BeerBorg

I remember hearing a story once about a newly wedded couple. The young husband was watching his wife cook a ham one day. She took the ham, cut the ends off of it, and put it in the pan. He asked her why she cut the ends off the ham. She said because that was how her mother taught her how to cook a ham.

One day they were at her parent's place and his mother in law was cooking, you guessed it, a ham. He watched her cut the ends off the ham and put it in the pan. He asked her why she did this. She said it is the way her mother taught her how to do it.

Finally came the day he was at his new bride's grandparents house. Her grandmother was cooking, yep, ham. He watched her cut the ends off and put it in the pan. He asked her why she cut the ends off the ham. She said because the pan is too small for the whole ham.

In my opinion the whole 1.25 qt to the pound ratio is like cutting the ends off of the ham. It is dogma we learned when we learned to brew. What is the ratio of BIAB?

I know when I started mashing thinner to avoid stuck sparges I saw an increase in my efficiency. Why? I don't know. Possibly more liquid created more volume and helps my tun maintain temperature better? I just know it works.

The following link talks about an experiment a guy did with this.
http://brulosophy.com/2016/02/15/the-ma ... t-results/

Gymrat wrote:...In my opinion the whole 1.25 qt to the pound ratio is like cutting the ends off of the ham. It is dogma we learned when we learned to brew. What is the ratio of BIAB?...

I'll disagree that it is like cutting the ends off the ham and more like the recommended baking time/temperature for the ham. There's also other things to consider but it is a place to start.

It's quite possible that volume has as much to do with a mash that is easy to work with as anything else. I made a stove top Scotch Ale long ago and because of the volume I decreased the volume of water. My comment was that it was like stirring a peat bog. Not only can one mention BIAB which uses the full volume of water at once but one could mention my Sumerian Beer experiments where I have "baked" moist malt and made beer.

I'll suggest none of that detracts from using the oft mentioned water to malt ratio anymore than a common baking time/temperature is useless for cooking.

I sometimes wonder why an otherwise thoughtful article finds it necessary to "demolish" a straw man. Perhaps I am the only one that felt the 1.25 qt/lb malt was a suggested starting point?

The_Professor wrote:

Gymrat wrote:...In my opinion the whole 1.25 qt to the pound ratio is like cutting the ends off of the ham. It is dogma we learned when we learned to brew. What is the ratio of BIAB?...

I sometimes wonder why an otherwise thoughtful article finds it necessary to "demolish" a straw man. Perhaps I am the only one that felt the 1.25 qt/lb malt was a suggested starting point?

Agreed. I always thought of the 1.25 qt/lb malt as a starting point. I usually use more like 1.50 qt/lb, but will vary depending on the water & grain bill for the recipe. If it is a high gravity beer with a lot of malt, then I may veer closer to the 1.25 qt/lb malt. If it is a lighter recipe, then I may go more like >1.50 qt/lb malt. Software calculations make it super easy to figure water adjustments.

Gymrat wrote:What is the ratio of BIAB?]

The ratio in real traditional Aussie style BIAB (not varous 'Merican modified version) is *all the water you need for the full boil after you pull the bag* - more water then you need for the boil due to grain absorption.

So something stupidly high compared to 1.25 LOL.

Sounds like a perfect time for me to make a confession I almost made in another recent thread about mashing and holding temp.

I run my water numbers before each brew day and use a 5 gallon cooler as a mash tun. For years now, I set my strike water volume to whatever gives me roughly a 4.5 gallon mash regardless of water to grain ratio. It has always been my guess that holding a steady temp during a 60 min mash was more important than that ratio and a relatively full tun was the best way to hold that predetermined temp.

I get some pretty damn thick mashes at times, but the bigger the beer and thicker the mash the more sparge water I have calculated out... so a little extra rinsing seems to balance things out.

Unorthodox, I know.

Thoughts?

I think there is more behind the scenes than simply thick vs thin mash. I have also noticed an increase in efficiency with a thinner mash going say from 1.25 to 1.5 qts/lb. That could simply be because there is more liquid the help wet more of grain, have less dry spots...easier to mix...etc. I don't think there is anything wrong with 1.25, it's just a starting point and a good balance of 1st runnings vs sparge water amount. Going too thin can actually decrease efficiency because you are not rinsing the grain as much as you would with more sparging. I would say this is the reason a lot of BIAB'ers double crush their grain. But then again, others have noted great efficiency with BIAB...so I guess it depends. Dont fully understand it but I usually use 1.25 qts but have gone thinner and even a few no sparge batches. Lately with my HERMS I have also been running thinner.