| |
Main
Date: 22 Sep 2006 14:01:27
From: brian@yahoo.com
Subject: Improving my efficiency
|
I have a sum total of 3 AG brews under my belt, so I am still really
new to the AG world. All 3 have had pretty low efficiency. Its about
55-60%. I have been batch sparging.
My last brew was an Irish Red with a grain bill of a little over 11.6
lb grain (5 gal).
I crushed the grain at the LHBS. The husks seemed intact and most
kernels were broken in half.
I mashed with about 1.4 qt/lb. (4 gal)
I then drained it off and added 2.5 gal (approximately the amount of
the first runoff)
The sparge water was at about 180 in the pot, but the mash temp went
only into the 160s for the sparge
I drained that off and was unhappy to see that I only registered about
60% efficiency.
Its not a big deal and I know consistency is better than high
efficiency, but it just seems really low. I know the two big things
that affect efficiency are crush and sparge. Does anybody have a good
picture of what a proper crush looks like? I've adjusted the LHBS mill
as close as the rollers go, but I wonder if I need more. The other
thing is calculating the temp of the sparge water. I always come up
too cool. I can hit the strike temp for the mash pretty darn close,
but the sparge eludes me. Is there a sparge water temp thats too high?
I know the grain bed shouldn't go over 175 (right?) but what about the
batch sparge water before addition? Can it be over 180 without
leaching tanins in that first few min while the temp stabilizes?
Any wisdom of the ancients would be helpful
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 22:34:09
From: Scott Sellers
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
brian@yahoo.com <brian.sico@gmail.com >:
>I have a sum total of 3 AG brews under my belt, so I am still
>really new to the AG world. All 3 have had pretty low
>efficiency. Its about 55-60%. I have been batch sparging. My
>last brew was an Irish Red with a grain bill of a little over
>11.6 lb grain (5 gal). I crushed the grain at the LHBS. The
>husks seemed intact and most kernels were broken in half. I
>mashed with about 1.4 qt/lb. (4 gal) I then drained it off and
>added 2.5 gal (approximately the amount of the first runoff) The
>sparge water was at about 180 in the pot, but the mash temp went
>only into the 160s for the sparge I drained that off and was
>unhappy to see that I only registered about 60% efficiency.
I'm guessing it's the crush. IME, grains should be more than
broken in half -- more like in several pieces, with some flour.
If you can't close the gab on the lhbs mill, you could try
running through twice.
>Its not a big deal and I know consistency is better than high
>efficiency, but it just seems really low. I know the two big things
>that affect efficiency are crush and sparge. Does anybody have a good
>picture of what a proper crush looks like? I've adjusted the LHBS mill
>as close as the rollers go, but I wonder if I need more. The other
>thing is calculating the temp of the sparge water. I always come up
>too cool. I can hit the strike temp for the mash pretty darn close,
>but the sparge eludes me. Is there a sparge water temp thats too high?
> I know the grain bed shouldn't go over 175 (right?) but what about the
>batch sparge water before addition? Can it be over 180 without
>leaching tanins in that first few min while the temp stabilizes?
IIRC, temps over 168F bring out the tannins. As long as you're
in the 160Fs for the sparge, you should be ok. I'm usually
around that temp, or even in the high 150F's for my batch
sparges, and hit around 80% extraction on average.
hth,
Scott S
--
Scott Sellers
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 09:55:36
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
Scott Sellers wrote:
> IIRC, temps over 168F bring out the tannins. As long as you're
> in the 160Fs for the sparge, you should be ok. I'm usually
> around that temp, or even in the high 150F's for my batch
> sparges, and hit around 80% extraction on average.
Not necessarily. You also need a high pH.
---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 17:25:27
From: David M. Taylor
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
"brian@yahoo.com" <brian.sico@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1158958887.659075.207990@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I have a sum total of 3 AG brews under my belt, so I am still really
> new to the AG world. All 3 have had pretty low efficiency. Its about
> 55-60%. I have been batch sparging.
> My last brew was an Irish Red with a grain bill of a little over 11.6
> lb grain (5 gal).
