How many times should one re-circulate the wort?

[doug293cz]

Hi, guys, and thanks -

Doug, I don't have exact numbers, but if I understand the terms (brewing water and pre-boil volume) correctly:

The grain weight is usually right around 2 pounds, sometimes it will be a little more, but for I assume a formula can factor that in.

I am assuming that the total volume of brewing water is the water used for the mash plus the sparge. If this is the case, it would be 2 quarts for the mash and a gallon for the sparge, for a total of 1.5 gallons.

The pre-boil volume is expected to be 1.25 gallons, as instructions state that 20% of the wort will be lost to evaporation during the boil.

Hope this helps, and thank you -

Ron

Ok, I ran a few batch sparge simulations with the above basic parameters and assuming 100% starch to sugar conversion (100% conversion efficiency.) The results for mash efficiency are as follows:

91.6%	1.25 qt/lb mash, 3 equal sparges
89.9%	1.33 qt/lb mash, 2 equal sparges
86.5%	1 sparge, equal run-off (0.875 gal strike [1.75 qt/lb], 0.625 gal sparge)
84.2%	1 sparge, 0.5 gal strike, 1.0 gal sparge (1.0 qt/lb mash)
77.5%	Full volume mash, no-sparge

Since your original process of mashing, adding the extra water, and recirculating is equivalent to a full volume, no-sparge mash, that process provides the lowest efficiency of all the options. In addition 0.5 gal strike water with 2.0 lbs of grain is a mash thickness (water/grain ratio) of 1.0 qt/lb which is quite thick. Thick mashes usually convert slower because of an effect known as "substrate inhibition" (basically things get in their own way), and this can lead to incomplete conversion, which will result in even lower efficiency.

I compared two options for a single batch sparge, one using your strike and sparge water volumes, and the other tweaked for equal run-off volumes. As you can see, the equal run-off options provides a little over 2 percentage points improvement in mash efficiency. Since the equal run-off option has a thinner mash, it has a better change of getting close to 100% conversion, and is the better option for two reasons.

The most efficient option is three small sparge steps, but is a lot of extra work for the extra efficiency. You get can get most of the benefit by doing two sparges, with equal run off, which has the added benefit of a slightly thinner mash.

It's not easy to model a pour over sparge (so I haven't done that), but the mash efficiency would be somewhere between the full volume mash and the three sparge mash. Just where it falls would depend on how successful you were with getting equal rinsing of all of the grain when doing a pour over sparge. The pour over sparge will be the most difficult to get consistent and predictable results with.

Brew on

 

[doug293cz]

Those a very clear instructions but not ones I would follow.

AGREED!

The boil-off test is very simple and will give you an actual value not a guesstimate. 20% is far to small an estimate.

My stove boils off 1 gallon in an hour boil. if i am making smaller batches I would still get a 1 gallon boil off. it is largely a constant value when brewing indoors with the same pot on the same stove at the same power level.

If I were doing a 1 gallon batch i would certainly target a ~2 gallon pre-boil. Volume. I'm going to lose volume to boil-off, hop absorption, a gravity sample and 4% shrinkage when the wort cools from boiling to pitching temperatures .

1.2 gallons you will absolutely need to top up with water. this is not a disaster my any means but if you can avoid it it is a good plan.

Collecting more wort pre-boil will also improve your mash efficiency (actually, the lauter component of mash efficiency.) So, all of the efficiencies in my post above would come out somewhat higher, but the differences for the various options would remain.

Brew on

 

[TasunkaWitko]

Thanks, guys - some good information, there.

 

[applescrap]

I think people way over think brewing. Which is a weird sentence because I said think twice anyways don't let this happen to you. The brew in the bag was the best advice but I think you could do it without buying a bag easily. The number you need is 1.5 gallons. Put 1.5 gallons in a pot and heat to your strike temperature then throw the grains in and stir them up. Cover the pot with a towel when it reaches your desired mash temp ...maybe add a little cold water if it's too hot or stir it to cool it. Then wrap it in a towel and let it set 60 minutes then pour that fluid and grains into your boil kettle through the strainer let drain and use a plate or pot lid to gently squeeze the rest of the wort out of the grains and boil. There is no easier or debatedly better way to do it no matter what anybody tells you a bag would make it easier so you could just pull the bag and let it drain in your strainer over the pot and squeeze it out that way. Your efficiency with this process will be every bit as good as any of the others described probably better really. I would focus intensely on fermentation temperature and the recipe just as much as the process Cheers

 

[applescrap]

But wait there's more... if there's too much water the beer might be a little weaker and perhaps you will use less next time. boil off a lot and it might be a little stronger I think it's better to view brewing in these terms rather than right or wrong or perfect or not.

