Maximizing Efficiency when Batch Sparging

I just wanted to update that sparging fast does not work on my system. I just sparged quickly today and got 50% efficiency, the only other time I've had it that low was with a fast sparge. Slower sparging works on my set-up, 72%-78% efficiency. I'll stick with that.

keanex said:

I just wanted to update that sparging fast does not work on my system. I just sparged quickly today and got 50% efficiency, the only other time I've had it that low was with a fast sparge. Slower sparging works on my set-up, 72%-78% efficiency. I'll stick with that.

Click to expand...

Something must be wrong somewhere. There is no reason that a slower sparge will increase your efficiency in batch sparging. I mean, I'm not denying that it DOES in your case, but I think there must be some problem somewhere to make it work out like that. Have you seen my website? How does your procedure and equipment compare to what's listed there? In the batch where you sparged quickly and got lower efficiency, is it a recipe you've done before? I'm trying to eliminate variables here.

keanex said:

I just wanted to update that sparging fast does not work on my system. I just sparged quickly today and got 50% efficiency, the only other time I've had it that low was with a fast sparge. Slower sparging works on my set-up, 72%-78% efficiency. I'll stick with that.

Click to expand...

This is the kind of situation where you really want to do a full diagnostic, perhaps with something like braukaiser's spreadsheet:
http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Troubleshooting_Brewhouse_Efficiency

We should want to know where all the sugars are going if not into your kettle. There are really only two possibilities:

1) you're getting less volume of expected density wort, or
2) you're getting an expected volume but low density wort.

In either case, something is weird. Without those diagnostics, though, it's hard to speculate.

Denny said:

Something must be wrong somewhere. There is no reason that a slower sparge will increase your efficiency in batch sparging. I mean, I'm not denying that it DOES in your case, but I think there must be some problem somewhere to make it work out like that. Have you seen my website? How does your procedure and equipment compare to what's listed there? In the batch where you sparged quickly and got lower efficiency, is it a recipe you've done before? I'm trying to eliminate variables here.

Click to expand...

We changed 4 variables between the 78% and this one (48%). The first was the crush of the grain, which wasn't our control. It looked a little coarse to my eyes and I had worries from the start. Secondly we did 2 batch sparges instead of 1, we ran off 100% then added one batch sparge then another, we also made sure to mix up the grain bed a lot during each sparge. Lastly we ran off fast after setting the grain bed.

I took a hydrometer reading of the left over run-off in the mash tun, and it was reading around 1.018 so I can't imagine much residual sugars were left. My guess is that the grains weren't crushed enough to get enough sugars, but I'm weary of doing a fast run-off again since the last time we did it we got very low efficiency too.

@MalFet I will check that site when I'm not drinking/as tired, it's a bit lot to take in.

Edit: All of my calculations are done on Hopville, so that's where I get my expected gravities.

keanex said:

We changed 4 variables between the 78% and this one (48%). The first was the crush of the grain, which wasn't our control. It looked a little coarse to my eyes and I had worries from the start. Secondly we did did 2 batch sparges, we ran off 100% then added one batch sparge then another, we also made sure to mix up the grain bed a lot during each sparge. Lastly we ran off fast after setting the grain bed.

I took a hydrometer reading of the left over run-off in the mash tun, and it was reading around 1.018 so I can't imagine much residual sugars were left. My guess is that the grains weren't crushed enough to get enough sugars, but I'm weary of doing a fast run-off again since the last time we did it we got very low efficiency too.

@MalFet I will check that site when I'm not drinking/as tired, it's a bit lot to take in.

Click to expand...

The punchline to all of it is that you want to be taking gravity readings during the actual mash. If you're playing with a new, coarser crush, that is likely the explanation for everything. I'll bet dollars to donuts your conversion efficiency was way below par. If that's the case, you could let the thing drain over a holiday weekend and you'd still be low.

I almost fully agree with that sentiment, but last time I had a 1.077 reading from an expected 1.125 and we sparged fast, then again we didn't mix again after adding the first sparge water and the water wasn't hot enough to bring the grain to 170. I blame the latter on the problems rather than a fast sparge as well, but it's the only constant between so you can understand why I would associate that.

I think we just need to get our own grain mill to avoid this problem in the future, am I right though, to think that if the run off, after we got our initial volume, was only 1.018 that the grain was probably not crushed enough?

keanex said:

I almost fully agree with that sentiment, but last time I had a 1.077 reading from an expected 1.125 and we sparged fast, then again we didn't mix again after adding the first sparge water and the water wasn't hot enough to bring the grain to 170. I blame the latter on the problems rather than a fast sparge as well, but it's the only constant between so you can understand why I would associate that.

