• Welcome to the new forum! We upgraded our forum software with a host of new boards, capabilities and features. It is also more secure.
    Jump in and join the conversation! You can learn more about the upgrade and new features here.

Double mash

McMullan

Brewer
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
88
Reaction score
29
Occasionally I do a double mash, usually an Imperial/double stout/porter. It would be nice if BS3 had a function to 'split' the grain bill, wouldn't it? Everything else, water volume, water treatment, etc., remains the same. Is it just me?
 
Occasionally I do a double mash, usually an Imperial/double stout/porter. It would be nice if BS3 had a function to 'split' the grain bill, wouldn't it? Everything else, water volume, water treatment, etc., remains the same. Is it just me?
It is not just you
 
It depends on your meaning of "Double Mash" but the point is still valid.

The most common meaning is for American Lager where a main mash and separate cereal mash are conducted. The two are combined like a decoction would be nd it raises the main mash to saccharification temperature.

A second, mislabeled meaning is emerging on homebrew forums where first wort from first mash is collected, reheated and used as the liquor for a second mash to create ultra high gravity wort without a long boil to concentrate. This is actually a "reiterated mash" and is most often used in large scale brewing where late runnings are collected as weak wort and reused as mash liquor.

OP seems to be asking about the second meaning. Yet, either way BeerSmith doesn't model it.
 
Semantics aside, I've always considered it as 'double mashing'. Mainly because that's what it is, practically speaking. Double grist, right? Double stout, e.g., Harvey's. 'Reiterated' means repeated, in my head/vocabulary, and more like mashing the same grist twice. But, yes, I am referring to producing high gravity wort. A common challenge these days, with all-in-one systems. I usually spend an exhilarating minute or two dividing by 2, but there's a little bit more to it than that. The kinetics of conversion being reduced by more colliding sugar molecules in the second mash therefore affecting efficiency. It would be a nice-to-have function in BS3, imo.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of what you consider it to be, using widely accepted nomenclature helps to clarify your meaning. Adding to what Brewfun states, to many of us, double mashing would indicate two separate mashes that are combined to reach a higher volume than your mash vessel can support.
While I agree that there are things that would be "nice" if included, many just aren't practical due to the many variables that can exist between systems, procedures and grist composition. This may well be one of them.
 
Like variables that require the end user to plug in some basic data to 'train' the software to start with? I'm not sure I understand how a double mash function is going to be less practical, given all brewing systems (including brewer) differ regardless.
 
I googled 'double mashing', as a sanity check and failed to reject my understanding of the term. But it seems to refer to something else in the US, I gather.
 
Like variables that require the end user to plug in some basic data to 'train' the software to start with? I'm not sure I understand how a double mash function is going to be less practical, given all brewing systems (including brewer) differ regardless.
I merely suggested the possibility of impracticality. There are already folks that struggle with things as necessary as a reasonably representative equipment profile. Adding additional complexity to please a few can alienate many more, which can be a legitimate business concern and practical consideration. Aside from that, the fact that I haven't found any brewing software that includes reiterated mashing profiles, I think it may be a bit more complex that you believe and lacks a reasonable model.
 
I googled 'double mashing', as a sanity check and failed to reject my understanding of the term. But it seems to refer to something else in the US, I gather.
That is often a consideration.
 
I think it may be a bit more complex that you believe and lacks a reasonable model.
A slight drop in efficiency for the second mash, especially without increasing mash time. Pretty straightforward model. More wort solids, sugar molecules, etc., reducing the rate of (competing with) successful collisions between enzyme and substrate. Not exactly rocket science. Just a double mash. Obviously, the end user needs to plug in some data, just like with a single mash. Double mashing might turn out to be just as predictable, who knows?
 
Kind of sounds like a batch sparge to me. Mash, drain... add more water, mash again, drain.
 
"Double mashing might turn out to be just as predictable, who knows?"

I agree with the highlighted parts above.
 
Kind of sounds like a batch sparge to me. Mash, drain... add more water, mash again, drain.
Slightly different. My procedure: half the grain bill and weigh out two batches. Mash batch #1 full volume with water treatment, to get enough 'sweet' liquor (already treated) for mashing batch #2. Batch #1 can be rinsed to extract a small beer or starter wort. Batch #2 gets sparged as per normal.
 
I certainly would love to see an option for this! And not just for a double, but at least for a triple as well--you know, just in case:)
 
Thinking about it more, I'd like a 'high-gravity' brewing tab. In addition to high-gravity/imperial strength wort I sometimes do concentrated brewing, to get enough wort to just over fill my FVs when used as Yorkshire squares. Diluting takes the volume beyond the capacity of my 5G brewing system, but requires recipe adjustments to account for the dilution factor. In my experience, batch size can be increased to 1.5 times, which makes a brew day more productive. A free brew day for every two brewed 😃
 
A slight drop in efficiency for the second mash, especially without increasing mash time. Pretty straightforward model. More wort solids, sugar molecules, etc., reducing the rate of (competing with) successful collisions between enzyme and substrate. Not exactly rocket science. Just a double mash. Obviously, the end user needs to plug in some data, just like with a single mash. Double mashing might turn out to be just as predictable, who knows?
The bottom line is that there has to be some sort of fact based, peer reviewed research done to create a mathematical model BeerSmith can actually use.

If you've kept enough data to make a predictive model, you should consider pitching the idea to one of the homebrewing magazines. It would be a very interesting article.
 
There's already a model in BeerSmith, right? We just need a function to mash in first wort rather than water. The efficiency of the 2nd mash - like the 1st - is going to need to be determined empirically by the individual brewer regardless. We're expecting to observe a drop in efficiency, which can be set arbitrarily to, say, 10%, then adjusted by the brewer's input/actual values. The data collected over time among different brewers and wort-making systems is likely to be of a lot more interest/value than anything I could offer here.
 
Back
Top