 

[applescrap]

Wait there's even more... I can't believe I'm even writing this but talking about efficiency on one gallon batch is just hmm? So I see somebody did you the favor of posting efficiency numbers not that i even believe you could reach 90% easily but consider this using a basic calculator 75% efficiency on a 2 pound 1 gallon batch as a basic example could lead to 5.24% ABV hoping that to 90% efficiency would lead to 6.29... not bad ehh but think about this...1 more pound of grain which would cost about a dollar would raise it to 7.87% ABV... chase efficiency or splash out $1 there are many ways to skin a cat and most of them work

 

[Gavin C]

IMO many people seem to under-think brewing. It would appear the writers of kit instructions would fit this bill for the most part.

I view homebrewtalk.com as a forum populated in the main by folks who like to think about brewing in their spare time.

 

[applescrap]

IMO many people seem to under-think brewing. It would appear the writers of kit instructions would fit this bill for the most part.

I view homebrewtalk.com as a forum populated in the main by folks who like to think about brewing in their spare time.

No doubt and I'm grateful for the opportunity to be a part of it. that being said excuse me if I perhaps add to what you think when you are thinking about brewing as I obviously spend plenty of time thinking about brewing as well.

 

[doug293cz]

I think people way over think brewing. Which is a weird sentence because I said think twice anyways don't let this happen to you. The brew in the bag was the best advice but I think you could do it without buying a bag easily. The number you need is 1.5 gallons. Put 1.5 gallons in a pot and heat to your strike temperature then throw the grains in and stir them up. Cover the pot with a towel when it reaches your desired mash temp ...maybe add a little cold water if it's too hot or stir it to cool it. Then wrap it in a towel and let it set 60 minutes then pour that fluid and grains into your boil kettle through the strainer let drain and use a plate or pot lid to gently squeeze the rest of the wort out of the grains and boil. There is no easier or debatedly better way to do it no matter what anybody tells you a bag would make it easier so you could just pull the bag and let it drain in your strainer over the pot and squeeze it out that way. Your efficiency with this process will be every bit as good as any of the others described probably better really. I'm surprised someone on this forum hasnt suggested that you fly sparge this in a three vessel system. I would focus intensely on fermentation temperature and the recipe just as much as the process Cheers

In post #18 the OP stated his mash pot only holds 6 qt (1.5 gal), so a 1.5 gal strike volume is out of the question without an equipment change.

I don't think anyone will argue that a sparged process is easier than an no-sparge process, however a sparged process will always have better efficiency than an equivalent no-sparge process (this has been proven many times.) If we allow differences in the sparge vs no-sparge processes, like squeezing on the no-sparge but not on the sparged process, then you can get the no-sparge process to match the efficiency of the sparged process.

For example, in the simulations in my earlier post, the assumed grain absorption was 0.125 gal/lb. For the no-sparge option to match the efficiency of the equal run off sparge option, the grain absorption of the no-sparge process has to be reduced to 0.041 gal/lb. The lowest reported squeezed grain absorption I have seen is 0.045 gal/lb, by Gavin C. So, getting equal efficiency for a no-sparge process will not be easy.

But, if you allow for some squeezing in the sparged process then the no-sparge process does not have a chance of equaling the sparged process. Even if you only squeeze the sparged process to 0.08 gal/lb (resulting in a 90.7% efficiency), the no-sparge process would have to squeeze down to a grain absorption of 0.007 gal/lb (less than 1/10th as much) to match the efficiency.

Brew on

 

[applescrap]

Brilliant, Man do I love your post. Thank you... that's just naughty squeezing a sparged batch... by the way I am going to respond just a little later. Also are you talking batch sparge, fly, etc..

 

[applescrap]

With all respect and cheers in mind

This seems a little heavy weight to be doing here
4 gallon pot Stainless Steel at walmart was like nine dollars i know it was first pot i used to all grain to make 2.5 gallon killer batches in no time. if he doesn't want the 9 dollar challenge im sure he has a 2 gallon pot and if not well than shukky darns

I am so sorry i assumed we all squeeze our sacks I certainly do mine (why am i giggling?). i'll concede no sack squeezed sparged process likely a little better than no squeeze no sparge process. I appreciate that you admit a squeezed sack is probably close to quick sparged process it probably is, but a squeezed sparge I just never thought wow...
But refer to my previous splash out on a pound of grain comment and hakuna matata i have better to do then sparge a bunch of times to save a dollar, but dang do i appreciate your math and numbers. How in the heck did he squeeze that much out?! as a side note I am going electric ala special me i ll fill in later my evil plans.

on another note I dont a hydrometer and have never used one so sorry if i am a little confused around the subject of exact numbers

 

[doug293cz]

Brilliant, Man do I love your post. Thank you... that's just naughty squeezing a sparged batch... by the way I am going to respond just a little later. Also are you talking batch sparge, fly, etc..

