recirculating wort during mashing

[HTH1975]

I've read that recirculating the wort during mashing will produce a clearer wort. I've also read opinions saying that this is pointless as the wort will get cloudy once hops and yeast are added, then clear naturally during the brewing process.

My main thoughts on this are:

* will recirculating the mash improve efficiency?
* will it eliminate the need to sparge?
* should I pump the wort back into the top of the mash ton by fitting a valve the the top of the ton? (to keep the mash covered and avoid so much temperature drop).

I'd imagine one of the main benefits will be that it will be better at keeping all of the mash water at the same temperature, rather than cooler spots towards the walls of the mash tun.

I'm thinking of getting a pump anyway to make moving the wort easier, so the pump could serve multiple purposes.

Thoughts and opinions appreciated as always.

 

[ThomasPaine]

I let the mash rest for the normal 60 to 90 mins and then I will hook up the pump to vorlauf for an additional 30 or so minutes. I need a valve, thermometer, false bottom and natural gas hookup in order to switch to direct fire mash. Once that is done, I plan on moving to recirculating the whole mash time. I have a noticeable improvement in clarity and efficiency when I vorlauf with a pump.

 

[HTH1975]

That ties in with what I've read. I think a pump seems like a useful thing to have around for many reasons.

 

[doug293cz]

I've read that recirculating the wort during mashing will produce a clearer wort. I've also read opinions saying that this is pointless as the wort will get cloudy once hops and yeast are added, then clear naturally during the brewing process. Yep, clear wort to the BK provides no known functional benefits.

My main thoughts on this are:

* will recirculating the mash improve efficiency? Maybe
* will it eliminate the need to sparge? No
* should I pump the wort back into the top of the mash ton by fitting a valve the the top of the ton? (to keep the mash covered and avoid so much temperature drop). That's one popular way.

I'd imagine one of the main benefits will be that it will be better at keeping all of the mash water at the same temperature, rather than cooler spots towards the walls of the mash tun. It will improve temp uniformity, but not totally eliminate gradients (you have to agitate really fast to get "perfect" uniformity.)

I'm thinking of getting a pump anyway to make moving the wort easier, so the pump could serve multiple purposes.

Thoughts and opinions appreciated as always.

Recirculating the wort provides liquid shear around the grits. This can speed up the conversion process, since without agitation the conversion process is diffusion limited. The shear moves the dissolved starch and converted sugars away from the surface of the unconverted starch particles, allowing water faster access to the ungelatinized starch. This leads to faster mash completion, and in some cases more total conversion. Like fly sparging, the flow pattern needs to be fairly uniform throughout the bulk of the mash for maximum effectiveness. Channeling will limit the efficacy of recirculation.

Sparging works by diluting the wort retained in the mash, so that much of the sugar that would have otherwise been retained after draining the mash can be recovered. Simple wort recirculation does not provide any dilution, so the retained wort is still at maximum concentration.

Brew on

 

[Owly055]

There are many factors that can effect clarity of beer. Clarity of the wort coming out of the mash tun is NOT one of them. The only effect would be slightly less trub. If it were an issue, you wouldn't see all these folks doing BIAB. There are other factors that effect clarity. You will get slightly less trub, but trub has zero effect on beer quality as far as I can tell. What cloudiness you get out from recirculation beyond the basic vorlaff would amount to so little trub as to not be measurable.

When I first started brewing, I obsessed about clear wort from the mash, and recirculated to clarify it until I realized what an utter waste of time it was. I use BIAB, and I would collect the runnings and manually recirculate them through the grain bed, which was my bag full of grain sitting in a colander with a concave cavity in the top, pressed in with a round bottom bowl. This simple but time consuming process did a wonderful job of yielding clear wort for the boil.......... the only result was satisfaction. When I quit doing this, the beer was every bit as clear, and the quality was to the same level.

