# Water to grain ratio, does it really matter?



## thisispants (24/10/14)

So I'm slowly setting up my 3 vessel all grain rig having previously brewed BIAB style.

My question is, with BIAB you're essentially mashing with the total pre-boil volume.... however most books I've been reading say 2.5-ish L per kg grain is best for traditional all grain brewing.

I've been hearing a lot about how BIAB vs traditional 3 vessel brewing has negligible differences in the end product.

Assuming this is true, can I just add my total water amount into the mash and then just drain and boil?

If not, why?


----------



## hoppy2B (24/10/14)

Of course you can add the whole amount of water at once but common sense would suggest a better efficiency if you sparge.


----------



## fletcher (24/10/14)

when i sparge, i get an increase in 5 points for efficiency. i wind it down to 70% and don't bother sparging, and in doing so, save myself cleaning and 10-15 mins of pissing about. it's a handful of grain so very minimal cost when on a homebrew scale.

total water amount is fine, but try it for yourself and then you can make your own mind up. do the same recipe with less water, then try it full volume. 

i biab.


----------



## tavas (24/10/14)

You can add all of your water at once, but then you've lost any advantage of 3V and may as we'll go to straight BIAB.


----------



## thisispants (24/10/14)

But if I add more than the general-ish recommended guidelines of approx 2.5L/kg, and still sparge 50% of my total water, would this negatively affect the beer?


----------



## manticle (24/10/14)

Lots of tests have been done on mash thickness. From my reading, 2.5 per L is about as low as you want to go. There are benefits to much thinner mashes. I'll try and remember to look it up tomorrow but the de clerck text (oldie but goodie) goes into significant detail about mash thickness.

What is the benefit of 3v tavas? Clearer wort through recirc?

I 3v and generally mash at 2.5-3 per kg but I don't believe there's a significant advantage in doing so - it just works satisfactorily, suits my system and is how I started.


----------



## anthonyUK (25/10/14)

As a BIABer I'll stick to the mantra that there are practical limits to efficiency in relation to quality and that the hassle of sparging is not worth it.
I'm not a commercial outfit and my product is aiming for the highest quality rather than to a budget.

That is common sense


----------



## manticle (25/10/14)

Biab no sparge done right should get comparable efficiency to 3v whatever anyway.


----------



## tavas (25/10/14)

manticle said:


> What is the benefit of 3v tavas? Clearer wort through recirc?
> .


I actually don't know. I use to BIAB then moved to Braumeister so I cannot speak specifically to the advantages of 3V and I don't want to start a 3V/BIAB war because there's plenty of info on that already. In my opinion there are no advantages, but that's my view only. My experience has not shown any final benefit to the final product through clearer wort, but you do get more recovery of wort to the boiler so in effect a small efficiency gain. Taste of both processes was the same and clarity of final product the same.

I guess the OP needs to ask why go to the trouble of setting up a 3V system if he isn't going to use it as such, as there is much simpler and more affordable equipment available that makes (in my opinion) as good beer. As Thirstyboy told me, don't complicate the BIAB system as you lose the simplicity and gain none of the advantages of multi vessel brewing. 

So by making a dilute initial mash the OP is neither 3V nor simple BIAB and not really gaining a benefit of either system (if there is one), but is using more equipment and creating a more complex process to make pretty much the same product.

To answer the OP tho, you will still make great beer either way. Beer making is pretty forgiving. There is no one "right way".


----------



## manticle (25/10/14)

I agree with that. If I was an extract brewer going AG, I'd go straight to no sparge biab. I'm rudimentary 3v cos that's how I started and it works but no better than the biab systems I'm familiar with. I just have more crap in my backyard


----------



## wide eyed and legless (25/10/14)

To answer the OP tho, you will still make great beer either way. Beer making is pretty forgiving. There is no one "right way". 
( quote tavas post 9)
Agree 100% and I think that one has to go out of their way to make a lousy beer, follow all the basic principals then try experimenting for ones self to improve the final outcome.


----------



## MHB (25/10/14)

[SIZE=medium]2.5:1 is the MINIMUM not the recommended L:G for mashing in and it can be very important; really in most systems somewhere around 3.5:1 is going to be the norm.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]There are a couple of things to consider when choosing your mash in ratio and strike temperature[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Low L:G favours the Cytolyic enzymes that break down cell walls and Glucan these are also low temperature enzymes like B-Glucanase, Phytase, Proteases...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]High L:G favours Saccharifying enzymes A & B Amylase, that make sugars[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]About the biggest mistake you can make is to mash in hot and heavy, i.e. trying to hit 65o[/SIZE]C at 2.5:1 means the strike water is so hot it will be killing most of the Beta Amylase, this will lead to very sweet beer and low efficiencies, a common enough problem with the 23L in a 19L pot theory

[SIZE=medium]The above relationship between Cytolyic and Saccharifying enzymes leads to a very helpful condition, you can mash in cool and viscous (low L:G) to get as much work out of the low temp enzymes as you can. Then by adding hot water move to your Saccharifying rest/s and in the process move to a more appropriate L:G ratio for those enzymes.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]There will be both efficiency dividends and the beer will taste better.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Mark[/SIZE]


----------



## TheWiggman (25/10/14)

I love that you're posting fairly regularly here again Mark.


----------



## lael (25/10/14)

Agreed wiggman. Love the technical knowledge not just pontificating. Keep it up Mark!


----------



## manticle (25/10/14)

Quick flick through various texts pulls up a few ideas.
Lewis and bamforth discuss the limits of equipment size, thus often requiring water to be added in multiple stages. Remember this is commercial breweries being discussed. Again to reiterate -2.5:1 is the minimum. They suggest 5:1 is commonly used in lager and temp controlled mashing systems and is easier to work with.

Fix in principles of brewing science suggests thick mashes promote proteolytic activity, thinner mashes favour carbohydrase action. The difference between 2:1 and 3:1 in this regard is small though.

Noonan in new brewing lager beer suggests doughing in cold with the least amount of liquor possible and infusing with more to reach temp steps and final volume. His discussion often appears to pertain to poorly modified malt.

De Clerck is the oldest text but dense and full and I believe still widely respected. The range he speaks about is between 2:1 and 4:1, dependent on mash method and wort gravity. Underletting requires thicker mash and 2- 2.5:1 is the ratio given. Without underletting, 3.5-4:1 is more general. Further in the text when discussing German brewing, he suggests munich styles use a thicker mash (undermodified malt, step mash with decoctions) and pilsener styles use thinner. Again he suggests that actual ratios are just as dependent on equipment as anything else.

I was sure I had some more info somewhere which I'll keep looking for - mostly what I get from the above is that there is an acceptable range and different regimes give different results, some significant, others less so.
I am sure I have a text somewhere that compares ratios from 1.5:1 all the way up to around 6:1 and the relationship to extract efficiency but I'm not sure which or where it is.
Take from the above what you will. Essentially, I like to read so I get some theoretical knowledge, then try so I have some practical experience. Both feed and support each other.


----------



## JasonP (25/10/14)

Can't remember where but a while ago I read that decoction mashed beers such as pilsner use thin mashes, 5:1, because it's easier to pump around the brewhouse. Obviously this is on commercial scale.


----------

