Lauter time

[seanppp]

What is your typical lauter time? And what kind of efficiency do you get? For me it's

80min - 80% eff (5 gal)

But I'm wondering if I'm taking too long to lauter??

 

[doug293cz]

You need to be more specific about what you are asking. Fly sparging or batch sparging (for batch sparging lauter time is immaterial)? What efficiency are you talking about - lauter efficiency, mash efficiency, brewhouse efficiency? Brewhouse efficiency is affected by whether you account for trub losses in your BK or fermenter, Therefore, it's not very useful for comparing lauter processes. Mash efficiency is affected by both conversion efficiency (which varies widely among brewers) as well as lauter efficiency. To evaluate your lauter process you need to separate your lauter efficiency as a specific metric. Lauter efficiency = mash efficiency / conversion efficiency. Conversion efficiency can be determined using the method here.

That said, 80 minutes should be plenty long enough for a good fly sparge of a 5 gal batch, and you could probably shorten it up. However 80% (mash) efficiency is ok, but not all that great for fly sparging. A really well done fly sparge should get you above 87% mash efficiency (95% conv eff, 92+% lauter eff) for a 1.060 OG wort. You can easily get 80% mash efficiency with a single batch sparge, and save some time.

Brew on

 

[SoCal-Doug]

Fly sparging a five gallon batch, I shoot for 20 to 30 minutes and typically see 93% mash and 87% brewhouse. Heavy beers are a bit less.

 

[doug293cz]

Fly sparging a five gallon batch, I shoot for 20 to 30 minutes and typically see 93% mash and 87% brewhouse. Heavy beers are a bit less.

Sounds like you run a pretty tight process. It's a little OT, but I'd like to get some numbers from you to compare against theoretical batch sparge numbers. For one of your typical batches:

• Grain bill weight
• Pre-boil volume
• First runnings (or mash wort) SG
• Pre-boil SG
• Post-boil volume
• Post-boil SG

And do you fully drain your MLT to the BK or run-off to a volume and/or final runnings SG target (leaving a significant volume of liquid in the MLT)?

Brew on

 

[SoCal-Doug]

Here ya go, Doug. I've never done a batch sparge, love to see a potential difference. My rig is kind of a Brew-Magic layout and plumbing design but it's HERMS not RIMS. Here is some scribblings from a batch of Saison I did a few weeks ago (happened to have my notebook in my truck). It wasn't the best efficiency I've had, but I have others in beersmith on the home laptop. Having a second eyeball on my numbers is awesome! Thanks! Doing 10 gallons of Wit this weekend.

Grain wt: 9.375lb (nothing weird, no sugar, honey or fruit. basic AG Saison)
113F 15 minutes
149F 75 minutes
Lightly stir mash at 15 to 20 minute intervals
Raise recirc to 168F (HLT would be about 170 at that point), then begin sparge

Pre-boil volume: 7.35 (no top off or additions)
Post-boil volume: 5.75
Est 21.7%/hr boil off, 4% shrinkage
Fermenter volume: 5.2 ish (guestimate. lines are at half gallon levels)
BK deadspace: .28g (known/measured) (i don't fret some trub going into the fermenter, BK drain does leave much of it after a good whirlpool stir)
MLT deadspace: 2.5oz (known/measured)
Mash pH at 15 minutes: 5.3
Mash pH at 75 minutes: 5.4
Mash SG at 75 minutes: 1.059
Sparge pH at end: 5.9
Sparge SG at end: 1.008
Sparge time: 23 minutes
Pre-boil SG: 1.043
Post-boil SG (OG): 1.057

If it makes any difference, I recirculate and sparge via a simple 1/2" silicone line whirlpooling on top of the MLT grain bed (a-la sabco). I will typically have an inch to an inch and a half of fluid above the grains at all times (depending on how accurate my planned volumes and absorption work out). Simple domed false bottom. Wort to HLT differential is pretty much always 2 degrees. If you want to get real techie, the pump, lines and HERMS coil hold 0.58 gal of fluid

With this recipe, i sparged to the planned BK pre-boil volume, checking numbers along the way and at the end for any bad juju. Set my drain trickle output and set the HLT to MLT valve to come close to that. Adjust as needed throughout. So by process, the grain does not go dry and is always flowing.

