Introduction

The majority of brewers utilise six roller mills, mash tuns and lauter tuns as processing equipment
for malted barley in the brewhouse. This paper describes the operation and objectives of this
equipment and discusses the brewers raw material needs in order to optimise the process for cost
efficiency and quality.
Phn ln cc nh sn xut bia s dng su nh my con ln, tuns nghin v Lauter tuns nh thit
b ch bin la mch trong nh my bia. Bi vit ny m t cc hot ng v mc tiu ca thit b
ny v tho lun v nguyn liu ca nh sn xut bia cn ti u ha qu trnh cho hiu qu chi
ph v cht lng.
Milling
In practical terms, the milling operation is designed to reduce the malt to particle sizes suitable for
rapid extraction and enzymic digestion, maximum extract yield and throughput. However,
maximum extract yield is achieved with a fine grind while maximum throughput is achieved with
a coarse grind, thus the brewer needs to find a balance.
The objectives of milling are to:
1. Split the husk longitudinally, exposing and separating the endosperm, without tearing the hulls
2. Crush the endosperm allowing complete wetting and therefore rapid extraction and enzymic
digestion.
3. Minimise the quantity of fine flour produced.
Therefore the ideal grist for wort filtration in a lauter tun would contain:
1. No intact kernels
2. The majority of husks split end to end with no endosperm attached
3. The endosperm reduced to a uniform small particle size, called grits
4. A minimum of fine flour.
Trn thc t, cc hot ng xay xt c thit k lm gim kch thc ht mch nha ph hp
cho khai thc nhanh chng v tiu ha enzym, sn lng chit xut ti a v thng qua. Tuy nhin,
nng sut trch ti a t c vi mt xay mn trong khi thng lng ti a t c vi mt xay
th, do cc nh sn xut bia cn phi tm mt s cn bng.
Cc mc tiu ca phay l:
1. Tch v theo chiu dc, phi by v tch ni nh, m khng lm rch cc thn
2. Nghin ni nh cho php lm t hon chnh v khai thc do nhanh chng v tiu ha
enzym.
3. Gim thiu s lng bt sn xut.
Do , nhiu v s l tng lc dch nha trong mt tun Lauter s cha:
1. Khng ht nhn nguyn vn
2. a s v tch u n cui khng c ni nh nh km

3. Cc ni nh gim kch thc ht nh ng nht, c gi l bt kiu mch

4. Mt ti thiu ca bt.

Figure 1. Six roll mill schematic F, flour; G, grits; H, husks; F.G, fine grits (Adapted from
Briggs et al. 1981)
When used in combination with lauter tuns, the majority of brewers use six roller dry mills, as
shown in Figure 1. A fluted feed roller aligns the grain so they are presented in a lengthwise
manner to the first pair of reduction rollers. The grain is split longitudinally and kept reasonably
intact. The mixture is then separated through vibrating screens, with fine flour falling through to
the grist case and small grits being screened to the third pair of rollers. Hard endosperms are
separated from the husk in the second pair of rollers, along with coarse grits. The mixture is again
separated through vibrating screens, with flour and husks falling to the grist case and remaining
grits being delivered to the third pair of rollers.
For good lauter tun performance Briggs et al suggest that the grist should contain 15% husks, 23%
coarse grits, 30% fine grits and 32% flour, while Kunze suggests that the grist should consist of
18% husk, 8% coarse grits, 56% fine grits and 18% flour. In fact, the optimum grist size
distribution is dependent on a brewerys specific requirements for extract yield and throughput, the
modification of the malt and the loading on the lauter tun.
Khi s dng kt hp vi Lauter tuns, phn ln cc nh sn xut bia s dng su con ln nh my
kh, nh th hin trong hnh 1. Mt con ln thc n rnh gn cc ht h c trnh by mt
cch theo chiu dc cc cp u tin ca con ln gim. Cc ht c chia theo chiu dc v gi
hp l cn nguyn vn. Hn hp ny sau c tch thng qua mn hnh rung, vi bt mn ri
qua n v la mch v bt kiu mch nh c sng lc cp th ba ca con ln. Endosperms
cng c tch ra t v tru trong cp th hai ca con ln, cng vi bt yn mch th. Hn hp
ny l mt ln na tch ra thng qua mn hnh rung, vi bt m v tru ri vo trng hp la
mch v bt kiu mch cn li c giao cho cp th ba ca con ln.

 t hiu qu Lauter tun tt Briggs et al cho rng la mch nn cha 15% tru, 23% bt yn
mch th, 30% bt kiu mch tt v 32% bt, trong khi Kunze cho thy la mch nn bao gm
18% tru, 8% bt yn mch th, 56% bt kiu mch tt v 18% bt. Trong thc t, nhiu v s
phn b kch thc ti u ph thuc vo yu cu ca mt nh my bia c th cho sn lng chit
xut v thng qua, cc sa i ca mch nha v ti v cc tun Lauter.
Mashing
The objective of mashing is to convert the malt into a fermentable extract suitable for yeast growth
and beer production, in a controlled and predictable manner. The majority of Australian brewers
use single temperature infusion mashing, where the grist is mixed with water at 65 - 70C. At this
temperature amylolytic conversion of starch to fermentable sugars and dextrins takes place as well
as the enzymic and physical solubilisation of protein to give soluble polypeptides, peptides and
assimilable amino acids. To control this complex range of biochemical reactions the brewer uses
the simple control techniques of time, temperature and pH.
As the grist falls into the mashing vessel (mash tun) it is intimately mixed with water in a vessel,
known as a Foremasher. This assures instantaneous and complete wetting of the grist and prevents
starch from balling. The mash tun is a cylindrical dished bottom vessel with large slow rotating
agitator. The mash must be treated gently as any shear during agitation or transfer will damage the
husks, causing wort filtration difficulties. However a mash that is stirred too slowly can result in
loss of extract and problems with heat transfer causing local hot spots.
Mc tiu ca mashing l chuyn i cc mch nha vo mt chit xut ln men thch hp cho s
pht trin v sn xut nm men bia, mt cch c kim sot v d on c. Phn ln cc nh sn
xut bia c s dng duy nht ln nhit truyn, ni la mch c trn vi nc 65-70 C.
nhit ny -phn gii tinh bt chuyn i ca tinh bt ln men ng v dextrin din ra cng
nh cc solubilisation enzym v th cht ca protein cung cp cho cc polypeptide ha tan,
peptide v axit amin c th ng ha. kim sot phm vi phc tp ny ca phn ng sinh ha
bia s dng cc k thut iu khin n gin ca thi gian, nhit v pH.
Khi la mch ri vo mch nghin (nghin tun) n l mt trn vi nc trong bnh, c bit n
nh mt Foremasher. iu ny m bo m tc thi v y ca la mch v ngn nga tinh bt
t balling. Tun nghin l mt hnh tr hnh a tu di cng vi khuy ln quay chm. Mash phi
c x l nh nhng nh bt k ct trong qu kch ng hoc chuyn s lm hng v, gy kh
khn lc dch nha. Tuy nhin mt mash c khuy ng qu chm c th dn n vic mt chit
xut v cc vn vi truyn nhit gy ra cc im nng a phng.
Wort Recovery
Wort recovery or wort filtration is the process of separating the soluble material (wort) from the
insoluble material (spent grain). The three objectives of wort recovery are:
1. To maximise extract yield.
2. To produce clear or non turbid quality wort.
3. To minimise wort filtration time, commonly called run off time.
Clear wort and maximum extract efficiency can be obtained by slow run offs however, considering
that wort separation is often the rate determining process, this will be at the expense of brewhouse

throughput. Therefore, as with milling, the brewer has to find a balance that will suit their specific
requirements.
The most commonly used equipment for wort filtration is the lauter tun, Figure 2. The lauter tun is
a cylindrical vessel of large diameter and comparatively shallow depth. Suspended approximately
10 cm from the true bottom is a false bottom of slotted stainless steel plates. These plates allow the
wort to flow through, but retain the grain husks. Inside the lauter tun is a raking machine, this can
be raised, lowered and rotated. Connected to the main shaft are radial arms that support the blades
or rakes. While a brew is being run off the radial arms are rotated and the blades slice through and
slightly lift the bed. This assists in preventing compaction, which can result in a slow or stalled run
off and also provides access for the sparge water, thus increasing extract efficiency.
Phc hi Wort hoc lc wort l qu trnh tch cc nguyn liu ha tan (hm) t cc cht khng ha
tan (ht dnh). Ba mc tiu phc hi wort l:
1. ti a ha nng sut chit.
2. sn xut r rng hoc khng wort cht lng c.
3. gim thiu thi gian lc dch nha, thng c gi l chy ra khi thi gian.
R rng wort v hiu qu chit xut ti a c th thu c bng cch tuy nhin chy chm offs,
xem xt rng wort tch thng l t l qu trnh xc nh, iu ny s c mt ti cc chi ph ca
nh my bia thng. V vy, nh vi xay xt, cc nh sn xut bia c tm mt s cn bng s
ph hp vi cc yu cu c th ca h.
Cc thit b thng c s dng nht lc wort l tun Lauter, Hnh 2. tun Lauter l mt tu hnh
tr c ng knh ln v su tng i nng. B treo gi khong 10 cm t y thc s l mt
y gi ca tm thp khng g c rnh. Nhng tm cho php wort chy qua, nhng gi li cc v
ht. Bn trong tun Lauter l mt my co, iu ny c th c nng ln, h xung v xoay. Kt
ni vi cc trc chnh l v kh xuyn tm c h tr cc li hoc co. Trong khi cc loi bia ang
c chy ra khi vng tay b tr hnh trn l xoay v li ct qua v hi nhc chic ging. iu
ny h tr trong vic ngn nga nn cht, m c th dn n mt chy chm hoc b nh tr off v
cng cung cp quyn truy cp cho cc nc tit kim, do tng hiu qu chit xut.

Figure 2. Lauter tun schematic

Malt requirements for milling, mashing and wort filtration

Essentially, malt provides all the ingredients necessary to make beer, including starch, nitrogen
(foam proteins, amino acids, peptides), phosphates, silicates, polyphenols, vitamins (B1, B2, C,
and E) and enzymes. However, the quality of the barley and how it is processed at both the
maltings and in the brewhouse will have a significant impact on the quality and cost efficiency of
the beer.
V c bn, mch nha cung cp tt c cc thnh phn cn thit sn xut bia, bao gm tinh bt,
m (protein bt, axit amin, peptide), pht pht, silicat, polyphenol, vitamin (B1, B2, C, v E) v
cc enzym. Tuy nhin, cht lng ca la mch v lm th no n c x l c Maltings v
trong cc nh my bia s c mt tc ng ng k v cht lng v chi ph hiu qu ca bia.
Impact of malt quality on beer quality
The reactions occurring during the mashing process determine the carbohydrate and protein profile
of the wort and can be directly attributed to the malt.
The carbohydrate profile of the wort is adjusted by controlling the time and temperature of the
malt in the mash tun. It can take three days before a change in the trend of the carbohydrate profile
is known and then, if required, subsequent process adjustments can be made. This long feedback
loop can possibly result in three days of beer production that is out of specification and therefore
require blending.
The goal of brewhouse is to produce wort that is right first time, this will result in beer that
doesnt require blending. To achieve this goal the brewer needs consistent diastatic power in the
malt or a very good indicator that could be used to predict the required stand time. Since neither is
available the brewer must continually adjust stand times or temperatures to meet the carbohydrate
profile target for his beer.
Cc phn ng xy ra trong qu trnh nghin xc nh carbohydrate v protein cu ca dch nha v
c th c trc tip do cc mch nha.
Cc h s carbohydrate ca wort c iu chnh bng cch kim sot thi gian v nhit ca
malt trong tun mash. N c th mt ba ngy trc khi mt s thay i trong xu hng ca cc h
s carbohydrate c bit n v sau , nu cn thit, iu chnh quy trnh tip theo c th c
thc hin. Vng lp phn hi di ny c th c th dn n ba ngy k t ngy sn xut bia l
trong s c im k thut v do i hi pha trn.
Mc tiu ca nh my bia l sn xut mch nha l "ngay ln u tin", iu ny s dn n
bia m khng cn pha trn. t c mc tiu ny, cc nh sn xut bia cn in diastatic ph
hp trong mch nha hoc mt ch s rt tt m c th c s dng d on thi gian ng cn
thit. V khng c sn cc nh sn xut bia phi lin tc iu chnh thi gian hoc nhit p
ng cc mc tiu s carbohydrate cho bia ca mnh.
Australian brewers add sugar adjuncts directly to the kettle and therefore do not require high levels
of diastase to convert starch adjuncts. In fact, high levels of diastase convert starch too quickly and
controlling the process becomes difficult if not impossible. Ideally, the malt would contain a level
of diastase that resulted in a stand time of thirty minutes. This allows enough time for amylolytic
conversion of the starch to maximise extract yield, shorter times can result in low extract yields,
while longer stand times can result in damage to the husks due to shear and subsequent problems
with wort filtration.

The protein profile of the wort determines the foam quality and to some extent the shelf life of the
final beer it also has to be suitable for yeast growth. While there have been reports on some
specific proteins that affect foam quality (Evans et al., 2000) and beer stability, such as protein Z4,
LTP1 and hordein derived polypeptides respectively, these are not routinely analysed, so the
brewer relies on a soluble and total nitrogen specification that will provide enough protein for
foam quality and yeast nutrition, while not adversely affecting beer stability.
Sn xut bia c thm ng sanh thuc trc tip vo m un nc v do khng yu cu trnh
cao ca diastase chuyn i sanh tinh bt. Trong thc t, mc cao ca diastase chuyn
i tinh bt qu nhanh v kim sot qu trnh tr nn kh khn nu khng phi khng th. L
tng nht, mch nha s c mt mc diastase m kt qu trong mt thi gian ng ca ba mi
pht. iu ny cho php thi gian chuyn i -phn gii tinh bt ca tinh bt ti a ha
nng sut chit xut, thi gian ngn hn c th dn n sn lng chit xut thp, trong khi thi
gian cn c th dn n thit hi cho tru do ct v cc vn tip theo vi lc dch nha.
Cc h s protein ca wort xc nh cht lng bt v mt s phm vi thi hn s dng ca bia
cui cng n cng phi ph hp vi s pht trin ca nm men. Trong khi c bo co v mt s
protein c th c nh hng n cht lng bt (Evans et al., 2000) v n nh bia, chng hn nh
protein Z4, LTP1 v polypeptide hordein c ngun gc tng ng, nhng iu ny khng thng
xuyn phn tch, do , cc nh sn xut bia da trn ha tan c im k thut v tng nit rng
s cung cp protein cho cht lng bt v dinh dng nm men, trong khi nh hng xu n
s n nh khng bia.
Impact of malt quality on cost efficiency
Obviously, the available hot water extract of the malt has the greatest impact on cost. As
mentioned previously cost efficient beer production requires a balance between extract yield and
throughput. When using dry mills, which have a tendency to damage the grain, in combination
with lauter tuns, which need the husk to be intact, consistency of grain size (grain plumpness) has
a large impact on extract yield and throughput. During the milling process variable grain size can
result in the following:
Small grains may not be effectively crushed. Wetting of large grain particles or grain with the husk
still intact is slow, and often incomplete. Therefore the access of enzymes to starch is restricted.
This leads to lower extract yield and higher extract cost.
R rng, cc chit xut nc nng c sn ca mch nha c nh hng ln nht v chi ph. Nh
cp trc chi ph sn xut bia hiu qu i hi mt s cn bng gia nng sut chit xut v
thng qua. Khi s dng cc nh my kh, trong c mt xu hng lm hng ht, kt hp vi
Lauter tuns, m cn tru l nguyn vn, thng nht ca kch thc ht (plumpness ht) c tc ng
ln n sn lng chit xut v thng qua. Trong qu trnh xay xt c ht bin c th dn n vic
sau y:
ht nh c th khng c nghin nt mt cch hiu qu. Lm t cc ht ng cc ln hoc ng
cc vi tru vn cn nguyn vn l chm, v thng khng y . Do vic tip cn ca cc
enzym tinh bt b hn ch. iu ny dn n nng sut thp hn v chi ph trch chit xut cao
hn.
Large grains tend to be crushed too severely. This causes the grain to shatter resulting in too much
fine flour and shredded or torn husks. Fine flour can ball in the mash leaving unconverted starch,

which can cause irreversible carbohydrate hazes in the beer. Fine flour also blocks the lauter tun
resulting in slow run offs and further problems during diatomaceous earth filtration. Torn husks are
not effective in forming a filtration bed for wort separation and so also result in slower run offs.
Inefficient filtration will also result in dirty wort, with an increase in polyphenols, which
contribute to a harsh palate in the beer and increase the potential of the beer to form polyphenol
protein hazes.
For grain size which follows a normal distribution, a greater standard deviation will result in a
greater proportion of grain either being to small or too large, with the resulting problems
mentioned above. For example, normal distributions with standard deviations of 1 and 1.5 will
result in 5% and 19.4% of grain falling outside 1.96 standard deviations from the mean
respectively, Figure 3. Screening alleviates problems with small grain however, it does not provide
a solution for malt batches with a large grain size distribution.
Ht ln c xu hng b nghin nt qu nng. iu ny lm cho ht v dn n qu nhiu bt mn
v tru vn hoc b rch. Fine bt lon bng trong mash ri khi tinh bt khng th o ngc, m
c th gy ra hazes carbohydrate khng th o ngc trong bia. Fine bt cng ngn chn cc tun
Lauter dn offs chy chm v nhiu vn khc trong qu trnh lc diatomit. Tru b rch khng
c hiu qu trong vic hnh thnh mt chic ging lc cho wort tch v nh vy cng dn n s
nh i chy chm hn. Lc khng hiu qu cng s cho kt qu "bn" wort, vi s gia tng cc
polyphenol, trong ng gp vo vm ming khc nghit trong bia v tng kh nng ca cc bia
to thnh polyphenol - hazes protein.
i vi kch thc ht m sau mt phn phi bnh thng, lch chun ln hn s dn n mt
t l ln hn ca ht hoc ang c nh hoc qu ln, vi cc vn pht sinh nu trn. V
d, phn phi bnh thng vi lch chun ca 1 v 1.5 s cho kt qu 5% v 19,4% ca ht ri
bn ngoi 1,96 lch chun t trung bnh tng ng, Hnh 3. Sng lc lm gim bt cc vn
vi cc ht nh tuy nhin, n khng cung cp mt gii php cho l malt vi mt phn b kch
thc ht ln.

Figure 3. Schematic of the effect of variable grain size on mill performance.

The moisture content, husk adherence, husk thickness and friability of the malt will also have an
impact on how the grain performs in the mill and subsequently in the lauter tun. The brewer
prefers not to pay for water, however if the grain is too dry it will have a much greater propensity
to shatter. If a grain has poor husk adherence, harvesting, storage and handling, malting and
milling may also be affected. There are also issues with the potential of dust to cause explosions.
Apart from the physical characteristics of the malt, mentioned above, the biochemical attributes of
the malt also can have an impact on cost. High concentrations of beta glucans, particularly those
with high molecular weight, can impede:

wort filtration, resulting in long turn around times

diatomaceous earth filtration, resulting in short filter runs and therefore greater DE usage

micro filtration, resulting in short filter runs with the need for more regenerations, thus
increased use of cleaning chemicals and reduced filter life.

m, v tun th, v dy v c th tn ca mch nha cng s c tc ng nh th no trn cc

ht thc hin trong nh my v sau trong tun Lauter. Cc nh sn xut bia thch khng tr tin
nc, tuy nhin nu cc ht qu kh n s c xu hng ln hn nhiu ph v. Nu mt ht c
tun th nhng quy tru, thu hoch, bo qun v x l, mch nha v xay xt cng c th b nh
hng. Ngoi ra cn c vn vi tim nng ca bi gy ra v n.
Ngoi cc c tnh vt l ca mch nha, cp trn, cc thuc tnh sinh ha ca malt cng c
th c tc ng vo chi ph. Nng cao ca glucans beta, c bit l nhng ngi c trng lng
phn t cao, c th cn tr vic:
lc wort, kt qu ln lt khong thi gian di
lc diatomit, kt qu lc chy ngn v do ln hn s dng DE
vi lc, kt qu lc chy ngn vi s cn thit cho nhiu regenerations, do tng s dng cc
ha cht lm sch v gim tui th b lc.
Considering Australian brewers mash in at 65-70C the natural beta glucanases and proteases,
which are heat labile, will be inactivated and have little effect. Therefore, it is imperative that the
malt is well modified. Exogenous heat stable enzymes can be added to the mash, but at a cost.
Xem xt cc hng bia c ngm trong lc 65-70 C glucanases beta t nhin v protease, l
nhit khng n nh, s l bt hot v c hiu qu thp. Do , n bt buc l malt c sa i
tt. Enzyme n nh nhit ngoi sinh c th c thm vo ngm, nhng vi chi ph.
Hazes that result from protein / polyphenol complexes have been well documented (Siebert 1999).
Polyphenols originate from malt and hops, however the levels in the malt are not specified or
routinely measured. It has been reported that grain with a thick husk contains more polyphenol.
Never the less, to ensure good shelf life, the use of expensive treatments, such as
polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (PVPP) may be required. Proteins are equally important in the formation
of haze. High protein malts contain relatively more hordein protein and it is the fragments derived
from hordein proteins that have been reported to be haze active. So, while the brewer specifies
an upper protein limit, to ensure good final product stability, haze active proteins may still require
treatment with silica gel. Higher protein malts require larger doses of silica gel. High protein
barleys also consist of more small starch granules relative to large starch granules. Examination of
spent grain, reveals that unconverted starch is mainly small starch granules, which unlike large

starch granules are not fully gelatinised during mashing. Therefore high protein barleys may result
in lower extract yield. Small starch granules have also been implicated in haze and particle
formation in the final beer.
Hazes l kt qu ca phc hp protein / polyphenol c ghi nhn (Siebert 1999). Polyphenol
c ngun gc t mch nha v hoa bia, tuy nhin cc cp trong malt khng c ch nh hoc
thng xuyn o. N c bo co rng ng cc vi mt v dy c cha polyphenol hn.
Khng bao gi l t hn, m bo thi gian s dng tt, vic s dng phng php iu tr t
tin, chng hn nh polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (PVPP) c th c yu cu. Protein l quan trng
khng km trong s hnh thnh ca my m. Malt protein cao c cha protein tng i hordein
hn v n l nhng mnh v bt ngun t hordein protein c bo co l "m my tch cc".
V vy, trong khi cc nh sn xut bia ch nh mt gii hn protein trn, m bo tt thc sn
phm n nh, khi m protein hot ng vn c th yu cu iu tr vi gel silica. Malt protein
cao hn i hi nhng liu ln hn ca gel silica. La mch protein cao cng bao gm nhiu ht
tinh bt nh so vi ht tinh bt ln. Kim tra ht chi tiu, tit l rng tinh bt khng th o ngc
l ht tinh bt ch yu l nh, m khng ging nh cc ht tinh bt ln khng gelatinised y
trong qu trnh nghin. Do la mch protein cao c th dn n nng sut chit thp hn. Ht
tinh bt nh cng c lin quan trong my m v s hnh thnh phn trong bia thc.
Conclusion
In this paper the operation and the objective of six roller mills, mash tuns and lauter tuns has been
described. To optimise cost efficiency the brewer needs to find a balance between extract yield and
throughput. Hot water extract has the largest impact on cost however, consistency of grain size,
beta glucan, polyphenol and haze active protein levels will also affect the cost of production. In
order to optimise the process for quality the brewer needs malt where the starch conversion is
easily and consistently controllable, a nitrogen profile that provides enough nutrition for yeast
growth, fermentation, and foam quality while not adversely impacting on product stability.
Currently these needs are met with broad parameters such as diastatic power and total and soluble
nitrogen. More research leading to a greater fundamental understanding of the biochemistry of
malting and brewing is needed to define the raw material needs more closely.
Trong bi bo ny, cc hot ng v mc tiu ca cc nh my su con ln, tuns nghin v tuns
Lauter c m t. ti u ha hiu qu chi ph cc nh sn xut bia cn phi tm mt s cn
bng gia nng sut chit xut v thng qua. Chit xut nc nng c nh hng ln nht trn chi
ph tuy nhin, tnh thng nht ca kch thc ht, glucan beta, polyphenol v sng m tch cc
mc protein cng s nh hng n chi ph sn xut. ti u ha qu trnh ny cho cht lng
bia cn malt s bin i tinh bt l cch d dng v lun kim sot c, mt h s nit cung cp
dinh dng cho s pht trin nm men, qu trnh ln men v cht lng bt trong khi khng
nh hng xu n s n nh v sn phm. Hin nay nhng nhu cu ny c p ng vi cc
thng s ph bin nh in diastatic v tng s v nit ha tan. Nhiu nghin cu dn n mt s
hiu bit c bn ln hn ca sinh ha ca mch nha v sn xut bia l cn thit xc nh cc
nguyn liu cn cht ch hn.
Abstract
Brewing apparatus and a method of brewing in which mash cooking and wort boiling are carried
out in a single vessel (2), the vessel having an agitator (202), a heater preferably formed as a steam
jacket (220, 224) and as an external through flow heater (8), the wort being circulated through the

