| |
Main
Date: 05 Jun 2006 15:41:48
From: chris the great
Subject: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
Hello all,
I just completed my 5th all grain batch sparge and I seem to be having
a low O.G. trend happening. I am mashing in my cooler, hitting desired
strike temps and letting sit for an hour minimum before I sparge. Then
I add 175 degree sparge water to the cooler, let it set for 15m and
start the runoff.... I am typically getting my O.G.about 0.010 below
target. I am using a variation of the denny brew hose braid false
bottom. My recipes are base off of standard 5gal recipe measurements
for the grain bill. do I just need to increase my grain by 5% or does
anyone have suggestions to improve my effeciency using my exsisting
equipment.
I did find that a recipe ala MDixon, the stepped mash temps for his
Weiszenbach yeilded closer to target than my ale and stout recipes.
Could this perhaps be a better way to get the most enzyme action for
better extraction rates? Another thing I thought would help is to crush
the grain better, but that did not seem to help, and I kept getting a
stuck sparge for my extra effort.
So far I have been vary pleased by the outcome of all of my all grain
batches...I just would like to get a little closer to the numbers.
Any suggestions welcome,
Chris
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2006 16:39:11
From:
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
I stir my sparge water in, let it settle for 15m and let her rip after
the initial clear runnings.
Typically a 3G runnoff and then a 3.5G runoff. Yesterday's brew was a
Dubbel with a target O.G. of 1.068... I yeilded 1.059 using a grain
bill qty. for a 5gal "fly sparge" recipe.
Chris
>
> Are you stirring? How many runoffs are you doing?
>
> >I am typically getting my O.G.about 0.010 below
> >target.
>
> What is your target effeciency?
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 09:40:18
From: bregent
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
In article <1149550751.059909.280360@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
caseltzer@gmail.com says...
>
>
>I stir my sparge water in, let it settle for 15m and let her rip after
>the initial clear runnings.
>Typically a 3G runnoff and then a 3.5G runoff. Yesterday's brew was a
>Dubbel with a target O.G. of 1.068... I yeilded 1.059 using a grain
>bill qty. for a 5gal "fly sparge" recipe.
>
>Chris
OK, but you still didn't answer the question of expected efficiency. You are
stating that your OG is low...maybe your expectations are too high?
What is the efficiency of the recipe you are following? If you don't know that,
then what was the grain bill?
>>
>> Are you stirring? How many runoffs are you doing?
>>
>> >I am typically getting my O.G.about 0.010 below
>> >target.
>>
>> What is your target effeciency?
>
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 16:54:12
From: Derric
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
You've got lots of good info so far. Just a couple notes from me:
> I stir my sparge water in, let it settle for 15m and let her rip after
> the initial clear runnings.
Many (most?) folks now feel there is no need for the 15m wait... just
add the water, STIR WELL, and proceed to the vorlauf.
> Typically a 3G runnoff and then a 3.5G runoff.
Someone mentioned using 3 runoffs. That will definitely help. Lately,
I've been doing the following:
* First, just drain the original mash wort out at full speed.
* Then, add the first batch, STIR, and drain at full speed.
* Then, add the second batch, STIR, and drain at full speed.
This does increase your efficiency. I usually get 85% with this method.
(I drain into the boil pot with the fire already on, so I really don't
care about any "mashout" effects.)
> Yesterday's brew was a
> Dubbel with a target O.G. of 1.068... I yeilded 1.059 using a grain
> bill qty. for a 5gal "fly sparge" recipe.
How accurate is your measurement of the "5gal" ??? A slightly incorrect
volume measurement will affect your OG. For example, 5 gal @ 1.068 is
only 1.057 in 6 gal. ( (5*68)/6 = 56.7 ). And you DID INCLUDE any wort
left in the boil pot in the volume measurement, right?
Remember, if you really want to hit a given gravity, you can just boil
longer (probably want to do most of it BEFORE you add the bittering
hops, tho'). Unfortunately, you'll get less beer!
Derric
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 15:13:00
From: Duke
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
<caseltzer@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1149550751.059909.280360@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> I stir my sparge water in, let it settle for 15m and let her rip after
> the initial clear runnings.
> Typically a 3G runnoff and then a 3.5G runoff. Yesterday's brew was a
> Dubbel with a target O.G. of 1.068... I yeilded 1.059 using a grain
> bill qty. for a 5gal "fly sparge" recipe.
>
> Chris
I believe that fly sparging gives a slightly better efficiency than batch.
