I can certainly respect that. I’m considering dialing my efficiency even lower myself to improve malt flavor. Was an average 92%, then I opened my mill gap and it fell to about 81%. Now I’m considering sparging less or not at all, and boiling shorter for 30-45 minutes instead of 60-75. There really is nothing wrong with 60-something percent efficiency, if it makes you happy!!! Your beer most likely tastes better for it anyway IMHO.
You could just mash at a higher temp no.
[quote=“rebuiltcellars”][quote=“Denny”][quote=“dmtaylo2”]
Just double sparge and you’ll be fine. It’s not a whole lot of extra work. You want to try to get 1/3 of your runnings from each of the 3 runnings – first runnings, sparge, second sparge. Efficiency will bounce up by 10-15% overnight. We’d say you shouldn’t have to, but… if nothing else works, why not?![/quote]
This is the kind of thing that mystifies me. I’ve found little value in equal runnings. I brewed yesterday. The OG was 1.056 and I got 86% brewhouse efficiency with a single batch sparge. If I can do it, why can’t other people? This kind of stuff drives me crazy…[/quote]
The efficiency gain from using equal runnings is small, but definitely there. You can calculate it pretty well by using pretty simple equations that take into account sugar concentrations and dilutions. When I looked at this some years ago, my results matched my calculations very well. That said, the effect is fairly small even with big differences in volumes, and if I was looking to improve efficiency I’d focus on other things.
But focusing on consistency in mash efficiency is far more important, and for that anything you can keep consistent in the process helps. So I do make an effort to try and get equal runnings from the two sparges in order to reduce the chances of variability in efficiency.[/quote]
Oh, I agree that it’s there. But I haven’t found it to be significant enough to worry about. Same with doing more than one sparge on a normal batch.
I can certainly respect that. I’m considering dialing my efficiency even lower myself to improve malt flavor. Was an average 92%, then I opened my mill gap and it fell to about 81%. Now I’m considering sparging less or not at all, and boiling shorter for 30-45 minutes instead of 60-75. There really is nothing wrong with 60-something percent efficiency, if it makes you happy!!! Your beer most likely tastes better for it anyway IMHO.[/quote]
I want some proof that lower efficiency equals better malt flavor. I call BS.
The efficiency gain from using equal runnings is small, but definitely there. You can calculate it pretty well by using pretty simple equations that take into account sugar concentrations and dilutions. When I looked at this some years ago, my results matched my calculations very well. That said, the effect is fairly small even with big differences in volumes, and if I was looking to improve efficiency I’d focus on other things.
But focusing on consistency in mash efficiency is far more important, and for that anything you can keep consistent in the process helps. So I do make an effort to try and get equal runnings from the two sparges in order to reduce the chances of variability in efficiency.[/quote]
Oh, I agree that it’s there. But I haven’t found it to be significant enough to worry about. Same with doing more than one sparge on a normal batch.[/quote]
You are probably right on that, but it is easy to do and it doesn’t hurt. Totally agree with you on the double sparge, unless you are doing a barley wine or some other beer where the initial sparge has a very high SG. Then there can be enough sugar left in the grains to make that second sparge arguably worthwhile.
I found that I got much more boost in efficiency by using a higher mash ratio and disregarding equal runnings that I got from doing equal runnings.
Denny, how high of a ratio are you going? I am having a difficult time wrapping my head around equal runnings, etc. Isn’t it all about creating an equilibrium between sugars in the water and sugars left in the mash? I have this incredibly stupid analogy stuck in my head since this thread started. Let’s say you were in a public bathroom washing your hands. You can only grab a maximum of two paper towels to dry your hands. You decide to grab both paper towels right away and dry your hands as well as you can. Sure your hands are drier than if you had used only one, but if you had grabbed one paper towel initially and used it until it had reached a higher saturation point (reach an equilibrium with the amount of water still left on your hands) and then grabbed a second paper towel to dry your hands, you would remove more water off your hands because you got more water on the first paper towel than you would have in the first scenario and the second paper towel won’t have reached a saturation point as soon.
To tie this in to our thread, the water on your hands is the sugars we are trying to rinse out of the mash and the paper towels are the water (yeah, I know, terrible analogy, but keep going with me here because I am using physics which is exactly what is going on in the rinsing and draining of our mash). The first scenario would be like a no sparge BIAB. Whatever type of system we use, if we use a higher mash ratio, then we are essentially using 1.5 paper towels to begin with and only leaving a half a paper towel for the sparge (that 2 paper towel maximum is the same as our boil volume. Sure we could reach for that 3rd paper towel, but then we'd have a lot more boiling off to do, right?). So is a higher ratio to begin with helping us with conversion and extraction of sugars from the malt more than saving that extra water for a bigger sparge (second paper towel) or sparges (2 half paper towels)? With this analogy, I can definitely see how 2 sparges will extract more sugars from the mash. A higher mash ratio must be incorporating other, maybe biochemical, advantages than just simple physics. There's got to be something else going on if higher mash ratios are leading to better efficiency.
