m is leading in the poll.

Can't believe it either, then again I have no idea what the letters mean!

[tschmidlin]

I'm voting n, because I assume it means no pants.

[bluesman]

Maybe the OP can enlighten us as to the meaning of the letters in the poll.

[oscarvan]

SInce there was no "Q" I didn't vote.

[timberati]

I voted N because that's one of my initials.

[bonjour]

on topic guys

[hubie]

While their systems are obviously different from ours, stirring is stirring and you don't include extensive mechanics in a system unless there is a pay back of some kind. I've thought many times about including a stirrer in my system, but I just can't figure out how to do it neatly and inexpensively.

Obviously there are benefits for them, and for others.  But I've tried stirring the mash half way through a number of times and all it does for me is lose heat from the mash.

I thought the mash was stirred in a direct fired tun for temperature uniformity and to keep the grains from scorching on the bottom.

[denny]

I thought the mash was stirred in a direct fired tun for temperature uniformity and to keep the grains from scorching on the bottom.

In that situation, you're correct.

[ccarlson]

I thought the mash was stirred in a direct fired tun for temperature uniformity and to keep the grains from scorching on the bottom.

In that situation, you're correct.

That could very well be the main reason, but they also get consistent efficiencies well into the 90's.

[tubercle]

Uh oh..... here we go again....

 You trying to start something?

 Measure your efficency before the boil. It has nothing to do with after the boil.
If it did I could put a drop in a 55 gallon of water and get 0.00000001 effeicancy or boil it down to a soild and get 99.9999%.

What you extract out of the grain, AKA Grain Effiency, has nothing to do with the boil.

Its all about converting the goody.

[ccarlson]

If it did I could put a drop in a 55 gallon of water and get 0.00000001 effeicancy or boil it down to a soild and get 99.9999%.

Well said. +1

[tschmidlin]

Measure your efficency before the boil. It has nothing to do with after the boil.

I know what you're trying to say tubercle, but this is misleading.  You can measure your efficiency in the kettle before or after the boil, it doesn't matter.  The efficiency will not change.  You can measure it in the fermenter and it will be lower than in the kettle because of losses, but that's just a different kind of efficiency.

Efficiency is just the sugar content of the volume.  If you collect more and boil it down you will have a higher gravity, thus a higher efficiency.  But the boil didn't (and can't) change the efficiency.