What are the pros/cons of Mashing and Lautering in one vessel or 2 separate vessels

[perfection]

I would like to understand this from a commercial brewer's point of view and many of you wonderful persons here have (unlike me) worked in commercial breweries for sure!

Please help me to understand 3 things (all basic) if you do not mind

(i) Mashing and Lautering in one or separate tanks: Apart from being able to process higher volumes (by running more batches) of wort per day is there any difference in planning with a mash lauter tun (MLT) versus a separate mash tun and a separate lauter tun if a brewery works with single infusion and multi step infusion mashes? Technically what can a lauter do that cannot be built into a mash tun or what ca a mash tun do that cannot be built into a lauter? Does the sizing of grist or the water-grist ratio or the quantity or quality output per batch differ in a one vessel v/s a two vessel format. Are they fabricated differently which leads to an advantage for keeping the processes separate. I believe manufacturing technology would be advanced enough today to produce a tun that would handle the mash-in, the rests and different temperatures, the mash out, drain off, recirculation and the sparge all in one.

(ii) are mash tuns and mas kettles synonymous terms as i have always seen mash tuns having a classic conical cap shape?

(iii) How is a mashout done in a lauter tun when they do hot usually have heating facility (assuming separate tanks for multi step mashing and lautering?

Thanks all

with respect, regards and

keep safe

 

[VikeMan]

Besides maximizing production in a large brewery...

I've seen a smaller brewery that used a separate mash tun and lauter tun. The reason was that the mash tun was also the boil kettle. After the mash, everything was pumped over to the lauter tun. During the vorlauf, the mash tun was rinsed in preparation for the boil. Then the wort was lautered back over to the (mash)/boil kettle.

 

[Golddiggie]

IMO/IME, having a three vessel setup (boil kettle, mash tun, HLT) is a very common configuration. I have seen two vessel configurations listed, but usually pass those over. I've been using a three vessel setup for more than a while, and like it's flexibility. I can mash in, drain into the BK (when the mash is done), sparge (either single or multiple sparges depending on batch size and such) and have the initial wort getting up to boil temperature while the sparge is processing. That is, depending on your heating method. As long as electrical elements are fully submerged (plus temperature sensor), you're good to start heating to boil.

I wouldn't want a four vessel setup. Especially since it requires more floor space to have it.

As for lid shape, that has a lot to do with the system size and manufacturer. I see a good amount, in the 5bbl or smaller at least, systems with flat lids. There are ones that have a steam condenser, or redirecting, aspect to the boil kettle. Those are typically conical in shape due to the needs of such a setup. I have a Spike system for home brewing with their steam condenser lid and really like how it opens up the possibilities of where I can brew. I no longer need to brew outside or worry about getting a condensation hood if I wanted to brew inside. I cannot see having a system (now) without this feature.
I just looked at the Blichmann 5bbl system and they have a port in the BK lid that I assume is to exhaust the steam away from the BK area.

For reference on the system lid/top shape, Stout Tanks and Kettles have the domed lids for their systems starting at the 4bbl size. They might offer the same top shape in smaller system sizes, but it's not clear with a brief look.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Commercially water tanks aren't usually included in the vessel count. A "4 vessel" commercial system is usually separate Mash/Lauter/Boil Kettle/Whirlpool vessels.

The goal is all about maximizing production. You can mash in one batch in the mash tun while running off another batch from the lauter tun to the kettle, while knocking out a 3rd batch from the whirlpool to the fermenter. Then while the first batch rests in the mash tun the second batch is boiling, 3rd batch is done, and you're cleaning out the lauter and whirlpool. When mash and boil are done then transferring mash to lauter and boil to whirlpool, cleaning out mash and kettle, and the process starts over again.

Most 3 vessel systems combine mash and lauter together, while leaving kettle and whirlpool separate to maximize flow, since runoff from lauter to boil kettle and whirlpool/rest/knockout are typically the longest processes. Most two vessel systems combine mash/lauter and boil/whirlpool. But there are definitely others. Mash/kettle and separate lauter is definitely a common enough one (i presume whirlpool would also be out of the kettle), with the benefit of allowing step mashes while requiring only one jacketed vessel. Its good for smaller volume brewhouses that aren't churning out multiple batches a day. Separate mash and lauter and combined boil/whirlpool is out there too but doesn't make a lot of sense to me with regards to process flow (especially if the mash tun isn't heated), as it's an extra vessel when the mash/kettle separate lauter will do the same thing. But the typical mash/lauter and boil/whirlpool typically doesn't have heating to mash/lauter (so no step mashing barring infusion), but while a first turn is boiling/whirlpooling/knocking out the mash on a second turn could start.

Many of these setups are custom designed between a brewery and their equipment manufacturer and built specifically for them with their particular layout and desired process flow in mind.

 

[Qhrumphf]

At a previous job with a two vessel boil kettle/whirlpool and non-heated MLT, we wouldn't do a mashout. Rather we did an abbreviated mash rest such that the conversion was continuing through runoff, and sparge water was heating up the grain bed while the kettle would engage on a (about 1/3 of the way through runoff) and both would heat up in time to halt enzymatic action where we wanted it. It also made for shorter brew days.

Jacketed mash tuns will often heat to mashout prior to transferring to the lauter. Then they'll rest briefly to settle, vorlauf, and go right into runoff.

 

[perfection]

Wow - thanks each of you. I stand more enlightened now on this !
Does this mean that if the mash tun does not have heating (as in a single step infusion) then raising the temperature for a mashout is not a possibility??

 

[Qhrumphf]

You could add more water to react mashout as any other infusion step mash but it's often a real pain in the ass. Especially in small systems with no rakes/mixer. Hand stirring 10bbls is not an easy task.

 

[Golddiggie]

I've seen systems that have either HERMS coils in the HLT, or have a RIMS element for the MT to maintain mash temperature as well as elevate it to mash out/sparge temperatures. You DO need a way to both maintain mash temperature and do the sparge. In my current setup, that's with a HERMS coil in the HLT. In the nano size system (I'm brewing with kettles from Spike Brewing) they have the HLT and BK with elements in them and the MT has an element that the mash runs through to maintain temp and reach sparge temp.

You should look at the different systems different manufacturers offer. Depending on the system size is how things are done. At the scale I'm looking at (not above 10bbl) three vessel setups as I mentioned above are very common. Electrical element heated is also easy to find. Now that I've made the jump to electric (from propane burners) I find it easier to maintain temperatures in the MT and HLT. I did a test run yesterday (just water in the MT and HLT) and was able to go from strike temperature (in the MT) to mash temperature (added cold water) then maintain mash temperature within 1F for the entire mash time frame. It was a bit more up/down than I would like, but that was the first time I set to do this. I plan another session before the end of the coming weekend to get things dialed in better. Once done, I'll be able to run a continuous recirculation mash to increase my efficiency (mash and brewery) numbers.

 

[VikeMan]

Hand stirring 10bbls is not an easy task.

I once raked a stuck 15 barrel batch. It was definitely not easy.

 

[Qhrumphf]

On aforementioned old system (10bbl unheated, no rakes....) I would do exactly ONE step mash, because IMHO it is a mandatory one, doing a ferulic acid rest on a Hefe. We had to mash in so thick to be able to jump from 110 to 153 via infusion (and stir both by hand). My assistant brewer at the time despised me for it but it was worth it. A steam jacked mash tun with a mixer is well worth it. I have seen a few jacketed MLTs but rakes don't get enough movement for my taste.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Probably my worst brew day ever was a stuck 15bbl batch of Wee Heavy. Traumatic brew but after 6mos in bourbon barrels the end product was worth it.