mash tun vs. efficiency?

CornyKegs 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Double_D

Double_D

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
216
Location
Las Vegas
This is just an example I found on here from Joshaw50:

Equipment Needed:

48 qt Rubbermaid Cooler
Qty 1 - 10 ft Section 1/2" CPVC pipe - $2.60
Qty 5 - 1/2" Tee CPVC - $.19 each
Qty 4 - 1/2" 90 degree Elbow CPVC - $.29 ea
Qty 1 - 1/2" CPVC Female Coupling Adapter - $.67
Qty 1 - 1 1/2" OD Rubber Washer - $.86
Size does not matter since you can cut the hole size you want. I could not find anything above 5/16" ID
Qty 1 - 3/4" ID Flat Steel Cut Washer (must grind a little to get 7/8 ID) - $.40
Qty 1 - Brass 1/2" x 1/2" male to male nipple (1 1/2" to 2 1/2" length depending on cooler width) - $2.52
Qty 1 - 1/2" x 3/8" hosetail (can use 1/2" x 1/2" hosetail) - $2.56
Qty 1 - 1/2" brass full port threaded ball valve - $7.52

Total Investment - $20.64 + cost of cooler.
All Items were purchased at Home Depot.


Does anyone have any data reflecting this as being a more efficient mash system vs. what I am currently using: 62qt. ss pot w/ a bazooka screen and a ball valve? Oh by the way, my efficiency is usually 55-60%. I've tried single infusion, step mash, decoction, mash temp varying between 148-158, hard water, RO water, spring water from the grocery store and the water out of those watermills (the kiosks in the parking lots are all windmills here in vegas), grain from online stores, the local homebrew store and I have an MM3 set to .036. I have used acidulated malt to drop hash ph and the 5.2 powder with no measureable difference. I've been brewing for three years so this efficiency thing is the only thing I haven't been able to figure out on my own. Also I've tried the lauter tun outlined by charlie papazian( two buckets one with lots of holes) and fly sparging but only in my mash tun which I also use to lauter because of the spigot/screen combo I have. I'm thinking this multitasker has run it's useful course and now I need to add some single use items to my process. I'd appreciate any suggestions and info.
 
How much dead space do you have in your tun. In other words, fill it up with enough water do start a siphon and drain. How much water stays in there? If it is more than a quart, you could modify your bazooka to improve the efficiency.
 
IMO the single thing with the greatest impact on efficiency is crush. Beyond that it's mostly about process, and only slightly about the equipment used. When you mash in are you stirring until your arms fall off? Are you stirring again before sparging?
 
Why not spend the money on the copper and make it work with your SS pot and see if the 20bucks helps to get you up to were you feel you need to be?

I have that screen and i quit using it b/c it would get clogged up w/ all my hops.
 
Northcalais40 said:
How much dead space do you have in your tun. In other words, fill it up with enough water do start a siphon and drain. How much water stays in there? If it is more than a quart, you could modify your bazooka to improve the efficiency.
Click to expand...

I mash in it so almost no dead space. Plus I don't have a false bottom.
 
JuanMoore said:
IMO the single thing with the greatest impact on efficiency is crush. Beyond that it's mostly about process, and only slightly about the equipment used. When you mash in are you stirring until your arms fall off? Are you stirring again before sparging?
Click to expand...

So like I said, I have a monster mill three set to .036. The crush doesn't get much better than that. I mix very well when I add my grain the the mash water. No I don't stir again before sparging, I just remembered though people talking about mashing out? Adding a bunch of extra hot water to thin the viscosity out?
 
autoferret said:
Why not spend the money on the copper and make it work with your SS pot and see if the 20bucks helps to get you up to were you feel you need to be?

I have that screen and i quit using it b/c it would get clogged up w/ all my hops.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm here. You're suggesting building a manifold? Sounds good. I use whole leaf hops in spite of the big breweries using pellets. They help as a filter medium for trub. But my bazooka works well with them.
 
I use kegs for my boil kettle and MT. I broke down a bought a false bottom from my LHBS that works great! before that I had a 5gal igloo cooler that i had a home made manifold in that worked great. only had 1 stuck sparge from a wheat ale that on the next batch added rice halls and never had that problem. But for 20 bucks compared to 55+ sounds like a good option to try.
 