> I crushed the grain at the LHBS. The husks seemed intact and most
> kernels were broken in half.
Broken in half isn't good enough. Each kernel needs to be broken up into
like 6 bits. I try to grind halfway to flour... you want to end up with
some tiny bits of fine powder like flour, very few whole kernels, and the
vast majority busted up into tiny pieces.
> I mashed with about 1.4 qt/lb. (4 gal)
> I then drained it off and added 2.5 gal (approximately the amount of
> the first runoff)
> The sparge water was at about 180 in the pot, but the mash temp went
> only into the 160s for the sparge
> I drained that off and was unhappy to see that I only registered about
> 60% efficiency.
>
> Its not a big deal and I know consistency is better than high
> efficiency, but it just seems really low. I know the two big things
> that affect efficiency are crush and sparge. Does anybody have a good
> picture of what a proper crush looks like? I've adjusted the LHBS mill
> as close as the rollers go, but I wonder if I need more.
Try running your grains through the mill twice.
> The other
> thing is calculating the temp of the sparge water. I always come up
> too cool. I can hit the strike temp for the mash pretty darn close,
> but the sparge eludes me. Is there a sparge water temp thats too high?
> I know the grain bed shouldn't go over 175 (right?) but what about the
> batch sparge water before addition? Can it be over 180 without
> leaching tanins in that first few min while the temp stabilizes?
I often use boiling water, or very hot water ~190 F for the sparge. The
temperature will usually stabilize less than 168 F, and that's all that
matters. A few seconds of contact with boiling water won't hurt a thing.
--
Dave
"Just a drink, a little drink, and I'll be feeling GOOooOOooOOooD!" --
Genesis, 1973-ish
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2006 09:37:30
From: Matt
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
I had the same problem with my first few AG brews and found that the
double crush and higher water temp. solved the problem. I think it
takes a few tries to figure out your system and temperatures.
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2006 07:21:15
From: JoeyB
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
One thing that eluded me for some time was the simple fact that I
wasn't sparging until my final runnings were down around 1.008. If you
don't do this, your leaving a lot of sugar in the mash and you
efficiency will be low. You may end up with a lot more wort than you
thought. If so, you need to adjust your boil time to reduce you wort to
your target volume. I always go by final running SG now and my
efficiency immediately popped up 10 points. How efficient you sparge is
depends on temp and the geometry of your mash tun. Have you checked for
final running SG? Make sure it cools before you test it.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 05:44:19
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
On 22 Sep 2006 14:01:27 -0700, <brian.sico@gmail.com > wrote:
> I have a sum total of 3 AG brews under my belt, so I am still really
> new to the AG world. All 3 have had pretty low efficiency. Its about
> 55-60%. I have been batch sparging.
The number one cause of low efficiency is not crushing the grain enough.
The number two cause of low efficiency is not calculating it correctly.
> I crushed the grain at the LHBS. The husks seemed intact and most
> kernels were broken in half.
If you're only getting kernels broken in half then you're not crushing
enough. You should be getting at least some flour, and kernels broken
into smaller pieces than just 1/2.
Do you know what kind of mill the LHBS uses?
John.
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 09:11:54
From: brian@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
On Sep 22, 5:01 pm, "b...@yahoo.com" <brian.s...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I have a sum total of 3 AG brews under my belt, so I am still really
> new to the AG world. All 3 have had pretty low efficiency. Its about
> 55-60%. I have been batch sparging.
> My last brew was an Irish Red with a grain bill of a little over 11.6
> lb grain (5 gal).
> I crushed the grain at the LHBS. The husks seemed intact and most
> kernels were broken in half.
> I mashed with about 1.4 qt/lb. (4 gal)
> I then drained it off and added 2.5 gal (approximately the amount of
> the first runoff)
> The sparge water was at about 180 in the pot, but the mash temp went
> only into the 160s for the sparge
> I drained that off and was unhappy to see that I only registered about
> 60% efficiency.