I think we just need to get our own grain mill to avoid this problem in the future, am I right though, to think that if the run off, after we got our initial volume, was only 1.018 that the grain was probably not crushed enough?

Click to expand...

Almost certainly.

Just to clarify you're saying that it's almost certainly the crush at fault since the run-off was 1.018 after running off our complete volume and being 20 points under?

If this happens next time what's the best way to handle it? Add more volume and have a more intense boil to boil off more?

keanex said:

Just to clarify you're saying that it's almost certainly the crush at fault since the run-off was 1.018 after running off our complete volume and being 20 points under?

If this happens next time what's the best way to handle it? Add more volume and have a more intense boil to boil off more?

Click to expand...

The only way I can imagine run-off speed affecting efficiency into the kettle would be if, somehow, a faster drain plugged up your manifold or otherwise left a higher volume of wort than expected in the kettle.

But, it doesn't sound like that's what's happening here. Instead, it sounds like your gravities are low in the kettle, which means you're not getting full conversion. If a significant number of your kernels aren't broken, that's a problem. You'll need to find a new way to mill your grain. Also, make sure you're stirring like a crazy person at both dough-in and sparge.

Thanks for your posts, it's gotten me less worried about my methods. This time I made sure to stir much more aggressively and thoroughly than ever before so it can't be that. Our mash also stayed at 152 the entire time, I made sure to check the temps throughout the mash and only noticed a 1 degree deviation at most, so 151-153.

keanex said:

Thanks for your posts, it's gotten me less worried about my methods. This time I made sure to stir much more aggressively and thoroughly than ever before so it can't be that. Our mash also stayed at 152 the entire time, I made sure to check the temps throughout the mash and only noticed a 1 degree deviation at most, so 151-153.

Click to expand...

Your goal on your next brew should be to figure out if your problems are with conversion efficiency or lauter efficiency. They're two very different things with very different causes (and, likewise, very different solutions). The Braukaiser website has a table that estimates what your gravity should be in the mash tun at the end of mash. If you're significantly off from that, you're having trouble getting the starch out of the grain and turned into sugar. I suspect that's what's happening here.

Thanks, I'm sober/not tired now so I will read that resource, thanks very much. Our next plan though, for equipment, is buying this. I can't wait for consistency.

MalFet said:

If you're playing with a new, coarser crush, that is likely the explanation for everything.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I have found that runoff speed plays no part in my efficiency and multiple sparges increase my efficiency little to none at all.

I have been consistently hitting 50% efficiency. It's been very frustrating and I have been reading everything I can to figure out what I'm doing wrong. I sometimes add DME to the boil to bump it up where it needs to be, but I'm sick of doing that.

I have pretty much tried to emulate Denny in my brewing and learned how to batch sparge from reading his stuff. I use a 10 gallon cooler as a mashtun and keggles to heat sparge water and do my boil.

I did notice that I got up to 58% with a kit I bought online from More Beer but the rest of my grain I have gotten locally.

So, besides buying a grain mill what could I try different in my process to get my numbers up a bit?

Thanks for any suggestions,

Mpjay

mpjay2000 said:

I have been consistently hitting 50% efficiency. It's been very frustrating and I have been reading everything I can to figure out what I'm doing wrong. I sometimes add DME to the boil to bump it up where it needs to be, but I'm sick of doing that.

I have pretty much tried to emulate Denny in my brewing and learned how to batch sparge from reading his stuff. I use a 10 gallon cooler as a mashtun and keggles to heat sparge water and do my boil.

I did notice that I got up to 58% with a kit I bought online from More Beer but the rest of my grain I have gotten locally.

So, besides buying a grain mill what could I try different in my process to get my numbers up a bit?

Thanks for any suggestions,

Mpjay

Click to expand...

This is a very common problem, but the only response we can really offer is to suggest that you do some diagnostics to figure out what your problem actually is. Right now, we'd only really be guessing. The key is to document your process carefully with good, accurate measurements, especially including different gravity readings at different points in the mash.

Check this link for some good experimental procedures:
http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Troubleshooting_Brewhouse_Efficiency

So update, we got a more fine grind and brewed today, 81% efficiency. Feels good!

keanex said:

So update, we got a more fine grind and brewed today, 81% efficiency. Feels good!

Click to expand...

Good to hear! That's almost always the cause and solution.

Wasn't it Denny that said, "Crush till yer skeered"?

Starderup said:

Wasn't it Denny that said, "Crush till yer skeered"?