heater and back into the vessel by means of a tangential feed inlet (56) which causes the vessel's
contents to whirl whilst the wort is boiling. The apparatus and method reduces the requirement for
separate mash cooking and wort boiling vessels.
B my sn xut bia v mt phng php sn xut bia trong nghin nu n v wort si c
tin hnh trong mt con tu (2), tu c mt thit b khuy (202), mt nng tt c hnh thnh nh
mt chic o khoc hi (220, 224) v l mt bn ngoi thng qua lm nng dng (8), dch nha
c lun chuyn qua cc my si v quay tr li tu bng phng tin ca mt u vo thc n
chn nui tip tuyn (56) gy ra ni dung ca tu quay cung trong khi wort ang si. Cc b
my v phng php lm gim cc yu cu cho mash nu n v wort si tu ring bit.
Images(3)
Claims(10)
1. Brewing apparatus comprising an at least part cylindrical vessel mash agitation means within
the vessel, means for raising the temperature of the vessel contents and means for causing a rapid
circulation of the contents of the vessel by whirling the contents.
2. Apparatus as claimed in Claim 1 further comprising a lauter tun connected to an outlet of said
vessel, the tun having an outlet connected to an inlet of the vessel whereby wort from the tun can
be fed back into the vessel.
3. Apparatus as claimed in Claim 1 or 2 wherein said means for raising the temperature of the
vessel contents comprises a steam jacket at least partially surrounding said vessel, said jacket
connected to a source of steam.
4. Apparatus as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 3 wherein said means for raising the temperature
of the vessel contents comprises an external through flow wort boiler, the wort boiler connected to
a tangential input into a cylindrical side of said vessel and wherein a pump is provided to pump the
contents through the boiler and input, said input and pump comprising said circulation means.
5. Apparatus as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 4 wherein said mash agitation means comprises
blade means having at least one blade mounted to a vertical shaft connected for rotating to a
motor, said blade means being connectable with raising means to raise blade means from a lower
position engageable with vessel contents to an upper position disengaged with said vessel
contents.
6. Apparatus as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 5 wherein said agitation means is mounted to a
vertical shaft the axis of which is offset to the axis of the vessel, the shaft being connected for
rotating to a motor and wherein further blade means are provided at a lower extremity of said
shaft, said further blade means being rotatable in an area surrounded by a sump of said vessel
provided in an outwardly dished bottom.
B my 1. Bia bao gm mt t nht mt phn hnh tr cm tu kch ng c ngha l trong cc tu,
phng tin nng nhit ca cc ni dung tu, phng tin gy ra mt tun hon nhanh
chng ca cc ni dung ca tu bng cch xon cc ni dung.
2. B my nh tuyn b trong im 1 cha thm mt tun Lauter ni vi ngun in ca tu cho
bit, cc tun c mt cm kt ni vi mt u vo ca tu, theo wort t tun c th c a tr
li vo mch.

3. Thit b nh tuyn b trong im 1 hoc 2, trong cho bit phng tin nng nhit ca
cc ni dung tu bao gm mt chic o khoc hi t nht l mt phn nhng vng ln cn cho bit
tu, cho bit chic o khoc kt ni vi mt ngun ca hi nc.
4. Thit b theo im bt k trong s cc im 1-3 trong ni rng phng tin nng nhit
ca cc ni dung bao gm mt tu bn ngoi thng qua l hi dng wort, l hi wort kt ni vi
mt u vo tip tuyn vo mt mt ca hnh tr cho bit tu v trong mt bm c cung cp
bm cc ni dung thng qua cc l hi v u vo, cho bit u vo v bm bao gm cc
phng tin lu thng cho bit.
5. Thit b theo im bt k trong s cc im 1-4 trong ni cm kch ng c ngha l bao gm
li c ngha l c t nht mt li dao gn vi mt trc thng ng kt ni lun vi mt ng c,
ni li c ngha l c th kt ni vi nng cao phng tin nng cao phng tin li t mt
engageable v tr thp hn vi ni dung tu n mt v tr trn thnh thi vi ni dung cho bit tu.
6. Thit b theo im bt k trong s cc im 1-5 trong ni c ngha l kch ng c gn vi
mt trc dc trc trong c b p vi trc ca tu, trc c kt ni lun vo mt ng c v
trong hn na phng tin li c cung cp ti mt chi di ca trc ni, cho bit thm c
ngha l li xoay trong mt khu vc c bao quanh bi mt thng ng nc thi ca ni tu
c cung cp trong mt b ngoi di hnh a.
7. Apparatus as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 6 wherein said vessel is dimensioned so that its
height without a sump is related to its diameter and so that H:D is about 1:1, a lowest point of said
height defining a reference point R, and wherein a tangential input is provided for said circulation
means at an input level above point R where said input level relates to D as about 55 to 230 and to
H as about 55 to 235.
7. Thit b theo im bt k trong s cc im 1-6 trong cho bit tu c kch thc tng
chiu cao ca n m khng c mt thng ng nc thi c lin quan n ng knh ca n v
do H: D l khong 1: 1, mt im thp nht ca chiu cao cho bit vic xc nh mt tham kho
im R, v trong mt u vo tip tuyn c cung cp lu thng cho bit c ngha l mt
mc u vo trn im R ni cho bit mc u vo lin quan n D l khong 55-230 v H
l khong 55-235.
8. A method of brewing comprising using a single vessel with agitation means to agitate mash
whilst cooking said mash, to boil the wort and to circulate said wort through said vessel whilst
boiling, and including the steps of:
(a) filling said vessel with a mash charge of grist and hot water whilst activating said agitation
means,
(b) raising said mash temperature to cook said mash,
(c) emptying said vessel into a lauter tun,
(d) cleaning said vessel,
(e) running off wort from said tun into said vessel to a level,
(f) raising said agitation means above said level,
(g) circulating said wort through said vessel by pumping,
(h) boiling said wort,

(i) ceasing pumping and allowing circulation to continue for a period,

(j) transferring said boiled and clarifying wort through cooling means to fermentation vessel
means.
8. Mt phng php sn xut bia bao gm s dng mt con tu vi kch ng c ngha l khuy
ng nghin trong khi nu cm cho bit, un si dch nha v lu hnh cho bit wort qua cho
bit tu khi si, v bao gm cc bc:
(a) in cho bit tu vi mt khon ph mash ca nc la mch v nng khi hot ni kch ng c
ngha l,
(b) nng cao cho bit nhit nghin v nu cm cho bit,
(c) tu ni vo mt tun Lauter,
(d) lm sch cho bit tu,
(e) chy i wort t ni tun vo cho bit tu n mt mc ,
(f) Nng cao ni c ngha l kch ng ni trn cp ,
(g) lu hnh wort ni qua ni tu bng cch bm,
(h) si ni wort,
(i) ngng bm v cho php lu thng tip tc trong mt thi gian,
(j) chuyn giao cho bit luc v lm r wort qua lm mt c ngha l ln men phng tin tu.
9. A method according to claim 8 wherein after step (a) said charge is allowed to stand for about
15 minutes, in step (b) said mash is raised to about 650C in about 20 minutes after which said mash
is allowed to stand for about 30 minutes.
10. A method according to claim 8 or 9 wherein in step (b) said mash is raised to about 650C in
about 20 minutes after which said mash is allowed to stand for about 30 minutes and with said
agitation means still running said mash is raised to about 760C in about 11 minutes prior to step (c)
and wherein step (g) is continuous with step (e) after about 50% of the final wort volume is
reached and step (g) continues after the final wort volume is reached, step (h) continuing after said
final wort volume is reached for about an hour.
9. Phng php theo im 8, trong sau giai on (a) cho bit ph c php ng trong khong
15 pht, trong bc (b) ni cm c nng ln n khong 650C trong khong 20 pht sau cho
bit nghin c php ng cho khong 30 pht.
10. Phng php theo im 8 hoc 9 trong trong bc (b) ni cm c nng ln n khong
650C trong khong 20 pht sau cho bit nghin c php ng trong khong 30 pht v c
ni kch ng, phng tin nghin vn chy ni c nng ln n khong 760C trong khong 11
pht trc khi bc (c) v trong bc (g) l lin tc vi bc (e) sau khong 50% khi lng
wort thc l t v bc (g) tip tc sau khi khi lng wort thc t c , bc (h) tip tc sau
khi bit khi lng wort thc t c trong khong mt gi.

Description
Advantages of the invention over known apparatus and methods are reduction in construction
costs, space utilization and heat losses, heat losses being quite considerable in known apparatus
between individual vessels. Energy conservation is utilized to the maximum since the structural
heat requirements of the vessel are combined plant utilization for prime movers, that is pumps, and

ancillary equipment, that is valves, is maximised since components may be used for multiple
functions.
An embodiment of the invention will now be described by way of example with reference to the
accompanying drawings in which:Figure 1 is a flow diagram of the brewing apparatus according to the invention,
Figure 2 is a side view in partial cross section of a combined mash mixer, kettle, whirlpool vessel
for the apparatus of Figure 1, and
Figure 3 is a plan view of the vessel of Figure 2.
u im ca sng ch trong b my c bit n v cc phng php gim chi ph xy dng, s
dng khng gian v tn tht nhit, tn tht nhit l kh ng k trong b my c bit gia cc
tu c. Bo tn nng lng c s dng n mc ti a v cc yu cu nhit cu trc ca tu
c kt hp s dng my cho ng lc, l my bm v thit b ph tr, l van, l ti a t
cc thnh phn c th c s dng cho nhiu chc nng.
Mt hin thn ca sng ch s c m t bng cch v d vi tham chiu n cc hnh v km
theo, trong : Hnh 1 l mt s dng chy ca b my sn xut bia theo sng ch,
Hnh 2 l mt ci nhn bn trong mt ct ngang mt phn ca mt my trn kt hp ngm, m un
nc, tu xoy nc trong b my ca hnh 1, v
Hnh 3 l k hoch ca cc tu ca hnh 2.
A brewing apparatus is qhowp generally in Figure 1 which comprises two main vessels namely a
combined mash mixer, kettle and whirlpool vessel 2 and a lauter tun 4. Associated with these
vessels are grist feed means 6, a flow through wort boiler 8, a combined transfer and circulation
pump 10 (shown as two separate pumps 12 and 14 in Figures 2 and 3), a wort run-off or transfer
pump.16,
The present invention relates to brewing apparatus and 3 method of brewing using such an
apparatus.
Traditionally the process of mash cooking, wort boiling and whirlpool separation have been
carried out in separate vessels. Recently we have successfully combined the wort boiling process
and whirlpool separation in a single vessel, this has resulted in heat savings whilst there has been
some saving in plant cost.
Mt b my sn xut bia l qhowp thng trong hnh 1 trong bao gm hai tu chnh c th l
mt mash trn kt hp, m un nc v xoy tu 2 v mt tun Lauter 4. Lin kt vi cc tu ang
n la mch c ngha l 6, mt dng chy qua wort ni hi 8, mt kt hp chuyn v bm tun 10
(hin th nh hai my bm ring bit 12 v 14 trong hnh 2 v 3), mt wort run-off hoc chuyn
pump.16,
Sng ch lin quan n b my sn xut bia v 3 phng php sn xut bia s dng nh mt b
my.
Theo truyn thng, qu trnh nghin nu n, wort si v xoy tch c thc hin trong cc
mch ring bit. Gn y chng ti kt hp thnh cng wort qu trnh v xoy tch si trong
mt con tu, iu ny dn n tit kim nhit trong khi c mt s tit kim chi ph nh my.

Brewing apparatus according to the present invention comprises an at-least part cylindrical vessel,
mash agitation means within the vessel, means for raising the temperature of the vessel contents,
means for causing a rapid circulation of the contents of the vessel by whirling the contents.
A method of brewing according to the present invention comprises in a single vessel agitating
mash whilst cooking the mash, boiling the wort, and circulating the wort through the vessel whilst
boiling.
Preferably the apparatus also comprises a lauter tun into which the mash may be run off and from
which wort is returned to the vessel.
The means for raising the temperature of the contents preferably comprises a steam jacket at least
partially surrounding the vessel and an external through flow wort boiler, the wort boiler having a
tangential input into a cylindrical side of the vessel.
B my sn xut bia theo sng ch bao gm mt t-nht l tu hnh tr phn, mash kch ng c
ngha l trong cc tu, phng tin nng nhit ca cc ni dung tu, phng tin gy ra
mt tun hon nhanh chng ca cc ni dung ca tu bng cch xon cc ni dung.
Mt phng php sn xut bia theo sng ch bao gm trong mt con tu kch ng nghin trong
khi nu n nghin, un si dch nha, v lu hnh cc wort qua cc tu trong khi si.
Tt hn l b my cng bao gm mt tun Lauter vo nghin c th c chy ra v t wort
c tr li cho tu.
Cc phng tin nng nhit ca cc ni dung u tin bao gm mt chic o khoc hi t nht
mt phn xung quanh tu v mt bn ngoi l hi dng wort, l hi wort c mt u vo tip
tuyn vo mt mt hnh tr ca tu.
a lauter tun spent grain removal device 18 and wort cooling means 20.
The lauter tun 4 with associated device 18 are conventional and need no further description.
Grist feed means 6 comprising a feed in device 30, a grist case 32, an outlet valve 34, a vortex feed
unit 36 with mash liquor input line 38 controlled by valve 40, a mono pump 42 and a static in line
mixer 44 feeds line 46 into the combined vessel 2. The liquor is normally fed from a separate
guaged liquor tank where the liquor can be treated to 65 - 750C. The cooling.means 20 comprising
a two stage cooler 50 is fed from wort run-off line 52 controlled by valve 54.
The wort boiler 8 which may be either steam heated (suitable for larger installations e.g.1000
barrel output) or gas fired for smaller installations e.g. 30 barrel output is coupled to the combined
vessel 2 by a vessel input 56 which feeds tangentially into a cylindrical wall 58 of the vessel and is
fed by vessel outlet line 60 having valve 62, common line 64, pump line 66 having valve 68, pump
inlet line 70, pump 10, pump outlet line 72 having valve 74 and boiler inlet line 76. A bypass valve
78 separates lines 76 and 64. Line 80 joins line 82 having valve 84 for feeding mash from the
vessel 2 to tun 4.
mt tun Lauter dnh thit b loi b ht 18 v lm mt wort c ngha l 20.
Cc Lauter tun 4 vi thit b lin quan n 18 l thng thng v khng cn phi m t k hn.
Thc n la mch c ngha l 6 bao gm mt ngun cp d liu trong thit b 30, mt trng hp
la mch 32, mt van m ra 34, mt n v thc n xoy 36 vi dng u vo ru ngm 38 iu
khin bng van 40, mt my bm mono 42 v mt tnh trong dng mixer 44 ngun cp d liu

dng 46 tu kt hp 2. ru thng c cho n t mt b cha ru guaged ring bit, ni ru

c th c iu tr n 65 - 750C. Cc cooling.means 20 bao gm mt hai giai on mt 50 c
a t dng wort run-off 52 iu khin bng van 54.
Cc ni hi wort 8 m c th c, hoc lm nng bng hi (thch hp cho ci t ln hn sn
lng thng eg1000) hoc kh t cho vic ci t nh hn v d: 30 sn lng thng l cng vi
cc tu kt hp 2 bi mt u vo tu 56 m ngun cp d liu tip tuyn vo mt bc tng hnh
tr 58 ca tu v c nui dng bng dng outlet tu 60 c van 62, ng ph bin 64, dng
bm 66 c van 68, my bm dng u vo 70, 10 bm, bm dng cm 72 c van 74 v ni hi
u vo dng 76. Mt bypass van 78 tch dng 76 v 64. ng 80 ni dng 82 c van 84 cho n
cm t cc tu 2 n 4 tun.
Wort is run-off from the lauter tun 4 through run-off line 90 through valve 92 in line 94, line 96 in
which is valve 100. Lines 96 and 90 are connected also by by-pass valve 98. Line 96 is connected
to wort run-off pump inlet line. Wort run-off pump 16 then pumps through outlet line 104, line 106
(which is connected to underlet line 108 through underlet line valve 110),wort run-off 112 in
which are valves 114 and 116 and thence back through line 66 or 70 into vessel 2.
Within vessel 2 is an off-centrally mounted shaft 200 on which are mounted agitator blades 202
and trub sump blades 204. The off-centred mounting of the shaft improves agitation. Shaft 200 is
arranged to be raised from the firm line position A shown in Figure 2 either by attaching a tackle
or chain hoist to eye 201 or when fully raised the blades 204 are at the broken line position B of
Figure 2. An external motor and gearing 206 is provided on the vessel top to drive shaft 200 to
rotate the blades.
Wort ang chy-off t Lauter tun 4 thng qua dng chy qua van 92 90 trong dng 94, dng 96
trong l van 100. Cc dng 96 v 90 c kt ni cng bi by-pass van 98. ng 96 c kt
ni vi wort run-off line bm ht gi. Wort bm chy-off 16 sau bm qua ng dy cm
104, ng 106 (c kt ni vi ng dy cho thu li 108 thng qua van dng cho thu li
110), Wort chy-off 112 trong l van 114 v 116 v t tr li thng qua ng dy 66 hoc
70 vo tu 2.
Trong vng 2 tu l mt trc g off-Trung 200 trn c gn li khuy 202 v trub sump li
204. Cc lp off-trung tm ca trc ci thin kch ng. Shaft 200 c b tr c nng ln t v
tr cng rn Mt th hin trong hnh 2, hoc bng cch gn mt Palng gii quyt hoc chui
mt 201 hoc khi c nui hon ton li 204 ang v tr ng b hng B ca Hnh 2. Mt
ng c bn ngoi v gearing 206 c cung cp trn cc u tu trc 200 xoay li.
Around the cylindrical wall 58 at its lower part is a steam jacket 220 and on the outside of the
dished bottom wall 222 is a second steam jacket 224. Jackets 220 and 224 are fed by a main steam
line 226.
Trub sump 228 is fitted with a drain line 230 closed by valve 232 and isolation from line 64 by its
valve 234.
A typical operating cycle using the above apparatus ; would be as follows:Starting with a vessel 2 being clean, agitator blades 202 are at position A and running whilst
malted grist and liquor (hot water) are pumped in through line 46. The hot water is normally at
about 65-750C and is a preset quantity gauged at a liquor tank (not shown).

Xung quanh tng hnh tr 58 phn di ca n l mt chic o khoc hi 220 v bn ngoi ca

tng pha di hnh a 222 l mt chic o khoc hi th hai 224. o 220 v 224 c nui
dng bi mt ng hi chnh 226.
Trub hm cha nc 228 c trang b vi mt ng cng 230 ng bng van 232 v s c lp
t dng 64 bng van ca n 234.
Mt chu k kinh in hnh s dng b my trn; s nh sau: Bt u vi mt tu 2 ang c sch, li dao khuy 202 ang v tr A v chy trong khi la
mch mch nha v ru (nc nng) c bm vo qua ng 46. Cc nc nng l bnh thng
vo khong 65-750C v l mt i lng o lng c ci sn ti mt thng ru (khng hin
th).
When the charge of grist and water is complete in vessel 2, the charge is allowed to stand at 45C
for 15 minutes.
With the agitator blades still running the charge, that is the mash, is raised to 65C in 20 minutes
by means of jackets 220 and 224.
The mash is allowed to stand for 30 minutes.
With the agitator running the mash is then raised to 760C in 11 minutes by means of jackets 220,
224. On reaching 76C the mash is pumped by means of pump 10 or 12 to lauter tun 4. On
emptying vessel 2, the vessel is flushed clean - suitable cleaning fluid can be pumped into the
vessel 2 through lines 250 and 252 using pump 16.
Within 15 or 20 minutes wort run-off from the lauter tun 4 is commenced returning the wort back
to vessel 2 by means of pump 16, this will continue for about 120 minutes.
Khi ph nc la mch v hon tt trong 2 tu, ph c php ng 45 C trong 15 pht.
Vi nhng li dao khuy vn chy ph, l nghin th c xt nng ln 65 C trong 20 pht
bng phng tin ca o jacket 220 v 224.
Mash c php ng trong 30 pht.
Vi s khuy chy cho nghin sau nng ln 760C trong 11 pht bng phng tin ca o
jacket 220, 224. Trn t 76 C mash c bm bng bm 10 hoc 12 Lauter tun 4. Trn tu
2, tu l ng sch - cht lng lm sch ph hp c th c bm vo tu 2 thng qua ng
dy 250 v 252 s dng my bm 16.
Trong thi hn 15 hoc 20 pht wort run-off t Lauter tun 4 c bt u quay tr li cc dch nha
tr li tu 2 bng phng php bm 16, iu ny s tip tc trong khong 120 pht.
When 50% of the wort volume is reached in vessel 2 the agitator blades 202 are raised from lower
position A to the upper position B so that they disengage from the contents of the vessel.
Wort circulation is now commenced by running pump 10 or 14 and heat is applied to the wort by
means of boiler 8 to commence pre-heating the wort from 76C to 100C.
When the full wort volume is reached, the adjuncts -e.g. sugar and hops are added and the whole
volume is boiled for about 60 minutes whilst continuously circulating through the boiler 8.
On completion of the boiling phase, the heater and circulating pump 10 or 14 are isolated and the
wort continues to rotate due to inertia for about 15 minutes.

Khi 50% khi lng wort t c trong tu 2 li khuy 202 c nng ln t v tr thp hn A
n v tr trn B h rt ra khi cc ni dung ca tu.
Lu thng Wort by gi l bt u bng cch chy my bm 10 hoc 14 v nhit c p dng
cho cc dch nha bng ni hi 8 bt trc lm nng wort t 76 C n 100 C.
Khi khi lng wort y c, mc sanh -eg ng v hoa bia c thm vo v ton b khi
lng c un si khong 60 pht, trong khi lin tc lu thng trong ni hi 8.
Sau khi hon thnh giai on si, l si v bm tun hon 10 hoc 14 l b c lp v wort tip tc
xoay do qun tnh trong khong 15 pht.
The clarified wort is then transferred through the cooling means 20 to fermentation vessels (not
shown).
The trub.residue collected in the trub sump 228 is then discharged through drain valve 232 and the
system flushed clean ready for the next batch of mash.
It will be appreciated that the cylindrical diameter D of vessel 2 is dimensioned so as to provide
optimum flow characteristics when whirling the wort. Taking the effective bottom the vessel at a
calculated point approximately where the dishing of the bottom wall 222 would indicate a
reference point or bottom level R can be determined. The optimum wort level L is then at a height
above R where
Cc wort lm r sau c chuyn qua lm mt c ngha l 20 cho cc tu ln men (khng hin
th).
Cc trub.residue thu thp trong trub sump 228 sau c thi ra qua van cng 232 v h thng
x sch v sn sng cho cc t tip theo ca mash.
N s c nh gi cao l ng knh D tr ca tu 2 c kch thc tng cung cp c
tnh dng chy ti u khi quay cung dch nha. Ly hiu qu di tu ti mt im tnh ton xp
x ni dishing ca tng pha di 222 s ch ra mt im tham chiu hoc di mc R c th
c xc nh. Mc wort ti u L l sau cao trn R ni

In Figure 2 vessel 2 is dimensioned so that L /D (34 barrel wort level) is about 0.65 and L"/D (30
barrel wort level) is about 0.60. A lower level L"'(for a-half charge of 15 barrels) is such that L"'/D
is about 0.33. At this lower level of optimum wort level may not be achieved.
On initial trials L/D may preferably be about 0.73.
In the example given in Figure 2 D is 2300 mm. The height of the whirlpool inlet above R is about
550 mm whilst L' is 1485 mm.
Trong hnh 2 tu 2 c kch thc tng L / D (34 thng cp dch nha) l 0,65 v L "/ D (30
thng cp dch nha) l khong 0.60. Mt mc L thp" (i vi mt na ph ca 15 thng) l nh
vy m L "'/ D l khong 0.33. cp ny thp hn mc wort ti u c th khng t c.
Ngy th nghim ban u L / D tt nht c th c v 0,73.

