Mashing...Wheeler v. Palmer

[Blackjack]

Now I wouldn't be surprised if this has been well discussed before. BUT...

GW in BYOBRA says... Add the grist and carefully stir it into the liquor.... at a ratio of 2.5:1 water to grist.
John Palmer in How to Brew says..... You want to add the water to the grain, not the other way round.....at a ratio of between 3:1 and 4:1 ie. much thinner.

Who is right? . I do it the GW way with no problems, but I can see what Mr Palmer is getting at..one doesn't want to denature the beta amylase by getting it too hot as you are in the process of mixing the grain in. Or doesn't it matter?, is the beta-amylase not that badly affected in the couple of minutes while it all gets mixed up?

And is Mr P correct to say that a ratio of 4:1 will not adversely affect the action of the enzymes in sacharification?.

[Eadweard]

If you put the grain in first you're much more likely to get a stuck mash.

[steve_flack]

And is Mr P correct to say that a ratio of 4:1 will not adversely affect the action of the enzymes in sacharification?.

It supposedly alters the balance of the beer (I think it's supposed to end up with a more fermentable wort) but not by much. I often mash very thin and have no problems. It's also common in German brewing where they use a separate lauter tun to separate the grain from the wort (and sparge less).

As it happens I add the grain first then the liquor. I actually get less grain balls that way than adding the grain to the liquor. I underlet though. I'd imagine you'd have more problems if you just poured the liquor in on top.

[196osh]

If you have a properlly designed filter and stir well I don't think that you will get a stuck mash in any case unless your using a lot of wheat or oats or whatever.

Either would be fine, I think, but adding the grains to water as GW suggests means that you can pre heats the mahs tun with water. I wouldn't worry about getting thr grains too warm, the vast majority of the time the temp of the strike water will be below 75C anyway and will be brought down to mash temp very quickly.

Mr Palmer is right about the water ratio, there will be no issue with getting the starches to convert.

[Blackjack]

Good answers, and Mr Palmers objection falls down even more because he is using a lower strike temperature of about 72 C because he has a higher ratio of water

And I know that at least some microbrewers make life easier by using an auger to load the grist in with the mash liquor premixing with it as it comes out the end and into the tun.

[steve_flack]

I believe that's called a Steele's Masher.

[Wolfy]

GW suggests 2.5l/kg.
JP suggests 'stiff mash' 1.25Q/lb, 'normal mash' 1.5Q/lb, and 'thin mash' 2Q/lb, this translates to about 2.6l/kg, 3.1l/kg, and 4.1l/kg.
So really both are really the same thing, since GW's ratio is the same as JP's 'stiff mash' ratio.
JP's book also says that the water ratio probably has the least effect on the mash outcome compared to the other controllable parameters like temp and pH.
The reason he seems to suggest a lower water/grain ratio is so that you can add extra water to adjust the temps as required.

I don't recall any specific mention in JP's book where he says to add the water to the grain (but it's probably there, and it is implied), however I find I get less dough balls if I do it the other way around. Adding the water to the mash tun first also allows the tun to heat up and easier and more precise temperature control of the liquor before the grain is added.

[Blackjack]

GW suggests 2.5l/kg.
JP suggests 'stiff mash' 1.25Q/lb, 'normal mash' 1.5Q/lb, and 'thin mash' 2Q/lb, this translates to about 2.6l/kg, 3.1l/kg, and 4.1l/kg.
So really both are really the same thing, since GW's ratio is the same as JP's 'stiff mash' ratio.
JP's book also says that the water ratio probably has the least effect on the mash outcome compared to the other controllable parameters like temp and pH.
The reason he seems to suggest a lower water/grain ratio is so that you can add extra water to adjust the temps as required.

I don't recall any specific mention in JP's book where he says to add the water to the grain (but it's probably there, and it is implied), however I find I get less dough balls if I do it the other way around. Adding the water to the mash tun first also allows the tun to heat up and easier and more precise temperature control of the liquor before the grain is added.

Quite, but I have read expert suggestions that it does affect the conversion significantly and Mr P consistently through the book suggests 3 or 4 to 1
pg 201. Your first all grain mash..Starting the mash...para 3. The Mash In.

Starting from GW and Mr P I was looking to see what other people thought and whether they could shed alternative light on the subject. I know from Graham's excellent contributions on here that there is considerable theory behind BYOBRA which is kept as simple and practical as feasible to cover all of the essentials.

[Dennis King]

I always used to add grain to water, however after trying underletting a while back I much prefer this way. I find it easier and reach correct temperature quicker. I think its a case of water first if going in from the top or grain first if the waters going in via. the tap.

[Wolfy]

Quite, but I have read expert suggestions that it does affect the conversion significantly and Mr P consistently through the book suggests 3 or 4 to 1

Do you have references for those?
I do have a spreadsheet and my Beersmith setup for different mash profiles/water ratios, but mostly presumed it was just an anal-retentive thing than something that really changed much.

[steve_flack]

Quite, but I have read expert suggestions that it does affect the conversion significantly and Mr P consistently through the book suggests 3 or 4 to 1
pg 201. Your first all grain mash..Starting the mash...para 3. The Mash In.

My understanding is that mash thickness has little or no effect on attenuation - mash temperature has more of an effect. Indeed that is borne out by experimental evidence here

http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.ph ... on_mashing

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 eperiments 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]

As an aside, does anyone know if there's an English version of Narziss' 'Abriss der Bierbrauerei'? It's very commonly cited and I'd like a copy. My German is pretty crap though....

[boingy]

I think it probably makes very little difference but I am interested in the Wheeler vs Palmer thing. How would that work? Would it be a cage fight or a mud wrestle?

[Aleman]

I think it probably makes very little difference but I am interested in the Wheeler vs Palmer thing. How would that work? Would it be a cage fight or a mud wrestle?

No, put them in a commercial mash tun armed with mash paddles

[boingy]

I think it probably makes very little difference but I am interested in the Wheeler vs Palmer thing. How would that work? Would it be a cage fight or a mud wrestle?

No, put them in a commercial mash tun armed with mash paddles

Heheh .
"Go on! Mash him!"....

[delboy]

Being fairly new to brewing and Palmer's book, I'm quite familiar with his instructions. The reason for adding water to grain seems to be to avoid "shocking" the enzymes...

In their dehydrated state the enzymes are very resistant to thermal shocking, they need to be hydrated (solvated) before they would suffer damage, this isn't instantaenous by the time they become hydrated i would imagine the mash has been throughly mixed and the temperature will have dropped to the optimal mashing temp due to the addition of the colder grain to the strike water. For my money palmer is worrying unduly.