Click to expand...

It was indeed!

Subscribed. Been getting too many batches in the 50ish range and going to try a few things on this list.

I believe my problem is the crush because my mill produces 33% flour, 33% perfect crush, and 33% whole and uncrushed (Maybe a little less on the whole). I'm using a corona style mill that wobbles alot (Trying to fix that).

I was told that I shouldn't have any problems closing the gap even further and allow it to produce more flour (Just make sure that none of the grains are whole).

My worst fear with doing this though is extracting tannins from the overly crushed husks. However, I am under the impression that if I don't over extract or too high of a PH that I'll be fine.

Just an FYI, I am using Denny's setup for the mash tun (Stainless braid) and haven't had any problems thus far with stuck sparges.

I just kept adjusting my mill tighter and tighter until I got a slow runoff. I backed off the gap just a hair at that point and it's been that way for the last 12-13 years.

Denny said:

I just kept adjusting my mill tighter and tighter until I got a slow runoff. I backed off the gap just a hair at that point and it's been that way for the last 12-13 years.

Click to expand...

Good idea. That's definitely what I'm going to do.

I'm sure this efficiency deficiency is going to clear up.

I feel like I'm on school house rock!

Ive always had difficulty getting my fly sarge up to 170....... I typically get my water boiling hot (230 degrees), and after I put the stuff through my strainer it almost always seems to just measure out to barley above my initial infusion....

no bother, I tend to average +75% efficiency, so I'm ok with my process

Thanks to much of the insight on this thread, I've finally broken the 80% barrier.

Not only that, i almost got to 90. I hit 87%. Definitely a record for me.

Thanks to Denny and flyguy for all the great info.

Haputanlas said:

Thanks to much of the insight on this thread, I've finally broken the 80% barrier.

Not only that, i almost got to 90. I hit 87%. Definitely a record for me.

Thanks to Denny and flyguy for all the great info.

Click to expand...

Denny said:

I just kept adjusting my mill tighter and tighter until I got a slow runoff. I backed off the gap just a hair at that point and it's been that way for the last 12-13 years.

Click to expand...

By the way, the main difference between my 50-60% batches and this one was the crush. Much more fine than previous crushes.

Haputanlas said:

By the way, the main difference between my 50-60% batches and this one was the crush. Much more fine than previous crushes.

Click to expand...

Good on ya, man!

skullface1818 said:

Ive always had difficulty getting my fly sarge up to 170....... I typically get my water boiling hot (230 degrees), and after I put the stuff through my strainer it almost always seems to just measure out to barley above my initial infusion....

no bother, I tend to average +75% efficiency, so I'm ok with my process

Click to expand...

Were you boiling under pressure?

OK, time for another chapter in my elusive quest for efficiency gains. I've been averaging 72% using Denny's hose braid, then subsequently with a new copper collection manifold I made following John Palmer's guidelines. No difference, really. I have been watching the crush like a hawk, even double milling just to be sure. On my last session yesterday, my efficiency actually dropped to 67%. Really disappointing. I'm stirring thoroughly at dough-in, then again at 30 minutes, then stirring thoroughly before vorlaufing each of two equal sparge additions, and it all looks great. I'm hitting my water volumes spot on, but the pre-boil gravity comes in 4 points low. So, I boil longer to get the OG I want, which requires that I recalculate the hop timing to get the target IBUs. After 105 minutes, I finally get my target OG.

The guys at my LHBS just installed a new mill and they say their mash efficiencies have gone UP, to about 85%, and asked me to report how I did. Well, mine's going down. I have to say that this particular mash was designed to be pretty high gravity. I was going for an Imperial IPA at 8% ABV, so I used more base malt than before, adjusting the water volumes appropriately. Total grain bill = 17 lbs for a net volume of 6.375 gal. At 75%, I should have had 1.058 pre-boil gravity and 7.5 gal in the boil kettle (corrected to 68 F); volume was good, but the gravity was 1.054.

What's up?!?

Viejo said:

OK, time for another chapter in my elusive quest for efficiency gains. I've been averaging 72% using Denny's hose braid, then subsequently with a new copper collection manifold I made following John Palmer's guidelines. No difference, really. I have been watching the crush like a hawk, even double milling just to be sure. On my last session yesterday, my efficiency actually dropped to 67%. Really disappointing. I'm stirring thoroughly at dough-in, then again at 30 minutes, then stirring thoroughly before vorlaufing each of two equal sparge additions, and it all looks great. I'm hitting my water volumes spot on, but the pre-boil gravity comes in 4 points low. So, I boil longer to get the OG I want, which requires that I recalculate the hop timing to get the target IBUs. After 105 minutes, I finally get my target OG.

