Homebrewing mini-disaster please help me break down process

That is a very very low amount of fermentables. This recipe probably needs at least 6-7lbs of DME, not 3lbs.

 

Just to clarify, this reading was before adding the top-off water? And did you mean to say the reading was really 1.1 (as in 1.100), or was this a typo and you meant 1.010?

 

3 out of 4 pounds of malt in your mini-mash were dark or crystal, which probably made your mash pH super low in the 4s instead of the pH of 5.3 that is most desirable. This might have hurt efficiency in the mash. You can kick up the alcohol some more just by adding a pound or two of DME, boiled for 10 minutes in a small amount of water, cool and dump it in there.

In future, either do a bigger mash with more base malt, or steep your dark grains after the mash instead of mashing them with the base and crystal, so that your mash pH isn't so low. You could also offset low pH with baking soda but personally I would NOT recommend that as it tastes pretty bad if too much is used.

 

You have 4 lbs. of malt in 4 quarts of water; that is a mash thickness of 1 qt./lb. which is a thick mash. I have never mashed that thick but according to Kai Troester a thicker mash yields a lower brewhouse efficiency value. This may be the reason for why your OG was lower than expected.

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.ph...e_infusion_mashing#Mash_thickness_experiments

Cheers!

 

Kai's experience does not match my own. I am still flustered with disbelief over my last batch where I mashed at 1.1 qt/lb and got OG=1.113 and brewhouse efficiency of 80-something percent, all malt and zero malt extract. I had to dilute as I intended for 3 gallons at 1.095 but ended up with 3.7 gallons at 1.113. Still can't figure out what happened. The point is..... mash thickness ratio doesn't hurt anything. I've brewed other batches with similar results. I think the extent of crush has more to do with it than anything else. Runoff was very slow with my last batch. That's the only thing I can think of. Speaking of which.....

The OP might not have gotten the malts crushed fine enough. That's very very likely with any newbie brewers. Maybe double-crush the malts next time or set the mill gap tighter, that will definitely help.

 

I think it is safe to say that the fundamental issue was the poor efficiency of the partial mash. In all likelihood this could be a combination of effects:

• Dave (@dmtaylor) brought up the issue of mash pH given that your grain bill was heavily skewed to dark malts. I agree with Dave that your mash pH was likely non-ideal here.
• Dave has differing experiences from Kai Troester as regards mash thickness vs. brewhouse efficiency. I typicaly mash at 1.5 qts./lb. so I have no personal experience with a mash thickness of 1 qt/lb.
• My understanding from your first post it that you did not sparge the grains, is that correct? If you did not sparge the grain that will effect your efficiency as well.
• Dave also made mention of how well the grains were crushed. Poorly crushed grains will yield a lower efficiency.

Cheers!

 

I wish homebrew shops would serve their customers better by setting the mill gap tighter. Unfortunately, there's nothing good in it for them: with a wide mill gap, all-grain customers get used to having low efficiency and thus buying more grains from the shop to compensate, making more profit for the shop. Also, the shop gets fewer complaints regarding stuck mashes. Eventually they'll start to get way more complaints over crappy efficiency and some shops *might* even consider the possibility of making a majority of customers happier by actually milling the dang grains the way they're supposed to be milled!!!

Longer term, you'll want to invest in your own mill. Even for partial mash brewers, a mill is still a good investment for improved efficiency and greater predictability. If you buy premilled grains...... you never know what the heck you'll get.

 

Doh! You did indeed mention the sparge. I have never conducted a sparge in the manner that you detailed: sparging a bag of grains. You did mention that in previous batches you achieved an efficiency of 75% so assuming that you followed the same procedure for this batch it seems reasonable to me that we rule out sparging here.

FWIW I have read other BAs mention that they do not squeeze their grain bags out of concern of extracting tannins (astringency). I have no personal experience here but I thought I would mention it.

Cheers!

 

From my readings the typical mash thichness suggested is from 1-2 qts./lb. I do not think that 1.5 qts./lb is considered to be "standard". I personally just picked that value since it is halfway between the values of 1-2.

As I understand how some homebrewers conduct BIAB they place all of the grains in a bag and then mash in the total amount of water needed to result in something like 6.5 -7 gallons of wort. They let the bag 'steep' for an hour and then just lift it out of the pot without sparging (they just let the grains drip with no sparging). Needless to say but this specific method requires a very thin mash (i.e., > 2 qts./lb.).

I suppose there are BIAB methods which utilize sparging.

Cheers!

 

I use 1qt per lb on stouts and hit 72 to 75% efficiency consistently. But as you know, I am a freak of nature soooo.....

 

Jason, Dave has already made mention that he achieves good efficiency values with his thick mashes. Every homebrewery is different so expecting differing results/experiences makes sense to me.

Cheers!

 

That is a very thin mash: 2.5 qts./lb.

As you can see from other posts in this thread other BAs have achieved good efficiencies with their thick mashes so it appears that good efficiency is not necessarily unachievable with a thick mash. Maybe a fine crush is more important when mashing thick?

When it comes to mashing there are so many variables that perhaps it is unwise to make firm statements here. For example the extraction of tannins is function of pH. Maybe the thinner mash that the BIAB folks utilize makes a potential difference here?

Cheers!