Therefore if using a fly recipe you would need to increase the grain bill a
bit if you intended to batch sparge it.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Duke
>
>>
>> Are you stirring? How many runoffs are you doing?
>>
>> >I am typically getting my O.G.about 0.010 below
>> >target.
>>
>> What is your target effeciency?
>
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 16:23:28
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:13:00 GMT, <sorry@no_spam.com > wrote:
> I believe that fly sparging gives a slightly better efficiency than batch.
> Therefore if using a fly recipe you would need to increase the grain bill a
> bit if you intended to batch sparge it.
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong.
It really depends on the brewer. As Dan mentioned, in theory a perfect fly
sparge will yield a higher efficiency than a perfect batch sparge. The
numbers you actually get will depend on how good of a sparge you perform
though. A good batch sparge will beat a bad fly sparge. It's more difficult
to perform a really good fly sparge though, so many brewers will have
results that are just as good or slightly better by batch sparging.
So, the answer to "which one is better" is "it depends". ;)
John.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 08:20:00
From: Dan Listermann
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
<caseltzer@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1149550751.059909.280360@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I yeilded 1.059 using a grain
> bill qty. for a 5gal "fly sparge" recipe.
>
In theory at least, batch sparging can never be as efficient as fly
sparging. Batch sparging will retain about a pint of wort per pound of malt
in the spent grain that will have the exact sugar content of the last
sparge. With fly sparging, this sugar should have been removed from the
water.
Dan
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 09:49:13
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
Dan Listermann wrote:
> In theory at least, batch sparging can never be as efficient as fly
> sparging. Batch sparging will retain about a pint of wort per pound of malt
> in the spent grain that will have the exact sugar content of the last
> sparge. With fly sparging, this sugar should have been removed from the
> water.
True in theory, Dan, but the average batch sparge is at least as
efficient as the average fly sparge. My batch sparge efficiency runs
about 85% these days, comparable to or better than many fly spargers.
My guess is that the OP has not adjusted the recipes to his system's
efficiency.
---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 14:14:28
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 08:20:00 -0400, <dan@listermann.com > wrote:
>
><caseltzer@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149550751.059909.280360@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I yeilded 1.059 using a grain
>> bill qty. for a 5gal "fly sparge" recipe.
>>
>
> In theory at least, batch sparging can never be as efficient as fly
> sparging. Batch sparging will retain about a pint of wort per pound of malt
> in the spent grain that will have the exact sugar content of the last
> sparge. With fly sparging, this sugar should have been removed from the
> water.
In theory, yes, although actual results are highly dependent on your
equipment/procedure. The thing that throws a monkey wrench in the theory
is that it is much easier to perform a good batch sparge than it is to
perform a good fly sparge. This has the effect of bringing the results
much closer together for the two methods.
John.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 17:23:12
From: Derric
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
> In theory at least, batch sparging can never be as efficient as fly
> sparging. Batch sparging will retain about a pint of wort per pound of malt
> in the spent grain that will have the exact sugar content of the last
> sparge. With fly sparging, this sugar should have been removed from the
> water.
> Dan
However, with fly sparging, you leave a mash tun full of (weak) wort in
addition to the spent grain. If you fill that batch sparge mash tun
with water back up to the level of the fly sparge mash tun (and stir)
- so that the terminal conditions of both sparges are exactly the same,
then the final gravity is practically the same in both!
Example: If you leave 3 gallons of 1.010 wort in the fly sparge mash tun,
you've left 3*10=30 gravity points. Using the 1 pint/pound number above,
10 pounds grain - > 10 pints -> 1.25 gals wort left in the batch tun.
So, dividing the 30 points by the 1.25 gals you get: 24... which says
if the last batch was 1.024, it would be EXACTLY the same as leaving 3
gallons of 1.010 wort in the fly mash tun. My experiment matched this
perfectly.
(Assuming 1 pint/pound absorption into grain and 10 pounds grain and fly
gallons left includes both drainable and absorbed wort:)
Equivalant
Fly Gallons Final Batch
Left @ 1.010 Gravity
4 1.032
3 1.024 <--- this is where my system is.
2 1.016
(Note, in my test batches, I drained 1.5G from the fly sparge and 1.5G
was retained, so that would have been 3G left in the fly tun. My last
batch was 1.024, so that checks exactly!)
Derric
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 18:19:39
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:23:12 -0000, <derric1961@removethis.yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>> In theory at least, batch sparging can never be as efficient as fly
>> sparging. Batch sparging will retain about a pint of wort per pound of malt
>> in the spent grain that will have the exact sugar content of the last
>> sparge. With fly sparging, this sugar should have been removed from the
>> water.
