Adding Water During Mash to Maintain Temp

I think one problem is that Dr. Michael Lewis (whoever that is, and I'm too lazy to look him up) described a process designed to reach a goal not necessarily consistent with making great beer, or with a homebrewer's goals for a particular beer. He summarizes thusly...

"What many American home brewers don't realize is just how low a temperature American pale malt needs for optimum fermentability and how high a temperature it needs for optimum extract."

I have never considered optimum fermentability along with optimum extract as a goal for any of my beers.

 

Vike writes:
"Dr. Michael Lewis (whoever that is..."

Whoever apparently...
- conducted the program in Brewing Science at the University of California, Davis since 1962.
- accepted emeritus status in 1995
- Fellow of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling (London) in 1985.
- 1986: received the prestigious Award-of-Merit of the Master Brewers Association of the Americas (MBAA)
- 1992: invited to be a Senior Member of the International Brewers Guild (London)
- Life Member of the American Society of Brewing Chemists
- 2008: received the Recognition Award of the Brewers Association (USA) for service to the industry.
- published many scientific papers on brewing topics mostly related to brewing processes including:

• yeast physiology and fermentation
• behavior of cereal grains in brewing systems
• biochemistry of proteins
• interrelations among enzyme systems
• sensory science (beer flavor)
• consulting practice working with brewing companies

Mike is quite obvioulsy a little known nobody without any real standing in the world of home brewing.

Move along.
Nothing to see here.

http://www.brewerspublications.com/authors/dr-michael-lewis/

 

Sounds like a well lettered guy. My point still stands that his 'getting the most from your grist' process doesn't apply to most homebrewers' goals in most cases.

 

The OP is working with a large system and is mashing in a metal kettle that is too big to go into an oven. I am certain that it is probably obvious to him that he could heat his mash and step mash for about the same amount of effort as it takes to maintain a fixed temperature for a single infusion mash. His question isn't about that.

Since he is specifically looking for options to avoid firing the burner after doughing in, I believe the best answers to this relate to re-circulating within the mash tun to maintain an even temperature, insulating it in a way that still allows it to be occasionally fired with a burner underneath, and adding hot water in timed/measured increments to maintain/adjust temperature.

 

What you posted really has nothing to do with the issue OP raised or anything anybody else discussed. OP is not talking about a step mash, he's talking about making minor water additions to maintain a single, stable temperature.

But if we're saying he's a moron then so is virtually every brewer in the world because so few conduct step mashes anymore.

 

To the OP's issue, it's really difficult to get a stable temperature out of a kettle at mash temperatures unless you have a way to maintain really tight control on adding heat. That's why I gave up using a pot as a mash tun for my small batches. Even tossing it in the oven didn't help. Obviously the larger your batches the less heat you will lose.

Some temperature loss will be inevitable in any mash vessel unless, as I said, you can maintain really tight controls on adding heat. I'm not sure I would worry about the loss of 3-4 temperatures over an hour, especially if those losses are occurring quicker on the back end of the mash. If you have stable temperatures in the first twenty minutes or so then you should be fine. I would be more concerned with not getting a good mash mixture and having dough balls in the mash than dropping the 3-4 degrees.

 

If that was the case...then no would bother to brag about their great efficiency.

 

I think just as many of us brag about getting 73%, 77%, or 80% consistently.

 

Michael Lewis was replaced with some guy named Bamforth.

 

His mash profile is supposed to optimize mash efficiency and fermentability for pale malt. How many styles do you make where you are trying for the highest possible attenuation? And personally, I think any homebrewer bragging about getting a big efficiency is missing the point. But that aside, it's the maximizing fermentability part that makes it not desirable.

 

I don't know if I'd say they're missing the point, necessarily. Not if their #1 goal on brew day is max efficiency. However, if they can't reliably repeat that efficiency every time, then the quality of their beer will suffer for it. But maybe some people enjoy homebrewing for the process more than the product. And let's not kid ourselves here - some people homebrew for financial reasons more than anything else. If your goal is to make beer as cheaply as possibly, max efficiency is paramount. And hey, if someone's joy in their hobby comes from saving money on beer, more power to them.

 

If someone thinks they are saving money by homebrewing, then that haven't correctly calculated their capital costs Or they brew way more than the legal amount

 

Depends on what you're making. I'm pretty sure that buying grains and hops in bulk and re-using yeast can easily get you 5 gallons of beer for under $10, if you are making something akin to an AAL.

A quick google search yields a price of $39.99 for 50 lbs. of pils malt, and $17.38 for a pound of Czech Saaz hops. Assuming you use 10 lbs. of grain and an ounce of hops for 5 gallons, and reuse yeast for 3 generations at ~$8 a pop, your cost per batch is $4 + $1.09 + $2.67 = $7.76 for materials. The actual cost per batch will be higher, but not appreciably so if your LHBS will sell to you in bulk. Even assuming $10/batch for 5 gallons, your cost-per-ounce is about 1.6 cents. Coors light or its equivalent AAL runs at a minimum what, $15 a case? Cost-per-ounce of 5.2 cents. At a savings of 3.6 cents/ounce, every $100 in capital costs is recovered for every 2800 ounces brewed, or every 4.375 batches.

I'm willing to bet a DIYer could build an entire all-grain brewing setup for under $100 that would last well beyond 5 batches. The beer will not be very good, but a brewer with decent skills could probably make something inoffensive with that ingredient list, at least to be comparable to Coors Light.

 

As was previously mentioned, it depends upon what beer style you are making.

I homebrew a lot of Trappist/Abbey style beers. A case of a Trappist beer is over 100 bucks! So two cases would be well over $200 bucks. I can homebrew a Trappist style beer for much, much less than 200+ dollars. And at the risk of sounding un-humble, my homebrewed Dubbels are better (to my palate) than the Trappist brewed versions I can buy .

Cheers!

 

OK, so I exaggerated a little bit It is possible for this hobby to actually be cheaper than buying beer, but I doubt this is true for the majority of homebrewers. From what I can tell, we all get a little carried away with kegging, temp control for fermentation, stir plates, stainless steel pots,... My WAG would be that 80-90% of brewers would be better off purchasing beer IF all they cared about was saving money, but that would be stupid, this hobby rocks

 

I go to UCD, he's like a legend here.

 

What!
Now it's two losers?

What will we tell the children?