mash tun vs. efficiency?

[redcoat_or_rebel]

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.

i've just been reading about cold water sparging getting the same efficiency as heated water, so if you batch sparge you could skip heating all together.

the poster could also eliminate sparge temp or mash out temp as the low efficiency culprit.

 

[Double_D]

very true. The hot sparge does benefit in that it takes less time to reach boil temperatures.

 

[Sheldon]

Great discussion. It has helped me understand a few things about both fly and batch sparging in plain, easy to understand language. Thanks all for the info.

Sheldon

 

[Denny]

very true. The hot sparge does benefit in that it takes less time to reach boil temperatures.

The reason some people see an increase in efficiency in a mashout is due the raising the temp and getting a more complete conversion and higher conversion efficiency. It's equivalent to doing a step mash. But contrary to what some people think, the reduced viscosity of the wort when the temp is raised (if it really happens) is not the reason for increased efficiency.