It's all batch sparge. I don't know how to simulate a fly sparge (and I haven't seen it done by anyone else either, and I have looked.)

Brew on

 

[TasunkaWitko]

With all respect and cheers in mind

4 gallon pot Stainless Steel at walmart was like nine dollars i know it was first pot i used to all grain to make 2.5 gallon killer batches in no time. if he doesn't want the 9 dollar challenge im sure he has a 2 gallon pot and if not well than shukky darns

Aye, but it doesn't hold heat for ****. I have one, and have tried it. For a 1-gallon batch, the 4-gallon is far to big/wide for a good boil. The enameled cast-iron holds the heat very well!

 

[TasunkaWitko]

I can't believe I'm even writing this but talking about efficiency on one gallon batch is just hmm?

I was just curious - holy crap.

 

[Gavin C]

I was just curious - holy crap.

I think your thinking about numbers and efficiency is perfectly rational. I enjoy this part of brewing and view it as important to me and my brewing. I equate getting the most out of my brew setup with getting consistent results. Allowing me to make the beer I intend not the one dictated by me or my systems inefficiencies/inaccuracies.

This holds true regardless of batch size if brewing to targets is something you want to do. (I do want to do that so am a stickler for accurate numbers).

Lots of folks don't share this approach, many folks never measure gravity. There is nothing incorrect about this type of brewing.

IMO those folks probably should not concern themselves with threads like yours, (topic: a new brewer trying to learn more and refine/improve their process where data collection is key to finding areas to improve upon)

There are plenty of threads that don't meet my tastes, I move on. I'm not about to go to the pipe smoking thread and blast people with the dangers of tobacco usage.

OP, best of luck to you in future brews. Keep working on your process till it gives you the beer you want, at the work level you are happy with while being able to glean as much enjoyment as possible from your time spent brewing. Lots of ways to do that.

 

[TasunkaWitko]

Hi, Gavin - I appreciate your post, thanks.

I must confess, though, when it comes to the homebrewer "spectrum," if you have a group of monks at one end and a group of scientists and engineers at the other end, I would definitely be closer to the monks. Having said that, if there are ways to improve my techniques and brew a little smarter whilst still retaining my monkish love for the art (rather than the science), then it only makes sense to keep learning!

Many thanks to all on the thread for the input - I've already got a few ideas and look forward to trying them.

 

[Gavin C]

I like the visual of the spectrum

monk<--------------->scientist

 

[m00ps]

I like the visual of the spectrum

monk<--------------->scientist

where's the guy that b&*(^es about IPAs?

Or the turtles and goats? I think we need a 4-way compass spectrum. Upwards towards turtles/goats is good. Down toward "I hate IPAs" is trolling

 

[applescrap]

Wow....where to begin, ron i guess i was a little strong on that thanks for correcting me. I would hope i have also helped you a little in my posts though as well.
I went to school with monks infact a school founded by a famous monk who sought to incorporate east and west wisdom. I am no monk but i am no scientist either....i am a chef if anything and encourage you and others to see brewing as such. I am going to start a thread along those lines.

It seems gavin you and i view brewing a little different. I like you seek to debate me...i offered you numbers on efficiency perhaps you missed them. They are very scientific based on brew calculators. 80 cents can fix a less efficient process and can also be repeatable if done the same way thus repeatable. We are talking a gallon heck we are talking home brew. I brew beer i drink it i brew again. I read your biab boss post very well done. I can learn from some of these ideas no doubt but i like my hops in fermentor i want everything that goes in always in the whole way. I want everything swimming free all minute molecules completely free and surrounded by water. I seek to restrain nothing i want the hops in till the end giving every last bit of flavor and aroma. So it might be a little cloudier so what to me its the sign of fulfilment. I appreciate your wisdom can you appreciate mine? Check out my new electric ideas ill be pulling 15 gallon batches if i want for under 500 bucks if i want. Bottom line is there are many ways to skin a cat most work

 

[TasunkaWitko]

I would hope i have also helped you a little in my posts though as well.

Definitely! It is very hard to convey tone or emotion on an internet forum, but I did get some very good advice from your posts, and I am grateful.

My "brewing philosophy" (if there is such a thing) is similar to yours. I will brew my beer, pitch my yeast and then let it sit in the closet until it shows no more signs of fermentation, and then bottle. It hasn't served me wrong, yet and I've always had great beer. I keep good track of what I do, so the results are repeatable. Can't ask for much more than that!

Take care, my friend, and as they say, brew on!

