I'm playing around with Beersmith2 with a mashing profile. I'm fiddling with a single infusion 2 step full body. I'm wondering if there is an ideal or preferred water to grain ratio to work on for a mash prior to sparging? I'm thinking too much or too little water will affect the PH during that stage.
Water to Grain Ratio
- Thread starter Morrie
- Start date
Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:
There are too many possible answers and I'm not 100% sure what you mean by single infusion 2 step full body - almost sounds like a contradiction.
As a general rule lower L:G favour fuller bodied beers, you need about 2.5:1 to cover the grist with water, 3:1 is very common and a good general purpose ratio, that should still give a decent body and leaves plenty for sparging (in commercial brewing 3.75:1 is about half and half mash in and sparge).
somewhere around 3-3.5:1 should be good.
I wouldn't worry too much about the pH, the difference between 2.5-3.5:1 isn't going to make much of a difference. In any case If you aren't measuring pH at best you are making an educated guess, if you are measuring pH adjust as needed.
Mark
As a general rule lower L:G favour fuller bodied beers, you need about 2.5:1 to cover the grist with water, 3:1 is very common and a good general purpose ratio, that should still give a decent body and leaves plenty for sparging (in commercial brewing 3.75:1 is about half and half mash in and sparge).
somewhere around 3-3.5:1 should be good.
I wouldn't worry too much about the pH, the difference between 2.5-3.5:1 isn't going to make much of a difference. In any case If you aren't measuring pH at best you are making an educated guess, if you are measuring pH adjust as needed.
Mark
In brewing it is often a mistake to try to take one variable in isolation.
If everything else was the same (pH, temperature, water chemistry...) then yes thicker mashes favour the enzymes that give beer with more body. The effect of temperature is bigger so by mashing a little hotter you favour body, adjusting the pH up a bit to favour Alpha Amylase over Beta will also have an effect, to some extent more Calcium will protect Alpha amylase again favouring higher body.
On their own (except possibly temperature) each might not have a huge effect, in combination of all of the above can and will make a pronounced difference.
Its hard to say what is a "Typical" anything for BIAB brewers, the original or classis BIAB was an all in at the start so 5-6:1 L:G for most brews, all things being equal a condition that favours the classic pilsner type of beer body and flavours. The get into AG for $20 thing, can easily create great conditions for pretty gluey beer.
A bit of playing around with the strike water calculations shows that mashing in very heavy (<2.5:1) means that your strike water is so hot some brewers have had attenuation problems as they were killing of most of the beta amylase, guaranteeing lots of body.
A balance of all the factors and knowing a bit about how they interact will give you a lot more control of what you are brewing.
Mark
If everything else was the same (pH, temperature, water chemistry...) then yes thicker mashes favour the enzymes that give beer with more body. The effect of temperature is bigger so by mashing a little hotter you favour body, adjusting the pH up a bit to favour Alpha Amylase over Beta will also have an effect, to some extent more Calcium will protect Alpha amylase again favouring higher body.
On their own (except possibly temperature) each might not have a huge effect, in combination of all of the above can and will make a pronounced difference.
Its hard to say what is a "Typical" anything for BIAB brewers, the original or classis BIAB was an all in at the start so 5-6:1 L:G for most brews, all things being equal a condition that favours the classic pilsner type of beer body and flavours. The get into AG for $20 thing, can easily create great conditions for pretty gluey beer.
A bit of playing around with the strike water calculations shows that mashing in very heavy (<2.5:1) means that your strike water is so hot some brewers have had attenuation problems as they were killing of most of the beta amylase, guaranteeing lots of body.
A balance of all the factors and knowing a bit about how they interact will give you a lot more control of what you are brewing.
Mark
Yes a fuller explanation would be interesting.
If this is indeed the case then there would be no problems actually doing a thicker BIAB mash, say in your urn, then simply top up and a stir before bag lautering.
On my tablet at the moment. When I get back to the PC I'll check Braukaiser and see what the Germans do. I'm pretty sure they have a variable L/G ratio as they use hot liquor additions to ramp up between rests.
Edit, Mark beat me to it. Will check further.
If this is indeed the case then there would be no problems actually doing a thicker BIAB mash, say in your urn, then simply top up and a stir before bag lautering.
On my tablet at the moment. When I get back to the PC I'll check Braukaiser and see what the Germans do. I'm pretty sure they have a variable L/G ratio as they use hot liquor additions to ramp up between rests.
Edit, Mark beat me to it. Will check further.
Bit of a lift here from Braukaiser, full article here.
Mash thickness
Figure 18 - the effect of mash thickness on attenuation and efficiency
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 thick 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]
Mash thickness
Figure 18 - the effect of mash thickness on attenuation and efficiency
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 thick 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]
Similar threads