The guys at my LHBS just installed a new mill and they say their mash efficiencies have gone UP, to about 85%, and asked me to report how I did. Well, mine's going down. I have to say that this particular mash was designed to be pretty high gravity. I was going for an Imperial IPA at 8% ABV, so I used more base malt than before, adjusting the water volumes appropriately. Total grain bill = 17 lbs for a net volume of 6.375 gal. At 75%, I should have had 1.058 pre-boil gravity and 7.5 gal in the boil kettle (corrected to 68 F); volume was good, but the gravity was 1.054.

What's up?!?

Click to expand...

Depending on your system, ~70% might just be everything working fine. The question you should be asking yourself is if you are losing sugars from poor conversion or from incomplete lautering. With a few measurements and calculations, you can separate out the various components of your net efficiency. As often as not, the problem is simply that you're leaving water and thus sugars behind, either in the grain or in deadspace.

OK, I'll bite. How do I parse the results to determine the culprit? I haven't figured out how to do that.

One thing that's different in my latest session is I was mashing quite a bit more grain than usual, looking for a higher gravity. So, the mash was thicker. Also, in contrast to previous sessions, I didn't heat the sparge water quite so hot (near boiling before), which probably reduced the fluidity some. How much do temperature and water/grain ratio matter in a batch sparge system? I've been splitting the total sparge volume into two equal infusions. Maybe I should go back to a single sparge?

Viejo said:

OK, I'll bite. How do I parse the results to determine the culprit? I haven't figured out how to do that.

One thing that's different in my latest session is I was mashing quite a bit more grain than usual, looking for a higher gravity. So, the mash was thicker. Also, in contrast to previous sessions, I didn't heat the sparge water quite so hot (near boiling before), which probably reduced the fluidity some. How much do temperature and water/grain ratio matter in a batch sparge system? I've been splitting the total sparge volume into two equal infusions. Maybe I should go back to a single sparge?

Click to expand...

You'll bite? I didn't realize I was fishing.

The short answer is that you've got to figure out the total extracted sugars in your grains and then divide that by your total strike water. If you've got, for example, ten pounds of two-row at 35 points per pound per gallon and you strike with 6 gallons, you'd expect your first runnings to be (10 * 35 ppg / 6 gallons = 58 points, or 1.058). If you're significantly below that, you've got conversion problems.

Kaiser's got a comprehensive worksheet at his website: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Troubleshooting_Brewhouse_Efficiency

As for the other stuff, it depends. The water to grist ratio shouldn't effect your conversion, but if there's more grain it will absorb more water, which means you're leaving sugars behind. Big beers tend to have lower efficiency on most systems. Some report that sparge temperature matters, though I'm skeptical. At the very least, I often sparge with cold water and notice no effects.

Viejo said:

OK, I'll bite. How do I parse the results to determine the culprit? I haven't figured out how to do that.

One thing that's different in my latest session is I was mashing quite a bit more grain than usual, looking for a higher gravity. So, the mash was thicker. Also, in contrast to previous sessions, I didn't heat the sparge water quite so hot (near boiling before), which probably reduced the fluidity some. How much do temperature and water/grain ratio matter in a batch sparge system? I've been splitting the total sparge volume into two equal infusions. Maybe I should go back to a single sparge?

Click to expand...

The more grain you use, the more your efficiency will decrease unless you increase the amount of sparging you do to make sure you get all the sugars out. Of course, that means you need to boil more in order to get down to your target volume. Most people simply accept that higher gravity batches means reduced efficiency. But for me, that doesn't take effect until I'm into the upper 80s for an OG. I've started using about a 1.75 qt./lb. mash ratio and it has upped my efficiency a couple points. Sparge water temp doesn't really play a role in efficiency unless your mash hasn't completely converted. In that case, using 190ish sparge water can help comete conversion. But viscosity of the wort doesn't really play a role. Kai Troester has proven that with his cold sparge experiment. Again, if your efficiency increases with hotter sparge water, it's because your mash wasn't fully converted before. Kai also has an excellent article on conversion efficiency that might be useful to you. My experience is that splitting the spagre into 2 batches does so little, if anything, to increase efficiency that it isn't worth my trouble. The thing that many people never consider when measuring efficiency is the extract potential of the grain. Most people just use an average number or whatever their software tells them, when in reality the potential can vary widely form batch to batch of grain. Unless you have a lot analysis for the bag you're using, you really don't know what to expect. If the actual potential is lower thathe figure you use, it could appear that your efficiency is lower than it really is.