>> Dan
>
> However, with fly sparging, you leave a mash tun full of (weak) wort in
> addition to the spent grain.
Only if you choose to. Let the tun drain dry at the end of the fly sparge and
you aren't leaving any behind except what is absorbed in the grain.
John.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 08:39:47
From: Dan Listermann
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
"Derric" <derric1961@removethis.yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:slrne8beg0.37e.derric1961@bhm29.hiwaay.net...
>
>> In theory at least, batch sparging can never be as efficient as fly
>> sparging. Batch sparging will retain about a pint of wort per pound of
>> malt
>> in the spent grain that will have the exact sugar content of the last
>> sparge. With fly sparging, this sugar should have been removed from the
>> water.
>> Dan
>
> However, with fly sparging, you leave a mash tun full of (weak) wort in
> addition to the spent grain. If you fill that batch sparge mash tun
> with water back up to the level of the fly sparge mash tun (and stir)
> - so that the terminal conditions of both sparges are exactly the same,
> then the final gravity is practically the same in both!
The sugar removal mechinisms of fly sparging and batch sparging are
different. With batch sparging, sugar is removed by dilution. With fly
sparging the sugar is displaced from the grain. As the water makes it way
slowly through the grain bed, it is constantly moving toward material with
greater amounts of sugar in it. It picks up gravity as it goes. The grain
bed eventually has very little sugar left in the pint per pound of retained
water - say 10 points per pound. With batch sparging those pints have
exactly the same gravity as the last sparge. There is no reason to leave
the final contents of a fly sparge behind. When the gravity of a sparge
falls to 1.010, I just stop the sparge water and let the tun drain.
Dan
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 15:51:35
From: Dick Adams
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
<Posted and e-mailed >
Dan Listermann <dan@listermann.com > wrote:
> The sugar removal mechinisms of fly sparging and batch sparging
> are different.
>
> With batch sparging, sugar is removed by dilution.
>
> With fly sparging, the sugar is displaced from the grain.
This is enlightening. It's the difference between dumping
water in versus spraying it in.
> As the water makes it way slowly through the grain bed, it is
> constantly moving toward material with greater amounts of sugar
> in it. It picks up gravity as it goes. The grain bed eventually
> has very little sugar left in the pint per pound of retained water
> - say 10 points per pound.
>
> With batch sparging those pints have exactly the same gravity as
> the last sparge.
This I do not follow. Since first running must be higher gravity
than second runnings, are you saying that the gravity of second
runnings is fixed by the gravity left after first runnings?
> There is no reason to leave the final contents of a fly sparge
> behind. When the gravity of a sparge falls to 1.010, I just
> stop the sparge water and let the tun drain.
Why can't the same be achieved by batch sparging in stages?
=====
Other than the cost of a fly sparging equipment (which is
irrelevant when compared to the investment already made into
equipment), what then is the advantage of batch sparging?
Dick
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 12:51:26
From: Dan Listermann
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
"Dick Adams" <rdadams@smart.net > wrote in message
news:200606071551.LAA10360@smart.net...
> <Posted and e-mailed>
>
> Dan Listermann <dan@listermann.com> wrote:
>
>> The sugar removal mechanisms of fly sparging and batch sparging
>> are different.
>>
>> With batch sparging, sugar is removed by dilution.
>>
>> With fly sparging, the sugar is displaced from the grain.
>
> This is enlightening. It's the difference between dumping
> water in versus spraying it in.
It is not so much how the water is applied as how it moves. With batch
sparging, it is put in all at once. The gravity of the wort is the same
through out the tun. With fly sparging, the gravity of the wort increases
by the depth of the tun.
>
>> As the water makes it way slowly through the grain bed, it is
>> constantly moving toward material with greater amounts of sugar
>> in it. It picks up gravity as it goes. The grain bed eventually
>> has very little sugar left in the pint per pound of retained water
>> - say 10 points per pound.
>>
>> With batch sparging those pints have exactly the same gravity as
>> the last sparge.
>
> This I do not follow. Since first running must be higher gravity
> than second runnings, are you saying that the gravity of second
> runnings is fixed by the gravity left after first runnings?
No, the gravity of the retained wort in the spent grain is equal to the
gravity of the last runnings. This is usually much higher than the last
runnings of a fly sparge.
>
>> There is no reason to leave the final contents of a fly sparge
>> behind. When the gravity of a sparge falls to 1.010, I just
>> stop the sparge water and let the tun drain.