Double_D said:
So like I said, I have a monster mill three set to .036. The crush doesn't get much better than that. I mix very well when I add my grain the the mash water. No I don't stir again before sparging, I just remembered though people talking about mashing out? Adding a bunch of extra hot water to thin the viscosity out?
Click to expand...

I think not stirring before sparging is the problem.
When you are batch sparging, it is the stirring of the sparge water into the grains that dissolves the sugars and increases the OG. i.e. add a batch of sparge water, stir really well, let it sit for 5 - 10 minutes, vorlauf, drain. Repeat if necessary. If you don't stir you will get low efficiency.

FWIW, I fly sparge, and my efficiency increased by 10% when I started doing a mash out (by stirring in some near boiling water to raise the grain bed temperature up to about 168F). I used to think that it was the increased temperature of the sparge that caused this increase in efficiency, but then I changed my mind, and thought it could be the stirring of the mash out water before draining. A couple weeks ago, I forgot to start heating the mash out water early enough, and rather than wait for it to boil, I added it at about 160F. This made very little difference to the temperature of the grain bed during the sparge (which was in the low 150's), and it did not noticeably decrease my efficiency. I may have lost 1 - 2 % in efficiency, but it certainly wasn't more than that.

Hope this helps,

-a.
 
ajf said:
Thank you sir. I have always used boiling water to do my fly sparge because I just wanted it to stay hot while I was letting 5 gal drain. I did notice it never raised the temp of the grain bed. I guess I need to stir before I sparge and do a mash out. They seem to be the things I'm missing.
Click to expand...
 
What's Las Vegas water like? If it's like a lot of reservoir waters, it's soft. That generally means add some calcium, plus other style appropriate ions. Our city water is very soft, I always have to add CaCl2 at least. The times I forget, I loose 10 to 20 percent efficiency. Of course, usually when I forget I've also had a few, so there may be other contributing factors. :mug:
Are you stirring well to get rid of "dough balls?" Just like making gravy, malt flour will have dough balls. I mush 'em up against the side of the tun to really break them up. I've occasionally had baseball sized ones. The starch in a big dough ball won't get converted, probably not in a small one either. Basically, stir a lot when doughing in.
In regard to the bazooka, I've seen them clog with hops in a boil kettle (somebody else's setup), but I've never seen one at work in a mash tun. Do you get good flow? If yes, don't worry about the manifold.
Does your mash tun hold temp? If it gets too cold, that will hurt efficiency. If it doesn't, time for a cooler or insulation.
Does the bazooka rest on the bottom, or is the ball valve near the bottom? If not, then there is some dead space.
 
JohnMc said:
What's Las Vegas water like? If it's like a lot of reservoir waters, it's soft. That generally means add some calcium, plus other style appropriate ions. Our city water is very soft, I always have to add CaCl2 at least. The times I forget, I loose 10 to 20 percent efficiency. Of course, usually when I forget I've also had a few, so there may be other contributing factors. :mug:
Are you stirring well to get rid of "dough balls?" Just like making gravy, malt flour will have dough balls. I mush 'em up against the side of the tun to really break them up. I've occasionally had baseball sized ones. The starch in a big dough ball won't get converted, probably not in a small one either. Basically, stir a lot when doughing in.
In regard to the bazooka, I've seen them clog with hops in a boil kettle (somebody else's setup), but I've never seen one at work in a mash tun. Do you get good flow? If yes, don't worry about the manifold.
Does your mash tun hold temp? If it gets too cold, that will hurt efficiency. If it doesn't, time for a cooler or insulation.
Does the bazooka rest on the bottom, or is the ball valve near the bottom? If not, then there is some dead space.
Click to expand...

Water is about 600ppm. Or three times what is considered hard nationally so I don't add anything. I stir as I dough in. By that I mean I stir while someone else pours or I go back and fourth between pouring and stiring. The bazooka screen is about a foot long so it sits on the bottom of the pot because of the weight or grain during sparging. But I do ten gallon batches and the grain bill is generally 30# or more. So when you consider I'm adding around 80# (10 gal) of water just to mash I have a huge thermal mass. My mash temp doesn't change more than 5 degrees even over 2-3 hours. But since I just had a water purifier installed that does the whole house I may have to look at the CaCl2. thanks
 
Two things.

If you fly sparge with this set up, you are possibly getting channeling, where your water is running straight for the drain rather than rinsing the grain. A single collection point is the culprit. A larger footprint manifold will help.