Trong v d hnh 2 D l 2.300 mm. Chiu cao ca ca xoy trn R l khong 550 mm trong khi
L 'l 1.485 mm.
A Practical Guide to Lautering
Author: Randy WhistlerIssue: March 1998
Considering how important it is to the brewing process, lautering doesnt get much respect. Many
brewers see it as simply the process of rinsing grains. They give it little thought, rush through it,
and curse it when it causes problems such as a stuck lauter.
But a successful lauter plays an important role in getting the most from your grains, avoiding
astringent flavors, and making your brewing more consistent.
Lautering, by definition, is simply the separation of mash solids from mash liquids. The act of
lautering gives the brewer the wort needed for making beer.
Lautering begins after the mash. Mashing means that grains are immersed into water warm enough
(149 to 158 F) to convert starch into small sugars, among other processes that take place. Most
of these particles that are broken down into smaller parts become soluble (they become a liquid
solution). These small parts are required by the yeast to convert wort to beer. However, the yeast
doesnt really need all the solid stuff, and not even the most hearty homebrewers want that much
body to their beer. Plus if you boiled the gruel at this point, you would end up with excessive
tannins in your beer. Therefore, lautering was invented.
t v tm quan trng i vi qu trnh sn xut bia, lautering khng nhn c nhiu s tn trng.
Nhiu nh sn xut bia xem n nh l ch n gin l qu trnh ra ht. H cung cp cho n t suy
ngh, vi vng thng qua n, v nguyn ra n khi n gy ra cc vn nh mt Lauter b mc
kt.
Nhng mt Lauter thnh cng ng mt vai tr quan trng trong vic nhn c nhiu nht t cc
loi ng cc ca bn, trnh mi v cht lm se, v lm cho sn xut bia ca bn nht qun hn.
Lautering, theo nh ngha, ch n gin l vic tch cc cht rn ngm t cht lng mash. Cc
hnh ng ca lautering cung cp cho cc nh sn xut bia cc wort cn thit lm bia.
Lautering bt u sau khi ngm. Nghin c ngha l cc loi ng cc c m mnh vo nc m
(149 n 158 F) chuyn i tinh bt thnh ng nh, gia cc qu trnh khc din ra.
Hu ht cc ht ny c chia thnh cc phn nh hn tr thnh ha tan (h tr thnh mt dung
dch cht lng). Nhng b phn nh c yu cu ca nm men chuyn i wort cho bia. Tuy
nhin, nm men khng thc s cn tt c nhng th rn, v thm ch khng homebrewers nng
nhit nht mun c nhiu c th bia ca h. Plus nu bn un si cho vo thi im ny, bn
s kt thc vi tannin qu mc trong bia ca bn. V vy, lautering c pht minh.
The basic principles of lautering involve putting the mashed grain into a vessel with a sieved
bottom. Using the most standard setup, you will mash and lauter in the same (sieved-bottom)
vessel. The sieve can be anything from a leg out of a pair of nylons (usually large and preferably
never before worn) to a V-plate stainless steel false bottom installed in one of those large, round
water coolers. The sieved vessel then allows the liquids of the mash to flow out of the mash tun
into another vessel.

However, there is a small problem here. This initial juice that escapes from the lauter vessel has a
very high initial gravity, which is not always preferred by the brewer, and a brewer who just
drained the lauter without adding more water would lose a bunch of sugar that the yeast could
otherwise eat. So unless you want really small batches of high-alcohol beer, you have to add more
water back into the lauter.
Cc nguyn tc c bn ca lautering lin quan n vic a cc ht xay vo mt tu c y
sieved. S dng cc thit lp tiu chun nht, bn s nghin nt v Lauter trong cng (sng lc
y) tu. Ry c th c bt c iu g t mt chn ra ca mt cp nylons (thng l ln v tt
nht khng bao gi trc khi eo) mt V-tm thp khng g gi pha di c ci t trong
mt trong nhng, lm mt nc trn ln. Tu sng lc sau cho php cc cht lng nghin v
chy ra ngoi theo tun ngm vo mt tu c khc.
Tuy nhin, c mt vn nh y. Nc p ban u ny m thot ra khi tu Lauter c mt lc
hp dn rt cao ban u, m khng phi lun lun c a thch bi cc nh sn xut bia, v mt
nh sn xut bia ngi ch ro nc cho Lauter m khng cn thm nhiu nc hn s mt i
mt lot cc ng rng nm men nu khng c th n. V vy, tr khi bn mun thc s l nh
bia cao ru, bn phi thm nc tr li vo Lauter.
The Process
The details of the lautering process depend to some extent on the equipment you use and the type
of beer you are brewing. For this example well look at a beer of medium starting gravity, lautered
in the most standard of homebrew lauters, the five-gallon bucket with umpteen zillion holes drilled
into the bottom of it, stuffed into another five-gallon bucket with a spigot near the bottom.
At the point when you are just completing your mash and are ready to lauter, the mash water will
serve as foundation water. Foundation water allows the mash to float rather than become wedged
into the sieve. If you were lautering in a separate vessel, you would fill the bottom with 175 F
water and add the mash.
Hot water is preferred to cold water for lautering. Hot water extracts more sugar than cold water.
There are many chemical/physical principles at work here, but they can all be boiled down into a
maple-syrup example. If you have ever tried to pour maple syrup straight from the refrigerator
onto your waffles, you know the syrup does not pour very fast. But if it is heated, it pours much
more quickly.
Cc chi tit ca qu trnh lautering ph thuc vo mc no trn thit b bn s dng v cc
loi bia bn ang p . i vi v d ny chng ta s xem xt mt bia ca lc hp dn khi u
trung bnh, lautered trong tiu chun nht ca lauters homebrew, thng nm gallon vi nhiu l do
l zillion khoan vo di cng ca n, nhi vo mt thng nm gallon vi mt ci vi nc gn
pha di.
Ti thi im khi bn ch cn hon thnh cm ca bn v sn sng Lauter, nc ngm s phc
v nh l nn tng nc. Nc Foundation cho php mash ni hn l tr nn rc vo ry. Nu bn
lautering trong mt tu ring bit, bn s in vo di cng vi 175 F nc v thm cc
mash.
Nc nng c a chung hn nc lnh cho lautering. Nc nng chit xut ng nhiu hn
so vi nc lnh. C rt nhiu ha / nguyn tc vt l ti ni lm vic y, nhng tt c u c
th c un si vo mt v d maple syrup-. Nu bn bao gi c gng xi-r cy thng t

t lnh vo bnh qu ca bn, bn bit cc xi-r khng rt nhanh. Nhng nu n c lm

nng, n nhanh hn nhiu.
The same is true for the sugars in the mash. If you add cold water to them, they will move very
slowly through the lauter. But if you add hot water, the sugar molecules move around much faster
and are therefore extracted much faster. Another reason for using hot water is that you will be able
to bring the wort to a boil faster once lautering is completed.
Once the mash is complete, let it settle for about five minutes. This allows the grain bed to sort of
settle out. At the end of the five minutes, open the spigot and start running off slowly. The
lautering process should take about an hour; its not a race. A common mistake made in lautering is
to zip the water through the lauter and into the boil as fast as possible.
At the start of the lautering process, you should use a quart container to catch the first runnings.
These will be cloudy and have bits of husk in them. Pour the cloudy, husky material back into the
top of the lauter. This process is called vorlauf, a German word that means temporary. The mash
materials will act like a filter and clear the runnings.
iu ny cng ng i vi cc loi ng trong mash. Nu bn thm nc lnh vi h, h s di
chuyn rt chm qua Lauter. Nhng nu bn thm nc nng, cc phn t ng di chuyn xung
quanh nhanh hn nhiu v do c trch xut nhanh hn nhiu. Mt l do khc cho vic s
dng nc nng l bn s c th mang li cc dch nha un si nhanh hn mt ln lautering
c hon thnh.
Sau khi ngm xong, cho n gii quyt cho khong nm pht. iu ny cho php chic ging
ng cc loi ra gii quyt. Vo cui nhng nm pht, m vi nc v bt u chy ra t t.
Qu trnh lautering nn mt khong mt gi; n khng phi l mt cuc ua. Mt sai lm ph bin
thc hin trong lautering l zip cc nc thng qua cc Lauter v vo un si cng nhanh cng
tt.
Vo lc bt u ca qu trnh lautering, bn nn s dng mt thng cha lt bt Runnings u
tin. y s l my v c bit tru trong h. , vt liu khn c tr li vo u Lauter. Qu trnh
ny c gi l vorlauf, mt t ting c c ngha l tm thi. Cc vt liu nghin s hot ng
nh mt b lc v xa Runnings.
Repeat this process until you are satisfied with the clarity of your wort. Some worts never become
totally clear, while others can become almost crystal clear. It depends on your lauter tun design
and the type of malt and adjuncts you are using. However, as a general rule you should at least
vorlauf long enough to get the husky material out of the runoff. Fifteen minutes is a reasonable
time for the vorlauf.
Once you have reached the desired clarity, you can start running off into the brew kettle. Again,
this is not a race. You should take at least 45 minutes to run the rest of the water through the lauter
vessel. You will notice that the water level in the lauter tun will begin to get low as you drain off
the bottom liquid.
At this point you should be adding hot water back into the top of the lauter. One of the simplest
methods is to put boiling or near-boiling water into your quart vorlauf jug and add the water as
needed to the lauter vessel. It is a good idea to keep the water level in the lauter about an inch
above the grain bed.

Lp li qu trnh ny cho n khi bn hi lng vi s trong sng ca dch nha bn. Mt s worts
khng bao gi tr nn hon ton r rng, trong khi nhng ngi khc c th tr thnh gn nh tinh
th r rng. N ph thuc vo thit k Lauter tun ca bn v loi mch nha v sanh bn ang s
dng. Tuy nhin, nh mt quy lut chung, bn nn t nht vorlauf lu c c nhng ti liu
khn ra khi dng chy. Mi lm pht l thi gian hp l cho cc vorlauf.
Mt khi bn t n s r rng mong mun, bn c th bt u chy ra vo trong m un nc
brew. Mt ln na, y khng phi l mt cuc ua. Bn nn dnh t nht 45 pht chy cc
phn cn li ca cc nc thng qua cc tu Lauter. Bn s nhn thy rng mc nc trong tun
Lauter s bt u c c thp nh bn thot ra khi cht lng di.
Ti thi im ny, bn nn cho thm nc nng tr li vo u Lauter. Mt trong nhng phng
php n gin nht l t si hoc gn nc si vo quart vorlauf bnh ca bn v thm nc khi
cn thit tu Lauter. l mt tng tt gi cho mc nc trong Lauter khong mt inch
trn ging ng cc.
This is one simple method for adding water to the lauter tun. There are many tools available to
help the brewer add water evenly over the top of the lauter bed. Some are as complicated as
another bucket attached to a tube that runs into a second, T-shaped tube. When water is added to
the bucket, the T-tube spins around like a lawn sprinkler. For the most part these devices work
well.
You can also use an ordinary gardening water can, plastic not galvanized. If you use this method,
the water will cool down significantly between the time its on the stove and it gets to the lauter, so
overshoot your target temperature a bit.
The important thing is to evenly distribute the water over the top of the lauter. This allows the
water to flow evenly through the grain bed. The whole purpose of adding the extra water is to
extract more sugar. Therefore, it makes sense to evenly distribute the water. If the water does not
get to a certain spot in the lauter bed, you will get what are called sweet spots. Sweet spots
represent lost extract.
y l mt phng php n gin cho thm nc vo tun Lauter. C rt nhiu cng c c sn
gip cc nh sn xut bia thm nc u trn u ging Lauter. Mt s l phc tp nh mt x
gn vo mt ng chy vo mt th hai, ng hnh ch T. Khi nc c thm vo x, T-tube quay
xung quanh ging nh mt my ti c. i vi phn ln cc thit b lm vic tt.
Bn cng c th s dng c th, nha khng m mt nc lm vn bnh thng. Nu bn s
dng phng php ny, cc nc s h nhit ng k gia thi gian l trn bp v n c cho
Lauter, v vy nhit vt l mc tiu ca bn mt cht.
iu quan trng l phi phn phi nc trn u trang ca cc Lauter. iu ny cho php nc
chy u qua lp ht. Ton b mc ch ca vic thm nc thm l trch xut ng nhiu
hn. V vy, n c ngha phn phi nc. Nu nc khng c c mt v tr nht nh trong
lng Lauter, bn s c c nhng g c gi l im ngt. im ngt tng trng cho mt chit
xut.
One way to prevent sweet spots is to stir up the top of the grain bed with a fork. You can go as far
as halfway down the bed and not disturb it too much. But its important to move gently. Some
people might be afraid that this will disturb the bed too much. If you feel that way, this is by no
means a necessary procedure. It just helps you get the most out of your extraction. Also, only do

this early, during the vorlauf. Doing it later may cause setting of the disturbed layers, leaving you
with a stuck lauter.
Mt cch ngn chn im ngt l khuy ng ln u ging ng cc vi mt ng ba. Bn
c th i xa nh na ng xung ging v khng lm phin n qu nhiu. Nhng iu quan
trng l phi di chuyn nh nhng. Mt s ngi c th s rng iu ny s lm nhiu lon ng
qu nhiu. Nu bn cm thy nh vy, iu ny khng c ngha l mt th tc cn thit. N ch
gip bn nhn c nhiu nht ca khai thc ca bn. Ngoi ra, ch lm iu ny sm, trong
vorlauf. Lm n sau ny c th gy ra thit lp ca cc lp quy ry, li bn vi mt Lauter b
mc kt.
Finishing Up
So when do you stop lautering? You have been adding water for quite some time now. How can
you tell when it is time to stop? There are two schools of thought on when to stop: when you reach
a certain volume or when you reach a certain gravity. Of course if all goes well, youd like to hit
both at the same time. However, this takes a lot of practice.
If you decide to aim for volume, the question becomes: Which volume is correct? This depends on
how much energy you can stuff into your boiling kettle. If you are using a five-gallon fermenter,
you need 5.5 to eight gallons of starting wort. Generally if you are boiling on a stove top, you
wont need much more than 5.5 gallons. Thats because the boil on most stoves is fairly weak.
However, if youre cooking on a propane burner, especially one of those 150,000-BTU flame
throwers, and you have a large enough kettle to contain the boil, you can easily extract eight
gallons of wort and boil it down to five in an hour. You will also get good hop extraction this way.
V vy, khi no bn ngng lautering? Bn c thm vo nc mt thi gian kh by gi. Lm
th no bn c th bit c l thi gian dng li? C hai trng phi t tng trn khi dng
li: khi bn t n mt khi lng nht nh hoc khi bn t n mt lc hp dn nht nh. Tt
nhin, nu mi vic sun s, bn mun t c hai cng mt lc. Tuy nhin, iu ny phi mt rt
nhiu thc hnh.
Nu bn quyt nh nhm mc ch cho khi lng, cu hi s l: Trong khi lng l chnh
xc? iu ny ph thuc vo bao nhiu nng lng bn c th nht vo m un nc si ca bn.
Nu bn ang s dng mt fermenter nm gallon, bn cn 5,5 n tm gallon bt u dch nha.
Ni chung nu bn ang si trn mt u bp, bn s khng cn nhiu hn 5,5 lt. l bi v un
si trn bp l nht l kh yu. Tuy nhin, nu bn ang nu trn bp propane, c bit l mt
trong nhng sng phun la 150.000 BTU, v bn c mt m un nc ln cha cc un si,
bn c th d dng trch xut tm gallon wort v un si n xung trong mt nm gi. Bn cng s
nhn c chit hop tt theo cch ny.
If you decide to aim for a specific gravity, you wont know in advance, especially when you first
try this, how much volume youll end up with. With time, as you get more used to yoursystem,
you may become successful at predicting the volume.
However, aiming for specific gravity will make your results more consistent with the recipe, if
youre using one. It will also make it easier to repeat your results the next time you brew the same
beer.

The specific gravity method entails taking periodic gravity readings in the boiling kettle. The
general method for this is to take a sample of wort, put it in the measuring device, and immerse the
measuring device in ice or ice water until the temperature is correct. Then, take a gravity reading
and throw the wort back into the boiling kettle. Continue to take gravity readings until you have
reached the desired gravity. Keep in mind that the gravity after boiling will be higher than the
gravity at the start of the boil. This is due to evaporation of water during the boil.
Nu bn quyt nh nhm mc ch cho mt lc hp dn c th, bn s khng bit trc, c
bit l khi bn ln u tin th ny, bn s kt thc bao nhiu khi lng ln vi. Vi thi gian,
khi bn nhn c s dng nhiu hn yoursystem, bn c th tr thnh cng ti d on khi
lng.
Tuy nhin, mc tiu c th cho lc hp dn s lm cho kt qu ca bn ph hp hn vi cc cng
thc, nu bn ang s dng mt. N cng s lm cho n d dng hn lp li kt qu ca bn ln
sau bn pha bia cng.
Cc phng php trng lc c th i hi phi dng bi c hp dn k trong m un nc si.
Cc phng php chung cho vic ny l ly mu dch nha, t n trong cc thit b o lng, v
nhng thit b o trong nc hoc nc cho n khi nhit l ng. Sau , hy c hp
dn v nm dch nha tr li vo m un nc si. Tip tc o trng lc cho n khi bn t
n trng lc mong mun. Hy nh rng lc hp dn sau khi un si s cao hn so vi trng lc
vo u si. iu ny l do s bc hi ca nc trong qu trnh un si.
As the measuring device, its helpful to use a copper tube with one closed end. Copper has a
tremendous heat-exchange capacity, which allows the wort inside it to cool much more rapidly
than wort cools in plastic. Also, stirring helps greatly. Convective heat exchange, heat passed by a
current or flow, is much faster than conductive heat exchange, the passive process of giving off
heat without the aid of a current.
There is also a third method that is used to decide when to quit lautering. It involves neither
volume nor gravity of the extracted wort. This one is practiced by those fearful of tannin being in
their beer. This method involves either tasting or taking a gravity reading of the wort as it exits the
lauter tun. It is generally accepted that when the readings get down to a specific gravity of 1.008,
there are more tannins and other unwanted material flowing from the lauter vessel.
Nh l thit b o lng, n rt hu ch s dng mt ng ng vi mt u kn. ng c cng
sut trao i nhit rt ln, trong cho php cc wort bn trong n lm mt nhanh hn nhiu so
vi wort lm mt bng cht do. Ngoi ra, khuy gip rt nhiu. Trao i nhit i lu, nhit thng
qua bi mt dng in hoc dng chy, l nhanh hn nhiu so vi trao i nhit dn in, qu
trnh th ng ta ra nhit m khng cn s tr gip ca mt dng in.
Ngoi ra cn c mt phng php th ba c s dng quyt nh khi no b thuc l
lautering. N bao gm c khi lng v cng khng nghim trng ca dch nha chit xut. iu
ny c thc hin bi nhng s hi ca tannin l trong bia ca h. Phng php ny lin quan
n hoc nm hay tham gia mt bi c hp dn ca dch nha khi n ra khi tun Lauter. N thng
c chp nhn rng khi c xung ti mt lc hp dn c th ca 1,008, c nhiu tannin v cc
vt liu khng mong mun khc chy t tu Lauter.

If you are tasting the wort, at the point when you can no longer perceive a sweet flavor the gravity
ranges from 1.012 to 1.006, depending on your ability to perceive sweetness. If you fear tannin,
stop the lauter at this point.
If you still need more water to reach the volume you desire, then you can make up that amount of
water by using hot tap water, or take the excess sparge water and pour it directly into the brew
kettle. The important point is that you are not losing too much fermentable sugar at this point. It is
completely acceptable to use this practice. Many professional brewers use this method.
Nu bn ang nm wort, ti thi im khi bn khng cn c th cm nhn c mt hng v ngt
ngo ca trng lc trong khong 1,012-1,006, ty thuc vo kh nng ca bn cm nhn v
ngt. Nu bn lo s tannin, dng Lauter vo thi im ny.
Nu bn vn cn cn nhiu nc hn t c khi lng m bn mong mun, sau bn c
th to nn m lng nc bng cch s dng vi nc nng, hoc ly nc tit kim d tha v
trc tip vo m un nc brew. im quan trng l bn khng phi mt qu nhiu ng c
th ln men vo thi im ny. l hon ton chp nhn c s dng thc hnh ny. Nhiu
nh sn xut bia chuyn nghip s dng phng php ny.
Nothing But Time
What if the lauter is taking too long? First, its important to emphasize that a lauter that goes too
fast is a more common problem than one that goes too slow. If you lauter for 15 minutes, youre
going to leave a lot of sugar behind, and your extraction efficiency will be closer to 50 percent
than 60 or 70 percent.
The two most likely reasons for a slow lauter are:
1. The grain was milled too small.
2. The protein layer that forms on top of the grain bed has set thick and is restricting the flow of
wort through the grain bed, thus leaving Lake Lauter in its flood stage.
Both of these problems are easily rectified. If your milling size is too small, simply make it larger.
Many people try a small milling size because they are dissatisfied with their yield and want to get
more extract out of their grain. But a larger mill setting (the actual setting varies based on the type
of mill and grain) combined with a slow lauter will result in substantial extraction.
iu g nu Lauter l dng qu lu? u tin, iu quan trng l phi nhn mnh rng mt Lauter
m i qu nhanh l mt vn ph bin hn mt m i qu chm. Nu bn Lauter trong 15 pht,
bn s li rt nhiu ng pha sau, v hiu qu khai thc ca bn s c gn gi hn n 50
phn trm so vi 60 hay 70 phn trm.
Hai nguyn nhn c kh nng nht cho mt Lauter chm l:
1. Cc ht c xay qu nh.
2. Cc lp protein hnh trn u ging ng cc thit lp dy v ang hn ch dng chy ca
dch nha i qua lp ht, do li H Lauter trong giai on l ca n.
C hai vn c th d dng sa cha. Nu kch thc phay ca bn qu nh, ch n gin l lm
cho n ln hn. Nhiu ngi c gng mt kch thc phay nh v h khng hi lng vi sn lng
ca h v mun nhn c thm chit xut ra khi ht. Nhng mt thit lp nh my ln hn (cc

thit lp thc t khc nhau da trn cc loi my xay v ht) kt hp vi mt Lauter chm s dn
n khai thc ng k.
The second problem of the protein layer on top of the lauter is easily remedied by taking a fork
and periodically stirring the top of the grain bed. A side note on this problem: Wheat is notorious
for gumming up lauters, so expect some delays in lautering a wheat mash. Also, grind the grain a
bit larger than normal for wheat beers.
There is yet one more way that you can slow your lauter down, and that is by sticking your lauter
bed. This basically means that the wort is removed too fast from the bottom of the lauter, causing
the top of the lauter bed to push down on the sieve. This stops all flow through the lauter.
The most common way that this happens is that people take a long tube from their lauter spigot
and put it into their brew kettle on the floor. Then they open the lauter spigot. The wort in the tube
creates a great suction and,whammo, a stuck bed is formed.
Vn th hai ca lp protein trn u trang ca Lauter c d dng khc phc bng cch ly
mt ng ba v nh k khuy ln ging ng cc. Mt mt lu v vn ny: La m kht ting
vi vic dn dnh ln lauters, v vy mong i mt s chm tr trong lautering mt mash la m.
Ngoi ra, xay ht ln hn mt cht so vi bnh thng cho cc loi bia la m.
Cn c thm mt cch m bn c th lm chm Lauter ca bn xung, v l bng cch bm
ging Lauter ca bn. iu ny v c bn c ngha l wort c ly ra qu nhanh t di cng
ca Lauter, gy ra u ging Lauter y xung trn ry. iu ny ngng tt c cc dng chy
thng qua cc Lauter.
Cch ph bin nht m iu ny xy ra l mi ngi c mt ng di t ci vi nc Lauter ca h
v t n vo m un nc brew ca h trn sn nh. Sau h m vi nc Lauter. Cc dch nha
trong ng to ra lc ht tuyt vi, v whammo, mt chic ging b mc kt c hnh thnh.
To get rid of a stuck bed, underlet the lauter by pushing water back up through the spigot. This
helps clear the sieve holes. After underletting you should wait about five minutes, then resume
lautering.
Heres one last suggestion to make the lautering process easier. As soon as you are done using your
lauter tun, clean it. Procrastination about cleaning the lauter tun will almost inevitably cost you
more time next time you brew. Also, there tends to be a fascinating array of molds that are willing
to spring up in as little time as a day or two if the lauter tun is left even partially dirty.
Finally, if you still have trouble going slowly through the lautering process, try drinking some of
your previous work during this time and making it a social event. Most all social events are known
to cause time to elongate.
thot khi mt ging kh khn, cho thu li cc Lauter bng cch y nc ln tr li qua ci
vi nc. iu ny gip xa cc l sng. Sau underletting bn nn i khong nm pht, sau
tip tc lautering.
Di y l mt ngh mi lm cho qu trnh d dng hn lautering. Ngay khi bn ang thc
hin bng cch s dng tun Lauter ca bn, lm sch n. S chn ch v lm sch cc tun Lauter
gn nh chc chn s tn ca bn nhiu thi gian hn thi gian tip theo bn pha. Ngoi ra, c xu
hng l mt mng hp dn ca khun mu sn sng mc ln trong thi gian t nht l mt
hoc hai ngy nu tun Lauter cn li thm ch mt phn bn.