>
> Why can't the same be achieved by batch sparging in stages?
Batch sparging is stages simulates fly sparging but loses the time and
simplicity advantages often claimed for the process.
>
> =====
>
> Other than the cost of a fly sparging equipment (which is
> irrelevant when compared to the investment already made into
> equipment), what then is the advantage of batch sparging?
Some say that it is easier and faster, but there are no free lunches,
efficiency is sacrificed, at least in theory.
Dan
"Dick Adams" <rdadams@smart.net > wrote in message
news:128dtg7kqhrp0fc@corp.supernews.com...
> <Posted and e-mailed>
>
> Dan Listermann <dan@listermann.com> wrote:
>
>> The sugar removal mechinisms of fly sparging and batch sparging
>> are different.
>>
>> With batch sparging, sugar is removed by dilution.
>>
>> With fly sparging, the sugar is displaced from the grain.
>
> This is enlightening. It's the difference between dumping
> water in versus spraying it in.
>
>> As the water makes it way slowly through the grain bed, it is
>> constantly moving toward material with greater amounts of sugar
>> in it. It picks up gravity as it goes. The grain bed eventually
>> has very little sugar left in the pint per pound of retained water
>> - say 10 points per pound.
>>
>> With batch sparging those pints have exactly the same gravity as
>> the last sparge.
>
> This I do not follow. Since first running must be higher gravity
> than second runnings, are you saying that the gravity of second
> runnings is fixed by the gravity left after first runnings?
>
>> There is no reason to leave the final contents of a fly sparge
>> behind. When the gravity of a sparge falls to 1.010, I just
>> stop the sparge water and let the tun drain.
>
> Why can't the same be achieved by batch sparging in stages?
>
> =====
>
> Other than the cost of a fly sparging equipment (which is
> irrelevant when compared to the investment already made into
> equipment), what then is the advantage of batch sparging?
>
> Dick
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 16:08:13
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:51:35 -0000, <rdadams@smart.net > wrote:
><Posted and e-mailed>
>
> Dan Listermann <dan@listermann.com> wrote:
>
>> The sugar removal mechinisms of fly sparging and batch sparging
>> are different.
>>
>> With batch sparging, sugar is removed by dilution.
>>
>> With fly sparging, the sugar is displaced from the grain.
>
> This is enlightening. It's the difference between dumping
> water in versus spraying it in.
I think of it as taking a bath versus taking a shower. With a shower, you
constantly have clean water rinsing the dirt off of you. With a bath, the
more dirt that comes off you the dirtier the water gets that you're trying
to clean yourself with.
>> As the water makes it way slowly through the grain bed, it is
>> constantly moving toward material with greater amounts of sugar
>> in it. It picks up gravity as it goes. The grain bed eventually
>> has very little sugar left in the pint per pound of retained water
>> - say 10 points per pound.
>>
>> With batch sparging those pints have exactly the same gravity as
>> the last sparge.
>
> This I do not follow. Since first running must be higher gravity
> than second runnings, are you saying that the gravity of second
> runnings is fixed by the gravity left after first runnings?
No, he's saying that with batch sparging the water left absorbed in the grain
has the same gravity as the water you just drained.
>> There is no reason to leave the final contents of a fly sparge
>> behind. When the gravity of a sparge falls to 1.010, I just
>> stop the sparge water and let the tun drain.
>
> Why can't the same be achieved by batch sparging in stages?
You can do that, but you'll have to do a lot more stages until you get
to the point where your runnings for a batch are coming out at 1.010. At
that point (very large number of extremely small batches) you're essentially
doing a fly sparge anyway. Basically, a fly sparge = a batch sparge with
an infinitely high number of infinitely small batches.
> Other than the cost of a fly sparging equipment (which is
> irrelevant when compared to the investment already made into
> equipment)
Fly sparging does not necessarily have a higher cost associated with it.
You can spand more or less with either method. The equipment required
is just about the same, only designed slightly differently (mostly the
design of the false bottom or manifold).
> what then is the advantage of batch sparging?
It's much easier to get it right. Fly sparging has more things in it that
can go wrong.
John.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 08:56:43
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
Dick Adams wrote:
> > With batch sparging those pints have exactly the same gravity as
> > the last sparge.
>
> This I do not follow. Since first running must be higher gravity
> than second runnings, are you saying that the gravity of second
> runnings is fixed by the gravity left after first runnings?
The gravity (and pH) of each runoff stays constant throughout the runoff
since you're not continually diluting the sugars in the grain.