>
> Its not a big deal and I know consistency is better than high
> efficiency, but it just seems really low. I know the two big things
> that affect efficiency are crush and sparge. Does anybody have a good
> picture of what a proper crush looks like? I've adjusted the LHBS mill
> as close as the rollers go, but I wonder if I need more. The other
> thing is calculating the temp of the sparge water. I always come up
> too cool. I can hit the strike temp for the mash pretty darn close,
> but the sparge eludes me. Is there a sparge water temp thats too high?
> I know the grain bed shouldn't go over 175 (right?) but what about the
> batch sparge water before addition? Can it be over 180 without
> leaching tanins in that first few min while the temp stabilizes?
>
> Any wisdom of the ancients would be helpful
Well, I double milled my grain and it seems to have helped a bit. I
did a wheat beer this weekend and milled everything twice. The wheat
was pulverized into something a little coarser than sand and the braley
a bit more intact. Since I had 40% if my grain bill wheat and the
barley husks were pretty beat up, I added 1lb of rice hulls to help
prevent a stuck sparge. I batch sparged again and got about 65%
efficiency this time (up from about 60% last time). One thing I'm
wondering about is can the geometry of my mash tun affect the
efficiency in a batch sparge? I know fly sparging is subject to
channeling, but what about batch? I mash in a large cooler so my
average grain bill only has a bed depth of 2-3 inches. Can this be a
problem? I drain the cooler by a rectangular cpvc manifold (roughly a
squared off figure 8) with holes drilled in the bottom. It acts like a
siphon to drain out nearly all liquid (I checked after the sparge by
digging through the bed and there was very little liquid at the bottom)
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 11:20:30
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
brian@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> Well, I double milled my grain and it seems to have helped a bit. I
> did a wheat beer this weekend and milled everything twice. The wheat
> was pulverized into something a little coarser than sand and the braley
> a bit more intact. Since I had 40% if my grain bill wheat and the
> barley husks were pretty beat up, I added 1lb of rice hulls to help
> prevent a stuck sparge. I batch sparged again and got about 65%
> efficiency this time (up from about 60% last time). One thing I'm
> wondering about is can the geometry of my mash tun affect the
> efficiency in a batch sparge? I know fly sparging is subject to
> channeling, but what about batch? I mash in a large cooler so my
> average grain bill only has a bed depth of 2-3 inches. Can this be a
> problem? I drain the cooler by a rectangular cpvc manifold (roughly a
> squared off figure 8) with holes drilled in the bottom. It acts like a
> siphon to drain out nearly all liquid (I checked after the sparge by
> digging through the bed and there was very little liquid at the bottom)
>
All lauter tuns are subject to channeling regardless of the sparge
method you use. For what it's worth, my efficiency went up 15% when I
switched from am easy-masher type setup to a false bottom. For me
personally, this has been the single largest improvement in my
efficiency. A double-crush also helps.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 18:03:48
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
On 16 2006 09:11:54 -0700, <brian.sico@gmail.com > wrote:
> I batch sparged again and got about 65% efficiency this time (up
> from about 60% last time). One thing I'm wondering about is can
> the geometry of my mash tun affect the efficiency in a batch sparge?
> I know fly sparging is subject to channeling, but what about batch?
No, not really. Geometry is an issue with fly sparging because you're
relying on the path that the water flows through the grains in order to
pickup the sugars. With batch sparging it doesn't matter. The sugars
should essentially be diluted into the sparge water before you begin
to drain the lauter tun.
Do you stir and/or wait between adding the batch of sparge water and
draining the tun?
John.
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:45:37
From: brian@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
On 16, 4:35 pm, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <s...@shagg.net > wrote:
> On 16 2006 12:37:20 -0700, <brian.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> What mill do they have?
>
> > Yes there was some flour as well, but not much. Its hard to quantify
> > it really.
>
> > The mill looks homemade or more commercial in nature. It has 2
> > rollers, both belt driven from a motor. The are about 8" wide and I'd
> > guess 8" in Diameter. Both spin downward, perhaps at slightly
> > different speeds. Rollers have a groove going across them every ~1/4"
> > around the curcumference to grab the kernels. Rollers move at about 30
> > RPM (about 2sec/rev) if I had to guess and it mills about a pound of
> > grain in 10 secs (give or take)That doesn't sound like any homebrew mill I've ever heard of. If they've
> got it cranked down to the smallest setting, and you're still not getting
> much flour and poor efficiency, then it sounds like their mill isn't very
> good.