If you have a bazooka attached directly to the spigot of a cooler, you cannot drain completely with a siphon. Try it. When the water hits the level of the drain, air gets to the drain and kills the siphon. If you tip the cooler it helps, if not you leave possibly gallons of sweet wort in the tun. This kills efficiency when batch sparging. If your drain is sunken down in the cooler never mind, mine is 2" above the bottom of the cooler.
 
Hmph.
I think Norchalais40 is onto something with the channeling thing. You can rake with a knife or similar thing about half way down the grain bed a couple of times while sparging.
FWIW, I've got a manifold in my "coffin" cooler (100 qt rectangular; used when barleywines and RISes are being made) and it works well. I typically get ~85-90% (matching the prediction in ProMash with actual OG).
 
Double_D said:
Thank you sir. I have always used boiling water to do my fly sparge because I just wanted it to stay hot while I was letting 5 gal drain. I did notice it never raised the temp of the grain bed. I guess I need to stir before I sparge and do a mash out. They seem to be the things I'm missing.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't try fly sparging with a Bazooka Screen. As NorthCalais40 said, that is likely to cause channeling and could result in even lower efficiency.
I'd do a batch sparge. As the end of the mash, drain your first runnings, and calculate the difference between your required pre boil volume and what you have collected. This is equal to the amount of sparge water you need. I'd start with a single batch sparge, where you heat the sparge water to about 185F, add it to the grains as quickly as possible, stir really well for at least 2 minutes, let it stand for a few minutes, vorlauf, and then drain. You don't need a mash out as adding 185F sparge water raises the grain bed temperature sufficiently. It is the thorough stirring that extracts most of the sugars. You should be able to get good efficiency using this method (much better than 55 - 60%). Give it a try for a few times, and when your efficiency stabilizes, you can decide if you want to do a double batch sparge (where you do do two sparges, each with 1/2 the required amount of sparge water). This takes considerably longer, and should result in a small efficiency increase.
The only reason that I fly sparge is because I'd never heard of batch sparging when I started, and I got used to it. After several hundred brews, I find fly sparging to be easier, but it takes longer, and offers many more opportunities to screw up. If I were starting out again, I would definitely batch sparge.

-a.
 
ajf said:
I wouldn't try fly sparging with a Bazooka Screen. As NorthCalais40 said, that is likely to cause channeling and could result in even lower efficiency.
I'd do a batch sparge. As the end of the mash, drain your first runnings, and calculate the difference between your required pre boil volume and what you have collected. This is equal to the amount of sparge water you need. I'd start with a single batch sparge, where you heat the sparge water to about 185F, add it to the grains as quickly as possible, stir really well for at least 2 minutes, let it stand for a few minutes, vorlauf, and then drain. You don't need a mash out as adding 185F sparge water raises the grain bed temperature sufficiently. It is the thorough stirring that extracts most of the sugars. You should be able to get good efficiency using this method (much better than 55 - 60%). Give it a try for a few times, and when your efficiency stabilizes, you can decide if you want to do a double batch sparge (where you do do two sparges, each with 1/2 the required amount of sparge water). This takes considerably longer, and should result in a small efficiency increase.


-a.
Click to expand...

So with the double batch sparge I would take the first running and measure it, then split the remaining volume between two more sparges? I wait for the water to filter through the grain bed, then repeat with the second (actually third measured amount of water) batch of sparge water? I'm just kind of stuck on the fly method: gradually drain water from the bottom, gradually add it at the top. Do I have the right idea for the double batch sparge? I get the single batch sparge method no problem.
 
JohnMc said:
Hmph.
I think Norchalais40 is onto something with the channeling thing. You can rake with a knife or similar thing about half way down the grain bed a couple of times while sparging.
FWIW, I've got a manifold in my "coffin" cooler (100 qt rectangular; used when barleywines and RISes are being made) and it works well. I typically get ~85-90% (matching the prediction in ProMash with actual OG).
Click to expand...

Do you have soft water? I do all my math by hand. The plus side: my efficiency may be low but it's consistent. I hit my numbers every time. What do you mash in when doing something other than a barleywine. Btw, RISes?
 
I mash in a 10 gal Rubbermaid cooler with a copper manifold and usually always get above 80% mash efficiency. My last batch was 1.072 OG and I had 80.4% on the mash. If you are only getting 50~60% mash efficiency I would try something else.

I do a batch sparge w/ mash out.