> > There is no reason to leave the final contents of a fly sparge
> > behind. When the gravity of a sparge falls to 1.010, I just
> > stop the sparge water and let the tun drain.
>
> Why can't the same be achieved by batch sparging in stages?
You can, but then you lose one of the advantages of batch sparging...the
ease. I'm not a commercial brewery, needing to eke every last cent of
extract out of the grain. If I leave behind 50 cents worth of sugar, I
really don't care.
> Other than the cost of a fly sparging equipment (which is
> irrelevant when compared to the investment already made into
> equipment), what then is the advantage of batch sparging?
For me, at least, it's easier, requires less equipment, it's faster, and
there's no chance of pH issues to lead to astringency. PIck up the
latest edition of How To Brew by John Palmer and see what he has to say
about it!
---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Jun 2006 11:39:19
From: MDixon
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
Dan Listermann <dan@listermann.com > wrote in message
news:128asmveqir91a4@corp.supernews.com...
> In theory at least, batch sparging can never be as efficient as fly
> sparging. Batch sparging will retain about a pint of wort per pound of
malt
> in the spent grain that will have the exact sugar content of the last
> sparge. With fly sparging, this sugar should have been removed from the
> water.
-S (Steve Alexander???) posted on the HBD with references on how batch
sparging was MORE efficient than fly. I checked the references after the
fact, and what he cited was stated in the texts. So if they were correct, he
was as well. I'll leave it to you to research, but in theory batch is MORE
effiicient...whether that holds true in practice or not is another story
altogether...I found it to be the same...YMMV...
Cheers,
Mike
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Jun 2006 16:39:58
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:39:19 -0400, <me@privacy.net > wrote:
>
> Dan Listermann <dan@listermann.com> wrote in message
> news:128asmveqir91a4@corp.supernews.com...
>> In theory at least, batch sparging can never be as efficient as fly
>> sparging. Batch sparging will retain about a pint of wort per pound of
> malt
>> in the spent grain that will have the exact sugar content of the last
>> sparge. With fly sparging, this sugar should have been removed from the
>> water.
>
> -S (Steve Alexander???) posted on the HBD with references on how batch
> sparging was MORE efficient than fly.
I don't remember the specifics, but from the one time I looked at it there
were several significant flaws in his argument.
John.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 12:07:32
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
caseltzer@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I stir my sparge water in, let it settle for 15m and let her rip after
> the initial clear runnings.
> Typically a 3G runnoff and then a 3.5G runoff. Yesterday's brew was a
> Dubbel with a target O.G. of 1.068... I yeilded 1.059 using a grain
> bill qty. for a 5gal "fly sparge" recipe.
>
> Chris
>
What's your efficiency? I've only got 3 grain batches under my belt
and I've found the grain crush size to be the biggest factor in
efficiency. I over crushed last time and got a rocking efficiency, but
stuck sparges suck. I was a wee bit below target the first two with a
bigger crush, but the lauter went well.
Rite of passage, I suppose.
>>
>> Are you stirring? How many runoffs are you doing?
>>
>> >I am typically getting my O.G.about 0.010 below
>> >target.
>>
>> What is your target effeciency?
>
--------------------------------------------
John Bleichert - syborg@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2006 16:06:14
From: bregent
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
In article <1149547308.446282.71200@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com >, chris the
great says...
>
>Hello all,
> I just completed my 5th all grain batch sparge and I seem to be having
>a low O.G. trend happening. I am mashing in my cooler, hitting desired
>strike temps and letting sit for an hour minimum before I sparge. Then
>I add 175 degree sparge water to the cooler, let it set for 15m and
>start the runoff....
Are you stirring? How many runoffs are you doing?
>I am typically getting my O.G.about 0.010 below
>target.
What is your target effeciency?
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 07:19:08
From: John Krehbiel
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
Dan Listermann wrote:
> In theory at least, batch sparging can never be as efficient as fly
> sparging. Batch sparging will retain about a pint of wort per pound of malt
> in the spent grain that will have the exact sugar content of the last
> sparge. With fly sparging, this sugar should have been removed from the
> water.
I got some improvement by doing three batches, and making the first and
second larger than the third. I use Strangebrew, and I add about 3 more
quarts than it calls for in the first batch, and take about the same
amount from the third batch.
For instance, if the program calls for adding 1 quart to the first
batch, 8 to the second, and 8 to the third, I'd make it 4, 8, and 5.