Beersmith came back with (i didn't write down its estimated numbers) mash efficiency at 91.7, bh 87.3 (who knows though, it damn sure didn't know how well WY3711 attenuates, lol, turned out way more potent than I had planned)

 

[SoCal-Doug]

But I'm wondering if I'm taking too long to lauter??

Next time you do that recipe, run a 45 minute sparge and see what kind of difference there is, if any. Try to do everything else the same. Experimentation and characterization can be enlightening

 

[doug293cz]

Here ya go, Doug. I've never done a batch sparge, love to see a potential difference. My rig is kind of a Brew-Magic layout and plumbing design but it's HERMS not RIMS. Here is some scribblings from a batch of Saison I did a few weeks ago (happened to have my notebook in my truck). It wasn't the best efficiency I've had, but I have others in beersmith on the home laptop. Having a second eyeball on my numbers is awesome! Thanks! Doing 10 gallons of Wit this weekend.

Grain wt: 9.375lb (nothing weird, no sugar, honey or fruit. basic AG Saison)
113F 15 minutes
149F 75 minutes
Lightly stir mash at 15 to 20 minute intervals
Raise recirc to 168F (HLT would be about 170 at that point), then begin sparge

Pre-boil volume: 7.35 (no top off or additions)
Post-boil volume: 5.75
Est 21.7%/hr boil off, 4% shrinkage
Fermenter volume: 5.2 ish (guestimate. lines are at half gallon levels)
BK deadspace: .28g (known/measured) (i don't fret some trub going into the fermenter, BK drain does leave much of it after a good whirlpool stir)
MLT deadspace: 2.5oz (known/measured)
Mash pH at 15 minutes: 5.3
Mash pH at 75 minutes: 5.4
Mash SG at 75 minutes: 1.059
Sparge pH at end: 5.9
Sparge SG at end: 1.008
Sparge time: 23 minutes
Pre-boil SG: 1.043
Post-boil SG (OG): 1.057

If it makes any difference, I recirculate and sparge via a simple 1/2" silicone line whirlpooling on top of the MLT grain bed (a-la sabco). I will typically have an inch to an inch and a half of fluid above the grains at all times (depending on how accurate my planned volumes and absorption work out). Simple domed false bottom. Wort to HLT differential is pretty much always 2 degrees. If you want to get real techie, the pump, lines and HERMS coil hold 0.58 gal of fluid

With this recipe, i sparged to the planned BK pre-boil volume, checking numbers along the way and at the end for any bad juju. Set my drain trickle output and set the HLT to MLT valve to come close to that. Adjust as needed throughout. So by process, the grain does not go dry and is always flowing.

Beersmith came back with (i didn't write down its estimated numbers) mash efficiency at 91.7, bh 87.3 (who knows though, it damn sure didn't know how well WY3711 attenuates, lol, turned out way more potent than I had planned)

Thanks for the numbers. Forgot to ask for one important one: strike water volume. Also forgot to ask what temps the volumes were measured at (just for strike, pre and post-boil.) I'm gonna do a preliminary analysis assuming 1.25 qt/gal, since that's what a lot of folks do.

I'm trying to get an idea of how much difference there is between various numbers of batch sparges, and a good fly sparge. Based on your efficiencies, you seem to have a good fly sparge process.

Edit: Ok did a first pass simulation, and your 75 minute mash SG seems way low (for a 1.25 qt/lb mash at 100% efficiency it should be about 1.096, and to get 1.059 mash thickness would have to be 2.17 qt/lb.) In any case, the 3X batch sparge simulation came out at a 1.044 pre-boil SG and a 1.057 OG. Mash (and lauter since conv assumed 100%) efficiency came out at 94%. My mash efficiency numbers come out higher than most calculators because I adjust for the moisture content of the grain (~4%), which means dry grain weight is lower, so for same SG, efficiency comes out higher.

Brew on

 

[day_trippr]

fwiw, I do a continuous recirculation through a hex, raise the wort to mash out, then fly sparge at 1 quart per minute.
I mill my grains, typically gap at .035 for barley and .030 for wheat.
Extraction efficiency is typically in the low 90s...

Cheers!

 

[SoCal-Doug]

Thanks for the numbers. Forgot to ask for one important one: strike water volume. Also forgot to ask what temps the volumes were measured at (just for strike, pre and post-boil.) I'm gonna do a preliminary analysis assuming 1.25 qt/gal, since that's what a lot of folks do.