Clarity can be helped by a protein rest in your mash process.
Clarity is helped by using Irish Moss of Whirlflock near the end of the boil
Clarity is helped by rapid chilling
Clarity can be helped by choosing a highly flocculant yeast
Clarity can be helped by cold crashing
Clarity can be helped by adding a fining agent before cold crashing
Clarity can be helped by lagering

The benefits in terms of efficiency are debatable, and often not borne out in real world results.......


H.W.

 

[ThomasPaine]

There are many factors that can effect clarity of beer. Clarity of the wort coming out of the mash tun is NOT one of them. The only effect would be slightly less trub. If it were an issue, you wouldn't see all these folks doing BIAB. There are other factors that effect clarity. You will get slightly less trub, but trub has zero effect on beer quality as far as I can tell. What cloudiness you get out from recirculation beyond the basic vorlaff would amount to so little trub as to not be measurable.

When I first started brewing, I obsessed about clear wort from the mash, and recirculated to clarify it until I realized what an utter waste of time it was. I use BIAB, and I would collect the runnings and manually recirculate them through the grain bed, which was my bag full of grain sitting in a colander with a concave cavity in the top, pressed in with a round bottom bowl. This simple but time consuming process did a wonderful job of yielding clear wort for the boil.......... the only result was satisfaction. When I quit doing this, the beer was every bit as clear, and the quality was to the same level.

Clarity can be helped by a protein rest in your mash process.
Clarity is helped by using Irish Moss of Whirlflock near the end of the boil
Clarity is helped by rapid chilling
Clarity can be helped by choosing a highly flocculant yeast
Clarity can be helped by cold crashing
Clarity can be helped by adding a fining agent before cold crashing
Clarity can be helped by lagering

The benefits in terms of efficiency are debatable, and often not borne out in real world results.......


H.W.

I yield. This is why I bought the $20 pump. It's nice to vorlauf with a pump instead of a pitcher and I usually let it pump a lot longer than needed while I drink a beer or something, but haven't been doing it long enough to say for sure I get a clearer beer, and gravity does everything else for me so I am not buying a chugger yet. I just bought a filter to make my lagers look really good, but that's a different thread.

 

[Bobb25]

I have been wondering many of the same questions asked by the OP. My process is the typical three tier gravity system, with an electric heated HLT on the to step, as at my age I didn't want to be climbing a step ladder with 170 degree water. After seeing recent ads for a magnetically coupled pump, I have been toying with getting one to recirculate the water during mash, but then started worrying about how to maintain temperature since my mash tun is a round igloo cooler, and you can't put a fire under that. If the goal is to improve efficiency and not to save time, would I be just as well off to let it mash for 60 to 90 minutes like I do now, then take off the top stir it real good, and then to hook up the pump and let it recirculate for 30 to 45 minutes, and if the temperature drops then what will it matter?

 

[HTH1975]

The way I've imagined recirculating the wort is by adding a hose nipple to the side of the mash tun so the lid can stay in place to retain the mash temperature.

Mind, as my mash tun is a water heater with a false bottom, I've thought that I can just leave the element on to keep the mash temperature constant (thinking that I'll lose wort heat through the hose when recirculating).

 

[blizz81]

but then started worrying about how to maintain temperature since my mash tun is a round igloo cooler, and you can't put a fire under that. If the goal is to improve efficiency and not to save time, would I be just as well off to let it mash for 60 to 90 minutes like I do now, then take off the top stir it real good, and then to hook up the pump and let it recirculate for 30 to 45 minutes, and if the temperature drops then what will it matter?

You could RIMS or HERMS as far as maintaining temperature.


I don't think I'd go through the trouble of recirculating unless I had a means to maintain temp. I wouldn't want to do it any longer than a manual vorlauf of a couple pitchers to minimize temp loss. Though you could get a cheaper pump to minimize the $ hit if you just intended to automate vorlauf. As pointed out, if you want to minimize heat loss, you'd likely want a fitting for your mash tun, and a return inside designed to prevent channeling.

