54 replies to this topic

[OrionPax]

As part of a master's course in systems engineering, I am currently working on designing a new brewing system. My current setup is manual/gravity feed, and my primary design goal is to reduce the time and labor involved in brewing a batch. Overall, the project will include trade studies on things like gravity vs. pump and electric vs. propane heating.One element that I am particularly interested in is efficiency. I get about 70% now, which is pretty typical. However, if I consider brewing 20 batches per year, about 8 gallons each, and around 20 lbs of grain per batch, at $2 per pound typical price, then getting to 80% efficiency would mean over $100/year savings on grain. This means there could be a relatively short-term pay-off for putting some design and material dollars into mechanisms to increase efficiency. On that note, if you're willing to help me out, please respond with the following:-What efficiency do you achieve with your system?-What mash methods do you use to achieve this (continuous vs. batch sparge, recirculation, mash agitation, etc)?-Have you noticed negative effects (e.g. tannins) from high efficiency? At what efficiency do you notice these effects?Thanks in advance for the help. I'll be sure to follow up with results from the study and the overall design.

[MakeMeHoppy]

I have 3 different mash tuns and get 70-75% brewhouse effeciency on each. I batch sparge on all.the first is a 5 gallon Gott cooler with a toilet braidthe second is a bottling bucket with false bottomthe third is a 60 qt cube with bazooka TAlmost all of my beers are in the 1.050-1.060 range

[BrewerGeorge]

I batch sparge with a pump system and average 75% if I do a single infusion and 85% if I use the HERMS setup and recirc the whole time. (I rarely do use the HERMS because the hassle isn't worth it to me.)

[djinkc]

Mash efficiency is 80% give or take, but a 1.055 wort will usually be around 81%. I crush past where most would be scared - 0.025" mill gap. Single infusion mash, recirculate (EHERMS) about half way through (my EHLT needs time to recover from a partial refill before it's hot enough to recirculate). I do ramp up the EHERMS for a mashout ~165df. Fly sparge with ~165df water. No mash agitation once the grainbed is set. Rectangular cooler MT with a copper manifold made to Palmer's specs. Never had a noticable astringency problem. Our water isn't perfect but anything from a Kolsch to a Robust Porter is close to 5.2 pH - I don't bother checking anymore. All my heat source is 240v, pump to recirculate and move wort to the kettle - all gravity after that.That said my system efficiency sucks and I don't really want to know. I shoot for 11.5 gal post boil in the kettle after cooling contraction. Then there's hop absorption, deadspace loss and end up with enough to fill two cornies. Always 10 gallon batches so far.

[Humperdink]

I batch sparge with a braided cooler, adjust my mash pH every batch and usually get 82-87% depending on gravity. I actually want to dial back my mill so I get less because i do fear getting tannins, but haven't experienced any yet that I can tell. Brewhouse efficiency is something else considering I leave more than a gallon behind in my kettle. I make my batches 12.5 gallons and almost always hit my volume at 5.5-5.75 G in both fermenters. This last weekend I hit ~11 G in the fermenters of 1.045 gravity from 17.5# of grain.

[BrewerGeorge]

I don't even want to think about entire system efficiency.

[BlKtRe]

Fly sparge. Sparge times are >45 min. Average 85% using a copper manifold in Ice Cube coolers. If I fly sparge longer, efficiency goes up. Gravity really doesn't seem to effect it. I'm talking mash points. I could care less about total system eff. I get my total volumes into the fermetor, just plug in losses.

[jammer]

I generally get 80-85%. I double batch sparge using a large cooler as my mash tun. I used to get anywhere from 65-75% before i switched from the braid to a cpvc manifold. I think I could get even better efficiency if I bought a grain mill and crushed my own.

[realbeerguy]

80 % , Igloo round, Phil's false bottom.

[BarelyBrews]

Batch sparge,usually 77-80%.

[NeoSchneider]

For the purposes of your study - and you can throw your electric vs gas comparison in here too - I would suggest going to fly sparging.Your additional cost would be the following:- Maintain HLT at temperature (electric control... worth it? consider improving insulation, close in top?)- Sparge manifold- Bottom strainer- Needle valve on mash tun drain + HLT to set flow?The actual mechanism behind fly sparging would be that you have a greater driving force of concentration of sugars - so you're continuously flowing water with low concentration of sugars that will encourage mass transfer. Batch sparging of course will 'saturate' with sugar reasonably quickly.NSA

[BrewerGeorge]

....The actual mechanism behind fly sparging would be that you have a greater driving force of concentration of sugars - so you're continuously flowing water with low concentration of sugars that will encourage mass transfer. Batch sparging of course will 'saturate' with sugar reasonably quickly.NSA

I'm not sure that's altogether true. Even the very biggest beers aren't going to be near saturation. I think the difference in efficiency between batch and fly have more to do with the concentration of the wort left behind in the grains. The spent grains left behind in the tun are going to hold onto some fluid. In a properly-conducted fly sparge, the fluid they keep is going to be 1.006 or less. OTOH, batch sparge grains are going to hold onto wort with the gravity of the second sparge. That's often well into the 1.020's or even higher.

