Hi All, I’ve brain farted my last two batches by forgetting to do a mash out. Duh, perhaps that’s why my efficiency has been lacking as well as achieving my OG. Needless to say ill remember this going forward! Was wondering what temp water you use for mash out along with the approx quantity to get to 168-170 (or other)?
I’m a dope,
Mike
PS thanks for the input
I use JT’s Mashwater 3.3 for my water volume calculations. Even using boiling water, I don’t seem to get the grain bed above 160-165.
I know a lot of people like doing a mashout but I never do and still get great beer.
There was also an older Beersmith podcast I just listened to with Jamil, John Palmer and Denny Conn where they talk about brewing myths. In it they discuss the necessity of mashing out and each mentioned that they still do a mashout but would argue that on a homebrew scale it isn’t necessary. Mashing out is a commercial brewing technique to stop the enzyme activities because it takes them hours to transfer wort from a mashtun to a boil kettle and even longer to get it to a boil when it takes us mere minutes. In that time, continued conversion could alter their finished product, but we don’t have that large of a gap so we are probably good without one.
As I have read, doing a mash out and raising the temperature of the grain un-sticks much of the sugar after a 60 minute mash. It is the only thing I can think of (that I simply forgot to do) that has made a difference in my efficiency since nothing else in my processes have changed.
I usually don’t do one (technically). I currently batch sparge and as mentioned, the time between the mash and boil is pretty short so continued conversion isn’t really that much of an issue. I might add back the water absorbed by the grain at the end of the mash mainly to even out the running volumes. It bumps the temp a few degrees only. My batch sparge water acts as the mash out since I add it at a higher temp (180-185 ish).
If you’re fly sparging, you should think about doing one since there is an added 30-60 minutes at temps where enzymes are still active. To each his own though. I’m a strong advocate for doing what works for you.
IME, achieving “mashout” temps isn’t necessary for bumping up efficiency - getting into the 163-165F range is good enough.
This is pretty much what Denny said I think. Who knows, maybe he’ll chime in here since I’m kind of paraphrasing him here.
Anyways, if anyones interested here is the link. It was fairly interesting.
http://beersmith.com/blog/2011/12/22/be ... odcast-29/It seems like you have the wrong idea about a mashout. Technically, the purpose of a mashout is to denature enzymes and stop conversion. You need to hold temps over 170F for 20 min. to do that and most homebrewers don’t do that. Another school of thought is that raising the temp reduces the viscosity of the wort for more sugar extraction. Kai has proven that isn’t true by using room temp water to sparge without any change in beer quality. In truth, what seems to be the real benefit of what some consider a “mashout” is to raise the mash temp to finish any conversion that hasn’t been done in the mash. I do that by batch sparging with 190-200F water. I have completely stopped doing the (pseudo) mashout step and have found no difference in my beer quality. I used to use the step to equalize runoff volumes, but these days I just do a thinner mash so I get 1/2 of my boil volume from the mash runoff. In addition to not having to mess with another water addition, it’s also increased my efficiency.
Ok, I understand what you wrote in defining a mashout. I also batch sparge and get your process of using 190-200F water, but I’m not exactly following your last 2 sentences. My apologies for my thick-headedness. Can you further splain 
I can try!
I used to mash with a ratio around 1.25 qt./lb. At the end of the mash, before the run off, I would add more water to the mash to get about 1/2 my total boil volume from the mash runoff. I would use 190+ water in order to mimic a mashout. Being lazy, i decided I wanted to skip that extra step. I went to a thinner mash, maybe 1.6-2 qt./lb. That way I could get 1/2 my boil volume out of the mash without adding extra water before the run off. A side effect of that is that my efficiency increased due to the thinner mash. My guess is that I got more complete conversion. Using Kai’s conversion efficiency chart, I see that I’m pretty much always ay or near 100% conversion efficiency now. After the mash run off, I batch sparge with 190-200F water, which ensures that any conversion will take place on any grain that hasn’t already converted.
Thanks Denny!
Yes, thank you Denny. I understand a little better.
Denny,
Is it safe to assume that your batch sparge volume is the amount needed to achieve desired boil volume? Sometimes my wife calls me Capt Obvious. But I have to ask.
Thanks, Mike
[quote=“Steppedonapoptop”]Denny,
Is it safe to assume that your batch sparge volume is the amount needed to achieve desired boil volume? Sometimes my wife calls me Capt Obvious. But I have to ask.
Thanks, Mike[/quote]
Yep, that’s correct, Mike.
Just for you (well, I’m the same way…)
Thanks for all your advice! This btw, could be my signature beer label :roll:
Hey Denny, have you noticed any difference with fermentability? I know some folks seem to think a thin mash will give you more fermentables. I always thought mash temps played a big role in that.
[quote=“Denny”]
I went to a thinner mash, maybe 1.6-2 qt./lb. [/quote]
[quote=“Sarge”]Hey Denny, have you noticed any difference with fermentability? I know some folks seem to think a thin mash will give you more fermentables. I always thought mash temps played a big role in that.
[quote=“Denny”]
I went to a thinner mash, maybe 1.6-2 qt./lb. [/quote][/quote]
I think it may be a bit more fermentable, but I haven’t done any side by side testing. The role of mash temps on fermentabilty is yielding some interesting info these days. At NHC, Greg Doss of Wyeast presented the results of a fermentability study he’d done. In a nutshell, he foubnd maximum attenuation at 153F, which is very different than what we’ve always thought.
[quote=“Denny”][quote=“Sarge”]Hey Denny, have you noticed any difference with fermentability? I know some folks seem to think a thin mash will give you more fermentables. I always thought mash temps played a big role in that.
[quote=“Denny”]
I went to a thinner mash, maybe 1.6-2 qt./lb. [/quote][/quote]
I think it may be a bit more fermentable, but I haven’t done any side by side testing. The role of mash temps on fermentabilty is yielding some interesting info these days. At NHC, Greg Doss of Wyeast presented the results of a fermentability study he’d done. In a nutshell, he foubnd maximum attenuation at 153F, which is very different than what we’ve always thought.[/quote]
That would be interesting if it proves to be true and would just go to show that we have a lot to learn still. As for the thinner mash leading to more fermentables, wouldn’t BIAB with full boil volumes yield really fermentable worts then? I don’t have a ton of experience with these (only about 10 under my belt) but I haven’t noticed my BIAB batches fermenting any lower or at a higher apparent attenuation.
According to Kai Troester…
"water/grist ratio: the gelatinization and enzymatic activity require free water and in order to be fully completed, enough water needs to be available. This sets the lower limit of water/grist ratio for mashing. According to Briggs this lower limit is around 2 l/kg or 1 qt/lb [Briggs, 2004]. If too much water exists in the mash the enzymes may be to spread out to efficiently work on the starch. But that only happens at very thin mashes. It has been reported that even mashes as thin as 6 l/kg or 3 qts/lb work well. Based on this, it is unlikely that a mash was too thin for conversion. "
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?ti ... EfficiencyWow, there’s some really good stuff in this thread, a few questions answered for me too. Thanks!
