Water/grist ratio effect

[ErickBrewer]

What is the effect if the water/ grist ratio in the body (mouthfeel) in the beer if i keep a infusion mash at 68.0 C???

 

[ajf]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]According to Palmer, "The grist/water ratio is another factor influencing the performance of the mash. A thinner mash of >2 quarts of water per pound of grain (~4 liters per Kg) dilutes the relative concentration of the enzymes, slowing the conversion, but ultimately leads to a more fermentable mash because the enzymes are not inhibited by a high concentration of sugars. A stiff mash of <1.25 quarts of water per pound (~2.5 liters per Kg) is better for protein breakdown, and results in a faster overall starch conversion, but the resultant sugars are less fermentable and will result in a sweeter, maltier beer."
I have done some limited experiments, using Maris Otter malt. with a mash thickness of 1 qt per lb (~2 liters per Kg), and mashing at 65.5 C, I get a good body suitable for a draught English ale.
If I reduce the mash thickness to 1.25 qt per lb, I end up with a much thinner tasting beer.
If I reduce the mash thickness even further, I cannot tell the difference. (I never went thinner than 1.5 qt per lb).
When brewing other beers, I use a mash thickness between 1.25 and 1.5 qt per lb, and have never noticed any difference caused by the mash thickness.
However, in the case of the draught English ales, although I noticed a dramatic difference in mouth feel, I could not measure any difference in attenuation, so I think the Palmer may be wrong, in stating that the sugars derived from a thick mash are less fermentable. In fact in the book, he has changed to"are less fermentable" to "may be less fermentable"

-a.

[/FONT]

 

[eltorrente]

Gordon Strong says it doesn't really matter much at all..

 

[Denny]

What is the effect if the water/ grist ratio in the body (mouthfeel) in the beer if i keep a infusion mash at 68.0 C???

Despite what you might read about the theoretical possibilities, in real life homebrewing there is no noticeable effect using ratios between .75-2 qt./lb. Try it yourself, like I did.

 

[Denny]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]According to Palmer, "The grist/water ratio is another factor influencing the performance of the mash. A thinner mash of >2 quarts of water per pound of grain (~4 liters per Kg) dilutes the relative concentration of the enzymes, slowing the conversion, but ultimately leads to a more fermentable mash because the enzymes are not inhibited by a high concentration of sugars. A stiff mash of <1.25 quarts of water per pound (~2.5 liters per Kg) is better for protein breakdown, and results in a faster overall starch conversion, but the resultant sugars are less fermentable and will result in a sweeter, maltier beer."
I have done some limited experiments, using Maris Otter malt. with a mash thickness of 1 qt per lb (~2 liters per Kg), and mashing at 65.5 C, I get a good body suitable for a draught English ale.
If I reduce the mash thickness to 1.25 qt per lb, I end up with a much thinner tasting beer.
If I reduce the mash thickness even further, I cannot tell the difference. (I never went thinner than 1.5 qt per lb).
When brewing other beers, I use a mash thickness between 1.25 and 1.5 qt per lb, and have never noticed any difference caused by the mash thickness.
However, in the case of the draught English ales, although I noticed a dramatic difference in mouth feel, I could not measure any difference in attenuation, so I think the Palmer may be wrong, in stating that the sugars derived from a thick mash are less fermentable. In fact in the book, he has changed to"are less fermentable" to "may be less fermentable"

-a.

[/FONT]

Unfortunately, John appears to be repeating old dogma rather than trying it and reporting his own results.

 

[FarmerTed]

I prefer a high ratio myself (2 qts/lb, or more), mainly because it's easier for me. With more mash water, I need less in the sparge. Also, the higher thermal mass holds the temp more constant, and because the mash is thin, it's easier to mix and the temp is more homogeneous throughout. I have a stainless steel MT, and I can heat it by direct fire, but prefer not to. So, the higher thermal mass makes a big difference for me, as the temp remains steady for a longer period of time.

 

[ajf]

Gordon Strong says it doesn't really matter much at all..