[Stout_fan]

It depends upon the OG.I use a braid and batch sparge.1.040 milds I get about 85%1.055 normal brews I'm about 75%1.100 heravyweights I'm 50%1.200 Samiclaus was 45%

[NeoSchneider]

I'm not sure that's altogether true. Even the very biggest beers aren't going to be near saturation. I think the difference in efficiency between batch and fly have more to do with the concentration of the wort left behind in the grains. The spent grains left behind in the tun are going to hold onto some fluid. In a properly-conducted fly sparge, the fluid they keep is going to be 1.006 or less. OTOH, batch sparge grains are going to hold onto wort with the gravity of the second sparge. That's often well into the 1.020's or even higher.

Cool - that makes sense; was just taking a guess. I didn't mean actually saturate, just increase in concentration for the record (couldn't think of the right term at the time). So it is just rinsing then. Makes sense when I think about it.

[MakeMeHoppy]

It depends upon the OG.I use a braid and batch sparge.1.040 milds I get about 85%1.055 normal brews I'm about 75%1.100 heravyweights I'm 50%1.200 Samiclaus was 45%

This agrees with what George posted and I agree. When I make an occasional 'big' beer I realize I'm leaving a lot of sugars in the grain absorpion so I'll so an additional sparge to collect starter wort.

[BlKtRe]

It depends upon the OG.1.100 heavyweights I'm 50%1.200 Samiclaus was 45%

If you are partygyle brewing I can see eff. numbers being low on the first beer. On your big beers are you calculating eff. for each running or are you calculating for both running's together? And if you are not partygle brewing these beers, you should be.

[djinkc]

If you are partygyle brewing I can see eff. numbers being low on the first beer. On your big beers are you calculating eff. for each running or are you calculating for both running's together? And if you are not partygle brewing these beers, you should be.

Or sparge enough for a 3 hour boil

[OrionPax]

Thanks for all the info so far. The interesting thing I'm seeing is that people are claiming 80+ percent efficiencies with either batch or fly sparging.Am I studying the wrong variable? Is efficiency really more of a function of grind, cooler shape, and perhaps runoff rate rather than sparge method?

[BrewerGeorge]

Thanks for all the info so far. The interesting thing I'm seeing is that people are claiming 80+ percent efficiencies with either batch or fly sparging.Am I studying the wrong variable? Is efficiency really more of a function of grind, cooler shape, and perhaps runoff rate rather than sparge method?

I think that by far the most important variable is grind. The thing about fly vs batch, is that most homebrewers who fly sparge don't do everything needed to take maximum advantage of the method. Things like super-slow sparge, bed rakes, etc just aren't that common in garages. Also smaller batch sizes make it harder to hit the super high efficiencies that the big boys get simply because of the square-cube relationship. That is as tank size increases, surface area - which influences things like the amount left under the false bottom - increases as a square function. At the same time volume increases as a cube function. With inefficiency at its most basic being waste over total volume, you can see how it just gets easier to be more efficient as batch size (tun size) increases.Bottom line is that most brewers who fly do it because they prefer that method for some process reason rather than to achieve maximum efficiency.

[BlKtRe]

Bottom line is that most brewers who fly do it because they prefer that method for some process reason rather than to achieve maximum efficiency.

I do it because I can set it and forget it until Ive got my pre boil volume. No messing with 2-3 batch sparges. I gain my time back at the end of my sparge by applying heat to the kettle when im 1/2-3/4 way thru my sparge with the goal of being at boil when the sparge is complete. I can also get more grain in my tun fly sparging. Instead of leaving an area for batch sparge water, that area contains grain. This is especially important for me when doing 10g of a big beer or doing a 15-24g batch. Batch spargers claiming they can get in the mid 80's using a single braid in their tun I have a hard time believing. I tried and tried to reach those numbers using batching with a FB and never could reach those numbers. For those that can, that's sweet. Id also like to know if these numbers are Brewhouse System or Mash efficiencies that are being claimed.