Cui cng, nu bn vn cn gp kh khn khi i chm qua qu trnh lautering, hy th ung mt

s cng vic trc y ca bn trong thi gian ny v lm cho n mt s kin x hi. Hu ht tt
c cc s kin x hi c bit l gy ra thi gian ko di.
Randy Whisler is a brewer and microbiologist at Smuttynose Brewing Co., Portsmouth, N.H. He
holds an M.S. in brewing from the University of California, Davis.
Lautering: malt factors and their use in barley breeding
Chris Ford1, Doug Stewart2, Peter Healy3 and Evan Evans1
1Department of Plant Science, Adelaide University, Waite Campus PMB1, Glen Osmond, SA
5064
2Adelaide Malting Company, Cavan, SA 5094
3Lion-Nathan Australia, Milton, QLD 4007
Abstract
Lautering remains a bottleneck in brewery operations. The malt factors contributing to reduced
performance in the lauter tun have been incompletely characterised, and breeding of barleys with
improved brew-house performance largely overlooked. By gaining a complete understanding of
the processes involved, malt characteristics that promote or retard lautering can be targeted within
existing breeding programs to produce barleys more closely attuned to the needs of brewers. A
laboratory-scale lautering device with a capacity of 1 kg malt has been built, which replicates the
grain bed depth and run-off rates of commercial lauter tuns. Lautering performance is assessed by
recording differential pressure across the grain bed. The effects of barley variety, malting, milling
and mashing conditions, and parameters of lauter tun operation are being assessed for their
contributions to lautering performance. Preliminary results have shown that it is possible to
discriminate the lautering performance of malts using the small-scale device developed. A number
of Australian malts have been examined, and the outcomes of these trials will be presented. By
operating the device at temperatures used commercially, it has been possible to minimise
interference from -glucans, and thereby more accurately examine those malt factors of
importance to lautering in the brewery.
Lautering vn l mt nt c chai trong hot ng nh my bia. Cc yu t malt gp phn lm gim
hiu sut trong tun Lauter c m t khng y , nui trng loi la mch vi ci thin hiu
sut brew nh phn ln b b qua. Bng cch bit c mt s hiu bit y v qu trnh tham
gia, c malt thc y hoc lm chm lautering c th c nhm mc tiu trong chng trnh
nhn ging hin c sn xut loi la mch cht ch hn vi cc nhu cu ca cc nh sn xut
bia. Mt thit b phng th nghim lautering quy m vi cng sut 1 kg mch nha c xy
dng, trong ti to cc ht su ging v chy-off gi ca Lauter thng mi tuns. Lautering
hiu c nh gi bng cch ghi li chnh p qua ging ng cc. Nhng nh hng ca nhiu
loi la mch, mch nha, iu kin xay v nghin, v cc thng s hot ng Lauter tun ang c
nh gi v nhng ng gp ca h lautering hiu sut. Kt qu s b ch ra rng n c th
phn bit c nhng hiu sut lautering ca malt s dng cc thit b quy m nh pht trin. Mt
s loi mch nha ca c c kim tra, v kt qu ca cc th nghim ny s c trnh by.
Bng cch iu hnh cc thit b nhit s dng thng mi, n c th gim thiu s can

thip t -glucans, v do chnh xc hn kim tra nhng yu t quan trng i vi malt lautering
trong nh my bia.
Introduction
The common thread linking each new malting variety released by barley breeders is an
improvement in levels of extract or diastase activity when compared with the variety to be
replaced. Traditionally this is achieved through selection specifically for these factors, with little or
no emphasis placed on the likely performance of the variety when it is malted and passes into the
brew-house. Modern-day brew-houses may operate at up to 10-12 brews per day, and it is
generally accepted that the rate-limiting step of the processes from milling to chilling lies with
the separation of sweet wort and spent grains following mashing. The means by which this is
achieved has varied with brewing styles and the advent of hydraulically actuated press-filters, but
in each case there is a premium to be had by recovering the maximum extract in the minimal cycle
time.
Cc ch ph bin lin kt mi loi mch nha mi pht hnh bi cc nh nhn ging la mch l
mt s ci tin trong mc chit hoc diastase hot ng khi so snh vi s a dng c thay th.
Theo truyn thng, iu ny t c thng qua cc la chn c bit cho cc yu t ny, c rt t
hoc khng c s nhn mnh v tc thc t ca ging khi n l mch nha v i vo brew nh.
Modern-day-brew nh c th hot ng ln n 10-12 bia mi ngy, v n thng c chp nhn
rng bc hn ch t l ca cc qu trnh t 'phay lnh' nm vi vic tch wort ngt v cc loi
ng cc dnh ln sau . Cc phng tin m iu ny t c thay i vi phong cch sn xut
bia v s ra i ca cc thy lc bo ch-actuated b lc, nhng trong tng trng hp c mt ph
bo him c c bng cch thu hi cc chit xut ti a trong thi gian chu k ti thiu.
In the unending quest for improved malting barley varieties, there has to the best of our knowledge
been no attempt made to select directly for improved performance during the wort separation
process. We have recently started a research project that aims for the first time to provide barley
breeders with a measurable parameter for the prediction of potential efficiency in the wort
separation process. This will be achieved by developing an operational understanding of the most
common form of wort separation, namely lautering, and determining the role of individual barley
and malt factors in the process. Subsequently, tests to detect the presence or absence of desirable
or deleterious components will be developed or adopted from existing analytical protocols, and
applied to barley lines undergoing evaluation within our breeding programs.
Trong cuc tm kim bt tn cho ci thin cc ging la mch, c phi s hiu bit ca chng ta li
khng c gng thc hin chn trc tip tng hiu sut trong qu trnh wort tch. Chng ti
va mi bt u mt d n nghin cu nhm mc ch cho ln u tin cung cp ging la
mch vi mt tham s o lng c dng d bo hiu qu tim nng trong qu trnh wort
tch. iu ny t c bng cch pht trin mt s hiu bit hot ng ca cc hnh thc ph
bin nht ca wort tch, c th l lautering, v xc nh vai tr ca la mch v mch nha yu t c
nhn trong qu trnh ny. Sau , kim tra pht hin s c mt hay vng mt ca cc thnh phn
mong mun hoc c hi s c pht trin hoc nhn nui t cc giao thc phn tch hin c, v
p dng cho cc dng la mch tri qua nh gi trong chng trnh nhn ging ca chng ti.
Lautering research and development a brief historical perspective
The heyday for lautering research on a laboratory scale seems to have been the period of 20 years
or so between about 1970 and 1990. Both before and since that time, few if any reports of new

developments or understandings in lautering have appeared. During the 1970s, several papers were
published that described the development of increasingly sophisticated laboratory-scale lautering
vessels. These were often of all-glass construction, and were designed to allow the assessment of a
number of factors in apparatus that mimicked the salient features of brewery lauter vessels. For
instance, Crabb and Bathgate (1973) and Bathgate et al (1975) reported the construction and
operation of a combined mash and lauter vessel with a capacity of 1 kg malt. The equipment
incorporated a host of control units and measurement devices to allow monitoring of wort run-off
rates and differential pressure across the bed of spent grains, and was capable of discriminating
between two malts with quite similar specifications. Similar, although less complex designs were
reported also by Huite and Westermann, (1974), Webster (1981), Armitt et al, (1984) and Laing
and Taylor (1984).
Thi hong kim cho lautering nghin cu trn quy m phng th nghim c v nh c cc
khong thi gian 20 nm hoc lu hn gia nm 1970 v 1990. C trc v k t thi im ,
nu c vi bo co v nhng pht trin mi hoc hiu bit trong lautering xut hin. Trong
nhng nm 1970, mt s bi bo c cng b m t s pht trin ca cc mch lautering
phng th nghim quy m ngy cng tinh vi. y l nhng thng xy dng bng knh, v c
thit k cho php nh gi ca mt s yu t trong b my, bt chc cc tnh nng ni bt ca
tu nh my bia Lauter. V d, Crabb v Bathgate (1973) v Bathgate et al (1975) bo co vic
xy dng v hot ng ca mt mash v Lauter tu kt hp vi cng sut ca 1 kg mch nha. Cc
thit b c kt hp mt lot cc n v iu khin v cc thit b o lng cho php gim st gi
run-off wort v p sut khc nhau trn ging ca cc loi ng cc dnh, v c kh nng phn bit
gia hai loi mch nha vi thng s k thut kh tng t. Tng t, mc d t hn thit k phc
tp cng c bo co bi Huite v Westermann, (1974), Webster (1981), Armitt et al, (1984)
v Laing v Taylor (1984).
It is interesting to note that 20 years ago, Webster and Portno (1981) stated that the lautering
performance of malt is a factor of increasing economic significance...any incidence of poor
lautering will inevitably lead to loss of valuable extract and low brew-house yield; yet it
remains largely a matter of serendipity if a new barley variety performs well during the wort
separation process. The outcome of their work was the derivation of an expression that allowed the
prediction of wort run-off times from a set of malt parameters, namely the grist mean particle size,
the sedimentation value, wort viscosity and the volume of fine particles.
N l th v lu rng 20 nm trc, Webster v Portno (1981) ni rng "hiu sut lautering
ca malt l mt yu t lm tng ngha kinh t ... bt k t l lautering ngho chc chn s ... dn
n mt mt ca chit xut c gi tr v thp nng sut brew-house "; nhng n vn cn phn ln
l mt vn ca s may mn nu nhiu la mch mi hot ng tt trong qu trnh wort tch.
Kt qu ca cng vic ca h l ngun gc ca mt biu thc cho php d on ln wort run-off
t mt tp hp cc thng s mch nha, c th l la mch c ngha l kch thc ht, gi tr bi
lng, wort nht v khi lng ca cc ht mn.
The control of lautering
The outcome of the research summarised in the previous section has been the determination of a
list of factors that in various ways have an impact on lautering efficiency. The measurement of
lautering efficiency has been achieved by several means, including time to achieve the run-off of a
pre-determined wort volume (Webster and Portno, 1981), differential pressure across the grain bed

(Laing and Taylor, 1984) and integration under the curve of differential pressure against filtration
time (Armitt et al, 1984).
In most cases, the parameters controlling lautering efficiency can be split into physical factors and
those derived from barley and malt. The purely physical parameters include the effects of grain
bed geometry (shallow beds filter more quickly than deep ones), temperature (higher temperature
equates to faster run-off, but at the cost of extraction of lipids and, from the husks, tannins), flow
rate (lautering is a combination of filtering of first worts from spent grain and leaching of soluble
sugars into the sparge water; at excessive flow rates there is insufficient time for adequate leaching
to occur) and the size of the particles that make up the grain bed (smaller particles give better
extraction but a lower flow rate). Successful lautering is therefore a compromise between these
and other factors, superimposed on which are the effects arising from the mash that is to be
separated.
Cc kt qu nghin cu tm tt trong phn trc c xc nh mt danh sch cc yu t
trong nhiu cch khc nhau c tc ng vo lautering hiu qu. Vic o lautering hiu qu t
c bi mt s phng tin, bao gm c thi gian t c s run-off ca mt khi lng
wort c xc nh trc (Webster v Portno, 1981), chnh p qua ging ng cc (Laing v
Taylor, 1984) v hi nhp di ng cong p lc khc bit vi thi gian lc (Armitt et al, 1984).
Trong hu ht cc trng hp, cc thng s kim sot lautering hiu qu c th c chia thnh
cc yu t vt l v nhng ngi c ngun gc t la mch v mch nha. Cc thng s hon ton
vt l bao gm cc hiu ng ca hnh hc ging ng cc (ging cn lc nhanh hn so vi
nhng ngi c chiu su), nhit (nhit cao tng ng vi chy-off nhanh hn, nhng vi
chi ph khai thc ca lipid v, t tru, tannin), tc dng chy (lautering l mt s kt hp ca b
lc ca worts u t ht dnh v chit xut ca cc loi ng ha tan vo trong nc tit kim;
lu lng qu mc khng c thi gian cho ra tri xy ra) v kch thc ca cc ht cu to
nn ht ging (ht nh hn cho khai thc tt hn nhng tc dng chy thp hn). Do
lautering thnh cng l mt s tha hip gia nhng iu ny v cc yu t khc, chng trn l
nhng tc ng pht sinh t vic nghin m l c tch ra.
Lautering research for the new millennium
It is clear that although no consensus exists by which effective and efficient behaviour of malt
during lautering may be completely predicted, a considerable body of knowledge exists that
describes specific factors important in the process. Our research will focus first on gaining an
understanding of the particular barley or malt factors that are associated with efficient lautering.
When this has been achieved, we will be able to provide to the Australian barley breeding
community tools by which new varieties may be selected with improved performance in the brewhouse.
R rng l mc d khng c s nht tr bng m hnh vi hiu qu v hiu qu ca malt trong
lautering c th c hon ton d on, mt nhm ln nhng kin thc tn ti m m t cc yu
t c th quan trng trong qu trnh ny. Nghin cu ca chng ti s tp trung vo vic t c
mt s hiu bit ca la mch hoc mch nha c bit l yu t c lin quan n lautering hiu
qu. Khi iu ny t c, chng ti s c th cung cp cho cc cng c cng ng ging la
mch ca c m ging mi c th c la chn vi ci thin hiu sut trong brew nh.
Materials and Methods

Design of the laboratory-scale lauter tun used in this study was based on several devices reported
in the literature. The main design considerations were the need to mimic brewery conditions of
malt loading, grain column dimensions and run-off flow rates, while simultaneously measuring
meaningful parameters of malt performance during lautering. It was decided to work with
approximately 1 kg malt per trial, using both free-flow and pumped run-off of worts to determine
the best set of experimental lautering conditions.
Thit k ca cc phng th nghim quy m Lauter tun s dng trong nghin cu ny da trn
nhiu thit b bo co trong y vn. Cc cn nhc thit k chnh l s cn thit phi bt chc iu
kin nh my bia ca malt ti, kch thc ct ht v tc dng chy, trong khi ng thi o cc
thng s c ngha v hiu sut ca malt trong lautering. N quyt nh lm vic vi khong 1
kg mch nha mi th nghim, s dng c hai chy t do v bm chy tt ca worts xc nh
cc thit lp tt nht ca iu kin lautering nghim.
Similarly, a number of parameters for measuring grain bed performance were chosen. These
included differential pressure across the grain bed, the volume of wort collected and the decrease
in depth of the grain bed. A glass column 900 mm long with an internal diameter of 80 mm was
cut and fitted with Perspex ends. A false bottom of commercial manufacture (a kind gift from
Briggs of Burton Ltd.) with an aperture of ca 10% was fitted into a 100 mm diameter Quickfit
flask lid and the entire lower assembly was fastened to the column using wing nuts and bolts. An
attemperating glass jacket was sealed in place and tested for water tightness. Attemperating water
was pumped from a thermostatically controlled water bath, and the complete small-scale lauter tun
(SSLT) mounted onto a trolley to allow secure and easy access. Malt was milled using a Valley 2roll home-brew mill, with roll diameters of 31.75 mm, driven by a cordless electric drill running at
350 rpm. Conditions for mashing were based on the Small Scale Brewing protocol developed
previously in the laboratory (Stewart et al, 1998), and a grist:liquor ratio of 3:1 was chosen
accordingly. Lautering performance was assessed by measuring the differential pressure across the
bed of spent grains by way of a water manometer connected beneath the false bottom; in later
developments was supplemented with an electronic pressure transducer connected via an
analogue-to-digital converter to a laptop computer. The height of water in the manometer was
compared to the height of liquid within the lauter vessel at regular intervals following mash
transfer and the recirculation and run-off that follows. The differential pressure was plotted against
time, or when comparing lautering trials at different run-off rates, against the volume of wort
passed through the grain bed. The use of rakes or knives was decided against in the design of the
SSLT; the proportion of the grain bed surface area cut would be much larger than that occurring in
a commercial lauter, thereby causing disproportionate increases in bed channel to grain bed ratio.
Tng t nh vy, mt s thng s o lng hiu sut ging ng cc c la chn.
Nhng p lc khc nhau bao gm trn ging ng cc, khi lng wort thu v gim su ca
ging ng cc. Mt ct thy tinh di vi ng knh trong 80 mm 900 mm c ct v gn
vi Perspex kt thc. Mt y gi ca sn xut thng mi (mt mn qu t loi Briggs ca
Burton Ltd) vi mt khu ca ca 10% c lp vo mt ng knh 100 mm Quickfit bnh np
v ton b lp rp di c gn cht vo cc ct bng cch s dng cc loi ht v bu lng cnh.
Mt ly o khoc attemperating c nim phong ti ch v kim tra kn nc. Nc
Attemperating c bm t b nc kim sot n nhit, v hon chnh quy m nh Lauter tun
(SSLT) c gn ln mt chic xe y cho php truy cp an ton v d dng. Malt c nghin
bng cch s dng mt Valley 2-roll nh my nh my bia, vi ng knh cun 31,75 mm, c

thc y bi mt mi khoan in thoi khng dy chy 350 rpm. iu kin nghin c da

trn giao thc Scale Brewing nh pht trin trc y trong phng th nghim (Stewart et al,
1998), v mt la mch: dung t l 3: 1 c la chn cho ph hp. Lautering hiu c nh
gi bng cch o p sut chnh lch trn ging ca cc loi ng cc dnh bng cch p k nc
kt ni bn di y gi; trong pht trin sau ny c b sung thm mt b chuyn i in p
in t kt ni thng qua mt b chuyn i analog-to-k thut s vi mt my tnh xch tay.
Chiu cao ca nc trong p k c so snh vi chiu cao ca cht lng bn trong tu Lauter u
n sau chuyn nghin v tun hon v chy-off m sau. p lc khc nhau m mu chng li
thi gian, hoc khi so snh th nghim lautering mc run-off khc nhau, so vi khi lng ca
wort qua ging ng cc. Vic s dng co hoc dao c quyt nh chng li trong cc thit
k ca SSLT; t trng ca vic ct gim din tch b mt ging ng cc c th ln hn nhiu so
xy ra trong mt Lauter thng mi, do gy tng cn xng trong knh ging t l ging
ng cc.
Results and Discussion
Two laboratory lautering protocols were devised to reflect the different strategies by which
Australian brewers manage wort run-off:
(i) A constant-rate recirculation, run-off and sparge at relatively low (30-40 ml min-1 for 50
cm2 false bottom, equivalent to ca 3.6 to 4.8 hl m-2 hr-1) or higher, 80-100 ml min-1 (equivalent
to 9.6 to 100 hl m-2 hr-1) flow rates
(ii) ii) An initial free-flow run-off (ca 600 ml min-1, equivalent to 72 hl m-2 hr-1) for 15-30 secs
followed by recirculation, run-off and sparge at 80-100 ml min-1 (equivalent to 9.6 to 100 hl m2 hr-1) (see Figure 2)
Using a constant run-off rate, a clear difference in differential pressure was seen for the two rates,
but a ca 20% increase in the final depth of spent grains occurred at the lower rate. The difference
in maximum differential pressure across the spent grains bed between the two run-off rates was
only 0.35 psi, suggesting that accurate discrimination of malts by this protocol would be very
difficult
Hai giao thc lautering phng th nghim c a ra phn nh chin lc khc nhau m
cc hng bia c qun l wort run-off:
(i) Mt tun hon khng i t l, chy cnh v tit kim mc tng i thp (30-40 ml min-1
cho 50 cm2 y gi, tng ng vi ca 3,6-4,8 hl m-2 hr-1) hoc cao hn, 80- 100 ml min-1
(tng ng vi 9,6-100 m-2-1 hr hl) tc dng chy
(ii) ii) An chy t do chy-off u tin (ca 600 ml min-1, tng ng vi 72 hl m-2 hr-1) trong
15-30 giy tip theo tun hon, chy cnh v tit kim ti 80-100 ml min-1 (tng ng vi 9,6100 hl m-2 hr-1) (xem Hnh 2)
S dng mt t l run-off lin tc, mt s khc bit r rng trong p lc khc bit c nhn
thy hai t gi, nhng tng ca 20% su cui cng ca cc loi ng cc dnh xy ra tc
thp hn. S khc bit trong p lc khc bit ti a trn cc ht dnh ging gia hai t l run-off
ch 0.35 psi, cho thy s phn bit chnh xc ca malt bng giao thc ny s rt kh khn
An initial free-flow run-off with the outlet tube placed 35 cm above the false bottom gave a higher
differential pressure for the same malt than with constant-rate run-offs. Additionally, the final

height of the spent grains bed was

lower, suggesting that bed formation
was more complete using this
protocol than with a constant-rate
run-off.
Mt ban u chy t do chy-off vi
ng outlet t 35 cm so vi y gi
a ra mt p lc khc bit cao
hn cho cc mch nha ging hn vi
hng s t l run-off. Ngoi ra, chiu
cao cui cng ca chic ging ng
cc dnh thp, cho thy rng s hnh
thnh ging l hon chnh hn
bng cch s dng giao thc ny so
vi mt hng s t l run-off.
At constant run-off rates, differential
pressure (DP) across the spent grain
bed varied with flow rate. Maximum
DP across the spent grain beds
differed by only 0.35 psi between
the two run-off rates (Figure 1)

Figure 1 Lautering performance of

Sloop malt at two run-off rates.
An initial free-flow run-off gave a higher DP than with constant rate run-offs (Figure 3). Also, the
final height of the spent grain bed was lower, suggesting that bed formation was more complete
than by constant rate run-off.
Vi tc chy ra lin tc, p lc khc nhau (DP) trn ging ng cc dnh a dng vi tc dng
chy. DP ti a trn ging ng cc dnh khc bit bi ch 0.35 psi gia hai t l run-off (hnh 1)
Hnh 1 Lautering hiu sut ca Sloop malt hai mc run-off.
An chy t do chy ban u a ra mt DP cao hn so vi tc khng i chy-offs (Hnh 3).
Ngoi ra, chiu cao cui cng ca chic ging ng cc dnh thp, cho thy rng s hnh thnh
ging l hon chnh hn bi tc khng i chy-off.
Figure 2. Lautering performance of Harrington malt using a 30-second free-flow run-off to initiate
grain bed formation
Reproducibility between duplicate runs using either protocol was low, with unacceptably high
variation in differential pressure and spent grain bed formation. Further trials are underway in an
attempt to improve the reproducibility of the SSLT.

