Improving Brewhouse Efficiency By Adjusting Mash Water, Lauter, and Sparge Volumes By: Eddie Gutierrez 2nd: Drew Russey, PhD Intro Methods Case 1 Case 2 Conclusions Spoiler Alert
• Why should a 20 year old brewing company continue to look into brewhouse optimization??
• Brewhouse Optimization Results – In 2016 we will save over $20,000 due to changes made in 2015 • 45,800# of malt – In 2016 we will save 15hr 36min due to changes made in 2015
Intro Methods Case 1 Case 2 Conclusions Brewhouse Efficiency
• Total Extract=Amount of extract in the wort • Total Potential Extract=Amount of extract available in each malt being used • Calculated using coarse as is % or other value – Available from malt suppliers
Intro Methods Case 1 Case 2 Conclusions Benefits of Increased Efficiency
• Effective brewhouse optimization can save money and time: – Increasing brewhouse efficiency decreases malt usage and ultimately saves money. – Decreasing malt bill can create a more efficient mash volume, lessening the load on the lauter tun, resulting in quicker lautering and ultimately saving money.
Intro Methods Case 1 Case 2 Conclusions Brewhouse Description
• 136bbl(160hl) Brewhouse • Separate mash tun and lauter tun • Automated mash in and mash rest program • Mash tun agitator operates throughout the mash in and saccharification rest to ensure homogeneity
• Lauter tun rakes operate throughout the lauter and rake height is controlled by BrauKon BrauControl automation • Flow rate is controlled by BrauKon BrauControl automation • Sparge is separated into 3 sparge steps throughout the lauter
Intro Methods Case 1 Case 2 Conclusions Scope of the Project
• Problem – Beers with target original gravity above 15° have high final runnings(>6°) • Action – Use water more efficiently throughout the mash and lauter processes to extract more sugar • Goals – Increase brewhouse efficiency-reduce malt usage – Must not increase lauter time – Must not negatively effect the finished product
Intro Methods Case 1 Case 2 Conclusions Using Darcy’s Law
• Darcy’s Law describes the flow of a fluid through a porous medium • Q= Flow rate of wort • k= Permeability of grain bed • A= Area of lauter tun • Δp= Pressure Differential • μ= Viscosity of wort • L= Depth of grain bed Intro Methods Case 1 Case 2 Conclusions Measurables
• Variables – Mash in liquor volume – Pre sparge wort lauter volume – Sparge liquor volume – Grain bill
• Indicators of success
Start of boil gravity * Start of boil Vol. – Target volume = Target original gravity – Lauter time = end time - start time
– First runnings = sample of wort runnings at beginning of lauter
– Final runnings = sample of wort runnings at end of lauter
– Brewhouse efficiency = Total extract Total potential extract
Intro Methods Case 1 Case 2 Conclusions Case 1 Experiment Overview
• Case 1 – 15.4° Plato beer Mash in liquor volume • Increase grist to water ratio Pre sparge wort lauter volume Post sparge liquor volume Grain bill to keep batch size appropriate for FV
152 4H 45M
4H 30M
) 148
s L
B 146.824
B e
( 145.63
m 4H 15M
i
e
T
m r
u 4H 7M 19S
l 144
e
t
o
u
V
a t
L 4H 45M4H
e 152
g r
a 3H 54M 18S
T 4H 45M 140 152 3H4H 45M30M
) 148 152152 4H4H 45M 45M
s 4H 30M L
) 148 B 152s 4H 45M
146.824 L
B
e (
136 145.63 B
m 146.824 B 4H 15M e
i 4H 30M e ( 145.63 4H 30M
Control Treatment Control Treatment
