Help me with MASH efficiency, please!

[doug293cz]

Any link or diy links for a dip tube/braided hose?? I have a ball valve already on the tun im guessing it shouldn't be too hard to instal this?

You shouldn't need a braid with a false bottom. A dip tube is pretty simple, it just runs from the inside of the ball valve to the lowest point at the bottom of the MLT. Ideally the open end is cut so that the plane of the opening is parallel to the bottom of the MLT, and the gap between the tube and the bottom is ~1/8". Typical dip tubes would be 3/8" to 5/8" inside diameter. The purpose of a dip tube is to get the input of the MLT drain lower than the vertical position of the ball valve. When the liquid level drops below the ball valve, the dip tube then creates a siphon which allows draining below the level of the ball valve.

Brew on

 

[MrBlackrock]

I think you have a really crappy false bottom if your losing 5L.
I use this type and have almost no loss because of the design. i hit the numbers bang on every time within .002 which could be chalked up to measurement error.
I'd look at a better false bottom!

This is mine:

https://atelierdubrasseur.ca/collections/brewing-equipment/products/premium-false-bottom

 

[mongoose33]

Might I suggest ordering a bag from Wilserbrewer, sized to fit your mash tun, and then eliminating the false bottom? The entire bag will serve as if it is a braid or dip tube.

If I were in your shoes, knowing what I know about mash tuns, wilserbags, and such, I'd remove the false bottom and go for the wilserbag. He can size it for the exact dimensions of the tun, and what's more, by not having either a false bottom or a braid or whatever, you'll virtually eliminate dead space losses.

Just a thought.

 

[MrBlackrock]

Might I suggest ordering a bag from Wilserbrewer, sized to fit your mash tun, and then eliminating the false bottom? The entire bag will serve as if it is a braid or dip tube.

If I were in your shoes, knowing what I know about mash tuns, wilserbags, and such, I'd remove the false bottom and go for the wilserbag. He can size it for the exact dimensions of the tun, and what's more, by not having either a false bottom or a braid or whatever, you'll virtually eliminate dead space losses.

Just a thought.

Would this be much of a difference vs this :
https://www.ontariobeerkegs.com/12_...l_False_Bottom_Mash_Tun_p/12-false-bottom.htm

It doesnt seem to create a big deadspace based on the shape

 

[mongoose33]

Here's the difference: no vorlauf to speak of. You simply start draining the mash tun. No setting the grain bed to filter itself, you simply open the valve and the bag filters for you.

I bought a new Spike kettle in January; they have a false bottom to go with it, and I can't figure out why I would need or want one.

Not sure why you're so focused on having a false bottom, but if it's what you want to get, go for it.

 

[doug293cz]

Here's the difference: no vorlauf to speak of. You simply start draining the mash tun. No setting the grain bed to filter itself, you simply open the valve and the bag filters for you.

I bought a new Spike kettle in January; they have a false bottom to go with it, and I can't figure out why I would need or want one.

Not sure why you're so focused on having a false bottom, but if it's what you want to get, go for it.

OP is fly sparging, not batch sparging. If OP switched to batch sparging, then the need for a false bottom goes away, as you said.

Brew on

 

[MrBlackrock]

Here's the difference: no vorlauf to speak of. You simply start draining the mash tun. No setting the grain bed to filter itself, you simply open the valve and the bag filters for you.

I bought a new Spike kettle in January; they have a false bottom to go with it, and I can't figure out why I would need or want one.

Not sure why you're so focused on having a false bottom, but if it's what you want to get, go for it.

OP is fly sparging, not batch sparging. If OP switched to batch sparging, then the need for a false bottom goes away, as you said.

Brew on

Im in a pickle. So bag or not? Lol

 

[MrBlackrock]

OP is fly sparging, not batch sparging. If OP switched to batch sparging, then the need for a false bottom goes away, as you said.

Brew on

Re readed. Im trying to figure my current equipment but i might switch to batch sparge.

Small relearn curve i guess

 

[doug293cz]

Im in a pickle. So bag or not? Lol

You can get very acceptable efficiency with batch sparging. So, if you want to give that a try, get the Wilserbrewer bag for your MLT, and ditch the FB. You get rid of the undrainable volume by just dumping the MLT into the BK, after you have removed the bag containing the grain, at the end of run-off. The chart below shows what you can expect in the way of lauter efficiency for various size beers (grain weight to pre-boil volume ratio, most typical beers will be in the 1.6 - 1.8 ratio range) with both a no-sparge, and an equal run-off volume single batch sparge. The solid curves are for no-sparge, and the broken curves are for sparging. The different curves in each group represent different levels of squeezing the bag to reduce the grain absorption rate (no-squeeze is the lowest curve in each group, with a grain absorption of 0.12 gal/lb.



As noted, the chart is for lauter efficiency. Mash efficiency equals conversion efficiency times lauter efficiency. The finer crush allowed by using the bag can improve your conversion efficiency (I typically get between 95% & 100% conversion) so that even with a little lower lauter efficiency, your mash efficiency can increase if you are suffering from low conversion efficiency due to a coarse crush.

Hitting equal runnings volume for batch sparge is pretty simple. Just use 60% of your total brewing water (target pre-boil volume plus expected grain absorption) for strike, and 40% of the total volume for sparge (ignoring any nonsense about "proper" mash thicknesses, since thinner mashes convert faster.)