Besides, my electric stove can't get the whole batch to boil, but if I
start the first batch boiling as I sparge the second and third, it
manages to keep it going.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jun 2006 14:10:29
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
On 5 Jun 2006 15:41:48 -0700, <amdgjmj@gmail.com > wrote:
> Hello all,
> I just completed my 5th all grain batch sparge and I seem to be having
> a low O.G. trend happening.
Do you know what your efficiency is? Do you consistently get the same
efficiency, or does it very?
> My recipes are base off of standard 5gal recipe measurements
> for the grain bill. do I just need to increase my grain by 5% or does
> anyone have suggestions to improve my effeciency using my exsisting
> equipment.
Yes, you can compensate by just increasing your grain bill. The thing
about efficiency is that there is no such thing as a "correct" one to have.
Everybody will have a different efficiency, which means that they'll get
slightly different OGs from the same grain bill. Also, recipes are often
created with different efficiency assumptions. *If* you know what
efficiency the recipe author was expecting (or if they give you a target OG
for the grain bill) then all you need to do in order to accurately hit
the target OG is to adjust the grain bill for your own unique efficiency.
Or, if you don't happen to know what it is, then the first time you make
a new recipe you should keep notes on what your OG came out to be. Then
the next time you make the same recipe you can adjust from there.
If you want to increase your efficieny, the number one cause of having
a low one is a poor crush. It sounds like you've already tried that though.
> I did find that a recipe ala MDixon, the stepped mash temps for his
> Weiszenbach yeilded closer to target than my ale and stout recipes.
It's probably just a matter of the efficiency that MDixon used when creating
his recipe happens to be closer to your efficiency.
> Could this perhaps be a better way to get the most enzyme action for
> better extraction rates?
Enzyme activity has nothing to do with efficiency. Your efficiency is
not determined by the mash, it is determined by the sparge.
> Another thing I thought would help is to crush
> the grain better, but that did not seem to help, and I kept getting a
> stuck sparge for my extra effort.
Yes, crushing more is often the best way to solve a low efficiency. However,
it sounds like you are running into problems doing that though.
> So far I have been vary pleased by the outcome of all of my all grain
> batches...I just would like to get a little closer to the numbers.
Well, the problem is that there is no such thing as a single definition of
"the numbers". Every recipe will be a little different (depending on
who wrote it) and every brewer will get a little different efficiency, so
their OG will vary for the same grain bill. The name of the game here is
not to hit a magic efficiency that will always get you the right OG, rather
you want to know enough about your system (and hopefully enough about the
particular recipe) so that you can talor it to your efficiency.
IMO, a high or low efficiency is much less important than having a
consistent one. As long as your efficiency is relatively consistent
between batches, no matter what it actually is, then you can always adjust
a recipe so that you hit your desired OG (or at least come close).
John.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jun 2006 22:30:13
From:
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
You started going in the right direction (more crush) to up your
efficiency and since that didn't do anything but get you stuck
mash/sparges, then the simple way out is add more grain, it's cheap
enough.
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 09:36:23
From: chris the great
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
bregent wrote:
> In article <1149550751.059909.280360@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> caseltzer@gmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >I stir my sparge water in, let it settle for 15m and let her rip after
> >the initial clear runnings.
> >Typically a 3G runnoff and then a 3.5G runoff. Yesterday's brew was a
> >Dubbel with a target O.G. of 1.068... I yeilded 1.059 using a grain
> >bill qty. for a 5gal "fly sparge" recipe.
> >
> >Chris
>
> OK, but you still didn't answer the question of expected efficiency. You are
> stating that your OG is low...maybe your expectations are too high?
> What is the efficiency of the recipe you are following? If you don't know that,
> then what was the grain bill?
>
OK,
My bill is as follows,
7.75lbs of belgian pale malt
3lbs Munich malt
1lb caramunich
.25 special B
for a total of 12lbs of grain
My total wort in the boil pot after cooling was 5.25g
Thanks for everyones input.
Chris
>
>
> >>
> >> Are you stirring? How many runoffs are you doing?
> >>
> >> >I am typically getting my O.G.about 0.010 below
> >> >target.
> >>
> >> What is your target effeciency?
> >
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 17:03:22
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
On 7 Jun 2006 09:36:23 -0700, <amdgjmj@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> bregent wrote:
>> In article <1149550751.059909.280360@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> caseltzer@gmail.com says...
>> >
>> >
>> >I stir my sparge water in, let it settle for 15m and let her rip after
>> >the initial clear runnings.
>> >Typically a 3G runnoff and then a 3.5G runoff. Yesterday's brew was a
>> >Dubbel with a target O.G. of 1.068... I yeilded 1.059 using a grain
>> >bill qty. for a 5gal "fly sparge" recipe.