60 minute mash, stirred a bit at 30 minutes.
Mash out w/ boiling water to raise mash temp close to 168, stir.
Wait 10 minutes.
Vorlauf about 2q at least 4 times dumping back through a colandor.
Drain mash tun.
Sparge w/ enough to get boil volume, stirring it all up real good.
Vorlauf again the same way.
Drain mash tun.
 
^^ thanks for the method with times. My solution previously was always to just throw more malt at the problem I appreciate the info from everyone.
 
So I tried batch sparging yesterday to see if I could increase efficiency. It was the same as fly sparging. Both batches I've done with a monster mill set to .036 with the same schedule (two step mash) and mash temp (152) the final gravity was the same for both methods. I did build a manifold though and will try it in a couple weeks. After that I'm going to try the soft water from my new water purifier.
 
Northcalais40 said:
Two things.

If you fly sparge with this set up, you are possibly getting channeling, where your water is running straight for the drain rather than rinsing the grain. A single collection point is the culprit. A larger footprint manifold will help.

If you have a bazooka attached directly to the spigot of a cooler, you cannot drain completely with a siphon. Try it. When the water hits the level of the drain, air gets to the drain and kills the siphon. If you tip the cooler it helps, if not you leave possibly gallons of sweet wort in the tun. This kills efficiency when batch sparging. If your drain is sunken down in the cooler never mind, mine is 2" above the bottom of the cooler.
Click to expand...

I'm using a 48qt coleman with a bazooka screen and ball valve. I've been scratching my head wondering why my efficiency is so terrible (~55-65% usually) much the same as the OP. I've also taken most of the same steps as the OP. Have my own mill now, checked PH and it's near 5.2, doing batch or double batch sparging. Holding temperature is never really an issue, etc etc.

Based on your comment I'm now wondering if maybe this drain position is the problem. The drain point is probably ~1" above the bottom of the cooler like yours...how do you deal with this? Just tip the cooler? Does that really make that big of a difference in wort collection?

It never struck me as a possible problem before because when I look at the spent grains at the end there isn't a bunch of liquid left or anything...
 
I'm thinking it's my rediculously hard water here in vegas. I don't know what you guys are working with in DC. But I use a 62 quart pot for everything. Mash, lauter, and boil. I also have a small pot for heating water. I've been thinging about using a cooler but in Neomantra is using that with similar results I'm out of ideas.
 
Bitterbrush said:
I do a batch sparge w/ mash out.

60 minute mash, stirred a bit at 30 minutes.
Mash out w/ boiling water to raise mash temp close to 168, stir.
Wait 10 minutes.
Vorlauf about 2q at least 4 times dumping back through a colandor.
Drain mash tun.
Sparge w/ enough to get boil volume, stirring it all up real good.
Vorlauf again the same way.
Drain mash tun.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. I haven't done AG yet but have done an enormous amount of research and what you mentioned is what I've been planning to try as my procedure. Only part I've always been a little fuzzy on is mash out. How do you calculate how much boiling water to add for the 168? Or do you just have more than you need on hand and constantly monitor mash temp while adding? Do you use any software to get a ballpark figure?
 
Maybe I need to stir during my mash? I've been wondering if the shape has anything to do with it. Could the grain sink to the bottom of the mash tun and compact, making it harder for the water and enzymes to get to the grain?
 
hops2it said:
Thanks for this. I haven't done AG yet but have done an enormous amount of research and what you mentioned is what I've been planning to try as my procedure. Only part I've always been a little fuzzy on is mash out. How do you calculate how much boiling water to add for the 168? Or do you just have more than you need on hand and constantly monitor mash temp while adding? Do you use any software to get a ballpark figure?
Click to expand...

If you're batch sparging, a mashout step is really unnecessary. I used to do one, although it was mainly a way to equalize my runoff volumes. In order to do a true mashout and denature enzymes, you need to hold 170F for at least 20 min. When you batch sparge, you get to a boil so much more quickly than when you fly sparge that a mashout isn't necessary. A fly sparge can take an hour so in that case you want to do a mashout to stop conversion. These days I just heat my sparge water to 190F or so and that gets me close enough to mashout temps. In effect, what it's really doing is making sure I get full conversion before I drain the sparge. It used to also be thought that a mashout would reduce the viscosity of the wort and therefore aid runoff and efficiency. Kai Troester disproved that with his room temp water sparge experiment.
 
Denny,

I am glad I read this. I have a question, and your perspective on this would hold a lot of weight.

