| |
Main
Date: 11 Dec 2006 21:22:56
From: Jeremy Jones
Subject: Thick vs. Thin Mash?
|
Hi all,
Having recently picked up the homebrewing sport after a rather long (8
yrs!) lapse in sanity, the only book I have on hand is my old (early
'90s) copy of the New Complete Joy of Homebrewing. In this book, the
general guidelines for mash thickness call for 1 qt water to each pound
of grain. Most of the software I've been using to calculate ingredients
defaults to 1.25 qts per pound.
So... What's the practical difference between a thicker (1qt/1lb) and
thinner (1.25qt/1lb) mash? Is thick more suitable to particular
characteristics and thin suitable for others?
If it matters, I batch sparge with as much water as it takes to get to
6.5 gallons of wort (give or take). I've only once done a protein rest
(two weeks ago), and I've been told that's not really necessary any
more, even using German pilsner malts. So just figure I'm doing a
single step infusion mash here.
Thanks!
Jeremy
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 21:39:39
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Thick vs. Thin Mash?
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:22:56 GMT, <jeremy@captainstupid.net > wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Having recently picked up the homebrewing sport after a rather long (8
> yrs!) lapse in sanity, the only book I have on hand is my old (early
> '90s) copy of the New Complete Joy of Homebrewing.
IMO, I'd get a more modern book. TNCJoH was great in it's day, but it's
extremely outdated. I'd recommend http://www.howtobrew.com
> In this book, the
> general guidelines for mash thickness call for 1 qt water to each pound
> of grain. Most of the software I've been using to calculate ingredients
> defaults to 1.25 qts per pound.
Anywhere from 1qt/lbs to 2qts/lbs will work fine. 1.25qts/lbs is probably
the "standard" though.
> So... What's the practical difference between a thicker (1qt/1lb) and
> thinner (1.25qt/1lb) mash? Is thick more suitable to particular
> characteristics and thin suitable for others?
Theoretically there are slight differences in what sugar profile they
favor (IE, complex or simple sugars), but probably nothing you'd ever
really notice. The mash temp is going to have a much larger impact on
that than the thickness.
John.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:36:15
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Thick vs. Thin Mash?
|
Jeremy Jones wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Having recently picked up the homebrewing sport after a rather long (8
> yrs!) lapse in sanity, the only book I have on hand is my old (early
> '90s) copy of the New Complete Joy of Homebrewing. In this book, the
> general guidelines for mash thickness call for 1 qt water to each pound
> of grain. Most of the software I've been using to calculate ingredients
> defaults to 1.25 qts per pound.
>
> So... What's the practical difference between a thicker (1qt/1lb) and
> thinner (1.25qt/1lb) mash? Is thick more suitable to particular
> characteristics and thin suitable for others?
>
> If it matters, I batch sparge with as much water as it takes to get to
> 6.5 gallons of wort (give or take). I've only once done a protein rest
> (two weeks ago), and I've been told that's not really necessary any
> more, even using German pilsner malts. So just figure I'm doing a
> single step infusion mash here.
Personally, I think at a homebrew level, mash thickness is largely a
non-issue as long as it's something reasonable. ou will not likely see a
difference in the final product for thicknesses at 1 qt/lb and 1.25
qt/lb -- and 1.25 qt/lb is probably easier to work with.
Protein rests are largely unnecessary for most styles. I've even
forgotten to do it on undermodified malt and had no issues.
Hope that helps -- m
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 09:11:49
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Thick vs. Thin Mash?
|
Jeremy Jones wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Having recently picked up the homebrewing sport after a rather long (8
> yrs!) lapse in sanity, the only book I have on hand is my old (early
> '90s) copy of the New Complete Joy of Homebrewing. In this book, the
> general guidelines for mash thickness call for 1 qt water to each pound
> of grain. Most of the software I've been using to calculate ingredients
> defaults to 1.25 qts per pound.
>
> So... What's the practical difference between a thicker (1qt/1lb) and
> thinner (1.25qt/1lb) mash? Is thick more suitable to particular
> characteristics and thin suitable for others?
>
> If it matters, I batch sparge with as much water as it takes to get to
> 6.5 gallons of wort (give or take). I've only once done a protein rest
> (two weeks ago), and I've been told that's not really necessary any
> more, even using German pilsner malts. So just figure I'm doing a
> single step infusion mash here.
Unless you really go to extremes, which to me is under .75 qt./lb. or
over 2 qt./lb., mash thickness really makes so little difference as to
be discountable. Temp and time are much more important variables.
The need for a protein rest is determined by the malt you're using. In
general, almost every malt out there is well enough modified so that you
don't need a protein rest.
----------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 05:55:57
From:
Subject: Re: Thick vs. Thin Mash?
|
The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty wrote:
> Jeremy Jones wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Having recently picked up the homebrewing sport after a rather long (8
> > yrs!) lapse in sanity, the only book I have on hand is my old (early
> > '90s) copy of the New Complete Joy of Homebrewing. In this book, the
> > general guidelines for mash thickness call for 1 qt water to each pound
> > of grain. Most of the software I've been using to calculate ingredients
> > defaults to 1.25 qts per pound.
> >
> > So... What's the practical difference between a thicker (1qt/1lb) and
> > thinner (1.25qt/1lb) mash? Is thick more suitable to particular
> > characteristics and thin suitable for others?
> >
> > If it matters, I batch sparge with as much water as it takes to get to
> > 6.5 gallons of wort (give or take). I've only once done a protein rest
> > (two weeks ago), and I've been told that's not really necessary any
> > more, even using German pilsner malts. So just figure I'm doing a
> > single step infusion mash here.
>
> Personally, I think at a homebrew level, mash thickness is largely a
> non-issue as long as it's something reasonable. ou will not likely see a
> difference in the final product for thicknesses at 1 qt/lb and 1.25
> qt/lb -- and 1.25 qt/lb is probably easier to work with.
<snip >
I agree. I use the 1/25 qts/lb measure to get me in the ballpark so I
know how much strike water to heat, but once I start building the mash
I stop when the consistency seems proper to me. I don't really fret
about it.
|
|