I'm trying to get an idea of how much difference there is between various numbers of batch sparges, and a good fly sparge. Based on your efficiencies, you seem to have a good fly sparge process.

Brew on

Strike water: MLT prefilled to the level needed (from below). Lines full and recirculating. HLT at 12 to 14 gallons (for good HEX and insulation, as well as sparging). RO water used for both. MLT at strike temp, HLT as required to hold first mash temp. Water chemistry added to MLT and allowed to dissolve before mashing in. So, total MLT strike volume would be calculated as:

2.93 gal (9.375# grain, 1.25 qt/lb root basis. 1.13gal absorbed)

+ 0.58 gal for lines between the MLT drain, through the pump, through the HERMS coil and back into the MLT via the return/sparge tube.

+ 1.07 gal to achieve 1.5 inches of fluild above the grain bed (15.5" diameter keg = 247.69 cubic inches = 1.07gal). Without this, a wort/sparge whirlpool would not be possible and I would need to do some sort of spray-trickle-drippy-thingy instead.

+ 0.40 gal recoverable under the false bottom

= 4.98 (we'll call it 5gal) total mash liquor volume. This is what I also base my mash water chemistry on (chemical additions to the RO water).

Theoretically, 2.12 qt/lb overall mash density, but of course it doesn't quite work that way. The grain sees (effectively) what occupies the same volume, and the 1.07 gallons above it. Thus, effective mash density would be about 1.7 qt/lb. With a recirculating system, it works out slightly less as the grain feels more "pull" due to the flow, not just gravity in a static state. It cant just float around and be as loose as it would in a cooler with no recirculation. Therefore compaction (and thus density) is slightly higher and the effect is lower than the calculated 1.7.

In theory, about 3.3 gal would be available from the grain, but the recoverable spaces and plumbing does exit and gets exchanged with sparge liquor. So that wort does end up in the BK, excluding a tiny bit that would fall under the law of diminishing returns.

Volume measurement temps: AHA! now you are really pickin the fly poop out of the pepper. I love it! I never considered initial volume expansion and contraction being factored in, but it does absolutely make some difference. $hit, now i'm going to be thinking about it on my next brew

My typical process is to fill the HLT and get it up to strike temp +5. Then valve the required strike quantity to the MLT and mix in any chemistry needed. This fills all the lines also. I will then bring the HLT volume back up to "more than needed" with more RO water and let the system heat and stabilize, while I get my ducks in a row for the brew day and have more coffee. So... long story short, for this recipe, the mash/strike volume would have been measured at somewhere close to 113F.

Pre-boil temp would be sparge temp less line/transfer losses between the MLT drain and the BK. I hold the sparge liquor at 168. Wort is at 168 at the beginning of the sparge. The first runnings would cool faster due to the BK being at ambient, then would cool slower as the equipment warmed up and the BK fills. In most cases, pre-boil temp would be roughly 140 to 150.

Post-boil... Yep, that's an interesting factor that I need to add to my to-think-about list. I watch time and volume during the boil. Due to ambient temps, barometric pressure, etc. boil off rates and temps change. I watch the rate throughout and will attempt to hit the target by adjusting the BK PID duty cycle. Final volume would be measured at 205F to 210F (this will change come winter time).

I just realized. There's still some Saison in the keg. To the garage I go!

 

[SoCal-Doug]

fwiw, I do a continuous recirculation through a hex, raise the wort to mash out, then fly sparge at 1 quart per minute.
I mill my grains, typically gap at .035 for barley and .030 for wheat.
Extraction efficiency is typically in the low 90s...

Cheers!

Day tripper nailed it! Without the right grind, nothing else matters and all bets are off.

 

[doug293cz]

Strike water: MLT prefilled to the level needed (from below). Lines full and recirculating. HLT at 12 to 14 gallons (for good HEX and insulation, as well as sparging). RO water used for both. MLT at strike temp, HLT as required to hold first mash temp. Water chemistry added to MLT and allowed to dissolve before mashing in. So, total MLT strike volume would be calculated as:

2.93 gal (9.375# grain, 1.25 qt/lb root basis. 1.13gal absorbed)

+ 0.58 gal for lines between the MLT drain, through the pump, through the HERMS coil and back into the MLT via the return/sparge tube.