>
> You could always get your own mill and crush the grains at home. Besides
> allowing you to get the crush you want, this has the added benefit of
> allowing you to buy grain in bulk, which is generally much cheaper than
> buying it by the pound.
>
> John.
Buying a mill is in the grand plan, but untill the mill fairy comes to
my house I need to still use their mill. The good part is they are ok
with bringing in grains to mill there (I have a 50lB bag of Marris
Otter I'm working through). They know that even if you get your base
malt from elsewhere, there's still plenty of money to be made on
specialty malts, hops, yeast, and equipment.
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 12:40:57
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
"brian@yahoo.com" wrote:
> Yes there was some flour as well, but not much. Its hard to quantify
> it really.
Go for more...my crush has a fair amount of flour. It's caused me no
prblems and I get good effieicny....80% average.
--------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 15:48:18
From: Don Levey
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
Denny Conn <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > writes:
> "brian@yahoo.com" wrote:
>
> > Yes there was some flour as well, but not much. Its hard to quantify
> > it really.
>
> Go for more...my crush has a fair amount of flour. It's caused me no
> prblems and I get good effieicny....80% average.
>
With that much flour are you really able to vorlauf (sp?) enough to
avoit getting it into your wort?
--
Don Levey $ cd /pub
Framingham, MA $ more beer
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 20:28:00
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
On 16 2006 15:48:18 -0400, <Don_RCB@the-leveys.us > wrote:
> Denny Conn <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us> writes:
>
>> "brian@yahoo.com" wrote:
>>
>> > Yes there was some flour as well, but not much. Its hard to quantify
>> > it really.
>>
>> Go for more...my crush has a fair amount of flour. It's caused me no
>> prblems and I get good effieicny....80% average.
>>
> With that much flour are you really able to vorlauf (sp?) enough to
> avoit getting it into your wort?
You should be able to. The vorlauf may take a bit longer, but as long
as the husks are still reasonably intact you can get a pretty clear wort
even with a lot of flour.
It's common to read in homebrewing books that you don't want any flour, or
as little as possible. IMO, they're being overly paranoid about it.
John.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 11:56:09
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
Don Levey wrote:
> With that much flour are you really able to vorlauf (sp?) enough to
> avoit getting it into your wort?
Yep...never takes more than 2 qt. Of course, that will depend on your
system....
----------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 15:25:28
From: Don Levey
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
Denny Conn <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > writes:
> Don Levey wrote:
>
> > With that much flour are you really able to vorlauf (sp?) enough to
> > avoid getting it into your wort?
>
> Yep...never takes more than 2 qt. Of course, that will depend on your
> system....
>
Wow! I've got an Igloo cooler with a Bazooka-T screen at the bottom.
The one time I'd been able to use it, it not only clogged horribly
(stuck sparge - oatmeal stout) but even recirculating about 2 gallons
I was still getting cloudy wort. Until it stuck, when I didn't get
ANY wort. Yes, next time I use rice hulls.
--
Don Levey $ cd /pub
Framingham, MA $ more beer
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 12:52:01
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
Don Levey wrote:
> Wow! I've got an Igloo cooler with a Bazooka-T screen at the bottom.
> The one time I'd been able to use it, it not only clogged horribly
> (stuck sparge - oatmeal stout) but even recirculating about 2 gallons
> I was still getting cloudy wort. Until it stuck, when I didn't get
> ANY wort. Yes, next time I use rice hulls.
I attribute it to the braid I use. It seems to clear more quickly and
easily than either a manifold or Bazooka. In 265 batches, I've had 2
slow runoffs and never a stuck one.
-------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 20:02:34
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
On Tue, 17 2006 12:52:01 -0700, <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > wrote:
> Don Levey wrote:
>
>> Wow! I've got an Igloo cooler with a Bazooka-T screen at the bottom.