The procedure for batch sparge is as follows:

• At the end of the mash, stir the mash well (like a madman) to homogenize the SG throughout the mash
• Vorlauf if you want to, but it's not necessary
• Drain frist runnings to BK, and start heating
• Squeeze the bag if you want to in order to boost lauter efficiency
• Add sparge water, and stir like a madman again
• Optional vorlaut
• Drain into BK
• Squeeze again if you feel like it, but you won't get as big an efficiency kick from the second squeeze

Of course, if you want to stick with fly sparging for any reason, that is a valid choice. It's your hobby, you should practice it in the way that makes you happiest.

Brew on

 

[mongoose33]

Im in a pickle. So bag or not? Lol

This all comes back to your original post, in which you were unhappy about your efficiency.

I've been doing very well with efficiency using both a traditional mash tun with batch sparge, as well as my more recent BIAB. I don't usually calculate efficiency but my most recent batch, using BIAB, hit 80.8%. (Brewhouse efficiency using this calculator and 11# Maris Otter, 6.5 gallons wort volume at a gravity of 1.052). The beer is great, the efficiency is fine, and I am always close to if not exactly hit my numbers.

This is why I suggested looking at batch sparging, if not BIAB. I use Beersmith from time to time, though not during my last, oh, 8 batches or so. If I have a grain bill about 11 pounds, I know I'm going to end up roughly at 1.060. It's consistent.

The reason I never was attracted to fly sparging was that for whatever increase in efficiency might obtain, it's slow, and it potentially can go awry with either channeling problems or missing the drop in gravity where you stop pulling off wort.

I was at our big brew day in early May where one of our LHBC members brings in his rig and we brew. He did a fly sparge and my god--it was like watching paint dry. Even so, his efficiency wasn't all that great, such that he was looking to add malt extract to the result to bring it up to what he wanted/expected.

Now, all this is why I don't like it. Maybe you do. Maybe there's a philosophical, or zen, or other reason for you to pursue it. Some people just like the....flow of brew day. I do. In the end, you are not wrong for making whatever choices appeal to you. It's your money and time.

That aside, I'm not obsessed with hitting exact numbers. As long as the beer tastes good, I'm ok with what comes from the brewing enterprise. In your case, you want better efficiency. I think the surer path to that is batch sparging or even perhaps BIAB. You can even sparge a couple times if you want, to rinse the grain even more to approximate a fly sparge, though I've never done that. The numbers above about efficiency were done using BIAB, starting with 7 gallons, and squeezing the bag to produce 6.5 gallons.

You can do that too, with a fine crush, mash pH in the right zone (mine: 5.26), and keeping the mash temps in the right zone (mine: 153 to start).

So, based on your first post:

1. Tighten up your crush
2. Make sure your water is getting your pH in the right zone
3. Consider something other than fly sparging.

Good luck either way and enjoy the journey!

 

[MrBlackrock]

This all comes back to your original post, in which you were unhappy about your efficiency.

I've been doing very well with efficiency using both a traditional mash tun with batch sparge, as well as my more recent BIAB. I don't usually calculate efficiency but my most recent batch, using BIAB, hit 80.8%. (Brewhouse efficiency using this calculator and 11# Maris Otter, 6.5 gallons wort volume at a gravity of 1.052). The beer is great, the efficiency is fine, and I am always close to if not exactly hit my numbers.

This is why I suggested looking at batch sparging, if not BIAB. I use Beersmith from time to time, though not during my last, oh, 8 batches or so. If I have a grain bill about 11 pounds, I know I'm going to end up roughly at 1.060. It's consistent.

The reason I never was attracted to fly sparging was that for whatever increase in efficiency might obtain, it's slow, and it potentially can go awry with either channeling problems or missing the drop in gravity where you stop pulling off wort.

I was at our big brew day in early May where one of our LHBC members brings in his rig and we brew. He did a fly sparge and my god--it was like watching paint dry. Even so, his efficiency wasn't all that great, such that he was looking to add malt extract to the result to bring it up to what he wanted/expected.

Now, all this is why I don't like it. Maybe you do. Maybe there's a philosophical, or zen, or other reason for you to pursue it. Some people just like the....flow of brew day. I do. In the end, you are not wrong for making whatever choices appeal to you. It's your money and time.

That aside, I'm not obsessed with hitting exact numbers. As long as the beer tastes good, I'm ok with what comes from the brewing enterprise. In your case, you want better efficiency. I think the surer path to that is batch sparging or even perhaps BIAB. You can even sparge a couple times if you want, to rinse the grain even more to approximate a fly sparge, though I've never done that. The numbers above about efficiency were done using BIAB, starting with 7 gallons, and squeezing the bag to produce 6.5 gallons.

You can do that too, with a fine crush, mash pH in the right zone (mine: 5.26), and keeping the mash temps in the right zone (mine: 153 to start).

So, based on your first post:

1. Tighten up your crush
2. Make sure your water is getting your pH in the right zone
3. Consider something other than fly sparging.

Good luck either way and enjoy the journey!

Agree about fly sparge taking forever. I just went it because i bought my stuff used and it came with it.

Think il convert to braided hose(easy access) and try batch sparging.

As far as i am concerned, just switch my profile to batch sparge and follow instructions?