+ 1.07 gal to achieve 1.5 inches of fluild above the grain bed (15.5" diameter keg = 247.69 cubic inches = 1.07gal). Without this, a wort/sparge whirlpool would not be possible and I would need to do some sort of spray-trickle-drippy-thingy instead.

+ 0.40 gal recoverable under the false bottom

= 4.98 (we'll call it 5gal) total mash liquor volume. This is what I also base my mash water chemistry on (chemical additions to the RO water).

Theoretically, 2.12 qt/lb overall mash density, but of course it doesn't quite work that way. The grain sees (effectively) what occupies the same volume, and the 1.07 gallons above it. Thus, effective mash density would be about 1.7 qt/lb. With a recirculating system, it works out slightly less as the grain feels more "pull" due to the flow, not just gravity in a static state. It cant just float around and be as loose as it would in a cooler with no recirculation. Therefore compaction (and thus density) is slightly higher and the effect is lower than the calculated 1.7.

In theory, about 3.3 gal would be available from the grain, but the recoverable spaces and plumbing does exit and gets exchanged with sparge liquor. So that wort does end up in the BK, excluding a tiny bit that would fall under the law of diminishing returns.

Volume measurement temps: AHA! now you are really pickin the fly poop out of the pepper. I love it! I never considered initial volume expansion and contraction being factored in, but it does absolutely make some difference. $hit, now i'm going to be thinking about it on my next brew

My typical process is to fill the HLT and get it up to strike temp +5. Then valve the required strike quantity to the MLT and mix in any chemistry needed. This fills all the lines also. I will then bring the HLT volume back up to "more than needed" with more RO water and let the system heat and stabilize, while I get my ducks in a row for the brew day and have more coffee. So... long story short, for this recipe, the mash/strike volume would have been measured at somewhere close to 113F.

Pre-boil temp would be sparge temp less line/transfer losses between the MLT drain and the BK. I hold the sparge liquor at 168. Wort is at 168 at the beginning of the sparge. The first runnings would cool faster due to the BK being at ambient, then would cool slower as the equipment warmed up and the BK fills. In most cases, pre-boil temp would be roughly 140 to 150.

Post-boil... Yep, that's an interesting factor that I need to add to my to-think-about list. I watch time and volume during the boil. Due to ambient temps, barometric pressure, etc. boil off rates and temps change. I watch the rate throughout and will attempt to hit the target by adjusting the BK PID duty cycle. Final volume would be measured at 205F to 210F (this will change come winter time).

I just realized. There's still some Saison in the keg. To the garage I go!

Some good info in there. and I need to respond tomorrow, before I start imbibing. Watch this post for edits.

Brew on

 

[day_trippr]

fwiw, Beersmith2 equipment and mash profiles will capture nearly all of that process, including target strike temperatures and accounting for temperature effects on volume...

Cheers!

 

[jalc6927]

What is actually gained by higher efficiency?

 

[SoCal-Doug]

What is actually gained by higher efficiency?

You can save 50 cents on your next brew

IMO, beyond 70%, it's just a nerd-geek thing, but it can help you really hone in on your processes. If you are a commercial operation however, it adds up. The first goal should be repeatability.

 

[doug293cz]

... So, total MLT strike volume would be calculated as:

2.93 gal (9.375# grain, 1.25 qt/lb root basis. 1.13gal absorbed)

+ 0.58 gal for lines between the MLT drain, through the pump, through the HERMS coil and back into the MLT via the return/sparge tube.

+ 1.07 gal to achieve 1.5 inches of fluild above the grain bed (15.5" diameter keg = 247.69 cubic inches = 1.07gal). Without this, a wort/sparge whirlpool would not be possible and I would need to do some sort of spray-trickle-drippy-thingy instead.

+ 0.40 gal recoverable under the false bottom

= 4.98 (we'll call it 5gal) total mash liquor volume. This is what I also base my mash water chemistry on (chemical additions to the RO water).

Theoretically, 2.12 qt/lb overall mash density, but of course it doesn't quite work that way. The grain sees (effectively) what occupies the same volume, and the 1.07 gallons above it. Thus, effective mash density would be about 1.7 qt/lb. With a recirculating system, it works out slightly less as the grain feels more "pull" due to the flow, not just gravity in a static state. It cant just float around and be as loose as it would in a cooler with no recirculation. Therefore compaction (and thus density) is slightly higher and the effect is lower than the calculated 1.7.