Denny, how high of a ratio are you going? I am having a difficult time wrapping my head around equal runnings, etc. Isn’t it all about creating an equilibrium between sugars in the water and sugars left in the mash? I have this incredibly stupid analogy stuck in my head since this thread started. Let’s say you were in a public bathroom washing your hands. You can only grab a maximum of two paper towels to dry your hands. You decide to grab both paper towels right away and dry your hands as well as you can. Sure your hands are drier than if you had used only one, but if you had grabbed one paper towel initially and used it until it had reached a higher saturation point (reach an equilibrium with the amount of water still left on your hands) and then grabbed a second paper towel to dry your hands, you would remove more water off your hands because you got more water on the first paper towel than you would have in the first scenario and the second paper towel won’t have reached a saturation point as soon.
To tie this in to our thread, the water on your hands is the sugars we are trying to rinse out of the mash and the paper towels are the water (yeah, I know, terrible analogy, but keep going with me here because I am using physics which is exactly what is going on in the rinsing and draining of our mash). The first scenario would be like a no sparge BIAB. Whatever type of system we use, if we use a higher mash ratio, then we are essentially using 1.5 paper towels to begin with and only leaving a half a paper towel for the sparge (that 2 paper towel maximum is the same as our boil volume. Sure we could reach for that 3rd paper towel, but then we'd have a lot more boiling off to do, right?). So is a higher ratio to begin with helping us with conversion and extraction of sugars from the malt more than saving that extra water for a bigger sparge (second paper towel) or sparges (2 half paper towels)? With this analogy, I can definitely see how 2 sparges will extract more sugars from the mash. A higher mash ratio must be incorporating other, maybe biochemical, advantages than just simple physics. There's got to be something else going on if higher mash ratios are leading to better efficiency.[/quote]
With all due respect, your theory is getting in the way of reality For one thing, I think your analogy would only be valid if the wort had reached the saturation point for sugar, and it’s a long way from that. My average ratio is 1.63-1.65 qt.l/b. and I saw my efficiency go up at least 5 points when I started doing that. And yes, obviously 2 sparges will extract more sugar. But it’s so little more that to me the effort and time isn’t worth the one or 2 points I might gain. Again with all due respect, think less and experiment more!
Denny, you’re absolutely right! That sugar is nowhere near the saturation point. Saturation point was definitely the wrong term, and I regret using it. Sorry about that. I guess I shouldn’t have been throwing that term around with the term I wanted to drive home, and that is equilibrium. The more water you throw at a residual amount of sugar in the mash, the more extraction you should get, so the theory goes, but again, you’re right, it is not reality. Considering one can theoretically go up to a ratio of 2.0 qts/lb, it doesn’t sound like you’re pushing the envelope with what you are doing anyway. I’m going to try it with my next batch and let you know how I succeeded.
A big part of brewing for me is the science aspect of it. I know that's not true for all of us. When you state a higher mash ratio works better, I want to know the science behind why that works better. I wish I could experiment more, but by the time I get 2 batches of cider and 2 batches of beer I brewed this fall finished and bottled, with my work schedule, my next brew day will be 1/30/16! To maintain my sanity until that day, I'll read and think about the process of brewing. It's like being a theoretical zymurgist. Studying and thinking about the process without being able to do it. It's like a homebrewer's personal hell! LOL! It's truly amazing though how many new processes and techniques I will pick up and try on my next batch. That's the awesome part of having to wait! I've learned a wealth of information from dedicated members of this forum like yourself, and I do appreciate your time in sharing your vast experience with us.
[quote=“brewdvm”]Denny, you’re absolutely right! That sugar is nowhere near the saturation point. Saturation point was definitely the wrong term, and I regret using it. Sorry about that. I guess I shouldn’t have been throwing that term around with the term I wanted to drive home, and that is equilibrium. The more water you throw at a residual amount of sugar in the mash, the more extraction you should get, so the theory goes, but again, you’re right, it is not reality. Considering one can theoretically go up to a ratio of 2.0 qts/lb, it doesn’t sound like you’re pushing the envelope with what you are doing anyway. I’m going to try it with my next batch and let you know how I succeeded.