Con s hiu sut 2. Lautering ca Harrington malt bng 30 th hai chy t do chy-off bt u
hnh thnh ging ng cc
lp gia trng lp chy bng cch s dng giao thc mc thp, vi s thay i mc cao
trong p lc khc nhau v hnh thnh ging ng cc dnh. Thm cc th nghim c tin hnh
trong mt n lc ci thin kh nng ti sinh ca cc SSLT.
Conclusion
Experimental lautering protocols have been developed that reflect those used in Australian
breweries. Only very small differences were seen in the experimental lautering performance of a
number of commercial Australian malts. We are currently addressing the remaining technical
shortcomings with the experimental lautering apparatus and parameters needed to ensure reliable
and consistent data. Our research efforts will now be directed towards the precise determination of
malt factors influencing lautering efficiency, and developing assays for their rapid and accurate
measurement, thereby providing breeding programs with a valuable tool in the search for
improved malting barley varieties.
Giao thc lautering th nghim c pht trin m l s phn nh c s dng trong cc nh
my bia c. Ch c s khc bit rt nh c nhn thy trong vic thc hin lautering nghim
ca mt s loi mch nha thng mi c. Chng ti hin ang gii quyt nhng thiu st k thut
cn li vi cc b my lautering nghim v cc thng s cn thit m bo d liu ng tin cy
v nht qun. N lc nghin cu ca chng ti by gi s c hng ti vic xc nh chnh xc
cc yu t nh hng n mch nha lautering hiu qu, v pht trin cc xt nghim o nhanh
v chnh xc, qua cung cp cc chng trnh ging vi mt cng c c gi tr trong vic tm
kim ci thin cc ging la mch.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Grains Research and Development Corporation of Australia.
The Lauter Tun
Objective
Identify the construction and operation of a Lauter Tun

Design

Construction
It is usually built of stainless steel or copper. It is insulated to prevent heat loss of the mash. There
is a vent to discharge vapour. It has a false bottom.
N thng c xy dng bng thp khng g hoc ng. N c cch ly ngn chn s mt
nhit ca mash. C mt l thng hi x hi. N c mt y gi.

Plates
The false bottom is built
up of interlocking plates.
These may have either
milled slots or they may be
built up of wedge wire.
The advantage of wedge
wire over cut slots is that
wear on the wire does not
produce an " opening" of
the gap.
The plates are made in
sections so that they can be
lifted. This enables them to
be thoroughly cleaned if
required.

Cc y gi c xy dng ln
tm lng vo nhau. y c th c
mt trong hai khe xay hoc h c th c xy dng ln cc dy nm.
u im ca dy nm qua khe ct l mc trn dy khng sn xut mt "m ca" ca khong cch.
Cc tm c thc hin trong phn h c th c d b. iu ny cho php h c lm sch
hon ton nu c yu cu.
Sparge
It has a sparging system. This is used to spray water over the mash to wash out the worts.

Rakes

It has a raking system. These are knives which can cut the bed. This, when used
properly, helps the filtrationprocess.
N c mt h thng sparging. iu ny c s dng phun nc ln nghin v ra ra worts.
N c mt h thng co. y l nhng con dao m c th "ct" ging. iu ny, khi c s
dng ng cch, gip cc filtrationprocess.
There is a CIP system installed. There are spray balls or jets which clean the internal surface and
under the plates.
Raking can be continuous or using a number of discrete steps. The sparge can be added
continuously or as a batch addition.
Cleaning
The vessel is normally thoroughly cleaned and descaled once a week with Caustic
Draw off
All Lauter tuns are fitted with a draw off device. This enables the operator to balance run off to the
differential pressure of the bed over the plates. Too much differential pressure will pull the bed
onto the plates. This will cause a set mash. Modern Lauter Tuns are computer controlled.
C mt h thng CIP ci t. C nhng qu bng xt hay my bay phn lc m lm sch cc b
mt bn trong v di cc tm.
Co c th c lin tc hoc s dng mt s bc ri rc. Cc tit kim c th c b sung lin
tc hoc l mt b sung hng lot.
Lm sch
Cc tu thng c trit lm sch v ty cn mi tun mt ln vi "Caustic"
khng ch
Tt c tuns Lauter u c trang b mt thit b v ra. iu ny cho php cc nh iu hnh
cn bng chy ra cc p lc khc bit ca chic ging trn tm. p lc khc bit qu nhiu s
ko ging ln cc tm. iu ny s gy ra mt mash b. Modern Lauter Tuns l my tnh iu
khin.
Mash inlet
There is an inlet for the mash. This is normally through the bottom. This cuts down on oxidation
during the transfer from the mash tun.
Operation
The mash is transferred from the Mash tun into the Lauter Tun. The filter bed in the lauter tun is
shallow and has a large surface area. A fine grind increases the resistance to flow and this is
compensated for by the use of rakes. These open the bed to allow faster filtration. The rakes must
operate in such a way that sparge is not channelled and the filter bed is not totally disrupted. A
slight increase in wort viscosity Ability of a liquid to flow freely. Water has a high viscosity,
porridge has a lower viscosity. can have a dramatic effect on run off performance.

Most lauter tuns are fully automated. The wort run off rate is controlled.
Mash u vo
C mt u vo cho cc mash. iu ny l bnh thng thng qua pha di. iu ny ct gim
xung trn qu trnh oxy ha trong qu trnh chuyn t tun mash.
hot ng
Mash c chuyn t tun Mash vo Lauter Tun. Cc ging lc trong tun Lauter l nng cn v
c din tch b mt ln. Mt xay mn lm tng sc khng vi dng chy v iu ny c b
li bng vic s dng co. Nhng m ging cho php lc nhanh hn. Cc co phi hot ng
trong mt cch tit kim m khng chuyn v ging b lc khng c hon ton b ph v. A
tng nh trong wort nht Kh nng ca mt cht lng chy t do. Nc c nht cao, cho c
nht thp. c th c mt nh hng mnh m chy ra hiu sut.
Hu ht tuns Lauter u hon ton t ng. Cc wort tc chy ra c kim sot.
Also the differential pressure above and below the lauter plates is measured and controlled. When
this pressure falls below a set pressure it has reached a "set bed condition. The run off is stopped
and the rakes are lowered to the bottom of the bed and used to break up the bed for 5 to 10 minutes
before normal filtration is resumed.
The typical run off sequences and control are shown below.
Another measurement often used to control run off is haze Cloudy particles sometimes seen in
beer or other products, caused by long protein chains that have not been removed at filtration.. The
wort turbidity is measured. The contents of the lauter tun are re-circulated to ensure that only
bright (haze less than 5 to 12 EBC) wort runs to the kettle.
A typical lauter tun cycle to collect 1000 hl is described below.
Ngoi ra cc p lc khc bit trn v di tm Lauter c o v kim sot. Khi p sut ny
gim xung di mt p sut t n t n mt "set ging" iu kin. Cc chy tt l dng
li v co c h xung n pha di ging v c s dng ph v ln ging cho 5-10
pht trc khi lc bnh thng l ni li.
Cc qu trnh chy tt trnh t v iu khin c hin th di y.
Mt o lng thng c s dng iu khin chy tt l my m ht my i khi thy trong
bia hoc cc sn phm khc, gy ra bi cc chui protein di m khng c loi b lc ..
c wort c o. Ni dung ca tun Lauter c ti lu thng m bo rng ch c sng (haze
t hn 5-12 EBC) wort chy vo m un nc.
Mt chu k Lauter tun in hnh thu thp 1.000 hl c m t di y.

Event

Duration

Volume HI

Underletting

3 minutes

23

This covers the false bottom. It stops the

mash settling into the slots and blocking

them.
Filling

11 minutes

The mash is pumped from the mashing

vessel.
Re-circulation

4 minutes

20

41 minutes

200

74 minutes

475

10 minutes

141

16 minutes

179

8 minutes

93

Wort is recirculated until it is bright.

First worts
The strong worts are run off
Second worts
Weaker worts are run off. Sparge water
starts to wash out the wort.
Last worts
The last weak runnings are collected
Weak worts
Weak worts are sent to drain. They may be
collected and used for mashing the next
brew. This saves extract The amount of
fermentable matter derived from the
brewing process.. However they must be
kept hot and thereforesterile Free from
microbial/micro-organism
contaminationcontamination.
Drain down
The remaining liquid goes to drain.
Grain removal

25 minutes

Spent grains are removed

Under plate flush

5 minutes

The space under the plates is cleaned. This

removes any bits of grain which may have
got through the slots. If it was left it would
get infected very quickly.
Total
Thi gian t chc s kin Tp HI

197 minutes

1000

Underletting
iu ny bao gm cc y gi. N dng li mash gii quyt vo cc khe v ngn chn chng. 3
pht 23
y
Mash c bm t tu ln. 11 pht
Re-lu thng
Wort c ti tun hon cho n khi n l ti sng. 4 pht 20
Worts u tin
Cc worts mnh ang chy tt 41 pht 200
Worts th hai
Worts yu ang chy ra. Nc tit kim bt u ra ra wort. Pht 74 475
Worts cui
Cc Runnings yu cui cng c thu thp 10 pht 141
Worts yu
Worts yu c gi ro nc. H c th c thu thp v s dng nghin cc loi bia tip
theo. iu ny tit kim trch s tin ca vt cht ln men c ngun gc t qu trnh sn xut bia ..
Tuy nhin h phi c gi nng v thereforesterile min ph t vi khun / vi sinh vt
contaminationcontamination.
16 pht 179
X xung
Cc cht lng cn li i ro nc. 8 pht 93
Loi b ht
Cc loi ng cc dnh c loi b pht 25
Di tm tun
Cc khng gian di tm c lm sch. iu ny loi b bt k bit ca ht m c th c c
thng qua cc khe. Nu n b b li n s b ly nhim rt nhanh chng. 5 pht
Tng s 197 pht 1000
Lautering
Lautering is a process in brewing beer in which the mash is separated into the clear
liquid wort and the residual grain. Lautering usually consists of 3 steps: mashout, recirculation,
and sparging.
Mashout[edit]
Mashout is the term for raising the temperature of the mash to 77 C (170 F). This both stops
the enzymatic conversion ofstarches to fermentable sugars, and makes the mash and wort more
fluid. Mashout is considered especially necessary if there is less than 3 liters of water per kilogram

of grain (1.5 quarts of water per pound of grain), or if the grain is more than 25% wheat or oats.
The mashout step can be done by using external heat, or simply by adding hot water.[1]
Recirculation[edit]
Recirculation consists of drawing off wort from the bottom of the mash, and adding it to the top.
Lauter tuns typically have slotted bottoms to assist in the filtration process. The mash itself
functions much as a sand filter to capture mash debris and proteins. This step is monitored by use
of a turbidimeter to measure solids in the wort liquid by their opacity.[1]
Sparging[edit]
Sparging is trickling water through the grain to extract sugars. This is a delicate step, as the wrong
temperature or pH will extract tannins from the chaff (grain husks) as well, resulting in a bitter
brew. Typically, 1.5 times more water is used for sparging than was for mashing.[2] Sparging is
typically conducted in a lauter tun.[1]
English sparging (or batch sparging) drains the wort completely from the mash, after which more
water is added, held for a while at 76 C (169 F) and then drained again. The second draining can
be used in making a lighter-bodied low-alcohol beer known as small beer, or can be added to the
first draining. Some homebrewers use English sparging, except that the second batch of water is
only held long enough for the grain bed to settle, after which recirculation and draining occurs.[1]
Fly sparging (or German sparging), which is used by commercial breweries and many
homebrewers, uses continuous process sparging. When the wort reaches a desired level (typically
about 25 mm or 1 inch) above the grainbed, water is added at the same slow rate that wort is being
drained. The wort gradually becomes weaker and weaker, and at a certain point, they stop adding
water. This results in greater yields.[1]
Lauter tun
A lauter tun is the traditional vessel used for separation of the extracted wort. While the basic
principle of its operation has remained the same since its first use, technological advances have led
to better designed lauter tuns capable of quicker and more complete extraction of the sugars from
the grain.
The false bottom in a lauter tun has thin (0.7 to 1.1 mm or 0.028 to 0.043 in) slits to hold back the
solids and allow liquids to pass through. The solids, not the false bottom, form a filtration medium
and hold back small solids, allowing the otherwise cloudy mash to run out of the lauter tun as a
clear liquid. The false bottom of a lauter tun is today made of wedge wire, which can provide a
free-flow surface of up to 12% of the bottom of the tun.
The run off tubes should be evenly distributed across the bottom, with one tube servicing about
1 m2 (11 sq ft) of area. Typically, these tubes have a wide, shallow cone around them to prevent
compaction of the grain directly above the outlet. In the past, the run-off tubes flowed through
swan-neck valves into a wort collection grant. While visually appealing, this system led to a lot of

oxygen uptake. Such a system has mostly been replaced either by a central wort-collection vessel
or the arrangement of outlet ports into concentric zones, with each zone having a ring-shaped
collection pipe. Brewhouses in plain public view, particularly those inbrewpubs, often maintain the
swan-neck valves and grant for their visual effect.
A good quality lauter tun has rotating rake arms with a central drive unit. Depending on the size of
the lauter tun, there can be between two and six rake arms. Cutting blades hang from these arms.
The blade is usually wavy and has a plough-like foot. Each blade has its own path around the tun
and the whole rake assembly can be raised and lowered. Attached to each of these arms is a flap
which can be raised and lowered for pushing the spent grains out of the tun. The brewer, or better
yet an automated system, can raise and lower the rake arms depending on the turbidity
(cloudiness) of the run-off, and the tightness of the grain bed, as measured by the pressure
difference between the top and bottom of the grain bed.
There must be a system for introducing sparge water into the lauter tun. Most systems have a ring
of spray heads that ensure an even and gentle introduction of the sparge water. The watering
system should not beat down on the grain bed and form a channel.
Large breweries have self-closing inlets on the bottom of the tun through which the mash is
transferred to the lauter tun, and one outlet, also on the bottom of the tun, into which the spent
grains fall after lautering is complete. Craft breweries often have manways on the side of the mash
tun for spent grain removal, which then must be helped along to a large extent by the brewer.
Some small breweries use a combination mash/lauter tun, in which the rake system cannot be
implemented because the mixing mechanism for mashing is of higher importance. The stirring
blades can be used as an ersatz rake, but typically they cannot be moved up and down, and would
disturb the bed too much were they used deep in the grain bed.
Lautering Efficency: Advanced Brewing
Author: John PalmerIssue: Jan/Feb 2008
To get all the goodies from your grains, you need an efficient lautering system - find out how
homebrew solutions stack up.

All-grain brewers are always talking about brewing efficiency how much wort they yield from
their mash into the boil kettle. There are two components to brewing efficiency: mashing
efficiency and lautering efficiency. Mashing efficiency is all about the conversion of malt starches
to sugars. Lautering efficiency is all about the extraction of those sugars to the kettle. There are
several factors that determine lautering efficiency, but they all boil down to uniformity of flow.
No and batch sparging
At 75% yield (total extract), the first wort gravity is about SG 1.0751.085 for the typical grist
ratios that homebrewers use (1.31.5 qts./lb. or 2.73.1 L/kg). So, what is the best way to extract
that typical 75% yield? The answer depends on your equipment and patience. The simplest way is

to just drain it and this is called no-sparge brewing. However, with no-sparge brewing, a
proportion of the wort will be left behind in the wet grain and your wort pickup tube. To recover
this extract, you will need to add more water to the mash, stir and drain it again. This is called
batch sparging. Each time you fill the mash and drain the wort, you dilute the remaining extract in
the grainbed and leave behind a proportion of that extract, diluted to the new concentration. (Just
like re-using a teabag.) The efficiency of batch sparging is best when the volumes of the first and
second runnings are equal, i.e., half of your desired boil volume. A single batch sparge in this
manner should obtain most of the available extract (roughly 90%). If three runnings are collected,
all at the same volume, the efficiency should improve by about 5%.
Batch sparging is nice because it is simply draining, nothing fancy about it, provided your
grainbed has good permeability. A finely-crushed grist will convert very well and give a high
yield, but it will lauter very slowly. Your grainbed permeability will affect your lautering
capability, no matter what sparging method you use.
Draining vs. rinsing
If you batch sparge, and fill the grainbed again, you dilute the sugars to a new concentration. The
amount of sugar that comes out of the grain is a function of the concentration gradient between the
solvent (water) and the solute. As the difference in concentration diminishes, the extraction of the
sugar from the grainbed diminishes. The way to increase the extraction rate is to keep the
concentration gradient high, by constantly presenting water to the grain. Continuous or fly
sparging is a rinsing process that works in this manner. The challenge with continuous sparging is
making sure that all the grain is equally rinsed.
The key to effective rinsing is uniform flow throughout the grainbed. The key to uniform flow is to
maintain a steady state. The inflow should equal the outflow, and the permeability of the grainbed
should be uniform so that water does not flow more easily through one side of the grainbed than
the other. The inflow of water to the grainbed should be uniform across the surface area, and the
easiest way to accomplish that is to maintain an inch (2.5 cm) or so of free water above the
grainbed. Likewise, the outflow should occur uniformly across the grainbed area, otherwise the
flow through the bed will vector toward the drain, leaving outlying areas unrinsed. A single
collection point causes the most vectoring under steady state conditions and this behavior is shown
in Figure 1.

Increasing the number of collection points reduces the amount of vectoring, and increases the
uniformity of rinsing, as shown in Figure 2.

Fluid mechanics gives us the science to quantify this effect, and we can build histograms of the
relative amounts of flow occurring in the grainbed. These results are shown in Figures 3 and 4.

A computer model was constructed assuming an 8-inch (20-cm) deep by 10-inch (25 cm) wide
grainbed, and while that may seem small, it reduced the computation time, and the results are
applicable to any size grainbed. The model calculated about 56% of the flow would be uniform for
a single pipe manifold, and about 80% for a 2 pipe configuration. Increasing the coverage to 4
pipes improves the uniformity even further to 92%. The upper limit is found with a false bottom
configuration. Its histogram is shown in Figure 5, and the uniformity is nearly 97%.

If you consider that the amount of extract in the grain is finite (i.e., once its gone, its gone) then
we can estimate the efficiency of a lautering system by assuming that the percentage of extract
from a region is equal to the proportion of flow that the region experiences, up to 100%. In other
words, a 70% flow region will yield 70% of its total extract, and a 110% flow region will yield
100% of its extract. The model predicted about 92% of the volume lautered for a single pipe
manifold, and about 96% for a 2 pipe configuration. Increasing the coverage to 4 pipes improves
the efficiency to nearly 99%, almost equal to that of a false bottom at 99.7%.
The arrangement of the collection system is a big factor in flow uniformity. The examples above
show that uniformity and efficiency improve with more pipes, but its the arrangement and spacing
of the pipes that make the difference. Uniformity is highest when the outflow area (floor of the
lauter tun) is evenly divided by the pipes and when the pipe spacing is as close as possible.
Imagine that the bottom of the lauter tun is 12 inches wide. Three pipes could be placed across the
tun at 0, 6, and 12 inches, and that evenly divides the area (uniformity = 80%). But the flow
convergence is reduced and uniformity optimized when the 3 pipes are moved closer together, and
placed at 2, 6, and 10 inches (uniformity = 89%). This balanced spacing arrangement increases the
number of equal areas from 2 to 3 (actually 2 plus 2 halves).
The same principle applies to round tuns, like a Sankey keg or Gott cooler. A single ring manifold
works very well when it is sized to a diameter that divides the circular volume in half, and that
equation is ring dia. = 0.707 x tun dia. It is interesting to note that the uniformity and efficiency of
a false bottom does not surpass that of a single ring manifold until the false bottom diameter is
greater than 80% of the tun diameter.
The final factor to be considered in lautering (continuous or batch) is the flow rate. There are two
reasons to run the lauter slowly. No matter what method or collection system you use, you need to
start the flow slowly or you will tend to compact the grainbed around the device and impede flow.
You want the main resistance to flow to be at the collection points (the holes/slots in the false

bottom or pipes), not in the grainbed. If the resistance to flow is greater in the grainbed than in the
collection system, the grainbed will compact and you will have a stuck sparge. This is especially
true for false bottom systems. Second, when continuous sparging, you need to consider that rinsing
involves diffusion and transportation of the sugar out of the wet grain. It takes a certain amount of
time for this to occur and if your flow rate is too fast, you will simply run water thru the tun and
fill your boil kettle with water and not extract.
Not surprisingly, lauter tun design has been studied extensively by commercial brewers. In
commercial lauter tuns, the rule of thumb is 1 to 1.5 outlets per square meter of lauter area and the
flow velocity through the outlet should be very slow, about 0.1 meters per second, to prevent
significant pull at the drain. (On a homebrew scale, one outlet is more than sufficient for a false
bottom and wort is usually collected at the rate of approximately one quart (~1 L) per minute.) In
commercial designs, lauter tuns usually have flat bottoms and the false bottoms cover the whole
bottom. Homebrew solutions involving pipes or other manifolds inserted in coolers or kegs are
less efficient than false bottoms. Their efficiency improves as the number and spacing of outlets
approaches that of a false bottom and pipe manifolds or other homebrew gadgets can certainly
deliver an acceptable level of performance.
If high lautering efficiency is your primary goal, continuously sparging your grain bed at a slow,
steady rate in a lauter tun with a false bottom would be your best option.
Lautering
Introduction

This article is not complete. However, I wanted to put some information out right away to help
home brewers who are experiencing difficulty with their lautering. So, working backwards, so to
speak, I have written the practical conclusion first. The more theoretical part -- including an
examination of Darcy's Law -- will follow as time permits.
Before we go further, four points: First, all this applies to, and assumes you are using,
conventional mash and lauter methods and equipment -- in other words, dry milling, false bottom
or pipe manifold lauter tun, and continuous sparging.
Second point: I assume you have read my new book, or are otherwise familiar with the basic
procedures of lautering.
Third point: the wort velocities and other parameters discussed refer to all barley malt mashes.
Gummy or glutinous materials, such as wheat or rye malt, or flaked oats or barley, change the
picture completely.
Last point: the main reason I have no trouble with lautering is the design of my lauter tun. In plain
English, like most picnic cooler designs, it is shallow. The two key concepts here are mash

depth and loading. Mash depth is obvious. Loading is the ratio of grist weight to surface area.
This parameter comes from the commercial brewing world and therefore applies most directly to
cylindrical lauter tuns with milled plates or wedge wire screens that cover the entire bottom area.
However, it should also apply to drilled or slotted false bottoms, and my experience indicates that
it applies reasonably well to manifold designs, provided that the manifold is built according to the
principles laid out in my book. To give credit where it is due, those principles are entirely derived
from the research and writings of John Palmer. To sum it up, they apply to a lauter tun where the
strainer slots (or holes) are evenly distributed across the area of the lauter tun bottom, so that wort
flow is pretty much uniform and vertical through the grain bed.
Depth, Load and Why They Matter
The first thing we need to look at is mash depth. In my case, my average grist runs around 8
pounds, and I mix the mash with 12 quarts of water. From Nelson's Beer-Quick Calculator I find
that my mash volume is around 14.6 quarts, or 3.6 gallons. My lauter tun has a bottom area of 134
square inches (.93 square foot), and one gallon is 231 cubic inches, so one gallon of liquid will
stand about 1.7 inches high. Therefore, the depth of my average mash is about 6.2 to inches. The
loading is 8.6 lbs./sq. ft. On the other hand, suppose I had a 5-gallon beverage cooler with a false
bottom. Its bottom diameter is about 9 inches, so the area computes to only 64 square inches or .44
sq. ft., and the loading for that same 8-lb. grist would be 8 / .44 or about 18.2 lbs./sq.ft. Mash
depth would be around 13 inches. Depth is inversely proportional to area.
Why do these numbers matter to setting your lauter flow rate? Because surface area also is
inversely proportional to wort velocity -- not flow rate, velocity. Velocity is the speed of flow,
measured in inches or millimeters per minute or second. With a .93 square foot bottom, one gallon
of liquid is 1.7 inches high; with a .44 square foot bottom, it is a little over 3.6 inches high.
Therefore a flow rate of one gallon per minute translates into a velocity of 1.7 inches per minute in
the one case, but 3.6+ inches per minute in the other. And velocity is related to force. A mash is a
slurry of solid particles in liquid. When you open the lauter tap, the faster the wort velocity, the
higher the pressure, that is, the harder it pushes those particles into the false bottom or the slots -at first, then a bit later, into the matrix of particles that is now packed onto the false bottom -- the
grain bed.
Now, what about load? Load indicates how deep the grain bed will be once it is formed. And the
deeper the bed, the greater its resistance to flow, all other things being equal. The higher the load
the more pressure you will need to get a certain flow rate -- or, as it works out in practice, the
higher the load, the slower your flow rate must be, if you want to maintain a reasonable
differential pressure. DP is discussed in the next section.
This explains why wort velocity during the first few minutes of runoff is so crucial. A grain bed is
not like a gravel bed. It is compressible. And compression, my fellow brewers, is a thing we dearly
wish to avoid, except to the tiniest possible degree.
Controlling Bed Compression

How tiny, exactly? To get a handle on this, we need to look at one more physical concept before
we get down to practicalities. In most lauter tuns, the "degree" of grain bed compression cannot be
measured directly, but must be inferred from the bed's resistance to flow. That resistance in turn is
indicated by differential pressure.
DP is the difference between the pressure beneath the false bottom, as measured by a gauge of
some sort, and what the pressure would be, if the grain bed offered no restriction to the flow of
wort. For example, say we are sparging a mash and are maintaining a balance between wort
flowing out and water spraying on. The height of liquid in the lauter tun, from the bottom (real
bottom) to the surface, is steady at 27.7 inches. A one square inch water column, 27.7 inches high,
weighs one pound and exerts a pressure of one PSI. So we would expect the pressure at the bottom
of the LT to measure that same one PSI. Our lauter tun, being well designed, is fitted with a
pressure gauge at the bottom. We look at it and find it is reading 0.64 PSI (it's a very accurate
gauge). So the differential pressure is 0.36 PSI. Very small. Negligible, in fact. Right?
Wrong! First let me admit I set this up by expressing the differential pressure in PSI. That is not
how it is usually done. DP is commonly stated as inches or millimeters of water column. So 0.64
PSI works out to about 17.7 inches, and our differential pressure is 10 inches. This is a crisis. The
rule of thumb in commercial breweries is that one to two inches is optimal, four is fine, and six is
okay. When you get to eight it's past time to drop the rakes and start backing down the flow rate.
As a matter of fact, at Blackstone I start lowering the rakes when the DP hits 3 inches. At 10 we're
talking remedial measures -- stop the runoff, do a deep cut with the rakes, maybe underlet to lift
the bed.

