Maximizing Efficiency when Batch Sparging

[doug293cz]

...

On the other hand, I don't think equal mash and sparge volumes is all that critical. Some people mash full volume and don't even sparge at all, or drizzle a few quarts of water over their BIAB bag... and still claim high efficiency (~90%).

...

No sparge vs. equal runnings single batch sparge makes about an 8 percentage point difference in lauter efficiency. An equal runnings double batch sparge adds about another 3 percentage points to lauter efficiency. And, no one is getting 90% efficiency doing no sparge. The max possible (with fairly small grain bills) is about 88%. With typical grain bills 80 - 85% is achievable.

Hitting "equal" runnings volumes isn't really critical. It turns out that for runnings volume ratios of 60:40 (first runnings:sparge runnings) to 40:60 makes a minimal (i.e. undetectable in practice) difference in lauter efficiency. So, an easy way to make sure your volume ratios are in the "sweet spot," just use 60% of your total brewing water for strike, and the remaining 40% for sparge. The grain absorption will shift the runnings ratio towards 50:50, and it would take a very large grain bill (about 27 lb for a 5.5 gal batch) to shift the runnings ratio past 40:60.

Brew on

 

[Denny]

No sparge vs. equal runnings single batch sparge makes about an 8 percentage point difference in lauter efficiency. An equal runnings double batch sparge adds about another 3 percentage points to lauter efficiency. And, no one is getting 90% efficiency doing no sparge. The max possible (with fairly small grain bills) is about 88%. With typical grain bills 80 - 85% is achievable.

Hitting "equal" runnings volumes isn't really critical. It turns out that for runnings volume ratios of 60:40 (first runnings:sparge runnings) to 40:60 makes a minimal (i.e. undetectable in practice) difference in lauter efficiency. So, an easy way to make sure your volume ratios are in the "sweet spot," just use 60% of your total brewing water for strike, and the remaining 40% for sparge. The grain absorption will shift the runnings ratio towards 50:50, and it would take a very large grain bill (about 27 lb for a 5.5 gal batch) to shift the runnings ratio past 40:60.

Brew on

Dude, I wanna buy you a beer some day!

 

[ndinh]

Hitting "equal" runnings volumes isn't really critical. It turns out that for runnings volume ratios of 60:40 (first runnings:sparge runnings) to 40:60 makes a minimal (i.e. undetectable in practice) difference in lauter efficiency. So, an easy way to make sure your volume ratios are in the "sweet spot," just use 60% of your total brewing water for strike, and the remaining 40% for sparge. The grain absorption will shift the runnings ratio towards 50:50, and it would take a very large grain bill (about 27 lb for a 5.5 gal batch) to shift the runnings ratio past 40:60.

Brew on

Thanks. I'll just take the total water and use the 60:40 method next time (40 split into approx. 2 equal sparge volumes since I sparge twice). I've been brewing for a few years now and have always used brew365 but it's always given me very small mash volumes compared to the sparge volume.

 

[doug293cz]

Thanks. I'll just take the total water and use the 60:40 method next time (40 split into approx. 2 equal sparge volumes since I sparge twice). I've been brewing for a few years now and have always used brew365 but it's always given me very small mash volumes compared to the sparge volume.

For a double batch sparge, you still want to target roughly equal runnings for all three run-offs. So the rule of thumb for double batch sparge becomes 50%/25%/25%.

Brew on

 

[Denny]

you people are making this much more difficult than it really is

 

[GilSwillBasementBrews]

you people are making this much more difficult than it really is

I agree. I mash at whatever thickness I desire (usually 1.25-1.5qts/lb ) drain that volume. Subtract that from my pre boil total volume, split that in half and that is my sparge amounts for 2 sparges.

 

[pvpeacock]

I use 5 gallons of strike water every time (who cares about ratios). Then subtract my first runnings from 6.75 gallons (my pre-boil volume for a 60 minute boil) and do a single batch sparge with the difference. Voia!

For the batch sparge, I heat 4-5 gallons of sparge water and use what I need after the first runnings. Whatever heated sparge water is left over I use to clean hoses, fittings, pitchers etc.

 

[Denny]

I agree. I mash at whatever thickness I desire (usually 1.25-1.5qts/lb ) drain that volume. Subtract that from my pre boil total volume, split that in half and that is my sparge amounts for 2 sparges.

Unless your mash tun isn't large enough to handle all the water for a single sparge, I haven't found a reason to do 2.

