Code, when batch sparging your efficiency will drop the bigger the beer. That's natural. I was keeping track of my efficiencies, breaking them down into conversion, mash, preboil, brewhouse, and what I found was that the number 1 thing to improving efficiency was to give your mash the best conditions possible for 100% conversion. That means proper crush, ph, mash temp (get a good thermometer!), and grist hydration. Once those are accounted for you are left with time and lautering. Make sure the sparge water is the right PH and temp. Make sure you collect as much of your first wort as possible. Make sure you stir in that sparge water really well and get the rest of the sugar out. If you are doing all that then you'll get higher efficiency and more predictable results, and that last part is what matters most.
Horrible Efficiency
#81
Posted 16 April 2014 - 09:23 AM
#82
Posted 16 April 2014 - 10:35 AM
Code, when batch sparging your efficiency will drop the bigger the beer.
Unless you sparge more....
#83
Posted 16 April 2014 - 10:42 AM
D, I always thought you recommended mash:sparge ~ 50:50 (if possible)...
#84
Posted 16 April 2014 - 10:48 AM
Unless you sparge more....
Yeah, but that is the law of diminishing returns. At 20# grain with a 2nd sparge he would have gained about 3% more. After that it's almost pointless.
Edit: Credit to Braukaiser for doing this research.
Edited by SchwanzBrewer, 16 April 2014 - 10:51 AM.
#85
Posted 16 April 2014 - 11:02 AM
Yeah, but that is the law of diminishing returns. At 20# grain with a 2nd sparge he would have gained about 3% more. After that it's almost pointless.
Edit: Credit to Braukaiser for doing this research.
I absolutely agree...just thought I'd mention it as a way around low efficiency.
D, I always thought you recommended mash:sparge ~ 50:50 (if possible)...
Within a gal. or so, yeah. But under some circumstances it can be useful to sparge more. Although you need to be aware of pH and diminishing wort quality.
#86
Posted 17 April 2014 - 12:09 PM
"Pragmatic", dude...the word is "pragmatic".
KDSITN
#87
Posted 17 April 2014 - 03:03 PM
I like to take the simplest path from where I am to where I want to get. As to solving efficiency problems, I think that a finer crush, time, heat, decoction all are different ways to try to solve the same problem, gelatinizing starch more efficiently. One or two of those may be more practical than others, for some brewers."Pragmatic", dude...the word is "pragmatic".
#88
Posted 18 April 2014 - 01:51 PM
#89
Posted 18 April 2014 - 03:57 PM
that deadspace isn't too awful.
#90
Posted 18 April 2014 - 04:23 PM
#91
Posted 19 April 2014 - 12:59 PM
Progress!
My pH adjustments were too conservative, so I was still a bit high at 5.7. First wort's SG was 1.097, which is a huge improvement. I borked up the second sparge with too much water, though. Ended up with 5.25 gals at 1.079, which puts me at 55% efficiency. Had I pulled what I think was all 6 gallons I think I'd have been higher, but still, I'm optimistic. I'll be doing the same mash next weekend (today was 2 of 5) so now I need to get serious about measuring water.
Seems like crush was the biggest culprit. Thanks everyone!
#92
Posted 19 April 2014 - 01:18 PM
Seems like crush was the biggest culprit.
It almost always is.
#93
Posted 19 April 2014 - 06:06 PM
It almost always is.
Too bad I could not make the KCBM meeting last night. One of our members was doing a presentation on milling. Looked like she had stacked sieves to see how members samples really ended up and evaluate the husks. Wish I could have gone.
#94
Posted 21 April 2014 - 07:12 AM
Progress!
My pH adjustments were too conservative, so I was still a bit high at 5.7. First wort's SG was 1.097, which is a huge improvement. I borked up the second sparge with too much water, though. Ended up with 5.25 gals at 1.079, which puts me at 55% efficiency. Had I pulled what I think was all 6 gallons I think I'd have been higher, but still, I'm optimistic. I'll be doing the same mash next weekend (today was 2 of 5) so now I need to get serious about measuring water.
Seems like crush was the biggest culprit. Thanks everyone!
What did you do to your crush?
#95
Posted 21 April 2014 - 08:45 AM
#96
Posted 21 April 2014 - 09:11 AM
What did you do to your crush?
Just tightened it down. The version of the mill I have has a lever that allows you to adjust the gap between the bottom and top two rollers. I set it on "scared"
Does anyone mill 2-row and wheat on different settings, or do you just run it all through the same. I'm wondering if maybe the gap was specifically too wide for the wheat on the previous mash.
Edited by codemonkey, 21 April 2014 - 09:11 AM.
#97
Posted 21 April 2014 - 10:03 AM
I played with some numbers and, at a given OG, a gallon of dead space results in a pretty consistent 10% efficiency loss. Coincidentally, the efficiency ends up nearly identical to that of a no sparge.
sounds like a nice trade off
i wonder how many people really take care to avoid dead space. it was def one of the things i was concerned with when i was figuring out the setup for mash tun.
#98
Posted 21 April 2014 - 10:16 AM
Just tightened it down. The version of the mill I have has a lever that allows you to adjust the gap between the bottom and top two rollers. I set it on "scared"
Does anyone mill 2-row and wheat on different settings, or do you just run it all through the same. I'm wondering if maybe the gap was specifically too wide for the wheat on the previous mash.
Since my gap is very tight, I run it all together. If your gap is more open, then you want to do them separately and close it down for the wheat. Wheat kernels are smaller than barley and not having a tight enough gap for the wheat is often cited as an efficiency issue.
Edited by denny, 21 April 2014 - 10:16 AM.
#99
Posted 21 April 2014 - 10:17 AM
Since my gap is very tight, I run it all together. If your gap is more open, then you want to do them separately and close it down for the wheat.
interesting thought there - i'll have to go back and look over my efficiencies and see if there is any correlation with increased wheat usage and lower efficiency.
how would rye fit into this?
Edited by TheGuv, 21 April 2014 - 10:17 AM.
#100
Posted 21 April 2014 - 10:18 AM
interesting thought there - i'll have to go back and look over my efficiencies and see if there is any correlation with increased wheat usage and lower efficiency.
how would rye fit into this?
Same way. But like wheat, my gap is so tight I can mill both together. All depends on how you have your mill set for what your system needs.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users