39 replies to this topic

[Big Nake]

How do most of you all-grain batch spargers determine your water-to-grains ratio? A lot of my beers are around the same OG... many, many recipes have between 9 and 10 lbs of grain in them. I had been in the habit of using about 3 gallons of water to mash. If I use 9 lbs or less, this 3 gallons is a little more than the accepted 1 to 1.25 qts of water per pound of grain. Is this an issue? I actually make a few 4% beers with between 8 and 8½ pounds of grain which would make it pretty thin. What are the caveats of a "thin" mash and where do most of you guys put your ratio... close to 1 qt per pound or what? I have heard that THICK mashes can be more fermentable.

[zymot]

I use the very scientifc method to determine the volume of my strike water. I go with a volume that is easiest to measure.My HLT is marked in 2 quart steps. I backwards calculate the strike temp to accomidate 12, 16, 18, etc quarts.As a rule of thumb, I go for 1.25 qts/lb to 2 qts/lb, shooting for around 1.5 qts/lb.I have never heard fermentable wort tied to strike water/grain ratio. Mash temps is the closest I know of to affect fermentability. Probably more accurately mouthfeel.zymot

[DaBearSox]

I remember reading one time (i think on here) that a thinner mash means a sweeter beer in the end...then about 2 minutes ago i was looking at another site (google sent me there i swear) and read this:

Try increasing the amount of mash water you are using by 25-50%. Homebrewers tend to mash very thick. I was over at a Fermentation Sciences demo Sunday and they said most of their mashes are 5:1 and they rarely go below 3:1. Dropping from 5:1 to 3:1 costs them about 9% in extraction efficiency.

https://www.homebrew...-enzyme-110378/so there are some homebrew world tidbits for you...i really don't have any scientific backing on either of those statements

[Joe]

I've read so many varying reports on the water:grist ratio - I'm not sure what the real answer is. I've heard that 1.25 (or 1.3) is the optimum ratio for wort fermentability. I've heard experts say that 5:1 is better. It would stand to reason that there is some affect as enzymes and sugars become more dilute.I really don't worry about it too much - I've gone from 1.1:1 all the way to 4:1 and don't notice enough difference to worry about it. So I just do whatever is convenient to split the strike/sparge water into equal proportions. My efficiency ranges from 72% to 79% - but I think variance is due more to crush than mashing technique.I use this calculator: https://www.brewhead.../batch.phpAfter a few batches, you figure out the thermal heat loss and grain absorption numbers and it is amazingly accurate (I guess not so amazing - math is math - I'm just not good at it!)Joe

[Kremer]

I just heat up my strike water to 175-180 and add and stir until I get the mash temp I want. Which is usually just slightly after the mash goes from porridge to thick soup in feel when stirring.ratio? I donno....

[ncbeerbrewer]

I just took a look at my grain/water ratio last weekend as I was doing some reading on commercial beer ratios and find that I do all my recipes at 1.2 qts/lb. I do all my recipe formulations and brew sessions in Beersmith and that setting has done well for me from smaller 1.050 to bigger 1.086 beers that I have brewed in the last two years. I double crush my grains and follow this ratio and I have been hitting and even exceeding the projected SG given to me from Beersmith. This has been done as well without extending the boil beyond 60 minutes which is my standard boil time I use.

[Big Nake]

Thanks guys. Wow, 5:1? Five quarts of water per pound of grain? So if I had a 5:1 ratio on a batch with 9 lbs of grain I would use 45 quarts of water... 10½ gallons? I can't be reading that right.I wish I could remember where I saw it, but I either read it in a book or saw it on forums where a thicker mash is a more fermentable mash which would lean towards DaBearSox's comment about a thinner mash creating a sweeter (less-fermentable?) wort. For awhile there I think I was mashing too high because my cheap analog thermo was off. Then I got a glass lab thermo and things are looking much better in that department. So now I'm looking closer at the ratio. If the vast majority of you Beerheads suggest that it's nothing to lose sleep over, I will purge the thought from my mind. Cheers.

[Steve Urquell]

I used to mash at 1.25qts/lb. and my efficiency was always 72%. I tried crushing finer, different water, 5.2 stabilizer, 3 sparges, mash outs. Everything that's supposed to raise efficiency with no change. Then, I tried 1.75qts per lb. Efficiency went up to 76% and no change in the beer(body, flavor, etc.) whatsoever. I think I'm just leaving less sugar behind now.

[djinkc]

I try to stick with 1.33/1. It's easier for me to hit strike temps using the same ratio most of the time. I think it's easier to hit the attenuation I want that way rather than messing with the ratio.

