Very liquid mash - higher efficiency

[BritishBelgianTwst]

I was watching a video on basicbrewing.com and they were talking about the effect that a more liquid mash has on the efficiency of the mash - they mentioned that the more liquid in the mash the higher their efficiency tended to be - the guy talked about using two quarts per pound - if my calculations are correct thats more or less 4 litres per kg.

Can any of you guys comment based on your experience? I've not yet popped my cherry in all grain, I'm just waiting for the arrival of my crankandstein, so I'd like to know what you think.

Cheers,

Paul

[Gurgeh]

I'm inclined to agree.

The accepted norm is that 2.5L/Kg is optimum and I have religiously done that until a few months ago when I built my HERMS.

Since then I've been mashing wetter - 4Kg/L as you. My efficiency has gone from ~65% to >80%

(batch sparge, brewhouse efficiency)

I'm still pullling the same total runnings however, so it is related to wettness, not quanity of runnings.

[steve_flack]

I would tend to agree as well. In my experience a thinner mash doesn't actually make that much difference to fermentability but you do get somewhat higher extraction (I've not noticed the huge difference mentioned on BBR but there is a difference).

It's apparently traditional to use runnier mashes in German brewing. One reason is the need to pump the mash between the mash and the lauter tuns and the Germans feel that the quality of the wort is better with more mash liquor and less sparging. This would tie in with the perceived quality of no-sparge beers etc I guess.

[Gurgeh]

the Germans feel that the quality of the wort is better with more mash liquor and less sparging.

I'd agree with this too - not only has the efficiency of my practice improved since using more liquor, but my beer is better too.

of course, this part could be due to my HERMS making my wort clearer...

[BritishBelgianTwst]

Now, as I'm still in the theory stage of an AG brew I've a question.
If I have a grain bill of 4.3kg should I be mashing with about 13 litres or should I also take into account the liquor that'll be absorbed by the grain so about 17 litres?

Thanks again
Paul

[Aleman]

Beta amylase is less stable in a thinner mash . . . but its a function of time so this could well be the reason why a difference in fermentability is not seen . . . also in a calcium rich environment The stability of beta amylase is improved . . . I will add that going the other way (Mashing Thicker) I have seen a decrease in fermentability . . . . but as these tend to be big beers that finish higher anyway . . . .

The mash at Plzen can often (or could before the Germans changed everything ) reach 6L/Kg . . . as liquor is continually added during the decoction phase

[EportJake]

Just use the actual weight to calculate the water you use ie a grain bill of 4 kg using a water grain ratio of 3:1 would require 9L. This already takes into account water absorbed by the grains so you can ignore that.

Doesn't a 4kg grain bill with a 3:1 ratio require 12L or am I missing something?

[ColinKeb]

Call me unscientific but I just always use 3 gallons no matter what the weight, as a dave line disciple. which makes my mash rather wetter than 3:1. seems okay so far

[Dennis King]

Call me unscientific but I just always use 3 gallons no matter what the weight, as a dave line disciple. which makes my mash rather wetter than 3:1. seems okay so far

Me too. I always heat up about 15ltrs or so, run it into the tun then dough in the grains at the same time untill it feels right and hits the right temperature, so never know exact amount of water used. Looking at photos on this site I`ve thought mine seem on the sloppy side but `I`ve always had good efficiencys so why worry.

[wetdog]

wouldnt this method make for less clear runnings? if there is more water then wouldn't there be more grain in suspension and so less natural filtering...?

[Dennis King]

wouldnt this method make for less clear runnings? if there is more water then wouldn't there be more grain in suspension and so less natural filtering...?

Never had a problem, always get clear beers

[wetdog]

wouldnt this method make for less clear runnings? if there is more water then wouldn't there be more grain in suspension and so less natural filtering...?

Never had a problem, always get clear beers

maybe next time then I'll just put the grain in and fill the tun to the brim and mash with that to see what happens...

[ColinKeb]

Call me unscientific

Well you do store your hops on the wardrobe

no shes won, I negotiated a draw of the freezer in exchange for clothes that dont smell of hops. I do miss the smell at night though, I tried leaving bowls of hops around pretenting that they were pot porri but she wasnt fooled

[BritishBelgianTwst]

no shes won, I negotiated a draw of the freezer in exchange for clothes that dont smell of hops. I do miss the smell at night though, I tried leaving bowls of hops around pretenting that they were pot porri but she wasnt fooled

Didn't you try and convince her that its the hops that help you have a good night's sleep and not the copius amounts of beer you've put away before bed? Apparently they have sleep aiding properties even before boiling!