I’ve mashed thick and thin and haven’t noticed much difference - meaning from 1.1 - 2 qts/lb. I like a thinner mash for the ease of a quicker runoff. For the record, I batch sparge.
No difference whatsoever. Why would there be?
Ditto
I was a bit surprised at the amounts of water used by many on this post. I usually stay around 1.25 per pound.
Why the surprise?
Isn’t up to 2 qts/lb safe with limited pH worries.
some info from Kai Troester’s website:
[quote]Mash thickness
The results for mash thickness were somewhat surprising. Contrary to common believe no attenuation difference was seen between a thick mash (2.57 l/kg or 1.21 qt/lb) and a thin mash (5 l/kg or 2.37 qt/lb). Home brewing literature suggests that thin mashes lead to more fermentable worts, but technical brewing literature suggests that the mash concentration doesn’t have much effect in well modified malts [Narziss, 2005]. Briggs cites data that doesn’t show a change in fermentability when the mash thickness is changed [Briggs, 2004]. This was confirmed by these experiments where all the data points were on the same curve that had already been established in the temperature experiment.
Note, that the experiments for the 2.57 l/kg mash were run twice because the initial experiment resulted in a small mash volume that lost 5 degree Celsius over the duration of the mash. To keep the temperature drop between the experiments the same the mash volume was increased and the result was a 2 degree Celsius temperature drop which matched the temperature drop for the 5 l/kg mash. But in the end that didn’t make a difference.
A significant difference was however found in the efficiency. The brewhouse efficiency of the tick mashes remained almost constant between 58 and 60% over the temperature range of the experiments, but the brewhouse efficiency for the thinner mash showed a strong dependency on the temperature and was always better than the efficiency of the tick mash. That leads to the conclusion that thinner mashes perform better and allow for better extraction of the grain. Briggs also reports that thinner mashes can convert more starch but that most of the conversion potential is reached at a water to grist ratio of 2.5 l/kg [Briggs, 2004]
[/quote]
[quote]Mash thickness
In order to convert the starches, water is needed. Not only for process of gelatinization or hydration of the enzymes but also for the conversion process itself. Whenever a gluclose chain is split (either to create a sugar molecule or a shorter starch chain) one molecule of water is needed. In addition to the reduced amount of free water the high sugar concentrations in thick mashes also impede the amylase enzymes [Briggs, 2004].
Traditional British style infusion mashes are with about 2-2.5 l/kg (1 - 1.15 qt/lb) very thick and German style mashes are generally much thinner (3.5-5 l/kg / 1.75-2.5 qt/lb). Historically this is rooted in the fact that the latter needed to be pumped and stirred.
In the limit of attenuation experiments it was shown that a 5 l/kg (2.4 qt/lb) mash showed much better conversion efficiency than a 2.5 l/kg (1.2 qt/lb) mash. This is also supported by anecdotal experience from home brewers who found that thin mashes generally lead to better overall efficiency.
While thick mashes help to stabilize the enzymes which makes them active for a longer time, they also inhibit their activity (substrate inhibition) and make it more difficult for the starch to gelatenize. As a result in thinner mashes the conversion processes occur faster. When it comes to conversion efficiency the main enzyme responsible, the alpha amylase, is still fairly stable at common saccharification rest temps and as a result it can take the full benefit from a thinner mash and an increase in conversion efficiency is commonly notes when the mash thickness is decreased. Beta amylase on the other hand is not as stable at these temperatures and it will be denatured more quickly in thinner mashes. But this is compensated by the faster activity of that enzyme which results in no change of the wort fermentability when the mash thickens is changed.
[/quote]
I’m not sure why so many brewers mash thick and then sparge with huge volumes - seems a lot of effort for no gain to me. The only persuasive reason for a thick mash I’ve come across is that the grain buffers pH well, but that advantage disappears when sparging.
Do you step mash? If so, have you seen pH swings based on the temp (the higher the step the higher pH rises) with low amounts of minerals (i.e. pilsen type water)?
Capacity is a good reason to mash thick.
I use a 2 gallon Coleman Stacker cooler for a mash tun and generally have to use a thicker water to grist ration when doing higher gravity beers.
Up to at least 4 qt/lb is fine. I haven’t personally gone any thinner than that.
I only do single infusion mashes so can’t say unfortunately.
Yes that makes sense. Probably simpler than buying a bigger mash tun.
Me neither, but it would be pretty low abv if you went any thinner.
You may want to increase your mash times for mashes that thin. I know I started to see my efficiencies fall off once I got close to 4qt/lb until I started mashing longer.
I gotta say, once I read this and similar threads and started mashing thinner, I experienced a nice jump in my efficiency.
Same here, up from high 60s to just over 80%. I use about 80% of the liquor in the mash and the remaining 20% for single batch sparge.
I have seen higher effeciency with thin mashes as well. Most likely the times I noted a change in fermentablity with a thinner mash it was some other factor I overlooked…I would have to check back on notes. You guys have no problem answering questions and that is nice to see. I love a topic or question that gets wheels turning and people responding with their thoughts and experience(s).
This is a great thread. I have been using Beersmith’s default 1.250 for years now. I may go thinner (Denny’s recommendation) for the next batch.
Brad smith is a great guy and Beersmith is a wonderful piece of software. Unfortunately, though, too many people look at it as instructions on how to brew and never change the defaults.