 

[applescrap]

Cheers! Your welcome.... and I really appreciate the gratitude. I am grateful for this thread as well. When you mentioned monks i knew our philosophies were aligned somewhat and rereading your posts makes me convinced a little more so.
paying better attention to your initial post I like what you're up to and you are right the trub will take care of the extra stuff from the strainer and that little cloudiness left behind i call perfection. I don't know or care if that will make it win a competition or not I trust my palate and my heart . I am from Fort Collins a pioneer city in brewing. Our parties were not Budweiser they were fat tire and we went through tons of kegs. I am humbled that people on this site we're pioneering home brewing and I've come a long to suckle on the teet. original question you ask interesting in that why is everyone building recirculating systems rims and herms....basiclly a pump forces recirculating the WHOLE 60 min. Mash i mean the whole time to tge end!! ehhh...but consider this it is plausible some of the comments that you received basically calling recirculating sparge foolish is from someone who might recirculate! High gravity braumeister grainfather etcc....all expensive systems recirculate mash. I cannot find definitive evidence of better efficiency but there is definitive evidence of clarity and repeatability.....recirculate for those reasons..... to truly sparge the grains rinse them with super hot water because it will help and speed boil but I don't like rinsing cuz I want to trust super soaked..... and to answer your question yeah I don't think I'd go stirring in the strainer too much without grains floating in water. But for all I know it might not matter try it anyways.. but based on how you're doing things clarity probably isn't going to happen from your sparge process. For efficiency follow the previous sage advice given here....mostly mine throw in an extra pound of grain for strength less grain weaker....harmony...creation...joyful brewing. I dont make a lot of money and brew to brew quickly and cheaply last wednesday brewed 5 gallons pumpkin as i do every year this time...will keg tomorrow maybe drink and brew more

 

[doug293cz]

Cheers! Your welcome.... and I really appreciate the gratitude. I am grateful for this thread as well. When you mentioned monks i knew our philosophies were aligned somewhat and rereading your posts makes me convinced a little more so.
paying better attention to your initial post I like what you're up to and you are right the trub will take care of the extra stuff from the strainer and that little cloudiness left behind i call perfection. I don't know or care if that will make it win a competition or not I trust my palate and my heart . I am from Fort Collins a pioneer city in brewing. Our parties were not Budweiser they were fat tire and we went through tons of kegs. I am humbled that people on this site we're pioneering home brewing and I've come a long to suckle on the teet. original question you ask interesting in that why is everyone building recirculating systems rims and herms....basiclly a pump forces recirculating the WHOLE 60 min. Mash i mean the whole time to tge end!! ehhh...but consider this it is plausible some of the comments that you received basically calling recirculating sparge foolish is from someone who might recirculate! High gravity braumeister grainfather etcc....all expensive systems recirculate mash. I cannot find definitive evidence of better efficiency but there is definitive evidence of clarity and repeatability.....recirculate for those reasons..... to truly sparge the grains rinse them with super hot water because it will help and speed boil but I don't like rinsing cuz I want to trust super soaked..... and to answer your question yeah I don't think I'd go stirring in the strainer too much without grains floating in water. But for all I know it might not matter try it anyways.. but based on how you're doing things clarity probably isn't going to happen from your sparge process. For efficiency follow the previous sage advice given here....mostly mine throw in an extra pound of grain for strength less grain weaker....harmony...creation...joyful brewing. I dont make a lot of money and brew to brew quickly and cheaply last wednesday brewed 5 gallons pumpkin as i do every year this time...will keg tomorrow maybe drink and brew more

Recirculating a mash is different than what the OP is doing (mixing initial and sparge runnings, and recirculating after the mash is complete.)Mash recirculation is done primarily for temperature maintenance/ramping with HERMS or RIMS systems. It has the added benefit of speeding up the saccharification rate, which can shorten mash times. The gelatinization process that must precede the conversion of starch to sugar is diffusion limited, as water must penetrate the starch particles, and be absorbed by the starch in order for the starch to become soluble. Recirculation has a similar effect to continuous gentle stirring during the mash. Agitation, either by recirculation or stirring, will short circuit the diffusion by speeding removal of the gelatinized outer layers of the particles, allowing water faster access to the inner layers.

Recirculation of wort (vorlauf) in still mashes is done to clarify the wort and remove grain particles prior to run-off. Recirculation is stopped prior to sparging. There is no recirculation during fly sparging. In batch sparging, a vorlauf can be done prior to each sparge run-off, in addition to the vorlauf prior to initial run-off. In particular, recirculating initial runnings with sparge runnings will reduce lauter efficiency, and therefore mash efficiency. Recirculating initial runnings with sparge runnings negates the benefits of sparging. It won't harm the beer however.

Brew on