m )
T 4H 15M i
148 e
m
)
s T
148 r
s
L m
u 4H 7M 19S r
l 144
e L
u 4H 7M 19S
B t
l 144
e o
146.824 t
B
o
B
e
u
( u
V 145.63 V
146.824
B
e
a
m
a 4H 15M
t
(
i t
e 145.63
L L
4H m 30M4H e 4H T
e 4H 15M
i
e
m
g
r
g
r T
u 4H 7M 19S
) l
r 144
e
m a
23 t 3H 54M 18S r
o 148 a
u 4H 7M 19S T
s 3H 54M 18S u
l 144
e
V
T
t
140 a
o
t L
u 4H 45M 140 L
V 152 4H
e
a B
g 3H 45M
t r
22.488 6 L 4H
e ) a 146.824
) 3H 45M 3H 54M 18S
B
e
g
T
x
r
x (
i 145.63
i 140
r a 5.42 r 22 3H 54M 18S m 4H 15M
T 4H 30M
i
B e
B 4H 45M
( 136
) 3H 45M
( 140 152
148
T
s
s m
L Control Treatment Control Treatment
s
r B g 3H 45M g 136
u 146.824 4H 7M 19S
B
e l
144n
e
n (
i 145.63
i
t
Control Treatment Control Treatment m 4H 15M
i
o
n e
n 136 T
21 u
n
m
n
V r
u 4H 7M 19S
u Control Treatment Control Treatment
a l u 144
4H 45M 4He 30M t
152 t 4
o R
136 23 u
R
L
V
)
4H
e
a
l t
t 148 s
Control Treatment L 4H Control Treatment
e
a s
20.154 g
L
g
r
n
r
r i
i 22.488 6 a
B 3H 54M 18S
)
F
)
a F
2023 T 3H 54M 18S x
x 146.824
B e 4H 30M i
140 i
23 T r
( 5.42
r 22 145.63
)
B
148 m B
s 4H 15M
( i
( 3H 45M
e 140
L
s
T
s
B
m 6 g 6 22.488 23 g 22.4882.552
146.824 r
)
B
e
)
n )
u 4H 7M 19S
)
n
i
( i
145.63 l 144
x
e
x
x 3H 45M
i
x
i
n
m
t i
4Hn 15M
i
i r
o 5.42 e 4:45
r 22 2 21 r
152 5.42 n
r 19 136
22 n
u
T
B
B
V
u
m
u
(
B
(
a
B r Control Treatment 4 6 Control Treatment
22.488 (
u 4H 7M 19S
t
R
(
R l
144 )
e
s
)
s
L
t
l 4H
t
e
o
x
g
x
s
g
i
s
a
u
i s
V 20.154
r n
g 5.42
n r
22 r
g
i
n
a
g
i
i
r i
t Control Treatment Control Treatment
B
n
L
B
n
n F
n 4H
e
F
( i a 4:30 21( 20
i 3H 54M 18S
n
n
g
T
n
)
u
n
r
s u 148 s 4
s 21 136
n a
23 g R n 3H 54M 18S
g 140
R
L
T
l
u
n
t
u
n
i
i B 140 4 a 2.552
s 20.154
R n
r Control Treatment Control Treatment n
R 146.8
n
B
e
i
3H 45Mi 21
( Control Treatment l 145.6 n 6
n 22.488 t
2
F
F m 3H19 45M )
20) 4:15
u
i
a
u
e
s x
20.154 x
i 4
i
r
T
n
r R
i 5.42
r
R 22
m
i
r l
4:07 B
B
u
t
F
( l
144 F
(
e
20 a
t s
o 20.154
Control Treatment s Control Treatment
r s
n 2.552
u
i
i
V
g
g
136 a
F
n
t
n F
136 i
i 20 L 4:00 2
e 19 n Control Treatment n Control Treatment
g 21
n n
r Control Treatment Control Treatment
2.552 u u
a 3:54 Control Treatment4
R
R
T
l
140 t 232 Control Treatment Control 2.552Treatment a
19 s 20.154
r
n
i i
F 2 1920 3:45 F 23 Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment 6 2.552
23 Control T22.488reatment Control Treatment )
136 22.488 19 ) 6 2
)
)
x
x
x i
x Control Treatment Control Treatment
i
i
i r
5.42 r r 22 5.42
r 22
B B
Control ( Treatment
( 6
22.488 B
Control Treatment Control Treatment
B
) )
Control ( Treatment
s
s
(
x
g
x
g
i
i
n
r n
s 5.42 r
22i
s
i
n
n
B
g B
2123 g Control Treatment
(
n
n
(
u
n
u
n s
4 i
s
i
R
R
g
l
g
n
t n
a 6
n )
s 22.5 n ) 20.154
21 i
r
i
n
n
o
i
n
o
i
t
t
n
n
F
F u
2022 a 5.4 a
u 21
l
n l
n 4
P
P
u
R
u
(
(
R
4
R
l
s
R
s
t
g l
g 2.552
t
a
s
n
n a
i 20.154
s i
r 20.154
n r
n 2
n n
1921 i
i
i
i
n
n
F
u
F F u 4
20 F
R
R
l
t Control20.2 Treatment Control Treatment
a
s
r
n
i i
F 20 F 2.552 Control Treatment 2 2.552 19 2.6 19 192 2 Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Control n =Treatment 46 Control Treatment
Control Treatment 152 4H 45M
4H 30M
) 148
s L
B 146.824
B e
( 145.63
m 4H 15M
i
e
T
m r
u 4H 7M 19S
l 144
e
t
o
u
V
a t
L 4H 45M4H
e 152
g r
a 3H 54M 18S T 140 3H4H 45M30M
) 148 s L 4H 45M
B 146.824 152152 4H 45M
B e
