pls compare three brewers w/ same grain bill

I'm trying to work my way through the all-grain process within the confines of my equipment, and understand the choices to be made. I have three mashing schedules prepared, please tell me what I can expect from each, in terms of extraction, body, flavor, etc.

For all brews, assume the following:
10 lb grain bill, cracked identically.
Mash-tun: 5 gallon igloo cooler with SS braid.
6.5 gallon pre-boil volume target.
152 deg F mash temp
Grain absorbs 0.1 gallons/lb, or 1 gallon of water.

Beer 1:
grain/water ratio = 1 qt/lb (2.5 gallons)
Sparge twice with 2.5 gallons each.
* the mash contributes 2.5-1=1.5 gallons of wort
* 5 gallons contributed by sparge

Beer 2:
grain/water ratio = 1 qt/lb (2.5 gallons)
Mashout with 1.1 gallon of boiling water added to mash
Sparge once with 3.9 gallons
*mash now has 2.5-1+1.1=2.6 gallons
* 3.9 gallons contributed by sparge.

Beer 3:
grain/water ratio = 1.5 qt/lb (3.75 gallons)
Sparge once with 3.75 gallons
* the mash contributes 3.75-1=2.75 gallons of wort
* 3.75 gallons contributed by sparge

I doubt you'll see huge differences between them. Option #1 will most likely give you a small increase in efficiency due to the double sparge. Options #2 and #3 will be the same, but if you batch sparge, you may either see better fermentability or a shorter brew day with #3 due to the lack of mashout. In any case, I wouldn't sweat it too much. All options will make good beer, and all are used by good brewers. Use what works best for you.

What Tuborg said.

The traits you mentioned are more controlled by temp and PH of mash than mash/sparge schedule. The growing opinion is that differences in mash thickness have almost no, if any, noticeable effect on the finished product. People use everywhere from 1 quart/lb to full volume mash like in BIAB.

I'd go with #3 because it's the easiest/least complicated.

Also, thick mashes are hard to work with. I prefer a thin mash of 1.5qt/lb or greater and you don't have to sparge as much with lower gravity beers.

interesting. Is the thin vs thick being largely irrelevant a relatively new concept? I'm just now going all-grain and am re-investigating all of this; it's very possible my source reference mat'l is all outdated.

^^^ I don't know if it's new, but there is a difference of belief on the matter. The interesting thing is, the people who state it does not affect fermentability have actual hard data to back up the claim, while those on the other side of the fence do not (that I have yet seen). Mash thickness does affect some variables, but fermentability seems not to be one of them.

GuldTuborg said:

^^^ I don't know if it's new, but there is a difference of belief on the matter. The interesting thing is, the people who state it does not affect fermentability have actual hard data to back up the claim, while those on the other side of the fence do not (that I have yet seen). Mash thickness does affect some variables, but fermentability seems not to be one of them.

Click to expand...

what variables does mash thickness affect?

mwill07 said:

what variables does mash thickness affect?

Click to expand...

Here's a good, but concise, discussion of the topic. Now that I review the write up, I somewhat misspoke earlier. Mash thickness does not, in general, affect the fermentability of the wort, except in cases of single infusion mashes at high temperatures. So if you're mashing at, say, 156 or higher, expect a thick mash to give you a more fermentable wort. How much? I don't know. Lower than that, you aren't going to see any difference.