I would say crush and possibly mash length will help you in extraction more than recirculating alone. Of course if you have no means to hold temp, longer mash = longer time to lose temp. Depending on your equipment, this may be minimal. Temperature loss can lead to a more fermentable wort, even later in the mash as enzymes aren't denatured immediately. How much temperature loss and how much effect this would have on attenuation is going to depend on the equipment and process (brewing indoors, brewing in a cold-ish garage, etc).

I know some brewers will mash for 20-30 minutes and then recirculate for the duration of the mash. Again, by means of travel and hoses, this could be an avenue for losing some temp.

 

[doug293cz]

The way I've imagined recirculating the wort is by adding a hose nipple to the side of the mash tun so the lid can stay in place to retain the mash temperature.

Mind, as my mash tun is a water heater with a false bottom, I've thought that I can just leave the element on to keep the mash temperature constant (thinking that I'll lose wort heat through the hose when recirculating).

If you leave the heating element on without recirculating (or continuous stirring) then you will get unacceptable temperature gradients in your mash. The mash is a relatively poor conductor of heat. You could be boiling around your element before you change the temp near the top of the mash.

Brew on

 

[Kampenken]

I too was interested in recirc. I started planning a RIMS build, also because I like these kind of projects. I use a cooler mash tun, so was looking at a chugger pump, RIMS tube setup and of course thick wall tubing (prevent collapsing). I have the chugger, but will return, as I changed my mind completely.

I am tired of having too much stuff. This flew in the face of that. I ended up buying the GF, as I like the simplicity and singularity (well, almost) of this system. At $400 for the above, then going deeper into all electric brewing, and dropping a LOT more money and comparing that with the GF on sale in Dec for $800, it ended up being a no-brainer. I'm also very happy with the GF, but I know its not for all.

 

[TexasDroughtBrewery]

I've read that recirculating the wort during mashing will produce a clearer wort. I've also read opinions saying that this is pointless as the wort will get cloudy once hops and yeast are added, then clear naturally during the brewing process.

My main thoughts on this are:

* will recirculating the mash improve efficiency? Not necessarily
* will it eliminate the need to sparge? I still sparge every time.
* should I pump the wort back into the top of the mash ton by fitting a valve the the top of the ton? (to keep the mash covered and avoid so much temperature drop).I use my sparge arm and a pump to recirculate the entire time

I'd imagine one of the main benefits will be that it will be better at keeping all of the mash water at the same temperature, rather than cooler spots towards the walls of the mash tun.

I'm thinking of getting a pump anyway to make moving the wort easier, so the pump could serve multiple purposes.

Thoughts and opinions appreciated as always.

I recirculate every batch...this is my experience. I would highly recommend a pump, I do get very clear beers without cold crashing although I still sometimes do (its a solid method). The temps do maintain better, but not perfect you still need to put a few bursts of heat on it throughout the mash. I also still hit it with the paddle a few times as well when I put the heat on it maybe ...3 times in an hour.

Once the mash is done, I already have hoses and pumps going I simply use my quick connects switch the hoses and go straight to sparging. Plus if you get a pump you might as well get a plate chiller another amazing investment that has made my brew day better.

 

[perle]

You'll need to play around with the flow rate and possibly your grain crush or you can easy get a stuck sparge. If the flow rate is too high and/or the crush is too fine, you can easily compact the grain bed, leading to a stuck sparge. I've done 3 batches with recirculation and I haven't gotten it perfected yet. I'd recommend having some rice hulls on hand while you get things figured out.

 

[HTH1975]

Nice comment on the rice hulls to help with a stuck sparge. I've noticed that Malt Miller here in the UK sells wheat husks for the same purpose. My next-but-one brew is going to be a Rye beer, so I'm buying some wheat husks anyway.

How much rice hulls or wheat husk is enough to avoid a stuck mash?

 

[TexasDroughtBrewery]

You'll need to play around with the flow rate and possibly your grain crush or you can easy get a stuck sparge. If the flow rate is too high and/or the crush is too fine, you can easily compact the grain bed, leading to a stuck sparge. I've done 3 batches with recirculation and I haven't gotten it perfected yet. I'd recommend having some rice hulls on hand while you get things figured out.