>> >
>> >Chris
>>
>> OK, but you still didn't answer the question of expected efficiency. You are
>> stating that your OG is low...maybe your expectations are too high?
>> What is the efficiency of the recipe you are following? If you don't know that,
>> then what was the grain bill?
>>
>
>
> OK,
> My bill is as follows,
> 7.75lbs of belgian pale malt
> 3lbs Munich malt
> 1lb caramunich
> .25 special B
> for a total of 12lbs of grain
>
> My total wort in the boil pot after cooling was 5.25g
>
> Thanks for everyones input.
Based on those numbers, the original recipe was written for ~77% efficiency
and you ended up getting ~70% efficiency. If you bumped up the belgian palt
malt to 8.5 lbs instead of 7.75 lbs then you should get close to the target
OG (assuming your efficiency stays ~70%).
John.
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 10:24:38
From: bregent
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
In article <slrne8e1p1.52u.spam@weizen.shagg.net >, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar says...
>
>On 7 Jun 2006 09:36:23 -0700, <amdgjmj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> bregent wrote:
>>> In article <1149550751.059909.280360@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>>> caseltzer@gmail.com says...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >I stir my sparge water in, let it settle for 15m and let her rip after
>>> >the initial clear runnings.
>>> >Typically a 3G runnoff and then a 3.5G runoff. Yesterday's brew was a
>>> >Dubbel with a target O.G. of 1.068... I yeilded 1.059 using a grain
>>> >bill qty. for a 5gal "fly sparge" recipe.
>>> >
>>> >Chris
>>>
>>> OK, but you still didn't answer the question of expected efficiency. You are
>>> stating that your OG is low...maybe your expectations are too high?
>>>What is the efficiency of the recipe you are following? If you don't know that,
>>> then what was the grain bill?
>>>
>>
>>
>> OK,
>> My bill is as follows,
>> 7.75lbs of belgian pale malt
>> 3lbs Munich malt
>> 1lb caramunich
>> .25 special B
>> for a total of 12lbs of grain
>>
>> My total wort in the boil pot after cooling was 5.25g
>>
>> Thanks for everyones input.
>
>Based on those numbers, the original recipe was written for ~77% efficiency
>and you ended up getting ~70% efficiency. If you bumped up the belgian palt
>malt to 8.5 lbs instead of 7.75 lbs then you should get close to the target
>OG (assuming your efficiency stays ~70%).
Check your numbers again John. The original recipe looks to be formulated to
about 82% and he's getting about 72%, which ain't all that bad.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 18:09:34
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
On 7 Jun 2006 10:24:38 -0700, <regent@dontspamme.newsguy.com > wrote:
>>> OK,
>>> My bill is as follows,
>>> 7.75lbs of belgian pale malt
>>> 3lbs Munich malt
>>> 1lb caramunich
>>> .25 special B
>>> for a total of 12lbs of grain
>>>
>>> My total wort in the boil pot after cooling was 5.25g
>>>
>>> Thanks for everyones input.
>>
>>Based on those numbers, the original recipe was written for ~77% efficiency
>>and you ended up getting ~70% efficiency. If you bumped up the belgian palt
>>malt to 8.5 lbs instead of 7.75 lbs then you should get close to the target
>>OG (assuming your efficiency stays ~70%).
>
> Check your numbers again John. The original recipe looks to be formulated to
> about 82% and he's getting about 72%, which ain't all that bad.
What do you use for your max yields? I was going from howtobrew, but if you
use different ones it would probably change the efficiency numbers. I don't
think I messed the math up, but it's certainly possible. ;)
John.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 22:45:03
From: bregent
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
In article <slrne8e5l5.52u.spam@weizen.shagg.net >, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar says...
>
>On 7 Jun 2006 10:24:38 -0700, <regent@dontspamme.newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> OK,
>>>> My bill is as follows,
>>>> 7.75lbs of belgian pale malt
>>>> 3lbs Munich malt
>>>> 1lb caramunich
>>>> .25 special B
>>>> for a total of 12lbs of grain
>>>>
>>>> My total wort in the boil pot after cooling was 5.25g
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for everyones input.
>>>
>>>Based on those numbers, the original recipe was written for ~77% efficiency
>>>and you ended up getting ~70% efficiency. If you bumped up the belgian palt
>>>malt to 8.5 lbs instead of 7.75 lbs then you should get close to the target
>>>OG (assuming your efficiency stays ~70%).