The sketch above illustrates how differential pressure is actually measured in a working brewery.
You can see that there are two gauges attached to the lauter tun: gauge #1 measures pressure below
the screen, gauge # 2 above. Unlike my hypothetical example, neither is attached to the bottom;
however, this does not matter. Both gauges are calibrated in inches of water column. By necessity,

gauge # 2 is higher than gauge #1, and this must be corrected for. So, at zero DP, the pressure
reading of gauge # 1 is equal to the reading of gauge #2, plus the height difference between them.
Say for example we are running off first wort. Gauge # 2 reads 6 inches, gauge #1 reads 9 inches,
and we know that #2 is 4 inches higher on the lauter tun wall. So, at zero DP gauge #1 would read
10 inches. If it reads 9, DP is one inch.
Pressure gauges are most often not dial gauges; they can just as well be clear glass or acrylic
tubes. With these, no correction is necessary, because the upper tube directly indicates the fill
level. Such manometer tubes were very common in older brewhouses. The operator would simply
note the difference in liquid height between the two tubes; that was the DP. In a modern brewery
pressure sensors are fitted and feed back data to the system's PLC/control computer. Our
Berabrew software at Blackstone "knows" that the sensors are exactly 195 mm apart vertically, and
it continuously computes DP and charts the values on a graph. Being able to see the DP curve is
very helpful if you prefer to control the rake height rather than allow the system to raise or lower
automatically at preprogrammed setpoints.
So, now you understand why these physical phenomena -- wort velocity, flow resistance, and
differential pressure -- are so important. You understand why flow rate means very little unless the
area and loading of the lauter tun is specified. And finally, you understand why it is vital,
especially when working with an unfamiliar system, tostart runoff slowly.
Recommendations for Trouble-Free Lautering
Obviously, I cannot vouch for the behavior of every lauter tun in the world. And just as obviously,
there are other factors that enter into lautering performance, not least of them the crush of the grist.
But by the time your mash is in the lauter tun, most of those parameters are set. The one thing you
still have control over is flow rate. So control it!
How do you do that? First, put a grant in your lauter circuit. That gives an open sample point
where you can measure and calibrate your runoff rate: Use a measuring cup and a
stopwatch/timer and record fill time, then calculate the flow rate. Then, if you have a normal lever
handle ball valve, you can check the opening with a feeler gauge (drill bits are useful for this) and
record the valve setting. You may be surprised how far you have to close the valve to get the
runoff down to even 1 qt./min. In fact, if you have a 5-gallon system, you may want to replace
your 1/2 inch ball valve with a 3/8 in. reduced port or 1/4 in. full port unit. This will make for
easier control at the flow rates you require.
I have found that with a load of 8.6 lbs./sq. ft. and a mash depth of 6.2 inches, I can set initial
runoff to one quart per minute (.25 gpm). This equates to a wort velocity of 0.43 inches or about
10.9 mm per minute. I am sure I could run faster; however, at this rate, not speeding up at all
during sparge as the wort thins out, total lauter time is under 30 minutes, which is way too fast. In
practice I run off at around 20 oz. /min. (velocity about .28 in./min.) so as to extend lauter time and
increase extraction. As Greg Noonan observed, if you are not taking 45 minutes to sparge, you will
not get all the extract you have coming.

Years ago Prof. Narziss of Weihenstephan suggested that initial wort velocity should be no higher
than 7.3 mm/min. (.29 in./min.) That is slower than my benchmark of 0.43, however you have to
take into account that he was talking about commercial breweries, where loading is typically 30 to
40 lb./sq. ft. For such a load, I think Narziss's velocity represents a best-case maximum.
At Blackstone, our lightest recipe loads the lauter tun at 29 lb./sq. ft.. For this brew, we set the
initial wort velocity to .12 in/minute. (flow rate 7 bbl./hr.) We have found that at this rate,
differential pressure is zero. The wort clarifies quite acceptably with eight minutes' recirculation.
Kettle fill begins at this rate, then after one barrel we begin raising the flow rate, rather sharply at
first, then gradually tapering off. Sparge commences when there is an inch of wort above the grain
bed. As differential pressure rises we lower the rakes a bit at a time to control it. By the end of the
sparge the flow rate is 36 bbl/hr. and the rakes have been dropped from 200 mm to 125 or 100 mm.
DP on a good run remains below 100 mm (4 in.).
I know of a brewery that uses a much higher initial flow rate than we do. I can't recall the exact
dimensions of their lauter tun but their initial wort velocity during clarification is probably close to
Dr. Naziss's recommendation. However, they often see unacceptable rises in differential pressure
and resort to underletting. At Blackstone we regard this as an act of desperation.
So, how does a home brewer estimate an initial runoff rate for his lauter tun? Well, if your lauter
tun is similar to mine, I would suggest setting the flow rate based on the total wort collection time
you desire. As the numbers show, with such a shallow configuration there is no point in pushing
the "speed limit."
Rectangular picnic coolers of around 52 quarts, as would be appropriate for a 10-gallon system,
seem to have bottom areas in the range of 180 square inches -- only a bit more than 1.3x the area
of my 28-quart model. (Disclaimer: this area is calculated from the manufacturers' specifications,
not from direct measurements.) A 1 qt/min. runoff rate would translate into a wort velocity of .32
in/min. This seems reasonable, considering that a 16 lb. grain bill would make the load factor 12.3,
which is less than half of a typical commercial brewhouse. Collection time at this rate would be 52
minutes for 13 gallons of wort.
On the other hand, if you have a 5-gallon round beverage cooler fitted with a 9-inch false bottom,
then .43 in./min translates into .48 quarts or about 15.3 fluid ounces per minute. Which, assuming
that you do not increase flow rate during the sparge, would give you a 59 minute kettle fill time,
just about perfect. However, you need to consider the loading. My suggestion would be an initial
wort velocity of no more than 0.28 in/min (flow rate 10 oz./min.) for clarification and first wort
collection. If this proves trouble free, then during the sparge you can slowly increase the runoff
rate to 24 - 30 oz./min.
Finally, as a caution, I reiterate that these suggestions are for all barley malt mashes. If your grain
bill includes known "clogging agents," such as those named above, then I would recommend first,
use at least .25 lb. of rice hulls for every pound of such material in your grist; second, for a first
trial, decrease your initial wort velocity by at least a third.
Complicating Factors

There are three other concepts we need to examine in order to in order to get a full picture of just
how complex this seemingly simple process of lautering really is. They are wort
viscosity, particle size, and stratification. We'll discuss viscosity first.
Viscosity is familiar to most people and can be described as "ease of flow" or "thickness." Motor
oils for example, are made to different viscosity grades. The choice of motor oil for an automobile
engine is tied to its operating temperature. All oils thin out -- lose viscosity -- as their temperature
rises, so engines with higher operating temperatures require an oil of higher viscosity. In a hotrunning engine, for example a diesel, low-viscosity oil will become so thin that it loses its ability
to adhere to the metal surfaces that it is supposed to protect. On the other hand, in a cooler-running
engine, a heavy oil will not circulate freely and will increase the internal friction (drag) on the
moving parts.
The same basic situation obtains in a lauter tun. The thicker or more viscous the wort is, the less
readily it flows through the grain bed.
There are two factors that affect wort viscosity. One is temperature (just as with motor oil), and the
other is wort composition. Temperature is straightforward: the hotter the wort, the thinner it is, all
other factors being equal. Raising the temperature of a 16 Plato wort 10 degrees C (18F) will
reduce its viscosity by 25 percent. Composition is also straightforward in this sense, that the higher
the content of dissolved solids (gravity), the higher the viscosity. For a graphic depiction of the
relationships among these three properties of wort, take a look at slide 5 of Bob Hansen's 2008
Powerpoint presentation, which can be found here.
The less-straightforward dimension of wort composition is that, as every brewer knows, not all
worts are created equal. Worts containing a high percentage of glucans or other gummy substances
(for example, oatmeal stout) are more viscous than standard all-malt worts. This is one of the
reasons why such worts must be run off slower than a normal wort.
The facts about wort viscosity suggest that once sparging begins, it should be possible to gradually
increase the runoff rate. In a mash/lauter tun or even, in my experience, in a brewery with a
separate mash mixer, the wort temperature rises as hot water is sprayed onto the grain bed and
percolates through. Of course, the gravity of the wort is also reduced at the same time. Judging by
Hansen's graph, a threefold increase in flow rate should be possible without triggering any rise in
differential pressure. I am not sure whether this is true in practice, because it assumes that such an
acceleration of wort velocity would not compress the grain bed at all.
Particle size is the next factor to consider. Obviously, the greater the average particle size (as
measured with a set of test sieves; see this article), the greater the permeability of the bed. One of
the factors that makes wheat malt difficult is that, being huskless, its inclusion in the grist
inevitably means a tighter bed, quite apart from the fact that the gluten content means the fine
fraction of the wheat grist (flour) will be stickier and less prone to liquefying during the mash. The
latter fact of course points to one practical reason why some German breweries still prefer
decoction mashing for their weissbiers.

Rice hulls are the usual preventive measure for any sort of difficult mash because they "open up"
the grain bed and, in the case of wheat malt, compensate for the lack of husk material, making a
"normal" grist assortment possible. However, they are not a sovereign remedy; runoff problems
are caused not only by a preponderance of small particles but by the nature of those particles. Fine
ground starchy material that liquefies during the mash poses no obstacle during runoff; fine ground
husk material, on the other hand, fills the interstices between larger pieces and clogs things up.
This is why four, five and six-roll mills can be worthwhile. If properly designed and adjusted, they
can leave the husks intact while crushing the endosperm fine. This is the same rationale behind
wet milling.
Last we come to stratification. By this term I am referring to a phenomenon that every
experienced brewer knows well: the separation of the grain bed, in the lauter tun, into three distinct
layers, which are called in German the unterteig, hauptteig, and oberteig. In this context teig is
best translated as "dough," so an approximation would be under dough, main dough, and upper
dough. The underdough layer -- at least at the beginning of lautering -- consists mainly of heavy
particles that settle to the bottom naturally. This layer is relatively thin, some brewing textbooks
describing it as only about one centimeter thick in an average commercial lauter tun where, as you
remember, loading is normally 30 to 40 lbs/sq.ft. In my experience it is often thinner than that. The
main dough is the great bulk of the mash, consisting of a matrix of husks and other particles of
varied size. At the very top, the upper dough is initially fine, lightweight material that settles
slowly. Like the underdough it is very thin.
During wort clarification the oberteig is increased, because the recirculation of cloudy wort
deposits more fine particulate onto the surface of the grain bed. This can cause uneven drainage, as
this layer is rarely evenly distributed and at the same time relatively impermeable. However,
problems caused by the oberteig are fairly easy to deal with, because all that is needed is a shallow
cut with the rakes or (in smaller systems) the edge of a paddle.
The bigger problem by far is the unterteig. In a normal, flat-bottom lauter tun with plates or
wedge-wire screening, this layer can form an impenetrable mass that reduces outflow to a trickle. I
have seen cases where dropping the knives as far as they would go (less than a centimeter off the
screen), and cutting the bed in this position for five minutes, with outflow shut off completely,
failed to restore equilibrium. At the end of this "deep cut," differential pressure of more than 2
inches still existed across the screen. This was far less than the DP had been prior to the deep cut -as I recall, owing to delays built into the automation software, by the time the deep cut was
initiated the DP was already at 16 inches -- but it should have been zero, if the under dough were a
normal matrix of assorted particles. For a really bad case like this, the choices boil down to either
resuming runoff at a reduced rate, while maintaining a continuous cut with the knives at or near
the bottom, or attempt to disperse and re-form the grain bed, by underletting hot water to push the
sticky under dough up off the screens, while running the rakes at high enough speed to break up
and remix the mash before restarting the lauter cycle.
To put it in practical terms, on brew day, the unterteig is a brewer's worst enemy. Overcompression
of the grain bed can be dealt with by cutting, which effectively reduces its depth in order to
compensate. But if there is a layer of paste blocking the screens, then the brewer has to break it up

by brute force and accept the long delays that this involves. It is far better to minimize the the
under dough formation from the outset.
What promotes formation of the under dough in the lauter tun? Here is a partial list:
undermodified malt
some adjuncts and specialty malts
rapid initial runoff
overcrushed grist
Undermodified malt has a heavy, steely endosperm. Even if the grain is properly crushed, the
pieces tend to sink. Also, because they are not well modified, they resist breakdown by the malt
enzymes and tend to have a starchy, gluey consistency. This is yet another reason to insist on well
modified malt for infusion mashing.
Adjuncts and specialty malts pose a similar problem to undermodified malt. They may sink readily
and form a dense layer on the screen. I have already mentioned wheat malt as an example; rye
malt is also prone to this, and seems to be even gummier than wheat malt. Flaked adjuncts need to
be examined carefully. Oat and barley flakes vary quite a bit in density. If you have a choice,
always select flakes that (1) include the husks -- this will decrease yield but give more
permeability; and (2) are well flattened and bulky for their weight. Such flakes will be more prone
to float. In my experience, rice and maize flakes float well in a mash and tend to be trouble free.
Rapid initial runoff contributes to the problem because at the onset of recirculation, the matrix is
still quite loose and so the smaller particles are not held in place by their larger neighbors. They
can be pulled down to the bottom where they fill in the interstices of the under dough, reducing its
permeability. I have observed the same thing happening later during the sparge as well. As initially
configured, our Berabrew software was programmed to drop the knives to 10 mm over the bottom
at the onset of first sparge. The idea I believe was to speed the dilution of the wort in the grain
bed; however, by this time the wort velocity was at .34 in./min. and what we saw was a rapid rise
of differential pressure starting at this point and continuing until measures were taken to reverse it.
What was happening was that the knives (even though they rotate slowly, one revolution takes
about 4 minutes) were breaking up the hauptteig and providing channels for the fines to go to the
bottom, where they clogged the screens. Eventually I figured this out and mustered the courage to
alter the programming. The knives are now held at their initial depth until DP reaches 3 inches.
This change immediately cured the problem. However, we still see a pattern where each drop of
the knives (one inch at a time as a rule) will initially drop the DP, followed by a leveling off and
finally it begins to rise again. It would appear that a layer of fines gradually forms at the depth of
the blades, leading eventually to a rise in DP despite the loosening of the grain bed above that
point.
Overcrushed grist is the last factor on the list; by now its role is obvious. The more fine matter in
the grist -- especially insoluble matter like husks -- the more potential for clogging the screens.

Obviously, most of the same factors that are involved in stratification also make for a less
permeable grain bed, even in its absence. But the phenomenon is worth discussing because it helps
to clarify the limits of some of the remedial measures brewers typically take do deal with a stuck
mash. As Dave Line observed long ago:
Too fine a crush will cause the powdered husks to cake on to the mesh of the grain bag
[i.e. the bottom screen -DM] and block the flow of sparged wort. In these
circumstances the grain must be stirred to clear the blockage and allowed to stand for a
few minutes before sparging recommences. Bad cases, however, will block almost
immediately again and the treatment must be repeated. This is a tiresome
condition, and once you have experienced it, I am certain that you will do your utmost
to make certain that it does not happen again. (Big Book of Brewing, Originally
Published by Amateur Winemaker, Andover, Hampshire, 1974. page 142. Emphasis
mine.)
I have mentioned some additional factors that contribute to this "tiresome condition," but almost
40 years ago this great English home brewer clearly understood the problem and why it can be so
intractable.
Darcy's Law
If you have come this far, you will probably find this next section a bit of a relief. Many brewing
authorities teach the physical concepts of lautering by reference to a modified version of Darcy's
law, which quantifies the flow of wort through a grain bed.
Here is the Darcy equation:
Q = DP x A x K / V x D
This is not the way it is usually written, but I prefer to use symbols that reflect the English words
for the factors they represent. Here
Q = flow rate;
DP = differential pressure, which you understand well by now;
A = area of the mash bed;
K = permeability of the grain bed material;
V = viscosity;
D = bed depth.
The problem with the Darcy equation is not that it is false but that it oversimplifies the process of
lautering, and looks at it from the wrong end. Darcy was an hydrologist, and he came up with his

law as a way to calculate the flow of water through a sand filter. Thus, for him, the bed was a bed
of sand. You can measure the permeability of such a bed (assuming it is of uniform composition)
by simple tests. This is not true of a grain bed in a lauter tun. Viscosity (a parameter that was not
part of Darcy's original equation, because he was dealing only with water) is also easy to measure
with simple instruments. However, consider the assumptions that are built into the equation,
especially these:
1. D is independent of DP -- in other words, the bed is not compressible;
2. The bed is of uniform composition, so that flow rate is simply inversely proportional to its
depth.
Neither of these is true of the grain bed in a lauter tun.
Also consider that the equation is written to predict flow rate, which in practical brewing can be
measured directly. DP is also measured routinely, and it would be possible, in a well equipped
modern brewery, to add a viscometer to the instrumentation. With such a complement and a few
other modifications it would be possible gather the relevant data and have the computer calculate
and graph permeability, which is a parameter that cannot be easily measured. But such an exercise
would be of purely theoretical value. What a brewer is concerned with is manipulating his
equipment (everything from the malt mill to the lauter knives), so as to keep differential pressure
under control, in order to achieve maximum throughput (flow rate) consistent with high efficiency
and wort quality.
None of this is to say that Darcy's Law is useless for brewers. It delineates a number of basic
parameters that a brewer must understand. However, it models a static system and does not fully
take into account the complexities of lautering. In other words, brewers face a different problem
than hydrologists do, and Darcy's law is most useful to them in the brewery design stage, not in
day to day operations.
Heat Exchangers
Basics of Heat Exchange
Heat exchange usually involves two fluids. They may be the same or different, but in any case they
are not mixed together. They may be liquids or gases -- both are fluids -- and one or both may
transition from one state to the other: that is, a gas may condense to a liquid, or a liquid may
evaporate, during the process. In any case both fluids change temperature and please note, the
thermal gains and losses balance. In other words,
Heat gain by one = heat loss by other
Wort cooling is the simplest form of heat exchange. Neither fluid changes state, which makes
calculations simpler.
The basic mechanism of heat exchange is conduction. Conduction is the transfer of heat (thermal
energy) between neighboring molecules in a substance due to a temperature gradient. It always

takes place from a region of higher temperature to a region of lower temperature, and acts to
equalize the temperature differences. Speed of cooling (heat transfer) depends in part on the
conductance of the material that forms the boundary between the two fluids. Metals are good
conductors, so heat exchangers are almost always made of metal. The conducting surface
separates the hot liquid (wort) from the cooling liquid, which may be either water or a water/glycol
mixture.
Why It Is Done
To put it simply: because hot wort kills yeast! In fact, one of the purposes of boiling wort is to
sterilize it -- in other words, kill all organisms that it contains. Some of the wild yeast and bacteria
that are found in malt, and therefore in the brewer's mash, are thermophilic -- that is, they can
survive at relatively high temperatures. Hence the need to boil first, then cool the wort to a
temperature where "friendly" yeast -- the ones that we introduce, that make good-tasting beer -can flourish and multiply.
The more interesting question is, why should it be done quickly? Leaving aside the general
desirability of getting the job finished, there are three specific reasons:
1. To minimize time in the "red zone," which is the range of warmish temperatures (around 140 75F) where brewer's yeast cannot be pitched, but thermophilic bacteria can survive and multiply.
Never forget that bacteria have a metabolic advantage over yeast: They can double every 20
minutes, whereas yeast requires about 2 hours. That may not seem too bad, but if you do the math,
it's scary. This explains the need for cleaning and sanitation on the "cold side" of the brewing
process, as well as prompt pitching with an overwhelming number of yeast cells.
2. To minimize the formation of DMS in the hot wort. During the boil, dimethyl sulfide (DMS) is
formed from precursors found in malt which are carried into the kettle from the mash. During the
boil DMS is vaporized as it is formed, and carried off into the air. However, once the rolling action
of the boil stops, DMS continues to form, but less of it finds its way to the surface to evaporate.
How much DMS will be accumulate in the still hot wort depends on the length and vigor of the
boil, and the length of the hot stand in the kettle or whirlpool.
3. To maximize the cold break, which is the precipitation of soluble tannins, proteins, and other
matter during cooling. The faster the wort is cooled, the more cold break will be formed, and the
clearer and cleaner-tasting the finished beer will be.
Heat Exchanger Designs
There are three types of heat exchanger. The difference is in the flow pattern of the liquids relative
to each other:
1. Parallel flow. This is the least efficient and is never used.
2. Cross flow. Middling in efficiency. The common homebrew "immersion chiller," is a type of
cross flow design.

3. Counter flow. This is the most efficient design. There are two types of counter flow heat
exchangers in common use for wort cooling:
a. Tube in shell. Often called "counterflow" in the homebrew world, which is accurate but
misleading because plate designs are also counter flow.
b. Plate. This type subdivides according to the construction method. All homebrew plate heat
exchangers have their plates brazed together. Larger commercial units are often plate-in-frame,
that is, a large frame presses the plates together. This type of construction allows for disassembly.
A simple tube in shell heat exchanger

Image: Public Domain. KoenB, creator, April 7 2007.