>> The one time I'd been able to use it, it not only clogged horribly
>> (stuck sparge - oatmeal stout) but even recirculating about 2 gallons
>> I was still getting cloudy wort. Until it stuck, when I didn't get
>> ANY wort. Yes, next time I use rice hulls.
>
> I attribute it to the braid I use. It seems to clear more quickly and
> easily than either a manifold or Bazooka. In 265 batches, I've had 2
> slow runoffs and never a stuck one.
The only time I ever get a really stuck sparge is when I make a pumpkin
beer (with real pumpkin in the mash). Other than that I don't really
have any problems with my manifold. I didn't have enough slits cut in
it originally, and it tended to be on the slow side. Once I fixed that
it's been fine.
If you're trying to crush really fine in order to increase your efficiency,
keep an eye on how the husks are coming out. Ideally you want to crush the
heck out of the kernels, but leave the husks relatively intact. If you're
pulverizing both then you may have trouble getting the grain bed to
set up right.
John.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 13:18:02
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> The only time I ever get a really stuck sparge is when I make a pumpkin
> beer (with real pumpkin in the mash). Other than that I don't really
> have any problems with my manifold. I didn't have enough slits cut in
> it originally, and it tended to be on the slow side. Once I fixed that
> it's been fine.
Please be assured that I wasn't saying that manifolds are bad...I was
just relating what I've personally seen.
> If you're trying to crush really fine in order to increase your efficiency,
> keep an eye on how the husks are coming out. Ideally you want to crush the
> heck out of the kernels, but leave the husks relatively intact. If you're
> pulverizing both then you may have trouble getting the grain bed to
> set up right.
Maybe I'm just lucky, maybe it's the design of the mill, or maybe I'm
doing the right thing without knowing it, but my adjustable JSP crushes
the carp out of the kernels and leaves the husks relatively intact.
---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 20:35:11
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
On Tue, 17 2006 13:18:02 -0700, <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > wrote:
> Maybe I'm just lucky, maybe it's the design of the mill, or maybe I'm
> doing the right thing without knowing it, but my adjustable JSP crushes
> the carp out of the kernels and leaves the husks relatively intact.
BTW, you may want to talk to your supplier. Something sounds really fishy
about your grains. ;)
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 13:50:36
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> BTW, you may want to talk to your supplier. Something sounds really fishy
> about your grains. ;)
It's not a fluke....;)
---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 20:29:00
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
On Tue, 17 2006 13:18:02 -0700, <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>
>> The only time I ever get a really stuck sparge is when I make a pumpkin
>> beer (with real pumpkin in the mash). Other than that I don't really
>> have any problems with my manifold. I didn't have enough slits cut in
>> it originally, and it tended to be on the slow side. Once I fixed that
>> it's been fine.
>
> Please be assured that I wasn't saying that manifolds are bad...I was
> just relating what I've personally seen.
I didn't take it that way at all. I was just relating my experience as
well. Manifolds tend to be DIY things, so I can easily see where there
would be a lot of variation in their performance. I actually did have some
problems with mine early on regarding the flow rate. I basically doubled
the number of slits (cut a new one between every existing one) and that
dramatically improved it.
>> If you're trying to crush really fine in order to increase your efficiency,
>> keep an eye on how the husks are coming out. Ideally you want to crush the
>> heck out of the kernels, but leave the husks relatively intact. If you're
>> pulverizing both then you may have trouble getting the grain bed to
>> set up right.
>
> Maybe I'm just lucky, maybe it's the design of the mill, or maybe I'm
> doing the right thing without knowing it, but my adjustable JSP crushes
> the carp out of the kernels and leaves the husks relatively intact.
I think it does have a lot to do with the mill design. This is one area
where I think a roller mill has a big advantage over a flour mill. IMO,
it's worth checking if someone is having stuck sparge problems though.
John.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 14:29:40
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
Don Levey wrote:
> Denny Conn <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us> writes:
>
>> Don Levey wrote:
>>
>>> With that much flour are you really able to vorlauf (sp?) enough to
>>> avoid getting it into your wort?
>> Yep...never takes more than 2 qt. Of course, that will depend on your
>> system....