Actually, that's not quite what he said.
What he did say, is "With today's well-modified malts, mash thickness has little impact of fermentability." He says nothing about flavor or mouthfeel.

Despite what you might read about the theoretical possibilities, in real life homebrewing there is no noticeable effect using ratios between .75-2 qt./lb. Try it yourself, like I did.

I beg to differ. I didn't go as stiff as 0.75, or as thin as 2.0, but there was a dramatic difference in mouthfeel between 1 and 1.25 qt/lb. Perhaps it is more noticeable with English malts.

Unfortunately, John appears to be repeating old dogma rather than trying it and reporting his own results.

Perhaps he noticed the difference, and made an educated guess about what caused that difference.

-a.

 

[Denny]

Actually, that's not quite what he said.
What he did say, is "With today's well-modified malts, mash thickness has little impact of fermentability." He says nothing about flavor or mouthfeel.



I beg to differ. I didn't go as stiff as 0.75, or as thin as 2.0, but there was a dramatic difference in mouthfeel between 1 and 1.25 qt/lb. Perhaps it is more noticeable with English malts.



Perhaps he noticed the difference, and made an educated guess about what caused that difference.

-a.

Or perhaps he didn't.

I assume you brewed exactly the same recipe with the same malts to reach your conclusion? Done multiple times with blind tastings to verify?

 

[eltorrente]

Actually, that's not quite what he said.
What he did say, is "With today's well-modified malts, mash thickness has little impact of fermentability." He says nothing about flavor or mouthfeel.
-a.

I think he says nothing about flavor or mouthfeel because that isn't part of his reasoning for using a particular thickness.

He said basically us just sticks with ~1.5 quarts per pound, and likes using 1lb of rice hulls, simply because it's easy to stir and equalize the mash temp. He bumps it up sometimes if he's decocting, batch sparging, or no sparge. The only reasons he sited for the way the English and the Germans did it was based on infusion vs direct heated. He doesn't even consider or talk about mouthfeel because it's not a factor here.

I would think the highest ranked BJCP judge and 3 time Ninkasi winner would be using quarts per pound as an important aspect of his beers, if it made a difference in flavor or mouthfeel. He doesn't talk about it because it isn't a factor in determining how thick or thin, flavorful, or level of mouthfeel the beer has.

 

[Veedo]

interested in this. I BIAB and was always curious what the difference would be in my beers with a standard mash.

 

[ajf]

Or perhaps he didn't.

I assume you brewed exactly the same recipe with the same malts to reach your conclusion? Done multiple times with blind tastings to verify?

Exactly the same recipe, made from the same batch of malt, and hops, and the same batch of yeast (although different generations).
I ran the experiment about 6 months after I started kegging, and had just visited England. I was disappointed because my kegged bitters were noticeably inferior to any of the draught bitters that I could get in the pubs.
At that time, I was mashing at 1.25 qt per lb. They were comparable to bottled bitters, which are nothing like the real thing.
I decided to experiment with mash thickness, and found that reducing the thickness from 1.25 to 1.5 qt per lb made no noticeable (to me) difference. I tried two batches as 1.5 qt per lb, and they were both the same
I then tried 1 qt per lb, and the difference was unbelievable.
One of my brothers came over to visit me at that time, and without prompting, agreed with me. He could not drink a pint of the thin mash, but had no difficulty is drinking several pints of the thick mash.
After a couple of years making minor adjustments to the recipe and water treatment, I made another trip to England. This time I was disappointed because the draught beers in the pubs were generally inferior to my home brew.

-a.

 

[ajf]

He doesn't talk about it because it isn't a factor in determining how thick or thin, flavorful, or level of mouthfeel the beer has.

I think he mentioned mash thickness because both Noonan and Palmer have both stated that a thick mash produces a less fermentable wort. My limited experiments would appear to confirm this, but to say categorically that it isn't a factor in determining how thick or thin, flavorful, or level of mouthfeel the beer has is obviously not true. He may not be aware of it, and it may depend on factors (such as the type of malt used) that he had not considered, but I can assure you that it can be a major factor.

-a.