>>
>> Check your numbers again John. The original recipe looks to be formulated to
>> about 82% and he's getting about 72%, which ain't all that bad.
>
>What do you use for your max yields? I was going from howtobrew, but if you
>use different ones it would probably change the efficiency numbers. I don't
>think I messed the math up, but it's certainly possible. ;)
I use numbers similar to JP's. Using his numbers, I get 435 total gravity
points. Divide by 5.25 gallons to get max potential gravity of 1.083.
68/83 = 82%
59/83 = 71%
So the first number is a little funny. Maybe you were figuring 5 gallons for
that part.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Jun 2006 14:39:56
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
On 7 Jun 2006 22:45:03 -0700, <regent@dontspamme.newsguy.com > wrote:
> In article <slrne8e5l5.52u.spam@weizen.shagg.net>, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar says...
>>
>>On 7 Jun 2006 10:24:38 -0700, <regent@dontspamme.newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>> OK,
>>>>> My bill is as follows,
>>>>> 7.75lbs of belgian pale malt
>>>>> 3lbs Munich malt
>>>>> 1lb caramunich
>>>>> .25 special B
>>>>> for a total of 12lbs of grain
>>>>>
>>>>> My total wort in the boil pot after cooling was 5.25g
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for everyones input.
>>>>
>>>>Based on those numbers, the original recipe was written for ~77% efficiency
>>>>and you ended up getting ~70% efficiency. If you bumped up the belgian palt
>>>>malt to 8.5 lbs instead of 7.75 lbs then you should get close to the target
>>>>OG (assuming your efficiency stays ~70%).
>>>
>>> Check your numbers again John. The original recipe looks to be formulated to
>>> about 82% and he's getting about 72%, which ain't all that bad.
>>
>>What do you use for your max yields? I was going from howtobrew, but if you
>>use different ones it would probably change the efficiency numbers. I don't
>>think I messed the math up, but it's certainly possible. ;)
>
> I use numbers similar to JP's. Using his numbers, I get 435 total gravity
> points. Divide by 5.25 gallons to get max potential gravity of 1.083.
>
> 68/83 = 82%
> 59/83 = 71%
>
> So the first number is a little funny. Maybe you were figuring 5 gallons for
> that part.
Yeah, I assumed the recipe was for 5 gallons and adjusted the OPs gravity
as if he had boiled down to 5 instead of 5.25.
John.
|
| |
Date: 07 Jun 2006 23:29:16
From: chris the great
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
John thanks for your help,
I was thinking on my next batch to go with the 3 step batch spage
similar to what Derrick posted...
"Someone mentioned using 3 runoffs. That will definitely help.
Lately,
I've been doing the following:
* First, just drain the original mash wort out at full speed.
* Then, add the first batch, STIR, and drain at full speed.
* Then, add the second batch, STIR, and drain at full speed.
This does increase your efficiency. I usually get 85% with this
method.
(I drain into the boil pot with the fire already on, so I really don't
care about any "mashout" effects.) "
I was under the impression that it was fairly important to let the
spage water sit for a while in order to get the sugars into solution,
this seems to skip that, but if it may help increase my yeild...I might
as well give it a try.
What do you think?
Thanks again!
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jun 2006 14:42:35
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
On 7 Jun 2006 23:29:16 -0700, <amdgjmj@gmail.com > wrote:
> I was under the impression that it was fairly important to let the
> spage water sit for a while in order to get the sugars into solution,
> this seems to skip that, but if it may help increase my yeild...I might
> as well give it a try.
>
> What do you think?
Stirring after you add the sparge water basically takes the place of letting
it sit. Essentially you can either let the sugars soak into the sparge
water gradually, or you can manually stir the grain bed to speed up that
process.
John.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Jun 2006 12:09:14
From: Derric
Subject: Re: Batch spage question... O.G. not hitting target
|
> > Lately, I've been doing the following:
> > * First, just drain the original mash wort out at full speed.
> > * Then, add the first batch, STIR, and drain at full speed.
> > * Then, add the second batch, STIR, and drain at full speed.
...
> I was under the impression that it was fairly important to let the
> spage water sit for a while in order to get the sugars into solution,
> this seems to skip that, but if it may help increase my yeild...I might
> as well give it a try.
My experience (and more importantly Denny's :) is that a good stirring
will get practically all the sugars into solution that are available. I
haven't run any experiment to compare for sure, but I get perfectly fine
extraction just stirring and then starting the vorlauf (ie. draining the
first ~quart until clear and returning that to the tun). The waiting
gained nothing noticable for me.
Derric
|
|