>>
> Wow! I've got an Igloo cooler with a Bazooka-T screen at the bottom.
> The one time I'd been able to use it, it not only clogged horribly
> (stuck sparge - oatmeal stout) but even recirculating about 2 gallons
> I was still getting cloudy wort. Until it stuck, when I didn't get
> ANY wort. Yes, next time I use rice hulls.
>
How thick was the mash to start with?
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 15:33:01
From: Don Levey
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com > writes:
> Don Levey wrote:
> > Denny Conn <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us> writes:
> >
> >> Don Levey wrote:
> >>
> >>> With that much flour are you really able to vorlauf (sp?) enough to
> >>> avoid getting it into your wort?
> >> Yep...never takes more than 2 qt. Of course, that will depend on your
> >> system....
> >>
> > Wow! I've got an Igloo cooler with a Bazooka-T screen at the bottom.
> > The one time I'd been able to use it, it not only clogged horribly
> > (stuck sparge - oatmeal stout) but even recirculating about 2 gallons
> > I was still getting cloudy wort. Until it stuck, when I didn't get
> > ANY wort. Yes, next time I use rice hulls.
> >
>
> How thick was the mash to start with?
>
Not too bad - about 1.25 quarts per pound. I was trying to add more,
but this brought me right up to the top of the cooler.
--
Don Levey $ cd /pub
Framingham, MA $ more beer
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 14:46:20
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
Don Levey wrote:
>>>
>> How thick was the mash to start with?
>>
> Not too bad - about 1.25 quarts per pound. I was trying to add more,
> but this brought me right up to the top of the cooler.
>
Ah -- seems reasonable. There's a Papazian recipe for an oatmeal-wheat
stout which, while actually a good recipe, calls for .8 qt/gallon. Back
in my EasyMasher days, that was one of the few recipes I ever had stick
until I figured out that the whole issue could be avoided using a normal
mash thickness.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 12:37:20
From: brian@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
On 16, 3:15 pm, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <s...@shagg.net > wrote:
> On 16 2006 12:09:55 -0700, <brian.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I asked them to crank the mill down, but it was all the way adjusted
> > (within their realm of adjustment)
> > When I ran it through twice the pieces were much smaller. Each piece
> > was close to coarse salt in size.Any flour (you may have mentioned that already, sorry)?
>
> What mill do they have?
>
> John.
Yes there was some flour as well, but not much. Its hard to quantify
it really.
The mill looks homemade or more commercial in nature. It has 2
rollers, both belt driven from a motor. The are about 8" wide and I'd
guess 8" in Diameter. Both spin downward, perhaps at slightly
different speeds. Rollers have a groove going across them every ~1/4"
around the curcumference to grab the kernels. Rollers move at about 30
RPM (about 2sec/rev) if I had to guess and it mills about a pound of
grain in 10 secs (give or take)
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 20:35:21
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
On 16 2006 12:37:20 -0700, <brian.sico@gmail.com > wrote:
>> What mill do they have?
>>
> Yes there was some flour as well, but not much. Its hard to quantify
> it really.
>
> The mill looks homemade or more commercial in nature. It has 2
> rollers, both belt driven from a motor. The are about 8" wide and I'd
> guess 8" in Diameter. Both spin downward, perhaps at slightly
> different speeds. Rollers have a groove going across them every ~1/4"
> around the curcumference to grab the kernels. Rollers move at about 30
> RPM (about 2sec/rev) if I had to guess and it mills about a pound of
> grain in 10 secs (give or take)
That doesn't sound like any homebrew mill I've ever heard of. If they've
got it cranked down to the smallest setting, and you're still not getting
much flour and poor efficiency, then it sounds like their mill isn't very
good.
You could always get your own mill and crush the grains at home. Besides
allowing you to get the crush you want, this has the added benefit of
allowing you to buy grain in bulk, which is generally much cheaper than
buying it by the pound.
John.