I wrote up a primer on AG brewing (with a concentration on the dough-in), and have been getting very nice feedback. The problem is, I fly sparge, but can not speak with confidence about batch sparging. I have been getting some questions about applying my thoughts to a batch sparge, and I have zero experience there; just a working knowledge of the process.

Specifically, I was asked about how to incorporate the mash out I perform during my fly sparge into a batch sparge process. To back up a bit, I look at the mash out as an opportunity to get the mash quickly up to sparge temp, and increase the liquid:grain ratio before I begin my recirc. I am not nearly as concerned about the viscosity issue (or even the denaturing enzymes issue) as I am about getting the mash as "fluid" as possible prior to recirc. In reality, I've never measured the mash temp after the boiling water infusion to check if I am even close to 170F. The truth is, between a thick mash, and a lot of tubing, without that infusion of boiling water, I will be fighting to recirculate an extremely thick mash - so that is why I "mash-out".

You already pointed out why a mash-out may be beneficial to someone fly sparging, due to the different timetable a fly-sparger would be working with. The question I got was (paraphrased) "If I batch sparge, but mash out, I would have less sparge water available for the later runnings. Should I be concerned?"

My quick response was to throw the late runnings concern out the window, because denaturing enzymes aside, the mash-out would front load the volume you get from the first runnings. It was my opinion that the first runnings were the highest quality wort, and I think it is agreed upon that the runnings from the last batch sparge will be the lowest quality wort.

Since the runnings from a batch sparge are homogenous due to stirring after each step, I felt that the more "steps" you have, the more this problem of lower quality 2nd and 3rd runnings is magnified.

So in summary, do you see a benefit from getting a larger percentage of your preboil volume from your first runnings, rather than an essentially even 33/33/33% split over a double batch sparge? If so, would that lend to a mash-out? More so, and I could be way out of line here, but isn't every successive batch sparge basically its own little mash-out? After all, the water is being infused to get the grain bed around 170F, it is stirred, recirculated, and drained. Superficially, that sounds a lot like a mash-out to me. For those reasons, I advised the mash-out.

I would really appreciate your thoughts, because it will help me when I get future questions along these lines.

Joe
 
How carefully are you able to measure the volume of wort in your fermenter? I always calibrate my better bottles 2 cups at a time and when I say 2 cups, I actually mean 473 grams of water as measured on a gram scale. This makes the least precise part of my volume measurement reading the actual mark since the volume I add it plus or minus 1 mL. The only reason I ask is I've seen efficiency threads where the OP knew his volume plus or minus half a gallon!

Same question on weight though I assume you are measure grain weights to within a gram.
 
jfowler1 said:
You already pointed out why a mash-out may be beneficial to someone fly sparging, due to the different timetable a fly-sparger would be working with. The question I got was (paraphrased) "If I batch sparge, but mash out, I would have less sparge water available for the later runnings. Should I be concerned?"

My quick response was to throw the late runnings concern out the window, because denaturing enzymes aside, the mash-out would front load the volume you get from the first runnings. It was my opinion that the first runnings were the highest quality wort, and I think it is agreed upon that the runnings from the last batch sparge will be the lowest quality wort.

Since the runnings from a batch sparge are homogenous due to stirring after each step, I felt that the more "steps" you have, the more this problem of lower quality 2nd and 3rd runnings is magnified.

So in summary, do you see a benefit from getting a larger percentage of your preboil volume from your first runnings, rather than an essentially even 33/33/33% split over a double batch sparge? If so, would that lend to a mash-out? More so, and I could be way out of line here, but isn't every successive batch sparge basically its own little mash-out? After all, the water is being infused to get the grain bed around 170F, it is stirred, recirculated, and drained. Superficially, that sounds a lot like a mash-out to me. For those reasons, I advised the mash-out.

I would really appreciate your thoughts, because it will help me when I get future questions along these lines.

Joe
Click to expand...

Hey Joe (one of my favorite old songs!),

Let me start this by saying that I don't think doing more than a single batch sparge is worth the effort. when I've tried it the efficiency gain was so small that it wasn't worth my time or effort. If you consistently need to do a second sparge, you need a bigger cooler. If you're doing it because of some perceived efficiency increase, just stop it!

