| Author |
Message |
    
jim 81147
New Member
Username: Jim81147
Post Number: 1
Registered: 10-2009
Posted From: 72.161.120.70
| | Posted on Sunday, October 25, 2009 - 02:11 am: | 
|
Is it any advantage to mash with less water so that you can do a mashout and raise the water/mash temp and not end up with a mash tun of soup. I am having trouble with proper attenuation and am thinking that I might be mashing with to much water to start . I use about 1/3 gallon per pound of grain in calculations but almost always have to add an additional 3/4 gallon to get the right temp. Then adding additional water at mashout makes for some watery grains. I batch sparge also. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 10859
Registered: 01-2002
Posted From: 24.141.103.148
| | Posted on Sunday, October 25, 2009 - 03:03 am: |
|
First, I don't think the mash thickness for mashing out makes very much difference. By then complete starch conversion should have taken place. After all, consider the mash thickness during sparging, especially if you batch sparge. And even though I mash out (my feeling is that it helps ease sparging and can improve efficiency slightly), I hardly would consider it essential.
I think the relevant mash thickness is that during conversion, and even then there is a lot of latitude. The evidence I have is that less than 1 quart of water per pound of grain prevents the starches from being completely hydrated, so I would consider that the bottom limit of thickness. The other end is probably something like 2.5 quarts per pound or a little less. At that point the malt enzymes become overdiluted. But between those limits lies quite a range to work with.
Your thickness of 1.33 quarts per pound seems quite reasonable to me, but if you're uncomfortable with the amount of water you have to add to raise the temperature for mashout (frankly, I wouldn't worry about it), go ahead and mash in at 1.1 quarts per pound. There may be some difference in terms of attenuation (to a point, thinner mashes are slightly more fermentable), but as far as I'm concerned it can be adjusted with other more significant factors, such as the saccharification temperature. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 7291
Registered: 01-2001
Posted From: 140.211.82.4
| | Posted on Monday, October 26, 2009 - 04:32 pm: |
|
I seldom bother with a mashout any longer. Since Kai Troester's on mash thickness and conversion efficiency came out, I've been going with a thinner mash (in the neighborhood of 1.6 qt./lb.)and finding increased efficiency. His stuff is available at www.braukaiser.com if you'd like to read it. |
Tex Brewer
Advanced Member
Username: Texbrewer
Post Number: 505
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 70.244.200.46
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 02:29 am: |
|
Denny, that's a wealth of information and experimental data. Thanks for the link. I need to spend more time looking at it. |
jim 81147
New Member
Username: Jim81147
Post Number: 3
Registered: 10-2009
Posted From: 72.161.120.70
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 03:14 am: |
|
Thanks Denny , I got me some reading to do!! |
dhacker
Senior Member
Username: Dhacker
Post Number: 1837
Registered: 11-2002
Posted From: 98.66.33.82
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 11:49 am: |
|
Nice info, thanks Denny.
If you read no other section of the link, at least read the Batch Sparging Analysis section. Quite interesting. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 10869
Registered: 01-2002
Posted From: 24.141.103.148
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Yes, Kai has a lot of material there. He mentions some issues I have also wrestled with, such as the fact that dissolved sugar (extract) has volume, that are not so well treated in the brewing literature. These issues, and many of the topics on Kai's site, would benefit from more discussion. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6847
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 74.83.191.159
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 02:11 pm: |
|
Dissolved sugar displaces 17 cubic inches (9.2 oz) per pound. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 7293
Registered: 01-2001
Posted From: 67.139.233.130
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 05:34 pm: |
|
Kai is starting to write for the "Geeks Only" section of Zymurgy. I look forward to a lot of great info from him. |
The Brewery's Brews & Views