General Category > Ingredients
Best Malz lot analysis?
blatz:
81.2% as of my latest order, from the Sept 09 lot, which is probably what you got (received it personally in early Dec).
denny:
--- Quote from: Kaiser on December 29, 2009, 05:43:23 PM ---
--- Quote from: denny on December 29, 2009, 03:02:23 PM ---OK, here are the numbers...
17 lb. of Best pils malt. Mashed with 6.5 gal. 1st runoff was 5.5 gal. of 1.074. Sparged with 5.75 gal. Total boil volume was 11.25 gal. of 1.052. 1.052 was my target gravity for the entire batch!
--- End quote ---
According to these numbers I get a conversion efficiency of ~95%. But with that an overall efficiency of 97% should not be possible unless you convert more starches during sparging.
But what is also odd is that you have a grain absorption of 0.06 gal/lb. This is about half of what brewers generally see. Did you correct the volumes for temperature?
Kai
--- End quote ---
I forgot to add that I added a gal. of boiling water before the mash runoff, so the total volume of water into the mash was 7.5 gal. Still, though, I noticed a lower than usual absorption. I did not correct volumes for temp., but the volumes I measured were at no more than 150F. There shouldn't be much difference in that, should there?
hokerer:
--- Quote from: denny on December 30, 2009, 09:23:50 AM ---the volumes I measured were at no more than 150F. There shouldn't be much difference in that, should there?
--- End quote ---
Isn't the volume difference between room temp and boiling something like 4%? If you're measuring at 150F, that's about halfway so maybe 2%? So, if you measured 10 gallons at 150F, it would really be 9.8 gallons - not a big difference but some.
Kaiser:
--- Quote from: denny on December 30, 2009, 09:23:50 AM ---I forgot to add that I added a gal. of boiling water before the mash runoff, so the total volume of water into the mash was 7.5 gal. Still, though, I noticed a lower than usual absorption. I did not correct volumes for temp., but the volumes I measured were at no more than 150F. There shouldn't be much difference in that, should there?
--- End quote ---
That makes things a little more realistic. I put the numbers you gave me into my spreadsheet, I assumes 83% extract from the malt and 4% moisture content. Note the error analysis on the side. I took the liberty and made a guess how accuate your nunbers are.
Were the 1 gal that you added to the mash part of the sparge water volume? If no then your grain absorption is aboput 0.13 gal/lb. This is typical. If yes, your grain absorption is 0.07 gal/lb. This is significantly less and the cause of your high batch sparging efficiency. At least the problem of the conversion efficiency being lower than the efficiency into the kettle is solved. You had me questioning my theroy for a moment.
Kai
denny:
--- Quote from: Kaiser on December 30, 2009, 09:48:47 AM ---
Were the 1 gal that you added to the mash part of the sparge water volume? If no then your grain absorption is aboput 0.13 gal/lb. This is typical. If yes, your grain absorption is 0.07 gal/lb. This is significantly less and the cause of your high batch sparging efficiency. At least the problem of the conversion efficiency being lower than the efficiency into the kettle is solved. You had me questioning my theroy for a moment.
Kai
--- End quote ---
Thanks for your analysis, Kai! The extra gal. was added before the mash runoff and therefore was not part of the sparge volume. That means my absorption was in line with what I normally get. So, you're still a genius! :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version