A big part of brewing for me is the science aspect of it. I know that's not true for all of us. When you state a higher mash ratio works better, I want to know the science behind why that works better. I wish I could experiment more, but by the time I get 2 batches of cider and 2 batches of beer I brewed this fall finished and bottled, with my work schedule, my next brew day will be 1/30/16! To maintain my sanity until that day, I'll read and think about the process of brewing. It's like being a theoretical zymurgist. Studying and thinking about the process without being able to do it. It's like a homebrewer's personal hell! LOL! It's truly amazing though how many new processes and techniques I will pick up and try on my next batch. That's the awesome part of having to wait! I've learned a wealth of information from dedicated members of this forum like yourself, and I do appreciate your time in sharing your vast experience with us.[/quote]
The science is a big part for me too, but I try to find out how science matches reality rather than the other way around. I have found that reality often diverges from theory in homebrewing. FTR, I know people who exceed 2 qt./lb. with no problems. I do also if I do a no sparge batch. I encourage you to learn all these “rules” so you can know when and how to break them! 
I’m one of those who typically mash at around 2 qts/lb. As I typically brew lower OG beers, the amount of water I need pushes me in that direction, and I’ve found only advantages compared to the 1.3 qts/lb that I started off using years ago.
To figure out why equal volumes give better (if only slightly 
) better efficiency, look at it this way:
At the end of the mash, you have a total amount of liquid and a total amount of sugar in the mash tun. If you’ve milled fine enough and done your mash correctly, you have a conversion efficiency close to 100%, so the amount of sugar is only dependent upon the amount of grain without needing to look at other factors. Your mash efficiency is really about how to minimize the concentration of the sugar left stuck in the grains at the end of the sparge.
The sugar is evenly distributed in the liquid. When you open the drain, not all the liquid comes out; some of it is stuck absorbed in the grains. That stuck liquid has the same sugar concentration as the liquid that was initially recovered. When you stir in more water, the sugar in the previous “stuck” liquid gets mixed into the new water so it again has an even concentration throughout all the liquid. And again, when you drain some of the liquid (the same volume as before in fact) gets stuck in the grains.
If you calculate the exact amounts of sugar present (a function of the amount of grain) for different drain volumes, you will see that there is a slight advantage to using equal runnings. And this is a case where the physics and the practice agree, so there is no need to try and figure out what we are understanding wrong.
Rebuilt, thank you for satisfying my scientific curiosity. That explanation does make sense. I was using the word equilibrium without fully understanding that all the sugars are in solution whether they are in the grain or in the free liquor.
So if all the sugars are in solution, and there's no starch left, then would there be any harm in compressing those grains to squeeze out more of that liquor knowing that its sugar concentration is the same as that of the second running? Sounds like the BIAB brewers are doing it from a recent thread on this forum. I have no idea how much can be had, but it would be interesting to take spent grains and put them through my cider press. Then it would be interesting to do some analysis to see if it would make good beer.Am I oversimplifying, then, if I think this: Since your first things are always going to have the most sugars in solution, why not maximize the mash and initial runoff? That way, you are diluting your wort with less of the more watery second runnings. Is there a limit to how much water you can mash with? If I maxed out my cooler mash tun’s capacity and ended up at 3 qts/lb, what would happen?
I have no idea how far we can go, but at some point, I would think you would create a dilution of the enzymes responsible for conversion causing a delay in that conversion. So you might have to mash longer possibly. But you still have the problem of the equilibrium between concentration of sugars in the liquor and grains. Your second running has a lower sugar concentration compared to the average of the two running regardless of how dilute you make the mash. So you’re still leaving more sugar behind which is why Rebuilt’s explanation of equal runnings makes sense even if it only gains us a few points.
What would happen? You’d make beer! I do no sparge mashes at that ratio or higher.
Whatever you do as long as you can do it the same every time and get the same efficiency and you adjust the grain bill to your efficiency you will end up at the same place.
I’ve done the same recipe as a single batch sparge and as no-sparge with 8# grain, all other things being equal. The single batch sparge comes out at 1.050 SG at about 80% efficiency, and the no-sparge batch comes out at 1.040 SG for 63% efficiency.
That said, you add more grain or whatever to get you that extra .010 and you will make the same beer
Oh, absolutely. But as far as maximizing the amount of water for your mash, there are trade-offs. Either add more grain, add more mash water and boil longer to concentrate the wort, or just mash with a moderate amount of water and plan on a single batch sparge. They don’t all produce the same result unless you make some adjustments.