The unit in this picture is easy to understand, although you have to remember that, in a practical
design, the ends of the clear outer shell would be sealed. All the cooling water would flow in and
out of the side ports at either end. Hot wort would flow through the inside metal tube.
In theory, this unit could be operated in either parallel flow or counter flow mode. If hot wort and
cold water both flow in at the same end, say the end closer to the camera, and cooled wort and
warmer water flow out the far end, then the heat exchanger is being operated with parallel flow.
On the other hand, if hot wort is entering the unit at the near end, while cold water is entering at
the far end, then the unit is being operated with counter flow. This is far more efficient, as the
little graphs below confirm:

Image: GNU Free Documentation License. R. Castelnuovo, creator, July 29 2005.

Graph B shows the parallel flow situation. Temperature is on the vertical axis, hot above. Notice
the arrows show both fluids moving in the same direction, from right to left. This is how the
liquids flow when both enter the same end of the heat exchanger. Notice also that the the
temperatures of the liquids come closer together as they flow, but they do not cross. The
temperature of the cooling water, on exit, is still cooler than the temperature of the cooled wort.
Graph A shows the counter flow situation. Notice the direction of the arrows. Also note that as
the liquids move through the tubes, the temperatures actually "cross" -- that is, the cooling water,
on exit, is hotter than the cooled wort. This is possible because of counter flow: as the wort moves
along the length of the pipe, it loses more and more heat, but the water it is flowing counter to is
also colder and colder.
What about cross flow? Well, imagine that, instead of one entry port for cold water, on one side of
the shell, and one exit port, on the other side and at the far end of the shell, there were four or five
ports on both sides of the shell. With this arrangement, as you can imagine, the cooling water will
flow pretty much straight around the wort tube rather than along its length. This is cross flow. It is
more efficient than parallel flow, because the wort as it flows continues to be cooled by water of
the same temperature -- not hotter and hotter water. However, all things being equal -- coolant and
wort temperature and volume, and flow rates -- a counter flow design is always more efficient. It
delivers the coldest wort, the quickest.
The actual difference in cooling speed however is far greater than this discussion above would
suggest, because the normal sort of cross flow heat exchanger as used in home brewing is the
"immersion" design, where the cooling water, rather than the hot wort, flows through a tube; and
the hot wort sits in the kettle, being stirred more of less continually to maintain thermal transfer.
As a result, the whole mass of wort slowly drops in temperature. The volume of the wort chiller, in
other words, is equal to the volume of the wort. Compare that to a counter flow design.
Comparison of actual cooling times

25 ft. immersion chiller -- constant stirring: with 80F water, I cooled 5 gal. boiling wort to 90F
in 20 minutes. Then switched to 40F cold water, and took another 10 minutes to bring wort to
70F.
Home built 2-stage counter flow tube in hose design (as pictured in the new book) -- I cooled 5
gal. of boiling wort to 70 F. in 10 minutes. The capacity of the tube is approximately one quart.
So, the actual cooling speed of the wort is around 30 seconds -- 10 minutes / 20 quarts. This
means less time in the red zone and better cold break.
A state of the art plate heat exchanger does even better, because its wort capacity is lower -- about
10 ounces. So its actual cooling time is under 10 seconds, given the same flow rate.
This is a sample of pale ale wort, pre-pitch, at 70F after cooling with my homemade two-stage
tube-in-hose wort chiller. Cold break particles are clearly visible. If you let the wort settle, the
break will drop out, leaving the wort almost as bright as filtered beer.
This is why I wanted a counter flow heat exchanger.
Drawbacks
There are some drawbacks to the counter flow design.
1. Operation is more complicated than immersion cooling, especially for two stage designs.
Depending on the brewery layout, it may require a pump.
2. It is more costly. Even a homemade unit is more expensive than a simple immersion coil.
3. Cleaning is difficult. It requires a pump. In my view this is the biggest issue. If you use a
counter flow wort chiller you must have a pump. If you already have a pump, then the advantages
of counter flow cooling outweigh the drawbacks.
So much for full disclosure. It's time to look a little more deeply into the thermodynamics at work
in a counter flow heat exchanger.
The Master Equation
Q = TC x LMTD
Q: Cooling rate in Kcal/hr. One KCal is the heat required to raise the temperature of one kilogram
(~ one liter) of water by one degree Celsius. One calorie is the heat required to raise one gram
(~one ml) of water one degree Celsius.
TC: Transfer coefficient. TC is fixed by the fluids involved in the transfer, and by the physical
properties of the heat exchanger, such as the transfer surface material, thickness, and area, and by
the turbulence of flow. In practice it must be determined by testing a working unit.

LMTD: Log Mean Temperature Difference between the coolant and the liquid being cooled.
Think of it as "thermal pressure." I will explain how it is calculated below.
Calculating Q: an Example
Let's take a state-of-the-art plate heat exchanger as our example. We find in a practical trial that it
lives up to its advertising. The parameters of the test are as follows.
19 L (5 gal.) boiling wort to 20C (68F) in 2.5 minutes (flow rate 7.6 LPM)
Cooling water temperature 15C (59F) at 19 LPM (5 gals./min.) Note for future reference: total
cooling water volume is 47.5 L.
Knowing these parameters we can calculate Q as follows:
Total heat loss = 80 (cal/gm) x 19,000 = 1520 Kcal. To break this down a bit, heat loss is 80C
thus 80 calories per gram. We assume the wort is water (close enough) so it weighs about 19,000
grams or 19 KG, thus the figure of 1520KCal. Therefore,
Q = 1520KCal x 60/2.5 = 36480. Remember Q is expressed in KCal per hour, so the only other
number we need is the time, in hours, that the heat transfer requires. In this case it is 2.5 minutes,
there are 60 minutes in an hour, so the cooling rate is 60/2.5 or 24 times the heat transfer we saw in
our trial: 36480 KCal/hour.
Now things get really interesting.
Calculating LMTD: Same Example
We need to look at the heat exchange from the other side now.
Water entry temp = 15C
Remember heat loss is equal to heat gain, so
Heat gain = 1520 KCal / 47.5 L (or 47.5 Kg) = 32C. Therefore
Water exit temp = 15 + 32 = 47C.
We already know that our wort entry temp is 100 and exit temp is 20. Now we calculate two
temperature difference values.
D1 = Wort entry - water exit = 100 - 47 = 53
D2 = Wort exit - water entry = 20 - 15 = 5
LMTD = (D1 - D2) / Logn (D1/D2). So, calculating these values we get
(D1 - D2) = 53 -5 = 48

(D1 / D2) = 53 / 5 = 10.6, and Logn 10.6 = 2.36

A bit of explanation, Logn means natural logarithm. If you want to understand this
concept, here is one place to start. Warning, the math gets deep pretty quick. Fortunately, you don't
need to understand Logn to calculate it. Just press the (logn) or (ln) key on your advanced
function calculator, then enter the number you need to know the natural log of: in this case. 10.6.
Press the equals key, and voila! there's your value. If you don't have an advanced calculator on
your computer, here is an online calculator. So, continuing with our example,
LMTD = 48 / 2.36 = 20.3. And so we arrive at
The Payoff: Calculating TC
Q = TC x LMTD
Q = 36480 Kcal/hr; LMTD = 20.3C, so
36480 = 20.3 x TC, which we can rearrange to
TC = 36480 / 20.3 = 1797
This is the payoff because, if we know the TC of a counter flow heat exchanger, we can determine
whether it can do a desired cooling job.
For example: will this heat exchanger be able to chill 19 L of boiling wort to 20C in five minutes,
using only 19 L of chilled water at 5C (41F)?
Cooling Power: a Simple Example
I chose this example partly in order to avoid repetition of some of the steps we have already
covered. When the quantities of cooling water and wort are equal, the calculations are greatly
simplified. In this case D1 is equal to D2 and both are equal to LMTD. So, we want
19 L boiling wort to 20C in 5 minutes.
Water flow rate = wort flow rate = 3.8LPM, because water volume = wort volume = 19 L.
We have stipulated a water temp of 5C. This will require ice or refrigeration, obviously.
However, it is relevant to home brewing because in much of the US, for at least several months of
the year, tap water runs too warm to be used as the sole coolant for wort chilling.
Total heat exchanged is as before, 1520 Kcal, however, I have slacked up by allowing 5 minutes to
do the job. So now
Q = 1520 x 60 / 5 = 18240 Kcal/hr. And
D2 = wort exit - water entry = 20 - 5 = 15.

D1 = D2, as I said, so exit water temp = 100 - 15 = 85C (185F). This is too hot to dump on a
lawn, or into an ordinary polyethylene bucket. Just an aside, fair warning, if you want to use ice
water for wort cooling, efficiency does have its dangers. Anyway, by simple rearrangement of our
master equation we can see that
TC = Q / LMTD, so in this case
TC = 18240 /15 = 1216.
Transfer coefficient must be 1216 or higher. We previously calculated it as 1797, so the heat
exchanger is easily equal to the task. In fact, knockout would have to be faster, or the water flow
rate would have to be slowed down, to meet the desired temperature.
Another Example
This one is germane to lager beer brewing. Suppose we want to cool 19 L of boiling wort to 10C
(50F), again using the same heat exchanger, and the same volume of cooling water at the same
temperature. Is this practical? In other words, can it be done, in a reasonable amount of time?
The answer to the first question is undoubtedly yes, it can be done, as long as our coolant
temperature is lower than our desired wort temperature. However, the time it will take is what we
have to calculate. In this case we need to calculate LMTD and then solve the equation for Q. The
first of these you can do in your head.
D2 = 10 (wort exit temp) - 5 (water entry temp) = 5, and we already know that
D2 = D1 = LMTD so that also equals 5.
Note the water exit temp is 95C (203F)!
Q = TC x LMTD = 1797 x 5 =8985 KCal/hr.
Note here we are using the full power of the heat exchanger.
Heat to be removed from the wort = 90 x 19L = 1710 Kcal
1710 / 8985 = .19 hr = 11.4 min.
So yes, it is practical. I have worked in two breweries that had single stage heat exchangers. In
each case, the unit was sized to cool a batch of wort with cold water (40F or less) and took 30
minutes or longer to do the job. This was for ale. Of course a home brewer has many reasons for
wanting to do it faster. But there are limits, as we will see later.
Two Stage Heat Exchangers
If you cannot afford a large high powered heat exchanger, you can use two smaller ones. This will
be slower and take more water. When I put my home brewery together, I was trying to keep costs

as low as possible, so I went bottom-of-the-line. I bought a 50-ft. coil of 3/8" (od) copper tubing
and a 50' garden hose. I used these pieces, plus some CPVC fittings, to build a pair of tube-inhose heat exchangers. The details of the construction project are in my new book.
My idea was to duplicate the sort of system I operated for many years. Blackstone, like many
brewpubs, uses a two stage heat exchanger to solve the problem of warm tap water without the
expense of a separate cold water (cold liquor) tank. Instead, the second stage of the heat
exchanger is plumbed into the glycol cooling system. The water side cools the wort to about water
temp plus 10C. Then the glycol (or ice water, in the case of a home brew setup) takes the wort
down to pitching temperature.
The point here is that, when I tested the finished units, the TCs came in at only 170 (15 ft) and 340
(30 ft) so the total power of the two units is less than a third of that provided by the state of the art
plate unit we have been treating in our examples, above. Cost of the two units was about $80 in
2010, not counting my labor -- about 40 percent of the price of the big plate unit. Cheaper, but less
cooling power per dollar.
After I put together the 2-stage, I found online a plate heat exchanger with a claimed TC of 650,
for the same $80. Please note, I have not tested the unit in question, I calculated the TC based on
the seller's claims as presented in their wort cooling chart. If true, the upshot is that this unit would
require about 9 minutes 20 seconds to chill 19L of wort to 20C, using 19L of 5C water as
coolant. For ale brewing this would be fine. However if you go through the calculations above for
chilling to 10C, you find the cooling time comes in at about 32 minutes. This is getting lengthy,
and it would be worthwhile to add a second plate unit and go with two stage cooling.
For ale brewing, I now feel that single stage cooling is all you need. If you are going to brew in
summer, you will need a supply of cold water anyway, and the easiest way to get it is either to chill
a keg of water in your beer fridge or make up a batch of ice in the freezer compartment of same.
16 pounds (or less) of ice is enough for making up 5 gallons of ice water.
Heat Exchanger Operation
Since I have it, I use my homemade two stage unit. Operation is surprisingly simple. Here's a
photo of the setup:
Sorry the picture is so busy, but this is not a posed shot. Most everything you see is working,
except for the propane tank, and that was left in place because it was going to be used for heating
cleaning solution, as soon as knockout ended.
At the back, you can see the two heat exchangers stacked vertically, with the bigger tap water unit
on top. The white hose on the floor in the foreground is carrying water from a nearby hose bib to
the unit.
There is a short length of vinyl tubing that connects the output of the upper heat exchanger to the
input of the lower one.

If you follow the wort hoses you can see that the hot wort is being pumped straight from the
kettle/whirlpool to the wort input of the upper heat exchanger. Cold wort exits from the lower unit
through a thermowell tee into the fermenter bucket.
The CO2 cylinder in the foreground is pushing cold liquor from the cold liquor back (Cornelius
keg) through the lower unit.
Operation is simple:
1. Make all connections.
2. Prime the pump.
3. start tap water flow at approximately 2 gallons per minute.
4. Start wort pump, set flow rate at approximately 0.5 gallons per minute.
5. Start cold liquor, adjust flow to achieve correct knockout temperature.
This is no problem, provided you have calibrated your flow rates beforehand; and of course, you
must have a thermowell in place at the exit of the heat exchanger. Also be sure your heat
exchanger can do the job in ten minutes with the water temperatures and volume you have on
hand. If not you will have to lower the knockout rate accordingly. The rates shown above work
fine with this heat exchanger and tap water at 80F for a 68F knockout temp. I still had a gallon
of cold liquor left in the keg at the end.

This picture shows my homemade CPVC thermowell. The same picture is in the new book. The
stainless bushing and the 1/8" compression fitting are both McMaster Carr catalog items, numbers
4464K264 and 5533K433 repectively.
You can see a couple of band clamps that hold short lengths of braided tube to the copper. A word
of warning, check these regularly and keep them tight. If there is any tug on the connecting hose
and the clamps are the slightest bit loose, it can slip off, and there goes your wort. Just one more
reason, actually, to prefer a heat exchanger with screwed or brazed hose barbs for the wort
connections.
More Hints
To stay out of trouble:
1. CIP the heat exchanger before the first run.
2. Calibrate wort, cold liquor and tap water (optional) flow rates before first run.

3. Don't go too fast. This is not a race, you will find that it is very difficult to control and monitor
your wort temp if knockout time is much under ten minutes. The idea here is to get it right. Pitch
temp is critical.
4. In view of #3 above, don't pitch your yeast until the fermenter is full, or nearly so. It's a good
idea to pitch as soon as possible, and in commercial breweries yeast is almost always injected into
the wort stream while it is being pumped into the unitank. However, for your first few runs with a
counter flow chiller, it's best to check the wort temp in the fermenter before adding the yeast.
In case of trouble (high wort exit temp) take these steps in order:
1. Speed up tap water. This may help, but it can only get you so far.
2. Slow down wort flow and ice water flow. This always works, but remember, if you slow down
wort flow you may run out of ice water before you run out of wort. This is why you must calibrate
and calculate ahead of time. If you find that you cannot run the wort off at the rate you had in
mind, then set your temp to about 10F below your desired pitch temp, then back off the ice water
flow until the wort temp is correct.
In case of clogging: this may happen with a plate heat exchanger. The tube-in-shell designs are
pretty much immune. The best cure is prevention: use only pellet hops in the kettle, be sure to
whirlpool, and give the trub time to settle out before you start pumping hot wort. Whirlpooling
only requires that you get the whole body of wort rotating at a decent rate; a 15-second stir with a
spoon is all it takes. I find that 10 minutes is enough settling time with my broad flat bottom kettle;
a deeper one may need longer. If you are facing a clog, the only way to clear it is to stop the
knockout, disconnect the heat exchanger, and back flush it with clean tap water. After doing this
you may want to resanitize by pushing some Star San through it for a few minutes. Remember
that somewhere in the middle of the heat exchanger is where the cold side of the brewing process
starts, and from there on you have to be as clean and sanitary as you can.
CIP: the Most Critical Step
I already said that the biggest drawback of a counter flow heat exchanger is that you must use a
pump to clean it. If you brew like a pro you have to clean like a pro, and that means CIP, or
cleaning in place. Furthermore, you can't put it off, at least, not entirely. Personally, I prefer to set
up my backflush loop as soon as I have dumped the trub and rinsed the heat exchanger, pump,
kettle, and hoses with plenty of water. However, if you find that you must delay the cleaning cycle,
then at least go this far, and leave the heat exchanger packed in clean water until you can run the
full CIP.
This picture is posed. It shows the backflush loop as I do it. The cleaning solution is pumped from
the kettle to the wort output of the heat exchanger, out the wort input and back to the kettle.
Key points to keeping your heat exchanger clean:
Rinse thoroughly with room temperature tap water first.

Run the pump fast. Flow rate should be at least double your knockout speed.
Use a non-caustic alkaline cleaner (e.g. PBW) at 140 to 160F.
Back flush most of the time. Once in a while run front flush for part of the cleaning cycle.
Don't be in a hurry. Circulate the alkaline cleaning solution for 40 minutes. Maintain temperature
by firing the kettle burner periodically as necessary.
Follow the alkaline cleaner with another thorough tap water rinse.
An acid wash for neutralizing is optional. It is generally recommended for commercial grade
stainless equipment, but home brew heat exchangers are at least in part copper (stainless plate
units are copper brazed) which is a softer metal. If you want to do an acid rinse I recommend a
mild citric acid solution, but follow with a thorough water rinse.
Drain the unit or blow it out with clean compressed air (don't use unfiltered air from a workshop
compressor) and store it dry.
Notes on Sanitizing and Cleaning
Virtually all commercial breweries employ a plate and frame heat exchanger for wort cooling. As I
mentioned above, you can take these units apart for inspection and manual cleaning, if necessary.
Don't think for a minute, though, that this can be, or is, done on a daily or weekly basis in most
breweries. It's the sort of thing you do once a year, if you're conscientious. In the 13 plus years I
worked at Blackstone pub, I took apart the heat exchanger three times.
The fact is that in a production brewery, scheduling constraints do not permit frequent teardowns.
Taking apart and reassembling a heat exchanger will typically require a full day for one man, and
two men if the unit is large. If that is the only way to clean the unit, it will not serve.
At the new Blackstone shipping brewery, our first batch of "Adam-Bomb" IPA (~35 lb. of
whirlpool hops) resulted in a total clog of the heat exchanger toward the end of knockout. Did we
take it apart? Heck, no -- we had more brewing to do next day. We back flushed it with tap water,
carefully opening the hose valve until we had enough pressure to push the hop debris back through
the piping and down the drain. Once we had clean water running through the heat exchanger, we
allowed the Berabrew software to run the normal rinse cycle, including a front flush with hot
water. No caustic CIP -- that is done only at the end of the brewing week. Next day, the system did
its normal "wort way" (heat exchanger and cold wort piping and hose) sterilization cycle -- 25
minutes of 190F water prior to first knockout. We brewed clean beer.
I expect some of you may wonder how we get away with once-a-week CIP. The key of course is
heat. That is the only thing that will sanitize a less-than-perfectly-clean surface. Of course, you
still have to CIP frequently, to prevent the buildup of grunge. Otherwise, over the long term,
conductance and efficiency will go down.

Now, I'm not recommending such a regimen to home brewers. You need to be extra cautious when
there's no way to look inside the heat exchanger. However, if you run across scare stories or scare
pictures of filthy, gummed-up plate heat exchangers, consider them as a warning -- not against the
design, but against sloppy cleaning habits.
For home brewers, and for brewpubs where only one batch is being brewed per day, I recommend
a chemical CIP after each knockout and a chemical sanitizing step prior to the next. Hot water is
an alternative, but you have to maintain temperature throughout the cycle. With an automated, well
engineered system like Blackstone's, this is easy, as long as the equipment is working properly. If
you have to do it by hand, well, that's a different story. I use Star San to sanitize my heat
exchanger at home, ten minutes of circulation followed by a rinse with city water. Iodophor would
also work with this program. I would avoid no-rinse sanitizers because of concerns about
corrosion to the copper brazing or tubing. However, if you insist on leaving the unit packed in
sanitizer between brews, then probably the best would be a very weak solution of unactivated
Oxine -- around 10 ppm.
Mills and Milling
Introduction
When Rolec set up our new brewhouse, one of the things Harry Klaussner, the brewmaster, did
was to adjust the gap settings on our four-roll Kunzel mill. He did this by eyeball. We started up
the conveyor and the mill, and Harry knelt on top of the grist case and thrust his right arm into the
inspection port at the top. He reached under the cascade of milled grain that was emerging from
the bottom of the mill, caught a handful, then carefully withdrew it and peered at the sample. Then
he stood up, grabbed a wrench, went round to the adjustment side of the mill and changed the
settings. He did this three times. After the last adjustment he pronounced the crush satisfactory.
This did not surprise me, because this is the way I had always done it. What surprised me was how
fine the crush was. Apparently the Germans have different standards. All I said was "Okay,"
though, after all it was their brewhouse.
Later, for various reasons it seemed worthwhile to get some quantitative analysis of our crush, and
to play with the mill settings. After talking to some QA experts and doing some reading in the
professional literature, I decided to invest in a set of test sieves.
Test Sieves and Sieve Testing
The American Society of Brewing Chemists has published an assay that quantifies a sample of
crushed malt according to particle sizes. It does this using a set of test sieves, which can be bought
from McMaster-Carr or other online sources.
The ASBC method requires a set of six 8-inch diameter half height sieves, plus the matching lid
and bottom pan. Sizes required are #10, #14, #18, #30, #60, and #100. This web page gives a list
of the screen apertures for USA standard sieves. Many microbrewers omit the #10 (coarsest), #18,
and #100 (finest).

The sieves are expensive, even in brass (which is perfectly all right for a dry sample like malt).
The lowest prices I found online are around $55 for each sieve, and around $44 total for the
matching cover and pan. Going to three sieves cuts the cost significantly while providing nearly as
much information as the full set.
Other tools required include a scale with a range of 0 - 1 to 0 - 5 kg, with resolution to 1 gram; a
common kitchen scale such as many home brewers already have is adequate. Depending on the
platform size, a straight edge may be required to hold the sieves above it, so that the readout is
visible. A calculator and a small timer are also needed, along with paper and pencil. Finally you
need a one cup measure. The ASBC test requires a 100 - 130 gram sample, and an 8-oz. cup is
perfect for this. The photo below shows one of our sieves being weighed.
This article focuses on my tests of a few homebrew mills. The collection method is different for
brewery mills and varies depending on the layout. You already know how we do it at the shipping
brewery -- we just hold the cup (rather than a bare hand) in the stream of milled malt. Don't shake
it to level it off, and don't tip it. Make sure you get the whole sample.
For home brewers, the procedure is to measure out a slightly rounded cup of uncrushed pale malt.
Make sure the mill has been wiped down and shaken out, also be sure the collection vessel is
clean. Mill the sample into it. If necessary, rap and shake the mill to dislodge any particles.
Now set up your sieve stack. First be sure all sieves, lid and pan are clean, and no particles are
trapped in the screens. I use a couple of dry paper towels, but a stiff brush would help. Ordinary
paint brushes are too soft. This is the most tedious part of the operation. When all are clean, turn
on the scale, set it to grams, then lay down the straight edge (if used), and one by one, set each
item on it and write down the readings: first the pan, then the #60, followed by the # 30 and the
#14. There is no need to weigh the lid. After weighing each screen add it to the stack. At the end
the stack should be in the following order, top to bottom: #14,30,60, pan. Leave the lid off for the
moment. The photo below shows the sieve stack assembled with the lid in place. Our 8-oz. cup is
also pictured.