OK, that said, I've found that equalizing runnings has a wide window. IOW, if I predict that my mash runoff and my sparge runoff will be within a gal. of each other, in either direction, I just don't worry about it. It doesn't make enough difference to hassle with. My routine these days is to mash with enough water to get 1/2 my total runoff from the mash and the other half with the batch sparge. that means that my normal mash ratio is anywhere from 1.5-1.75 qt./lb. I've found that my efficiency has actually gone up a bit doing that, but that's not why I do it. I do it because it's easy and it makes no difference in beer quality. See a trend developing here with my brewing procedures? ;) You are correct about the sparge acting as a pseudo mashout but my experience is that you need water far hotter than 170F. I use sparge water around 190 in order to get the temp anywhere near 170. There's no problem with that temp as long as your pH is well under 6, as it should be in the mash.

So, to sum up, I'd say stop doing more than one sparge, increase your mash ratio to get 1/2 of your total boil volume from your mash, and use sparge water at 185-190F. If there's anything else I can do for you, shoot me a PM and I'll give you an email addy and we can continue the discussion.
 
Double_D said:
I'm thinking it's my rediculously hard water here in vegas. I don't know what you guys are working with in DC. But I use a 62 quart pot for everything. Mash, lauter, and boil. I also have a small pot for heating water. I've been thinging about using a cooler but in Neomantra is using that with similar results I'm out of ideas.
Click to expand...

I have been struggling with much the same efficiency issues over the past year. I have a few batches that have been in the 70%s and one that was 80% but the other 18 - 20 have been in the high 40%s to the low 60s. I have a 10 gallon round cooler that originally had a home made stainless steel braid but now has a false bottom. That did nothing for efficiency (so far). I am in the Los Angeles area and spent some time on the phone with the water quality guy at the municipal water district - my water is insanely hard as well and very high sulfate - kind of a problem if I want to do something malty. I just tried brewing with distilled water and added salts using the bru'n calc spreadsheet. I did manage to get 68% this time by doing this and a double batch sparge. I decided to try the double batch sparge after reading that the mlt dead space was effectively holding the higher gravity first runnings and since your second runnings are lower gravity you dilute this into the batch. By doing this twice you are diluting the higher gravity runnings with less lower gravity runnings and therefore getting at least some more sugars than you otherwise would.

These efficiency problems are making me think of doing at least some of my batches with extract!
 
Yesterday I did a batch sparge, used the same hard water and the mill set to the same gap. I used a copper manifold instead of a bazooka screen. This raised my efficiency from 55% to 73%. The only thing left is change the grind use a cooler to mash or mix in some soft water. I also took some temperature readings and found in spite of what I had orginally thought I lose more heat than expected. I started my mash at 153 (half a degree over last time) and when I checked it a half hour later it was at 146. I didn't expect such a large dip.
 
I was waiting for this update post - I was pretty confident you would get much better efficiency with the manifold. I think if you want to get that next level of efficiency out, you need to focus more on the water. I gain about 8% when I use a PH stabalizer to hit a 5.2 mash ph.

For your temperature difference, I don't think that will effect your effciency to hit an OG. (You are still breaking down sugars at that temp) But it will effect your FG. Its all fermentable sugars, rathern then some sugars/compounds that are unfermentable at a mash over 152-ish. I had this same problem with the mash tun. Ended up with beers at a 1005 FG when I was targeting 1012. Adds ~1% to the ABV.
 
I just found another thread that had a like to John Palmer's "How to brew" it had his formula for determining mash efficiency. I'll plug in my numbers for the ease of conversation:
20# 2 row 37*20/11.5 64.3pts
2# honey malt 34*2 /11.5 5.9pts
1# crystal 20 34*1 /11.5 2.9pts
the total of this is a maximum of 73.1. I got 11.5 gallons of wort at 1.061 or roughly 82% by his math. Another way he shows efficiency is by extract in ppg. For this you would take volume in gal and multiply it by gravity points then devide by pounds of grain mashed.
Applied practically: 11.5 x 61 = 701.5 / 23 = 30.5 (everyone shoots for this according to him.)
Then you take ppg and devide by max. Maximum being 37 as demonstrated earlier.
30.5/37 = 82%
Maybe if I keep doing more math I'll get my efficiency up even further. But never the less, I'm happy with where the numbers are. I've been wondering if it was the way I was doing the math for a long time.
 
luke2080 said:
I was waiting for this update post - I was pretty confident you would get much better efficiency with the manifold. I think if you want to get that next level of efficiency out, you need to focus more on the water. I gain about 8% when I use a PH stabalizer to hit a 5.2 mash ph.
Click to expand...