 

[doug293cz]

I use 5 gallons of strike water every time (who cares about ratios). Then subtract my first runnings from 6.75 gallons (my pre-boil volume for a 60 minute boil) and do a single batch sparge with the difference. Voia!

For the batch sparge, I heat 4-5 gallons of sparge water and use what I need after the first runnings. Whatever heated sparge water is left over I use to clean hoses, fittings, pitchers etc.

A perfectly workable procedure. Optimization is not necessarily a desirable goal in your hobbies. You should approach your hobbies in whichever way gets you the most enjoyment out of them. But then, this is after all a thread about "Maximizing Efficiency" (i.e. optimization.)

For those who like to nerd out in their brewing, I'm more than willing to help them along, and offer what advice I can. But, that shouldn't be taken as hard advocacy for a particular way of doing things. Once an engineer, always an engineer. Sorry for the philosophical tangent.

Brew on

 

[Denny]

A perfectly workable procedure. Optimization is not necessarily a desirable goal in your hobbies. You should approach your hobbies in whichever way gets you the most enjoyment out of them. But then, this is after all a thread about "Maximizing Efficiency" (i.e. optimization.)

For those who like to nerd out in their brewing, I'm more than willing to help them along, and offer what advice I can. But, that shouldn't be taken as hard advocacy for a particular way of doing things. Once an engineer, always an engineer. Sorry for the philosophical tangent.

Brew on

For years I was concerned about maximizing efficiency, but that concern has long dropped to the wayside.

 

[pvpeacock]

To each his own. I appreciate that the thread is about maximizing efficiency. However, I think a lot of beginners get caught up in these types of details and think they can only brew good beer if they do x, y & z. I know I did. The only point of my post was to say that you can make great beer without maximizing efficiency so new brewers don't sweat it if their gravity/efficiency comes about below expectations -- its okay.

When I was in college, the "smart kids" would always brag about their grade on an exam and ask other students they deemed inferior what they got. I responded that I had a different measure of success than the actual grade. I called it "PPH" or Points Per Hour of studying. I'm kind of the same way with brewing. How many additional gravity points did I get per hour of sparging? That's why I keep it simple.

 

[wilserbrewer]

"PPH" very wise, I like that, can be applied to many applications in life lol cheers!

 

[Abrayton]

Brewed a Tripel last night and ended up at almost 80% efficiency. Very nice increase from the 60% I had been getting! Somehow I ended up with an extra gallon in the fermenter. I think the extra gallon must have helped keep me spot on my estimated OG of 1.081. Not sure how big the beer would have been without the extra gallon, maybe 1.090ish?

 

[Kauai_Kahuna]

Great thread, and great information.
I skipped around 10 pages, so forgive me if I missed the biggest increase.
Make your plan, get you output, then run a third batch, not exceeding lower that 10 percent sugar content. and process it in a second pot.
Otherwise your pulling some nasty tastes.
If you boil off too much, pull from the second pot.
If not needed, boom, you have the starting of a second batch Braggot, just add honey and yeast.
There are so many ways to actually improve brew house numbers, just change the math.
I like to make rich, big beers, so this was my answer to feeling guilty about it all.

 

[Soulshine2]

I would be curious to know from those of you who track their grind setting on their mills...what is your prefered setting. I don't own a mill, but my brew supply store has an industrial grade mill with a caliper on it. I noticed the other day when I was grinding out a grain bill that the setting was on.032" I asked one of the emplyees who has worked there a long time and he said that was their "standard setting". Not for nutin', but I have been getting low efficiencies (60%) for over a year now (I have my brew system calibrated down to the last ounce of fluid) and have been scratching my head ever since. When I changed the settings to grind at .020", the guy freaked out and pushed me to pick up some rice hulls to prevent a stuck sparge, which I did just in case. I am starting to wonder if the .032" setting was a bit too course and may be the part of the problem.

Thoughts?

I crush at 0.035 twice, and I batch sparge (triple rinse),havent yet had to add any unsparged water to hit numbers. I just keep running sparge to hit preboil volume. I'll end up with a few hund/thou more abv. havent had a problem yet.
Famous last words ,right?

 

[uSlackr]

I've read most of this and am trying to get my efficiency up to a decent range. Beersmith has been reporting my efficiency in the low 60s for a couple years (per Beersmith. (I have my mill gap at minimum, Denny).
Today I tried using Braukaiser's efficiency worksheet and got some encouraging results, some confusing ones.

The spreadsheet reported my mash efficiency at 59% (first runnings only), but my efficiency into the kettle at 84%. I like the second number . The difference was the sparge. I mashed in at 3.9G for 9.75 lbs of grain (ratio:1.5). Sparge was 3.5G.