Just watch this and you will get it right every time. Its the same method I use and never had this problem and like I said I recirculate every batch...so ive done this A LOT of times.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4YQqIMeS14[/ame]

 

[HTH1975]

Big thumbs up on that video - always better when you can SEE it being done.

 

[Bobb25]

You could RIMS or HERMS as far as maintaining temperature.

Herms sounds do-able since I have an electrically heated HLT near the mash tun. What should I do as far as a heat exchange coil, and connecting tubing?

 

[blizz81]

Herms sounds do-able since I have an electrically heated HLT near the mash tun. What should I do as far as a heat exchange coil, and connecting tubing?

I'm not terribly savvy with the nuts and bolts of HERMS - I'm running RIMS. I think most people use a SS coil. Some searching around on here re: HERMS builds could probably find you specific, up-to-date answers though.

 

[TexasDroughtBrewery]

Big thumbs up on that video - always better when you can SEE it being done.

Thanks, I agree its much easier when you can see how they do it and they even explain the whole thing. This is the video that really helped me with my process that I use b/c after watching to so many home made setups and their process things can get really confusing. So I stuck to just this one video to learn when I started.

 

[madscientist451]

I've read that recirculating the wort during mashing will produce a clearer wort. I've also read opinions saying that this is pointless as the wort will get cloudy once hops and yeast are added, then clear naturally during the brewing process.

My main thoughts on this are:

* will recirculating the mash improve efficiency?
* will it eliminate the need to sparge?
* should I pump the wort back into the top of the mash ton by fitting a valve the the top of the ton? (to keep the mash covered and avoid so much temperature drop).

Quick answers: Improve efficiency?
Yes, but is efficiency all that important at the homebrew scale?

Eliminate need to sparge?
Sure, you could do a no sparge brew. Will that lead to a better beer?
That's a more complicated question with too many variables to discuss in a reasonable amount of time.

Should you pump the wort?
Hard to say, what are you trying to achieve?

Lots of brewers use all kinds of pumps and complex brewing systems with great success. Do you need that to make a good or great beer? I'd say no you don't, there's more to good beer than the brewing side of it. Your ingredients and fermentation are equally if not more important than how you mash your grains.
Here's an experiment by Brulosopher regarding clear vs/trubby wort to the fermenter, note this experiment does not cover recirculated vs/ standard mashing techniques but its still interesting. If anyone knows of any side by side taste comparisons of recirculation brews vs/standard please post a link, I can't seem to find any, thanks....
http://brulosophy.com/2014/06/02/the-great-trub-exbeeriment-results-are-in/

 

[NervousDad]

I recirculate and I no longer sparge and no longer add non convertible grain to the mash. I previously did batch sparging and I have not lost any efficiency. I love the simplicity and my efficiency is right were I want it ~70%. My pH is stable and my salt additions and acidification are also simple to calculate. Not to mention I can test what my pre boil OG right in the mash, and it's within a point. According to Gordon Strong you'll get a smother malt taste with no astringency.

 

[blizz81]

Quick answers: Improve efficiency?
Yes, but is efficiency all that important at the homebrew scale?

Eliminate need to sparge?
Sure, you could do a no sparge brew. Will that lead to a better beer?
That's a more complicated question with too many variables to discuss in a reasonable amount of time.

Should you pump the wort?
Hard to say, what are you trying to achieve?

