Efficiency,sparging and mash tuns..

[Clint]

Hello all
Pictured is my tun/ sparge method...pretty standard stuff.
I usually jug the water over the grain bed and slowly drain to the jug on the floor...I place a piece of perforated foil over the grain bed to avoid disturbance,keeping a head of water over the grain.
When I look at all in one systems with the grain in the malt tube it is raised clear of any standing liquid and the sparge free drains through...I'm wondering...is this more efficient than having the grain bed submerged for most of the sparge as a submerged bed always retains sugars. Would it be better to drain the bed then finish with a few litres so the rinse is more final?
Could a malt tube be made for the picnic cooler?
Cheers
Clint

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Clint
I used to sparge like that and got really low efficiency. I now batch sparge so for 5kg mash I used 16 litres for both the mash and sparge. I stir the grains when I've added the sparge water. My efficiency is now between 68-74% and before I was lucky to get 60%.

 

[Clint]

I went to this method as I was getting around 60%... changing,and making a manifold increased it by 10%.

 

[strange-steve]

Your method is a fly sparge and you're doing it the preferred way by keeping the water level above the grain. The all-in-one systems like the GF also use a fly sparge, but the difference is you can't control the outlet, it'll drain as fast as the grain bed allows. So in theory this will be less efficient than your method.

Have you tried batch sparging? It's supposedly less efficient than fly sparging, but when I was 3V brewing with a picnic cooler I actually found batch sparging increased my efficiency a little.

 

[Buffers brewery]

Ok, so here’s what I do. My mash tun tap has an elbow fitted pointing downwards so when I’m draining it acts as a syphon and drains most of the wort. I use glass beads (10mm) to cover the tun bottom to act as my false bottom and the tun is fitted with a net bag to contain the grist. I mash for an hour, recirculating the wort through a heat exchanger to maintain temperature. The strike water volume is just enough to cover the grist. I give the mash a stir after 15 and 30 minutes. After the hour the wort is completely drained from the mash tun which is then refilled with strike water as before. Wort is recirculated for 30 minutes with a stir after 15 minutes, and then drained completely. The mash tun is then refilled with the final quantity of strike water, and recirculated for another 30 minutes with a stir at 15 minutes. Wort is then drained and the grist is given a squeeze in the net bag to get as much out as possible.

My last brew I achieved 79% Brewhouse efficiency according to the on-line calculator.

 

[Hanglow]

You can fit 45l into that mash tun I think, if it's the same as mine. I've only used it once though so far, but I used to have a 32l one and got the bigger one because I was wanting to do no sparge - it's easier and all you have to do is add a bit more grain if your efficiency takes a hit, which is cheap. You should still get decent efficiency up to about 1.055 or so though, assuming you recirculate a bit. I got 76% mash efficiency with the one batch I did, that was a step mash. Should be able to improve it with a bit of tweaking

 

[PhilBrew]

Hi Clint

Your method is a fly sparge and you're doing it the preferred way by keeping the water level above the grain. The all-in-one systems like the GF also use a fly sparge, but the difference is you can't control the outlet, it'll drain as fast as the grain bed allows. So in theory this will be less efficient than your method.

... I agree with what Steve's said there, but you need to recognise that that's only comparing the efficiency drop caused by sparging (the reduction from post-mash efficiency to the pre-boil efficiency) ... the recirculating mash of all-in-one systems will tend to increase mash-effiiciency, and on occasions it will more than compensate for the less efficient sparging in those systems when compared with fly-sparged mash-tuns.
In many ways, comparing efficiencies with other brewers using other systems (or even using the same/similar system) is about as useful as seeing who can wee highest up a wall ... so rather than investigating whether you can improve your efficiencies because other people are reporting bigger numbers (if that's a worry you could just go into your chosen brewing calculator and reduce the extract potential of the grains you use in recipes and you'll get bigger numbers for efficiency for brews you do with those grains, in future ) ... I'd suggest you only put effort into investigating improving efficiencies if you feel you're not getting good enough efficiency from your methods and you're not happy to just use a bit more grain to compensate.

Have you tried batch sparging? It's supposedly less efficient than fly sparging, but when I was 3V brewing with a picnic cooler I actually found batch sparging increased my efficiency a little.

... and I'm pretty sure I've seen other home-brewers find that also ... that "theory" that fly-sparging is more efficient than batch-sparging is dependent on operating a slow, steady flow of water into the top of the grain bed and a similar rate of flow of wort lautered from the bottom, and with all due respect, managing that precisely when jugging water isn't always that manageable ... two or three batch sparges can be performed in similar timescales to a slow, steady fly-sparge, and can be more efficient than a "quickly or poorly" performed fly-sparge

Cheers, PhilB

 

[Clint]

Some great replies...and stuff to think about!
Thanks all!