Denny said:

G. I've started using about a 1.75 qt./lb. mash ratio and it has upped my efficiency a couple points. .

Click to expand...

Denny, are you using 1.75qt.lb for your initial infusion? I have always used the recommended 1.25qt/lb (if it would fit in my MT), but have recently switched to a larger MT and was wondering if a lower density mash would increase my efficiency.

Kai states that thinner mash increase efficiency in some way:

A significant difference was however found in the efficiency. The brewhouse efficiency of the tick mashes remained almost constant between 58 and 60% over the temperature range of the experiments, but the brewhouse efficiency for the thinner mash showed a strong dependency on the temperature and was always better than the efficiency of the tick mash. That leads to the conclusion that thinner mashes perform better and allow for better extraction of the grain. Briggs also reports that thinner mashes can convert more starch but that most of the conversion potential is reached at a water to grist ratio of 2.5 l/kg [Briggs, 2004]

Click to expand...

Denny said:

The more grain you use, the more your efficiency will decrease ...But for me, that doesn't take effect until I'm into the upper 80s for an OG.

Click to expand...

Ditto

Denny said:

The thing that many people never consider when measuring efficiency is the extract potential of the grain. Most people just use an average number or whatever their software tells them, when in reality the potential can vary widely form batch to batch of grain. Unless you have a lot analysis for the bag you're using, you really don't know what to expect. If the actual potential is lower thathe figure you use, it could appear that your efficiency is lower than it really is.

Click to expand...

+1 Easily explains variance of a few points either way. Couple that with measurement variance and +/-5% isn't surprising to me.

jdub1782 said:

Denny, are you using 1.75qt.lb for your initial infusion? I have always used the recommended 1.25qt/lb (if it would fit in my MT), but have recently switched to a larger MT and was wondering if a lower density mash would increase my efficiency.

Click to expand...

Not to speak for Denny but I believe 1.75qt/lb is his initial infusion. After reading Kai's work on mash thickness all my batches have been in the 1.75-2.0qt/lb range and my efficiency has improved (usually high 70's to 80). If you now have the space try it out.

jdub1782 said:

Denny, are you using 1.75qt.lb for your initial infusion? I have always used the recommended 1.25qt/lb (if it would fit in my MT), but have recently switched to a larger MT and was wondering if a lower density mash would increase my efficiency.

Click to expand...

Yeah, for the initial infusion. It increased mine a bit.

Denny, I seem to recall you were also trying to match your mash run-off volume with your sparge volume (or was that Kai)?

That's made an efficiency improvement and produced consistent efficiency for me as well. If my pre-boil target is 7 gallons, I'll calculate to hit 3.5 in the mash run-off and 3.5 for the sparge. This usually means I'll mash with ~5 gallons of water, but rather than dictating mash volume by qt/lb, I dictate it by expected run off, which for an average ~1.050 batch winds up being ~1.7-2.0 qt/lb. Plus I know I can measure 5.0 gallons a little more accurately than, say, 4.652 if that's what a fixed qt/lb ratio tells me.

Of course, it doesn't always work because of different grain moisture levels and other factors (how long I'm willing to drain the MLT versus accepted MLT loss, etc.) that affect mash volume versus mash runoff volume, but I can easily adjust the sparge volume if I need to.

AZ_IPA said:

Denny, I seem to recall you were also trying to match your mash run-off volume with your sparge volume (or was that Kai)?

Click to expand...

I think both of us like to be in the ballpark, but I've found there's considerable leeway. If the 2 volumes are within about a gal. of each other, that's close enough. I started mashing wiht a higher ratio mainly so I didn't need to do a post mash/pre sparge water addition-what some people call a mashout, although I never held the temp long enough for a true mashout. By using a higher mash ratio, I get about 1/2 my total boil volume from the mash runoff, then just sparge with the rest of what I need for the boil. An unanticipated upside is that my efficiency went up a bit. And the higher ratio doesn't seem to alter the beer at all.

I have skimmed over this thread looking for clarification on the following but didn't find it, apologies in advance if i missed it:

When batch sparging, i understand it is preferable to leave the grain bed in tact, but it seems to me that stirring and just adding an extra vorlauf cycle would increase my already lousy efficiency. Is this accurate? I saw one guy on brewing TV talk about skipping vorlauf all together because it doesn't really impact the end result. I agree that it falls out in trub anyway.

I guess my question is, if you aren't worried about vorlaufing, would it increase my efficiency to stir the whole mash in batch sparges? (I'm sparging at 170 degrees)