( 136 145.63
m 4H 15M i
e Control Treatment Control Treatment
T
m r
u 4H 7M 19S
l 144
e 4H 30M
t
o
) u
V 148 4H 45M s
152
a
t L
L 4H 4H 30M
e B
g 146.824
B
e
) r 23 ( 145.63
148
s m
a 3H 54M 18S 4H 15M
i
e
T T
L 4H 30M
140 m
r u
) 4H 7M 19S l B 144
148 e s 6 t
22.488 o
L u
) 146.824 B
) 3H 45M
e
V
B
a
x
(
x t
i 145.63
i L
146.824
B e
r 4H e 5.42
r 22 m
( 145.63 4H 15M
i
g
e m
B 4H 15M
B
i
r
e
(
(
a
T T
3H 54M 18S
m
T
m
s
r s
u 4H 7M 19S r
l 144 e
g 140
g 136 u
t 4H 7M 19S
o l
n 144
e
u
n
i
V
i
t
Control Treatment Control Treatment a 3H 45M
o
t
n
n L
u 4H
21 e
n
n
V
g
u
a
r u
t 4H4 45M
152 a 3H 54M 18S
R
L
R
T
4H
e l
t 136140
a s
20.154 g
r
n
r i
i Control Treatment 3H 45M Control Treatment
F a 2320 F 3H 54M 18S
T 4H 30M
) 148
s 140
L 136
B 22.488 6 2.552 )
) 146.824 B
e Control Treatment Control Treatment (
145.63 x 23 3H 45M
x
i
i 4H 45M
m 4H2 15M i
152 r e 5.42
r 2219
T
B
m
B
r
( (
u 4H 7M 19S
l 144
e 22.488 6
t
s
)
o
s
)
u
x
V
g
x
g
i
i
Control Treatment a Control Treatment r
t 5.42 r
n 22
n L
i 4H23 30M
i 4H
e
B
B
(
n
)
g
(
n
r 148
s 21 136
n
s
n s
a 3H 54M 18S
L
g
u
T
g u
B 4 22.488 6 n
140 n
i
)
R i 146.824 )
R Control Treatment Control Treatment
B
e
x
n
( Control Treatment
x l
145.63 n
i
i
t 21
r m
n 5.42
4Hr 22 15M
n i
a 3H 45M e
s 20.154
u
B
u
B
r
T
n
(
i
( 4
m
i
R
r
R
u 4H 7M 19S
s
F
s
l l
144 F e
20 t
t
g
g
o a
s 20.154
u
n
r
n
V
n
i
i
i
i
a t
136 n
n
F L 20 4H F
e 21
n n
g Control Treatment Control Treatment
u u
r 2.552 4
R a
R 3H 54M 18S
l
T
t a
14019 232s 20.154 2.552
r
n
i
i F 3H1920 45M F 2 23 Control Treatment Control Treatment
Control 22.488Treatment 6 Control Treatment2.552 )
136 22.488 ) 6 2
) x
) 19
x i
Control Treatment x Control Treatment
x
i
i
i r
r 5.42 5.42 r
22 r 22 B
B Control Treatment
(
B (
B Control Treatment
Control Treatment ( Control Treatment
s
(
s
g
g
n
s
n
s
i
i
n
n g
2321 g
n
n
n
u u n Control Treatment
4 i
i
R
R
l
n t n 6 22.488 a
s 20.154 21
)
n
r
)
n
n
i
i
x
x
i
i
F
u F
r 5.42 r 2220 u
B 4
B
(
(
R
R
s
s
l
t g
g 2.552
n
a
n
s i
i 20.154
r
n n 2 n
2119 i
i
n
n
u
u F
4 F
R 20
R
l
t a
s 20.154Control Treatment Control Treatment
r
n
i
i F 20 F
Control Treatment 2.552 2.552 19 192 2
Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Predictions Control Treatment n = 46
Control Treatment 152 4H 45M
4H 30M
) 148
s L
B 146.824
B e
( 145.63
m 4H 15M
i
e
T
m r
u 4H 7M 19S
l 144
e
t
o
u
V
a t
L 4H
e
g r
a 3H 54M 18S T 140 3H 45M
136 Control Treatment Control Treatment
23
22.488 6
)
)
x
x
i i
r 5.42
r 22
B
B
(
(
s
s
g
g
n
n
i
i n
n 21
n
n u
u 4
R
R
l
t a
s 20.154
r
n
i
i F 20 F
2.552 19152 4:452
Control Treatment Control Treatment 4:30
) 148
s L
B 146.8
B e
( 145.6 Control Treatment
m 4:15
i
e
T
m
r 4:07 u
l 144
e
t
o
u
V
a t
L 4:00
e
g r
a 3:54 T 140 3:45
136 Control Treatment Control Treatment
23
6
22.5 )
)
o
o
t t
22 a 5.4
a
l
l
P
P
(
(
s
s
g
g
n
n
i
i n
n 21
n
n u
u 4
R
R
l
t 20.2
a
s
r
n
i i
F 20 F
2.6 19 2
Control Treatment Control Treatment
Control Treatment n = 52 = p < 0.001 Product Release Force Aged Intro Methods Case 1 Case 2 Conclusions Case 1 Results
• Problem – Beer with target original gravity of 15.4° has high final runnings(~6°) • Action – Use water more efficiently throughout the mash and lauter processes in order to extract more sugar • Results – Better Extraction • First runnings increase and final running decrease • 5% Grain Reduction (425#) – Reduction in lauter time • 13 minutes saved per lauter – Increases brewhouse efficiency from 87% to 93% – No significant impact on True to Brand sensory analysis. Intro Methods Case 1 Case 2 Conclusions Case 2 Experiment Overview