BeerSmith v3 on the other hand reported 81% mash eff. and 58% measured BH eff.

A couple questions - why are the two BK numbers so far off? And of course, why are Braukaiser and BeerSmith so different?

 

[brewbama]

Because they use a different calculation. Try Sean Terril’s Batch Sparge simulator.

http://seanterrill.com

 

[cmac62]

Because they use a different calculation. Try Sean Terril’s Batch Sparge simulator.

http://seanterrill.com

That is a pretty cool app. Maybe I'll check my efficiency for the first time in 5 years of brewing. I always figured malt, water, yeast makes beer. Some are better than others, but that is to be expected.

 

[JAReeves]

Loved this thread in my move from extract to AG, and big thanks to Denny!

I have been using a bag in my mash tun as a filter (I will be investing in a Wilser this summer) and batch sparging once only. For my big beers (14#+ or so), I get 75% efficiency; for my regular beers (8-10#), I get 80%. I am using my LHBS’s mill, single pass. I do two equal quantity water amounts, strike at 165F 1hour, sparge at 170F 10min. Using the usual round orange 10G cooler. I assume a loss of 1gal/hour from the boil. I’m shooting for either 3, 5, or 6 depending on which carboy I’m using for fermentation.

Because of this efficiency, I have started reducing my grain bill in my recipes as my house yeast culture (a blend of 3 different Sacc strains) brings FG to about 1.010. My last two beers ended up 1% ABV above planned, which wouldn’t normally be a problem except that I would like to drink more of my tasty beverages, not less.

 

[doug293cz]

I've read most of this and am trying to get my efficiency up to a decent range. Beersmith has been reporting my efficiency in the low 60s for a couple years (per Beersmith. (I have my mill gap at minimum, Denny).
Today I tried using Braukaiser's efficiency worksheet and got some encouraging results, some confusing ones.

The spreadsheet reported my mash efficiency at 59% (first runnings only), but my efficiency into the kettle at 84%. I like the second number . The difference was the sparge. I mashed in at 3.9G for 9.75 lbs of grain (ratio:1.5). Sparge was 3.5G.

BeerSmith v3 on the other hand reported 81% mash eff. and 58% measured BH eff.

A couple questions - why are the two BK numbers so far off? And of course, why are Braukaiser and BeerSmith so different?

The difference between the 81% mash efficiency calculated by BeerSmith, and the 84% calculated by Braukaiser's spreadsheet, is probably because Bruakaiser reduces the grain potential by an assumed 4% moisture content, and BeerSmith doesn't. Getting the same amount of sugar in the BK from a lower starting potential requires that the mash efficiency be higher. Most grain potentials are reported on a dry basis, so to get the most accurate calculations, you need to adjust for the actual moisture content of the grain. You weigh out wet grain, so the dry weight of your dry grain is lower than what you measure.

Another thing about efficiency calculations is that they are only as good as the data that you input to them. There are errors/variabilities in grain potentials, weight measurements, moisture content, volume measurements, and SG measurements. When you take all of these into account, any efficiency calc, on the homebrew level, is only going to be accurate to +/- 3%-4%. Which makes the difference between the two calcs seem like even less of an issue.

Brewhouse efficiency much lower than mash efficiency is all due to excessive volume loss post-boil. Boil-off does not change efficiency, since you don't lose any sugar during the boil (unless you spill or boil over a lot.) The formula for Brewhouse efficiency is just:

BH Efficiency = Mash Efficiency * Volume to Fermenter / Post-boil Volume​

So, the more wort you leave in you BK and plumbing, the greater the difference between BH efficiency and mash efficiency.

Another efficiency calculator/sparge simulator can be found here. You can download this sheet as either an Excel or LibreOffice spreadsheet. This will allow you to examine the formulas used, as well as to use the "Goal Seek" tool to determine conversion efficiency (and lots of other things of interest.) This calculator gives results very similar to those of Braukaiser, with the added benefit that I can answer any questions that you have about it.

Brew on

 

[Denny]

Wow! Finally made it through all 45 pages of this thread! Some great stuff. Now I'm not going to be able to sleep until I get a chance to brew my next batch and try out all of the efficiency boosting tips.

I do have one question that I don't recall seeing an answer to. I believe it was suggested to try and get as close to equal (within 1 gallon) mash and sparge volume in the kettle. At 1.6+ qt./lb. that doesn't seem to work out on beersmith and I have to mash thicker (1.5qt.) to get to within that 1 gallon difference. Am I understanding this wrong?