[stellarbrew]

I remember at some point reading the same concept Ken is talking about. The idea is supposedly that a thick mash concentrates the enzymes, and will produce a more fermentable wort, given a long enough mash time. The other side to that is that a thinner mash makes the enzymes more mobile and uniform throughout the mass, and will convert faster.I haven't been able to directly see any correlation between fermentability and mash thickness in my own experience. However, just like chils, I find that I get notably better efficiency with a thinner mash. These days I am mashing at around 1.75 to 2 quarts per pound for most beers, in order to take advantage of the improved efficiency.

[zymot]

I remember reading one time (i think on here) that a thinner mash means a sweeter beer in the end...then about 2 minutes ago i was looking at another site (google sent me there i swear) and read this:

Try increasing the amount of mash water you are using by 25-50%. Homebrewers tend to mash very thick. I was over at a Fermentation Sciences demo Sunday and they said most of their mashes are 5:1 and they rarely go below 3:1. Dropping from 5:1 to 3:1 costs them about 9% in extraction efficiency.

https://www.homebrew...-enzyme-110378/so there are some homebrew world tidbits for you...i really don't have any scientific backing on either of those statements

5:1 ratio!!! I suspect that is metric or something to kilograms to liters.If it was lbs to quarts, a 10 lb grain bill would be 50 quarts, 12.5 gallons. For a 5 gallon batch the grains absorb ~7 gallons. So we know that aint right.For 10 lbs, I would use 16 quarts, (1:1.6) 4 gallons because it is easy to measure. 9 lbs would be 14 (1 to 1.56). I batch sparge and know I am going to add more water before I drain the mash tun for the first time, so the exact volume of strike is not important.zymot

[Big Nake]

Okay, good stuff guys. It appears that some of you are over the 1.25qt/lb ratio so it must not be a big deal. Maybe I need to look at some of my books to see what the experts have to say on the subject. I have this AG flowchart on my site which basically starts by saying "heat 3 gallons of water to 170°..." which is what I have always done. I knew about the 1-1.25/qt/lb thing but there was always other stuff to concentrate on.Zymot: I thought that 5:1 stat was crazy too... there must be more to it, otherwise you'd never have to add sparge water.

[tag]

I think the 5:1 is L/kg which equals 2.4 qt/lb

[Joe]

Zymot: I thought that 5:1 stat was crazy too... there must be more to it, otherwise you'd never have to add sparge water.

If you did a no sparge, 5:1 wouldn't be unrealistic, correct?

[Steve Urquell]

I find that I get notably better efficiency with a thinner mash. These days I am mashing at around 1.75 to 2 quarts per pound for most beers, in order to take advantage of the improved efficiency.

The only reason I don't use 2qt/lb. is b/c my 28qt. mash tun runs out of space.

[MakeMeHoppy]

I like 1.3 : 1 and then round up to the nearest quart. I think going a lot higher 2:1 and above you probably need to worry more about PH level a lot more. I'd be interested in hearing more about 5:1 and why that is recommended.

[djinkc]

I think the 5:1 is L/kg which equals 2.4 qt/lb

OK, I suppose that would work for an Ordinary Bitter, but I don't see how you could make a metric American Wheat.

[zymot]

If you did a no sparge, 5:1 wouldn't be unrealistic, correct?

Still crazy10 lbs recipe at 75% efficiency into a 5 gallon batch = ~1.050 OG10 lbs at 5:1 = 50 qts or 12.5 gallons.Use .12 gal/lb retention by grains and you have 1.2 gallons.5.5 gallons in you boil kettle, 1.2 gallons soaked into your grains = 6.7 gallons accounted for.12.5 gallons - 6.7 = 5.8 WTF gallons unaccounted for.No way would you use 5:1 (or 1:5) ratio when talking pounds of grain to quarts of water.zymot

[EWW]

I'm typically around 1.1-1.8 due to my system. on a 10ish gallon batch I add ~8 gallons at around 170-180 to 20-28 lbs of grain ... IMO as long as I keep it under 2 I'm good to go

[davelew]

I think the 5:1 is L/kg which equals 2.4 qt/lb

I agree with this. Some German and Czech lager brewers are known to mash at ratios like 2.5 qts/lb. Pilsner Urquell also supposedly has an 8 hour boil.As for the original question about mash thickness, here is the data that I have on how mash temperature and thickness affect fermentability:______0.7 qt/lb_____1.2 qt/lb_____1.7 qt/lb140F____73.3%_______76.1%_______76.2%150F____67.4%_______71.2%_______69.7%155F____64.4%_______65.0%_______65.3%