First Wort Lauter
• Case 2 – 23.8° Plato beer double mash beer – Introduce minisparge to force out concentrated wort Mash in liquor volume – Increase grist to water ratio Pre sparge liquor volume Grain bill in order to keep batch size appropriate for FV
Intro Methods Case 1 Case 2 Conclusions Case 2 Experiment Overview
First Wort Lauter
Minisparge
Lauter 4:45 4:45 152 1522:42 137.5
4:30 2:37 4:30
) )
) 148 148
s s s Case 2 results
2:36
L L
L 135.0
B B
B 134.3 146.8 146.8
B
B B
e
e e
( (
( 145.6 145.6
m m
m 4:15 4:15
i
i i
e e
e
T T
T
m m
m
r r
r 4:07 4:07
u u
u
l l
l 144 144
e e
e t
133.2 t
t
o o
o 132.5 2:30
u u
u
V V
V
a a
a
t t
t
L L
4:00L 4:00
e e
e
g g
g
r r
r
a a
a 3:54 3:54
T T T 140 140 130.0 2:24 2:24 3:45 3:45
127.5136 136 ControlControl TTreatmentreatment ControlControlControl TTreatmentTreatmentreatment Control Treatment
23 23 23 23 22.5
6 6 )
22.5 ) 22.5
) )
)
o o
)
o o
t t
t t
x
x
i
i a
22 a 22 5.4 5.4
a a
r
l l
r
l l
22 B 22
P P
B P
P 21.9
(
( (
(
( (
s
s s
s
s s
g
g g
g
g g
n
n n
n
n n
i i
i
i i
i
n n
n
n n
n 21 21 n
n 21.5
n
n n
n
u u
u
u u
u 4 4
R R
R
R R
R
l l
l
t t
t 20.2 20.2
a a
a
s s
s 21 21
r r
r
n n
n
i i
i
i i
i F
F 20 20
F
F F F 20.8
2.6 2.6 19 219 2 20 20
Control TTreatmentreatment ControlControlControl TreatmentTTreatmentreatment Control Treatment
Control Treatment Control Treatment Results Control Treatment = p < 0.02 Intro Methods Case 1 Case 2 Conclusions Case 2 Results
• Problem – Beer with target original gravity of 23.8° has high final runnings(21.5°) • Action – Use water more efficiently throughout the mash and lauter processes in order to extract more sugar • Results – First runnings increase and final running decrease – 10% Grain Reduction (1800# per double mash) – 26 minute reduction in lauter time per double mash – Increase brewhouse efficiency from 58% to 63% Intro Methods Case 1 Case 2 Conclusions Results Summary
• Case 1 – 40 batches per year – 17,000# of malt – 8 hours 40 minute reduction in lauter time – No significant impact on True to Brand sensory analysis. • Case 2 – 16 batches per year – 28,800# of malt – 6 hours 56 minute reduction in lauter time Intro Methods Case 1 Case 2 Conclusions Recommendations
• Do science • Record as much data as possible and store it in a way that it can be analyzed easily • Look for areas of inefficiency • Single variable experimentation • Analyze Results • Repeat Questions?
Eddie Gutierrez: [email protected]
Drew Russey: [email protected]
Statistics
• Case 1 – Normality of control and treatment datasets assessed by Shapiro-Wilk test. • Only First Runnings met assumption of normality. Test with a t-test • All others tested with Wilcoxon signed-rank test (non-parametric) • Case 2 – Normality assessed by Shapiro-Wilk test • No groups violated assumption of normality • All tested with t-test. • TTB error bars – Data was bootstrapped (resampled 1000x) to estimate 95% confidence interval since data is essentially binomial. – Force Age samples have larger error bars due to • nature of sampling (e.g. 3x for PR and 1x for FA). • More 0 ratings on FA beers.