Now carefully pour your malt sample onto the top screen of the stack. Use a brush to make sure
you get it all. Dust tends to stick but you cannot bang on the container, if you do it will scatter in
the air. You want the whole sample on that top screen.
Now put the lid in place and lay the sieve stack on a flat surface at least 2 feet wide. If this is a
wooden table you should lay down a sheet of cardboard first, to avoid scratching. Set your timer
to countdown mode and the time to 3 minutes. Press Start. Slide the stack back and forth in an arc
of 18 inches or more, one back-and-forth motion -- center to left to right to center -- per second.
Every 15 seconds raise the stack a few inches off the table and bring it down, flat, with a sharp rap.
(Be sure you have your thumbs over the lid so it doesn't fly off!) Keep this up until the timer is
down to zero. The photo below was posed; you notice that there is no cardboard sheet, and the
timer is missing too. However, hopefully it will give you an idea of the shaking process.

After the timer has counted down to zero, re-weigh each of the three screens and the pan. As
before, turn on the scale, set to grams, then lay the straight edge across the platform if necessary,
then set each screen and finally the pan on it and record the weight readings.
At this point you should have a little table that looks something like this:
Screen

Gross

Tare

#14

641

537

#30

486

471

#60

417

411

Pan

512

507

This is a table for my friend Brandon Jones's Barley Crusher. Roller gap was stock setting. Note
that we recorded the tare weights (right column) first, and that the tare weight numbers include the
the straight edge and the screen/pan.
The photo below shows the sieves after shaking. Starting from top left and going clockwise, they
are #14, #30, #60, and the pan. Regardless of the mill setting, the fraction on each screen will look
pretty much alike. The only exception to this is the top screen. But the big difference, the
significant difference, is the proportion of the sample retained by each screen.

Now it's time to fire up the calculator. First, you subtract the tare from the gross, to get the net
weight of the sample fraction retained by each screen. Then you add the net weights together, to
get the total sample weight. Then, finally, you calculate the percentage of the sample retained on
each screen.
I am not going to run through this in detail. It's fourth grade math. What you will end up with is a
table like this:
Screen

Gross

Tare

Net

#14

641

537

104

80

#30

486

471

15

11.5

#60

417

411

4.6

Pan

512

507

3.8

130

99.9

totals

The percentages should add up to 100 percent, but due to rounding off the total may be off a tenth
or two in either direction. If it's off any farther than that, then there's a mistake somewhere. You

could easily make up a spreadsheet to do the calculations, but of course you still have to follow
prescribed procedure and weigh carefully in order to get good numbers. I think you can see why
you need a sample of at least 100 grams, and also why there could be some variation from one
sample to the next, especially with very coarsely crushed malt, and especially for the fine (#60 and
pan) fractions.
What is "Normal?"
Having given the game away with that description, it's time to discuss what is considered a normal
crush. Here I can refer you to an excellent presentation by Bob Hansen of Briess Malting Co. Take
a look at his tables for brewhouse efficiency and lauter time, and I think you'll see why he (and the
majority of American microbrewers) define a "normal crush" as something a little finer that the
stock setting of a typical homebrew mill. The Powerpoint presentation may be found here. If your
browser is not set up to open Powerpoint files within itself, go to this web page and find the link to
the presentation "Practical Milling for the Craft Brewer." The file is freely available for download,
no need to register or jump through any other hoops.
If you can't download or view the Powerpoint, or you don't want to read the whole thing right now,
here's a table showing the assortment at the two Blackstone breweries. The sample for the
production brewery was done after we adjusted the mill to a normal setting.
Screen

Pub Brewery -Roskamp 2 roll mill

Shipping Brewery -Kunzel 4 roll mill

#14

58.3%

54.2%

#30

24.0%

30.5%

#60

8.3%

8.5%

Pan

9.3%

6.8%

total

99.9%

100.0%

The fine crush percentages, especially the pan, are questionable for the pub mill. The sample has
to be collected at the bottom of a 4-inch pipe that runs from a collection box beneath the mill down
to the grist hydrator, at an angle approaching 45 degrees from the vertical. The grist falls into the
hydrator by force of gravity. We try our best to knock all the loose dust out of the chute before
collecting samples, but there is no way, short of disassembly, to clean it well. And remember, it
only takes a gram or two of malt dust residue to raise the pan percentage significantly. On the
other hand, the numbers could be real. The Roskamp is a repurposed feed mill and is designed so
that the two rolls rotate at different speeds. This results in a tearing action as the kernels are
crushed between the rolls. It may well produce more flour than a mill where both rolls rotate at the
same speed.

With that caveat, the fact remains that both mills fall within what would be considered normal
parameters for craft brewing. Here's a rough guide:
Screen

#14

#30

#60

pan

% retained

50 -60

25 -32

7-11

5-1

Bob Hansen's criteria are that 50 - 55 percent on the #14 top screen is normal, however many
would contend that up to 60 percent is acceptable. If you look at his "Optimizing Example" (slide
24) he lays out practical results for trials conducted in a working brewhouse. To summarize his
findings: a coarse crush (78% on #14) gave 85% brewhouse efficiency and 96 minute wort
collection time. A normal crush (53% on #14) gave 91% brewhouse efficiency and 94 minutes
wort collection time. A fine crush (25% on #14) gave 92% brewhouse efficiency and 143 minutes
collection time.
All this lines up perfectly with intuition and experience. Uncrushed kernels represent a direct loss
of extract, and what you find when you examine coarsely crushed malt samples is a proportion of
same. Thus the large gap (relatively speaking) in brewhouse efficiency between coarse and normal
crushed malt. In a normal sample, you will find no uncrushed kernels. And therefore, a fine crush
gives only a small increase in efficiency, but a large increase in lauter time (and difficulty). It also
lines up with our findings at the shipping brewery. When we readjusted the mill, we saw hardly
any drop in brewhouse efficiency.
However, you also will notice that Mr. Hansen's efficiency numbers for coarsely crushed malt are
still fairly respectable. This is in line with Brandon's findings with his mill. At the stock roll gap
setting he gets about 80 percent brewhouse efficiency.
Why Adjustments Can Help
The question is, why settle for 80 when you can easily get 90? The only reason is fear of the
dreaded stuck mash. That's something worth fearing, and believe me, I've had my share of them.
But a normal mash, handled properly, in a well designed lauter tun, does not get stuck. Lautering is
a subject for another article; here let me concede that abnormal mashes, which include sticky
grains like wheat or rye malt, or oat flakes, for example, are problematic. However the best way to
ameliorate the difficulty is not to give up efficiency, but to increase the porosity (permeability) of
the mash by adding rice hulls. Notice that in Mr. Hansen's experiments the coarse malt mash did
not lauter faster than the normal one.
I think many home brewers use a coarse mill setting simply because that's how their mills were set
at the factory, and also because they don't know what a normal crush is. The manufacturers, in
turn, err on the side of caution because they do not want to be blamed for lautering problems. The
same, I believe, is true of many home brew shops who mill grain for their customers.

Here is a tabulation of the tests I have done on some popular homebrew mills. Please note that I
offer no judgments regarding the build quality, ease of use, or any other characteristics. Except for
the Rebel Mill, these mills were borrowed from home brewers for testing. I think the results fully
justify the advice, also given in my new book, that whichever mill you choose, be sure to select a
model with an adjustable gap.

Scree
n

Barley
Crusher
stock setting

Barley Crusher
Pro
stock setting

CrankAndStein
2 roll model
stock setting

Rebel
Mill
prototype
trial gap

Rebel Mill
prototype
minimum
gap

Rebel M
model
stock set

#14

80%

68.8%

88.2%

85%

43.6%

53.3%

#30

11.5%

18.4%

7.6%

8.4%

34.5%

27.9%

#60

4.6%

7.1%

2.5%

3.7%

10.9%

10.7%

pan

3.8%

5.7%

1.7%

2.8%

10.9%

8.2%

All the samples except for the last two had whole kernels which were visible in the sample on the
top screen. Frankly I wish I had had a #10 screen in addition to the others, as it would have made it
easier to at least estimate the uncrushed fraction of the grist. All I can say now is that it seemed to
correlate with the proportion of material retained on the #14 screen, though of course most of that
material was husks and large pieces of endosperm,
Just for comparison, here are some results from an often-repurposed (non-homebrew) mill:

Screen

Corona Corn Mill

set by "eyeball"

Corona Corn Mill

set screw opened 1/4 turn
from previous trial

#14

52%

65.3%

#30

32.3%

22.3%

#60

9.4%

7.4%

pan

6.3%

5%

This is a standard Corona mill, unmodified, with the typical wobbly grinding plate. Brandon uses
it to crush unmalted wheat and other grains that might damage his Barley Crusher. The numbers
are the basis of my evaluation of the Corona, which you can read in the new book.

Adjusting Your Mill

Among home brewers, mill settings are discussed in terms of the roller gap, as measured with a
feeler gauge. Having gotten this far, you already know that professional brewers have a different
way of assessing their malt crush. This is not to say that feeler gauges play no role. Checking the
roller gap(s) is standard maintenance procedure. In fact, after close examination of these mills, I
think frequent checks are mandatory. A set of standard leaf gauges is a required accessory.
Unfortunately, except for the Rebel Mill, I cannot give you a recommended gap setting. For that
model I recommend the standard preset gap which is .027 inches. Different brands of malt mill
have different roll surfaces. Some are knurled, others fluted, and the knurling or fluting is not
necessarily the same pattern or dimensions. Thus, the same gap measurement may not give the
same crush on different mills. Once you find a gap setting that produces a good crush, in your mill,
then you can use your gauges to maintain correct adjustment. However, for your first trial you may
have to make a best guess. With a roller mill you should still use the feeler gauge set to make sure
the gap is uniform from end to end. If you have no test sieves, you need to adjust the mill by
carefully evaluating one-cup samples. Start with the stock setting for a roller mill, or set screw two
turns out for a corn mill. Keep tightening the gap until you no longer find any uncrushed kernels.
If you are able to assay with a sieve set, you will probably find that this setting corresponds to
55% (5) retained on the top (#14) screen.
The problem with the eyeball assay is that even a one-cup sample requires a lot of patience to pick
through. Obviously, the coarser the crush, the more intact kernels there will be, and the easier it is
to find one. But as you tighten the mill down uncrushed grains become harder to find -- or to be
sure they are not to be found. The photo below shows a sample of coarsely crushed malt. On this
one it's easy to see the uncrushed kernels.

The photo below shows a properly crushed malt sample. This is what the grist will look like when
your assay shows about 50 percent retained on the #14 screen.

If you would like to run a sieve test on your own mill, I'm afraid I cannot offer too many good
suggestions. There are a few sets of "student screen sieves" available, however they are intended
for assaying soil and gravel samples and none of them contains the critical #14. The most obvious
way to save money on the professional set is to buy only that one sieve. In my experience, if the
#14 percentage is normal, the others will fall into line. This might not be true with a misadjusted 4
or 6 roll machine but for 2 roll mills, you can be pretty confident.
Frankly my hope is that homebrew mill manufacturers will test their own mills, at a variety of gap
settings, and publish their results. With most them running from $100 to over $200 -- which is a
significant expenditure for most hobbyists -- I don't think it's too much to ask them to provide this
information to help their customers get the best out of them.
As a side note, I would be happy to assist any manufacturer with tests of their mill(s). I have been
able to do this with Rebel Brewer because by accidents of time and geography, they were
developing their prototype while I was writing Brew Like A Pro, and they are located in the
Nashville area. I have no affiliation with nor do I receive any compensation from them or any
other company. My only interest is to assist in improving the quality and utility of home brewing
equipment.
A Note on Wet Milling
The latest trend in brewhouse design is wet milling. I don't want to get into all the technicalities,
but basically the grist hydrator and mill are combined in a single unit. The idea is that by wetting
the grain prior to crushing, you can set the rolls (as I understand it, only a single pair is used) to a
very tight gap setting. One brewer I talked to said that the idea is to squeeze the endosperm out of
the husk, like squeezing a banana out of its skin. Obviously this can only be done if the malt husks
are soft and pliable, that is, wet. The end result should be a grist which consists almost entirely of
husks, on the one hand, and fine flour, (which is easily liquefied) on the other.
The brewhouse engineers claim faster lautering combined with an increase in brewhouse
efficiency. The obvious drawback is the problem of cleaning. I can't say I have seen a wet mill in
action, but anybody who has dealt with a conventional grist hydrator knows that a wet mill will
need to be cleaned up after every mash-in. A CIP system capable of spraying all those moving
parts clean would have to be quite elaborate. No wonder that the system costs more than a
conventional dry mill arrangement.
For a production brewery, the potential speed gains can make this milling system worthwhile. In a
commercial brewery, the lauter tun is often the bottleneck -- the vessel with the longest duty
cycle. If you can cut that cycle (fill, clarification, first wort, sparge, grain out) from 3 hours to 2
hours 20 minutes, your capacity goes from 8 brews per day to 10, assuming your other equipment
is capable of keeping up. A 2:20 lauter cycle may not sound wonderful to a home brewer, but I can
assure you that we will never achieve it at Blackstone, even after we add a pre-run (wort
collector). 3 hours is as good as we can hope for. Right now, without a pre-run, our kettle is the
bottleneck, and its cycle is 4 hours.

Why do I bring this up? The answer is that some home brewers have been doing something
similar. They call it "malt conditioning." Basically this is just spraying the uncrushed grain with a
small amount of water to moisten the husks before running it through the mill.
Such a technique may be of some help if you find that your mill leaves some kernels intact with a
normal crush. If you try it, though, be sure to mill the grain as soon as possible after conditioning
and mash in immediately thereafter. Whether milled or whole, grain left moist for any length of
time is prone to spoilage. I have no trouble getting 90 percent brewhouse efficiency and a 1-hour
kettle fill with my homebuilt lauter tun, so I have little interest in experimenting with malt
conditioning. If I had a RIMS or HERMS system, where maximum mash permeability is desirable,
I might change my mind. Likewise if my lauter tun was prone to stuck mashes.
Brew Like a Pro
The Strainmaster
One of the most fascinating chapters in the story of twentieth century brewing technology is the
development and demise of the Strainmaster. Home brewers have a particular interest because the
pipe-manifold lauter tun, so popular in our fraternity, is obviously an adaptation of this nowobsolete design.
Genesis
The father of the Strainmaster was Frank Schwaiger, who was chief of brewing operations at
Anheuser-Busch during the 1950s and 60s. The prototype was built in the late 1950s and drawings
of it are seen in the original patent application, which was filed in March of 1958. The key idea for
this new wort separation device was to replace the slotted false bottom of a conventional lauter tun
with slotted pipes, laid out in horizontal rows, -- in other words, manifolds. The prototype vessel
was cylindroconical and had eight manifolds stacked in the lower half of the vessel. Separate
drainage was provided for each manifold. The original document, including the drawings, may be
found here.
What is fascinating about the patent, and indeed the device itself, is that it reveals the goals of the
inventor. He lists the advantages of his creation:
- low cost (compared to a lauter tun)
- mechanically simple (no rakes or other moving parts)
- fast (he specifically claims that lautering is no longer the bottleneck in the brewhouse)
- compact (less floor area)
My take on this is: Schwaiger was thinking like a modern microbrewer. He was trying to create
something that was cheaper to build and simpler to operate. Or, you could say, he was thinking
like an engineer, since the engineer's goal is always maximum efficiency -- not brewhouse

efficiency as we calculate it, but efficiency more broadly defined as getting the highest
performance at the lowest cost. In many ways he succeeded.
Developments
It did not take long before significant modifications were made to the original Strainmaster design.
From the beginning it was apparent that spent grain removal was a problem. In the cylindroconical
prototype, which was installed at the Anheuser-Busch plant in Tampa, Florida (now closed), the
manifolds were stacked with the even numbered ones oriented at a 90 degree angle to the odd
numbered. The patent application does not explain why this arrangement was chosen. I speculate
that the idea may have been to redirect the flow of sparge liquor as much as possible, so that it
could not take a straight vertical pathway. In any case, the cross-hatch pattern created a serious
impediment when it came time to wash out the grain after wort collection was finished, and the
conical bottom compounded the problem. In practice, grain-out required a lot of water and the
spent goods were consequently much wetter and looser than was desirable.
Only one cylindroconical Strainmaster was built. Thereafter a rectangular shape was adopted and
all the manifolds (usually seven) were oriented in the same direction, though the pipes were
staggered from one row to the next. The staggered pattern is clearly observable in the picture
below.

(Photo courtesy of Martin Dutoy)

You notice that the collector pipes are not round. The ones installed in this unit are triangular in
cross section, as you can see. Because of the size of the collectors and the scale of the photo, the
drainage openings may appear to be round, but in fact they are slots, 1/2 inch long and .023 inches
wide. (Aside to home brewers: many hacksaw blades are .023 inches thick.) The prototype
Strainmaster had oval tubes with slots 1.125 inches long by .025 inches wide. The slots were
oriented lengthwise on the tubes, while the slots on the triangular collectors were cut crosswise.
The adoption of a rectangular configuration simplified construction in several respects and made it
possible to standardize most dimensions of the units. Only the length needed to be changed to
accommodate the varying batch sizes of different brewhouses. For any given volume, the
rectangular shape made for a smaller footprint. In addition, the profile naturally gave a larger area
for grain removal.
Operation
The Strainmaster was relatively easy to use, since it has no powered rake assembly (lauter
machine) with all the attendant complications this brings to the process. The only control that can
be exerted over differential pressure is by adjusting the flow rate, but in practice stuck mashes
were rarely a problem because the large drainage area is spread over multiple levels, so wort
velocity is low and the dreaded unterteig is not an issue. (See Lautering article for more on this
topic.) Anheuser-Busch plants were able to run as many as 15 brews per day through the device:
at this pace, the cycle for each brew was 90 minutes, including filling/clarification, first wort and
sparge, and grain-out.
Clarification (recirculation or vorlauf) was started as soon as the top layer of tubes was covered
with mash, and the wort was clear enough for runoff (usually) by the time the vessel had received
its entire charge from the mash kettle. This step could take as little as 15 minutes.
First wort was run off at a high flow rate, then the outflow was reduced by about half during
sparging, in order to increase extraction. As an example, with a very thin mash, first wort might be
run off in 15 minutes at 15 bbl/min, then with one inch of wort standing above the grain bed, flow
would be cut to perhaps 8 bbl/min and sparging would take about 50 minutes. (This hypothetical
example assumes a 600 bbl. brew length.) Outflow from each manifold level was monitored and
when gravity dropped to a predetermined value, it was cut off. Normally the outflow from the
lowest three or four manifolds would not reach the cutoff point.
After an automated high pressure spray system was developed for the Strainmaster, grain-out
could be accomplished in as little as 10 minutes, and water consumption was somewhat reduced,
although the spent grain slurry still had a higher moisture content than the discharge from a lauter
tun or mash filter. In 1980, one intrepid brewmaster proposed reducing the moisture content and
water consumption by centrifuging the slurry and recycling the extracted liquid as liquor for the
next mash; he was granted a patent for this idea, but it is not clear if it was ever implemented, even
on a pilot basis.

The End of the Line

Strainmasters were put into operation both in the USA and Europe during the 1960s and 70s. 1975
was perhaps the high-water mark for the design, but thereafter its inherent limitations loomed
larger and larger. Environmental standards made it more and more costly to discharge liquid
effluent into municipal sewer systems, and in-house treatment was also expensive, though
worthwhile in the long term if the brewery could afford the initial capital outlay. In any case, the
increasing cost of water usage was one of the things that made other lautering systems more cost
effective, in spite of their greater complexity and purchase price.
Wort clarity was also an issue. Although satisfactory for its time, continued improvements to lauter
tuns and mash filters caused the Strainmaster to fall behind in this criterion.
Another factor that helped doom the Strainmaster was its limited efficiency. Speed was bought at
the price of extract. Operated on a cycle of 8 brews per day, the device could deliver up to 96
percent brewhouse efficiency with a normal gravity (12P) wort, but at 15 brews per day
efficiency dropped to 90 percent or less. For a while this tradeoff was acceptable, but as the price
of grain continued to rise, it became less and less tenable. Meanwhile, engineering firms like
Steineker and Huppmann continued to refine their lauter tun designs and improve their
performance, both in terms of extract and speed.
High gravity brewing* was the last nail in the coffin. When you install a lauter tun can put out 16
Plato wort with high brewhouse efficiency, it suddenly becomes possible to produce 40 percent
more beer, without adding a single brew kettle, fermenter, or lager tank. Against that sort of
improvement in productivity, the cost of the lauter tun scarcely registers on the scale. By the end
of the '80s the Strainmaster was obsolete.
Time for a Comeback?
There is no question that, for large industrial brewing, the strainmaster is obsolete. On the other
hand, home brewers have successfully adapted the pipe manifold concept to their needs and have
been able to get -- by their standards -- good brewhouse efficiencies and satisfactory wort clarity.
Grain-out is scarcely an issue on this scale -- it is messy, but no messier than digging the spent
grains out of any other style of vessel would be.
What intrigues me is the middle ground, that is, craft brewing. Pub breweries share many
characteristics with home breweries. They never do high gravity brewing, although they do make
high gravity beers.They use hand labor for grain-out. The efficiency of pub mash-lauter tuns is no
better than that of a well designed homebrew lauter tun, and extract can vary quite a bit from one
brew to the next, because of the uncertainties of hand stirring. Stuck mashes can be a problem
especially with big grain bills or sticky materials like flaked oats. All together it seems possible
that a latter-day Strainmaster type of lautering system might deliver faster and more trouble-free
performance on the 7 to 15 barrel pub brewing scale.

A Note on High Gravity Brewing

*High gravity brewing is a term that means different things in different parts of the beer world. For
most home brewers and craft brewers, it means making beers with a high original gravity (extract)
and therefore, high alcohol content and, usually, intense malt flavors and fermentation character.
However, in large-scale industrial usage, high gravity brewing refers to a production system where
the wort is produced and fermented at a higher gravity than the product specification, and is then
diluted with deaerated carbonated water just before packaging. For example, Brewery XYZ might
specify its Flagship lager at 11.4 Plato. However, it brews it as a 16 Plato beer and after
fermentation, aging, and filtration are completed, cuts it with 40 percent water in the bright tank to
bring it to spec -- 16 / 1.4 = 11.4 approximately).
Technical Note on the "Efficiency Problem"
The basic reason why the efficiency of a Strainmaster is lower than that of a modern lauter tun is
simply that the grain bed is deeper and is therefore harder to rinse thoroughly. Also the bed depth
is fixed: lauter tun rakes (or knives) on the other hand, allow the operator to effectively reduce it as
he chooses. The cutting action also guarantees that drainage is uniform, with no channeling -- at
least at rake level and above. A concurrent feature of the Strainmaster is that wort collection takes
place throughout the bottom half or third of the bed; thus, not all the sparge liquor permeates its
full depth.
In operation, as noted above, collection in the upper manifolds was stopped as gravity reached a
predetermined value, usually about 2.5 Plato (1.010 SG). The fact that the lower manifolds never
reached this value demonstrates that extraction efficiency is lower than a modern lauter tun.
However, it seems to me that a modified operation strategy might improve efficiency somewhat.
As noted, sparging typically proceeded at only about half the flow rate of the initial runoff. This
suggests that the upper manifolds (approximately half the total drainage area) could be cut off
right at the beginning of the sparge; no compression of the grain bed should result, as the net effect
would be that wort velocity across the slots would remain steady, rather than being cut in half.
Wort might also be somewhat clearer.
This is purely speculative, however, and not susceptible to trial unless or until some intrepid
engineering or fabricating firm chooses to revive the design. For home brewers, a drastically
simplified layout with only a single, relatively shallow manifold, placed at the very bottom of the
vessel, pretty much nullifies the problem. It also requires a large footprint, but that is of no
importance on the homebrew scale.
Acknowledgement
Many thanks to Martin Dutoy, head of brewing operations at the Lion Brewery, Hartlepool, UK.
There may be another somehwere in the world, but as far as I have been able to determine, the
Strainmaster at the Lion is the only one still in use anywhere. Mr. Dutoy was an invaluable source
of first hand information on the operation of the Strainmaster in a working brewery.

I also thank Dr. Klaus Zastrow, retired head of brewing operations at Anheuser-Busch, who
graciously sat for a phone interview that provided many insights.