Lots of brewers use all kinds of pumps and complex brewing systems with great success. Do you need that to make a good or great beer? I'd say no you don't, there's more to good beer than the brewing side of it. Your ingredients and fermentation are equally if not more important than how you mash your grains.
Here's an experiment by Brulosopher regarding clear vs/trubby wort to the fermenter, note this experiment does not cover recirculated vs/ standard mashing techniques but its still interesting. If anyone knows of any side by side taste comparisons of recirculation brews vs/standard please post a link, I can't seem to find any, thanks....
http://brulosophy.com/2014/06/02/the-great-trub-exbeeriment-results-are-in/

For me, the only benefit that makes it "worth it" is temperature management, and that requires more than just recirculation. I had two mash tuns that lost a fair amount of temp and it was challenging to brew beers to style on anything that didn't call for ending up super dry. I think a lot of coolers perform better than the two vessels I had used ( http://minibrew.com/product/deluxe-mash-lauter-tun/ , and an insulated keggle)...but one of the other (arguably tangible) benefits I gained over those is I don't even lose the "1-3 degrees" most purport, and I don't have stratification.

The other "benefits" I'd say are more debatable. Then again, there's nothing against complexity / change just for the desire of tinkering.

 

[ThomasPaine]

I never liked the manual part of the vorlauf. That is the main reason I got the pump. But I run it long enough to make sure I recirculate the full volume many times over. It just feels right.

 

[HTH1975]

Your experiment was very interesting - a good read for sure. I love experiments and may try splitting a batch to try this myself.

 

[wilserbrewer]

Recirculating the wort provides liquid shear around the grits. This can speed up the conversion process, since without agitation the conversion process is diffusion limited. The shear moves the dissolved starch and converted sugars away from the surface of the unconverted starch particles, allowing water faster access to the ungelatinized starch. This leads to faster mash completion, and in some cases more total conversion. Like fly sparging, the flow pattern needs to be fairly uniform throughout the bulk of the mash for maximum effectiveness. Channeling will limit the efficacy of recirculation.
:

Could my spoon and stirring also provide liquid shear to move dissolved starch and sugars away from the unconverted starches allowing faster access to the unconverted starches?

You make it sound so damn good Doug!

Thanks,

Cheers to a good weekend!

 

[blizz81]

I love it when Doug uses all them purty words.

 

[doug293cz]

Could my spoon and stirring also provide liquid shear to move dissolved starch and sugars away from the unconverted starches allowing faster access to the unconverted starches?

You make it sound so damn good Doug!

Thanks,

Cheers to a good weekend!

Yep, stirring is a good way to introduce shear in the mash. Doesn't matter too much (if at all) how you get the shear.

Brew on

 

[Kampenken]

Yep, stirring is a good way to introduce shear in the mash. Doesn't matter too much (if at all) how you get the shear.

Brew on

Yeah but stirring without applying heat will drop mash temp. And, you might want a thin mash I'd expect to effect shear? Otherwise I'd expect it might not get much for shear, and hard to stir!

 

[doug293cz]

Yeah but stirring without applying heat will drop mash temp. And, you might want a thin mash I'd expect to effect shear? Otherwise I'd expect it might not get much for shear, and hard to stir!

A thick mash will be harder to stir, but will benefit more from stirring, since thin mashes convert faster than thick mashes (ref: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency#Mash_thickness.) You get shear from stirring whether the mash is thick or thin. A thin mash will have more thermal mass, so will hold temperature better than a thick mash, all else being equal. Lots of advantages to a thinner mash, and not so many for a thicker mash. Either way, crush as fine as you can without getting a stuck sparge.

Brew on

 

[Kampenken]

A thick mash will be harder to stir, but will benefit more from stirring, since thin mashes convert faster than thick mashes (ref: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency#Mash_thickness.) You get shear from stirring whether the mash is thick or thin. A thin mash will have more thermal mass, so will hold temperature better than a thick mash, all else being equal. Lots of advantages to a thinner mash, and not so many for a thicker mash. Either way, crush as fine as you can without getting a stuck sparge.

Brew on

I agree with the thin mash and stirring. I recirc, so not an issue for me, however for others who are interested, (say those with a cooler mash tun)- do you have thoughts beyond the standard stir 1x/15 min during an hour mash? If there is an update to that, then others might benefit from your process. Maybe your initial point was supporting the standard process I suppose most do who don't recirc? Always interesting to hear other's process!