If he's batch sparging, the manifold should make no difference.

For many people, including me, the 5.2 makes no difference. The buffers in it also add a lot of sodium to your beer I'm told. It's better to learn a bit of water chemistry and treat your water properly.
 
Double_D said:
I just found another thread that had a like to John Palmer's "How to brew" it had his formula for determining mash efficiency. I'll plug in my numbers for the ease of conversation:
20# 2 row 37*20/11.5 64.3pts
2# honey malt 34*2 /11.5 5.9pts
1# crystal 20 34*1 /11.5 2.9pts
the total of this is a maximum of 73.1. I got 11.5 gallons of wort at 1.061 or roughly 82% by his math. Another way he shows efficiency is by extract in ppg. For this you would take volume in gal and multiply it by gravity points then devide by pounds of grain mashed.
Applied practically: 11.5 x 61 = 701.5 / 23 = 30.5 (everyone shoots for this according to him.)
Then you take ppg and devide by max. Maximum being 37 as demonstrated earlier.
30.5/37 = 82%
Maybe if I keep doing more math I'll get my efficiency up even further. But never the less, I'm happy with where the numbers are. I've been wondering if it was the way I was doing the math for a long time.
Click to expand...

If the above is 11.5 gallons at 1.061 prior to boling then my calcs confirm 82%for conversion and lautering stages. At the end of a 90 minute boil, you should have about 10 gallons of 1.069 wort. You'll probably lose about 1/2 gallon of wort to trub losses. Final brewhouse efficiency should be around 78%, which is darn good. I would say your initial math was wrong.
 
Denny said:
If he's batch sparging, the manifold should make no difference.

For many people, including me, the 5.2 makes no difference. The buffers in it also add a lot of sodium to your beer I'm told. It's better to learn a bit of water chemistry and treat your water properly.
Click to expand...

The batch sparging didn't change anything when I used a bazooka screen. My efficiency changed when I used the manifold. I used a batch sparge for the sake of consistency.
 
Tyru007 said:
If the above is 11.5 gallons at 1.061 prior to boling then my calcs confirm 82%for conversion and lautering stages. At the end of a 90 minute boil, you should have about 10 gallons of 1.069 wort. You'll probably lose about 1/2 gallon of wort to trub losses. Final brewhouse efficiency should be around 78%, which is darn good. I would say your initial math was wrong.
Click to expand...

11.5 gal into the boil pot. 60 minute boil. 1.061 is my beginning S.G. And thanks for confirming my initial math was wrong. Maybe it's better to say I had 10 gal going into the fermenter at 1.061. So I should be in the 78% range.
 
Double_D said:
The batch sparging didn't change anything when I used a bazooka screen. My efficiency changed when I used the manifold. I used a batch sparge for the sake of consistency.
Click to expand...

That tells us that you either had a lot of dead space with the bazooka screen or you weren't thoroughly stirring the grist after adding sparge water. When batch sparging properly the type of manifold/FB/screen/filter etc has no effect on efficiency (assuming equal deadspace volume). Glad to hear the new set-up is working well for you.
 
It was both actually. The bazooka is about an inch off the bottom of the pot. The manifold is of course flush. The two brew days were I posted about the batch sparging were the first attempts at this method. The years of brewing preceding my batch sparge on 5/30 was always with a fly sparge so I didn't stir after adding sparge water. I did stir on 5/30 and received no measurable benefit (used the bazooka screen).
 

Similar threads

homebrewdude76
Cooler Mash Tun - Mega Size, what size manifold
Replies
12
Views
687
jma99
jma99
S
In search of...predictable mash efficiency for differing batch sizes & gravities
Replies
11
Views
780
Deadalus
Deadalus
W
Sold Complete 3 vessel turnkey HERMS Electric Brewery 15gal keggle 30 amp / 240v panel Raleigh, NC
Replies
8
Views
2K
LegacyBanker
L
Lollim96
Can someone please explain AG brewing in mash tune that don’t have elements? Like cooler tuns?
Replies
13
Views
1K
marx2k
M
Z
Massachusetts SS Brewtech 10 gallon InfuSsion Mash Tun, Custom 22 gallon stainless insulated bottom triclamp drain mash tun
Replies
0
Views
252
zman_
Z

Latest posts

Back
Top