In theory, about 3.3 gal would be available from the grain, but the recoverable spaces and plumbing does exit and gets exchanged with sparge liquor. So that wort does end up in the BK, excluding a tiny bit that would fall under the law of diminishing returns.

Volume measurement temps: AHA! now you are really pickin the fly poop out of the pepper. I love it! I never considered initial volume expansion and contraction being factored in, but it does absolutely make some difference. $hit, now i'm going to be thinking about it on my next brew

My typical process is to fill the HLT and get it up to strike temp +5. Then valve the required strike quantity to the MLT and mix in any chemistry needed. This fills all the lines also. I will then bring the HLT volume back up to "more than needed" with more RO water and let the system heat and stabilize, while I get my ducks in a row for the brew day and have more coffee. So... long story short, for this recipe, the mash/strike volume would have been measured at somewhere close to 113F.

Pre-boil temp would be sparge temp less line/transfer losses between the MLT drain and the BK. I hold the sparge liquor at 168. Wort is at 168 at the beginning of the sparge. The first runnings would cool faster due to the BK being at ambient, then would cool slower as the equipment warmed up and the BK fills. In most cases, pre-boil temp would be roughly 140 to 150.

Post-boil... Yep, that's an interesting factor that I need to add to my to-think-about list. I watch time and volume during the boil. Due to ambient temps, barometric pressure, etc. boil off rates and temps change. I watch the rate throughout and will attempt to hit the target by adjusting the BK PID duty cycle. Final volume would be measured at 205F to 210F (this will change come winter time).

I just realized. There's still some Saison in the keg. To the garage I go!

Ok, I guessed pretty close to the temps for volume correction purposes.

The important number is the 5 gal total water volume in the mash and recirc loop. Since it is recirculating, the mash sees it all at some point. 5 gal @ 115° is about 4.96 gal at 68°F. For 9.375 lb of grain with 4.96 gal of strike water, the mash/first runnings SG should be 1.0604 for 100% conversion efficiency. At 1.059, the conversion efficiency is 97.5%. With a 94% mash efficiency that puts your lauter efficiency at about 96.4%. A triple batch sparge with a similar strike volume and conv eff would have a mash eff of about 91.2% and lauter efficiency of about 93.6%. The OG for the triple batch sparge would come in at 1.055 vs. the 1.057 for the fly sparge. If I drop the strike volume on the triple batch sparge to 1.25 qt/lb (2.93) gal, the lauter eff goes up to 94.7%.

The conclusion is that a good fly sparge can beat a triple batch sparge by about 2 - 3 percentage points in lauter efficiency. This is what I was after, an estimate of how much better a fly sparge could be than a batch sparge. The fly sparge advantage is a little bit higher than I expected it to be (I guessed about 1 - 1.5 percentage points higher than triple batch.)

To add some other data points:

• A triple batch sparge beats a single batch sparge by about 5 percentage points
• A double batch sparge beats a single batch sparge by about 3.5 percentage points
• A single batch sparge beats a no sparge by about 8 percentage points

Brew on

 

[doug293cz]

What is actually gained by higher efficiency?

You can save 50 cents on your next brew

IMO, beyond 70%, it's just a nerd-geek thing, but it can help you really hone in on your processes. If you are a commercial operation however, it adds up. The first goal should be repeatability.

Yes, very geeky (see my posts in this thread.) You need to know your efficiency (and other system parameters) in order to figure out how much grain you need to hit an OG target at a specific target volume.

To give some specific examples, here is how much grain is needed to get an OG of 1.050 at 5.5 gal post-boil volume at various mash efficiencies:
60% mash efficiency requires 12.90 lb
70% mash efficiency requires 11.06 lb
80% mash efficiency requires 9.68 lb
90% mash efficiency requires 8.59 lb

So, in reality it's a bit more than $0.50 difference, but not a huge amount of money, since grain is cheap compared to hops and yeast.

Brew on

 

[SoCal-Doug]

Fun to play with the numbers. Now I need to zero in on getting beersmith to be a little more accurate.

I'll review some of my other recent batches because their efficiencies were a few points higher than what you just worked up.