Full volume mash

[Horners]

Contemplating a full volume mash on GF for next brew. Not here to discuss the pros and cons but just hoping someone can tell me how much you typically need to scale up the grainbill by to hit same OG assuming no change in fineness of the milling?

Thanks in advance

 

[peebee]

I don't. But some might say otherwise. There must be some loss of efficiency, but I've never found the need to allow for it (initially I dropped my brewhouse efficiency from 75 to 72%, but always ended up with higher than expected OGs).

 

[foxy]

Contemplating a full volume mash on GF for next brew. Not here to discuss the pros and cons but just hoping someone can tell me how much you typically need to scale up the grainbill by to hit same OG assuming no change in fineness of the milling?

Thanks in advance

I found John Palmer to be closer to the mark 20% more grain for full volume. I would use that as a starting point and adjust any differences as you go on.
https://byo.com/article/skip-the-sparge/

 

[Horners]

Cheers @foxy I had read that article but reading the reviews consensus did seem to be that an extra third was toppy

 

[peebee]

I found John Palmer to be closer to the mark 20% more grain for full volume. ...

Good grief!

John Palmer's 20% against my 0%. What do these guys get up to? Must say, I've not knowingly read anything by this guy. I'm not exactly motivated to start.

 

[Drunkula]

John Palmer's 20% against my 0%. What do these guys get up to? Must say, I've not knowingly read anything by this guy. I'm not exactly motivated to start.

So you're calling @foxy a liar? I'm telling on you. Foxxxxyyyy FOXEEEEYYYYY!!! Peebee says you're a liar and your beer tastes of pooooo.

 

[peebee]

Hum ... actually (joking aside?) my comments do come across as accusing @foxy (I was aiming at Mr Palmer, but foxy was standing a bit close). So I'll put some (hastily contrived) "evidence" together:

This is my last brew using "full volume mash" in a Grainfather. I use the BIAB mode of Beersmith to do the calculations (there's some kooky mash scheduling so I can include "strike temperature", something GF prefer not to believe in).

Note "sparge volume" is zero; in Beersmith BIAB is "no sparge" as it was originally conceived. In the "session" page:

Brewhouse Efficiency is set as 75% (as I would set for a sparged mash) and yet estimated mash efficiency and measured mash efficiency is virtually the same (80.5 and 80.6%).

If Mr Palmer's fanciful figures (+20% on the grain-bill) was at all sensible, "BIAB" would never have been entertained by anyone.

 

[foxy]

A few things efficiency depends on, first is the conversion, the finer the crush the better the conversion, why BBers can get higher efficiency. Secondly control over the mash temperature, this is the reason I give the mash a stir every 10 -15 minutes. While the readout of the temperature is from the bottom of the mash tun the returning water is 2-3 degrees lower. Finally the extraction of the liquor locked in the grain, another advantage the BBers have, squeezing the bag. I try and get as much out as possible delaying the boil mode while the grain basket drains.
My go to loss to grain is 0,85 litres, also the other difference will come with the ABV of the beer being brewed.
I don't worry about efficiency, as long as I am getting a constant result I am happy.

 

[clyne]

Am I right in saying that if you mash at a lower temperature you could also increase your efficiency as you'll have more fermentable sugars versus the long chained ones? You could always mash for longer as well, that might help.

 

[Horners]

Am I right in saying that if you mash at a lower temperature you could also increase your efficiency as you'll have more fermentable sugars versus the long chained ones? You could always mash for longer as well, that might help.

Nope - more fermentation sugars just means lower FG shouldn't materially impact the gravity or volume of what goes in the FV

 

[foxy]

Am I right in saying that if you mash at a lower temperature you could also increase your efficiency as you'll have more fermentable sugars versus the long chained ones? You could always mash for longer as well, that might help.

Yes, it gives a chance for the beta amylase to convert but a full mash at a low temperature will make for a dry beer.
Start at a low temperature for the beta amylase depending on how dry you want will be the time of the rests. It also depends on the grain bill I have only mashed the stouts this way. 64 C for 60 mins 68 C for 30 mins. Gordon Strong explains the reasoning here.

There are Irish maltsters, such as Minch, making pale ale or stout malt but British maltsters will also work. There are no Irish maltsters making specialty malts, so English versions are generally used. Using a slightly higher kilned or dextrinous base malt would be appropriate for this style.
Flaked barley seems to be the preferred choice today for adding the body and mouthfeel to the beer. I’ve seen brewers use between 10 and 30% in the grist. Using mash techniques for attenuation without excessively degrading the body is desirable, so conversion temperatures in the upper 140s °F (63–65 °C) will work. The grist will drive the body, so having very high mash temperatures isn’t required.

No reason you couldn't try it in a lighter beer like a English IPA with flaked wheat as an adjunct, not so an imposing flavour as flaked oats or barley.
I did read also that there is a cut off point where the long mash is detrimental so play it safe and keep it under 2 hours.