It doesn't really matter other than in a theoretical way. If your runoffs are within a gal. or so of each other, close enough.

 

[doug293cz]

Wow! Finally made it through all 45 pages of this thread! Some great stuff. Now I'm not going to be able to sleep until I get a chance to brew my next batch and try out all of the efficiency boosting tips.

I do have one question that I don't recall seeing an answer to. I believe it was suggested to try and get as close to equal (within 1 gallon) mash and sparge volume in the kettle. At 1.6+ qt./lb. that doesn't seem to work out on beersmith and I have to mash thicker (1.5qt.) to get to within that 1 gallon difference. Am I understanding this wrong?

For a typical beer (1.050 - 1.055 OG) lauter efficiency for different run-off ratios (initial runnings : sparge runnings) will be about:

80 : 40 -- 84.7%
70 : 30 -- 86.1%
60 : 40 -- 86.8%
50 : 50 -- 87.0%
40 : 60 -- 86.8%
30 : 70 -- 86.1%
20 : 80 -- 84.7%
​

Going between a 60:40 to 50:50 run off ratio only gains 0.2% lauter efficiency, and going from 70:30 to 50:50 only gains 0.9%, Thus you can see that the ratio isn't all that critical. Interestingly, the effect on lauter efficiency is symmetrical for higher than 50:50 ratios and lower than 50:50 ratios.

A good target for strike water volume to sparge water volume (single sparge) is 60% of total water for strike, and 40% for sparge. This will get you close enough to 50:50 run-off that you are near optimal. If 60% strike water gives you too thick a mash, just use more strike water, and the hit to lauter efficiency won't be too bad.

Brew on

Calculations were done using some tricky "goal seek" manipulations of this spreadsheet.

 

[Razorback_Jack]

FlyGuy, great info! I have some questions related, and some unrelated, but I’d like to post them in a separate thread. If you get a chance, please see that because some of my questions come after reading your post in particular.

Jackson

 

[nine9bullets]

This thread is gold mine for those who need to understand calculating volumes and efficiency for batch sparging. Glad I found this gem!

 

[MicroMickey]

Your crush will have a big impact on your mash efficiency (although some debate this point). Regardless, the biggest gains in efficiency that users tend to report are when they improve their crush (e.g., buy their own mill). If your LHBS is crushing your grain for you, consider that most shops will set their crush so that their customers get between 60 and 70% efficiency. They may claim it is to help brewers avoid stuck mashes, but conveniently, it also helps them to sell more grain!

I really don't mean to be contrary but . . . crush has a minor impact on mash efficiency unless you simply throw your malt in whole. Crushing malt to flour is not a good option either. I've known quite a few LHBS owners and none of them are so mercenary as to "rob" their customers by doing such an underhanded thing. Most customers might have a 60 to 70% extract efficiency but it isn't due to the crush. pH in the mash and sparge water is critical as is rinsing the sugars into the kettle. When you're done lautering, check the mash to see if you can find any sweetness remaining.

Most everything else FlyGuy wrote is just about there.

 

[day_trippr]

crush has a minor impact on mash efficiency

What's the name of that island you live on by yourself?

Cheers!

 

[bracconiere]

What's the name of that island you live on by yourself?

Cheers!

lol

 

[day_trippr]

I mean, crush is literally the most important factor in extracting starches. What could possibly trump be more important?

Last fall I bought a bag of locally grown "organic" base malt (out of Hadley, MA) out of curiosity and the whole "buy local" thing. I did a Cascade SMASH and ran it through my mill, conditioned, with my usual .032" gap. Halfway into the mash I noticed there was a large raft of what appeared to be intact kernels. Didn't give much thought to that at the moment. But when I had grabbed my pre-boil I definitely noticed a ~5% hit on extract efficiency vs calculations, and that obviously carried through to the finished beer.

Not a big deal per se, but when I use the other half-bag in the next week or two I'm definitely going to first run handfuls through and adjust the mill gap for a better crush. I'm used to extract efficiencies on the cusp of 90% with my 3v2p system, but clearly my barley mill gap was favoring the larger kernels found in my usual base malts (GP, Weyermann pils, Briess brewer's malt)...

Cheers!

 

[bracconiere]

What could possibly trump be more important?

lol x2, temp, sparge? but i follow the rule of crush till you're scared.

 

[day_trippr]

Try mashing uncrushed grain then tell me how more important temperature and sparging are...

Cheers!