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 12:09:55
From: brian@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
On 16, 3:05 pm, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <s...@shagg.net > wrote:
> On 16 2006 11:45:17 -0700, <brian.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 16, 2:03 pm, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <s...@shagg.net> wrote:
> >> On 16 2006 09:11:54 -0700, <brian.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I batch sparged again and got about 65% efficiency this time (up
> >> > from about 60% last time). One thing I'm wondering about is can
> >> > the geometry of my mash tun affect the efficiency in a batch sparge?
> >> > I know fly sparging is subject to channeling, but what about batch?No, not really. Geometry is an issue with fly sparging because you're
> >> relying on the path that the water flows through the grains in order to
> >> pickup the sugars. With batch sparging it doesn't matter. The sugars
> >> should essentially be diluted into the sparge water before you begin
> >> to drain the lauter tun.
>
> >> Do you stir and/or wait between adding the batch of sparge water and
> >> draining the tun?
>
> >> John.
>
> > I drained the mash water completely (about 5 min). Then I added the
> > sparge water all at once and stirred it up good (just like the initial
> > mash water). I then let it sit 1-2 min to settle down and recirculated
> > and drained that out.I'm not the best expert on here regarding batch sparging, but that sounds
> like a good procedure to me.
>
> Are you still using the LHBS mill? Did they let you adjust the gap any, or
> did you just run the grain through twice using their preset gap? I'd still
> suspect that your crush is what's holding you back.
>
> John.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
I asked them to crank the mill down, but it was all the way adjusted
(within their realm of adjustment)
When I ran it through twice the pieces were much smaller. Each piece
was close to coarse salt in size.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 19:15:12
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
On 16 2006 12:09:55 -0700, <brian.sico@gmail.com > wrote:
> I asked them to crank the mill down, but it was all the way adjusted
> (within their realm of adjustment)
> When I ran it through twice the pieces were much smaller. Each piece
> was close to coarse salt in size.
Any flour (you may have mentioned that already, sorry)?
What mill do they have?
John.
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 11:45:17
From: brian@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
On 16, 2:03 pm, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <s...@shagg.net > wrote:
> On 16 2006 09:11:54 -0700, <brian.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I batch sparged again and got about 65% efficiency this time (up
> > from about 60% last time). One thing I'm wondering about is can
> > the geometry of my mash tun affect the efficiency in a batch sparge?
> > I know fly sparging is subject to channeling, but what about batch?No, not really. Geometry is an issue with fly sparging because you're
> relying on the path that the water flows through the grains in order to
> pickup the sugars. With batch sparging it doesn't matter. The sugars
> should essentially be diluted into the sparge water before you begin
> to drain the lauter tun.
>
> Do you stir and/or wait between adding the batch of sparge water and
> draining the tun?
>
> John.
I drained the mash water completely (about 5 min). Then I added the
sparge water all at once and stirred it up good (just like the initial
mash water). I then let it sit 1-2 min to settle down and recirculated
and drained that out.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 19:05:54
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improving my efficiency
|
On 16 2006 11:45:17 -0700, <brian.sico@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>
> On 16, 2:03 pm, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <s...@shagg.net> wrote:
>> On 16 2006 09:11:54 -0700, <brian.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I batch sparged again and got about 65% efficiency this time (up
>> > from about 60% last time). One thing I'm wondering about is can
>> > the geometry of my mash tun affect the efficiency in a batch sparge?
>> > I know fly sparging is subject to channeling, but what about batch?No, not really. Geometry is an issue with fly sparging because you're
>> relying on the path that the water flows through the grains in order to
>> pickup the sugars. With batch sparging it doesn't matter. The sugars
>> should essentially be diluted into the sparge water before you begin
>> to drain the lauter tun.
>>
>> Do you stir and/or wait between adding the batch of sparge water and
>> draining the tun?
>>
>> John.
>
> I drained the mash water completely (about 5 min). Then I added the
> sparge water all at once and stirred it up good (just like the initial
> mash water). I then let it sit 1-2 min to settle down and recirculated
> and drained that out.
I'm not the best expert on here regarding batch sparging, but that sounds
like a good procedure to me.
Are you still using the LHBS mill? Did they let you adjust the gap any, or
did you just run the grain through twice using their preset gap? I'd still
suspect that your crush is what's holding you back.
John.
|
|
