[stpug]

I too have come to conclusion that high system efficiency is not a good or worthwhile goal.

I started monitoring mashing efficiency (measured by undiluted wort gravity from mash and compared to theoretical gravity calculated for the water/grist ratio) and found that I get a little over 100% when compared to Kai's efficiency chart (he apparently used a conservative assumption in creating the chart). So my mashing performance is great. However, its the extraction and transfer of that sugar content from the tun to the kettle (system efficiency) that is problematic for me.

Since getting my own mill, I've noted that my system efficiency has been pretty high (82 to 90 percent). Most would say: "Great". But I found that my beer quality actually suffered a bit. I chased a tannin problem for half a year and finally determined that I needed to avoid putting too much of my sparging water through the mash bed. Now I reserve a good 1 to 1.5 gal of sparging water and only add that remaining water directly to the kettle as needed to meet my pre-boil volume (5.5 gal batch size). That improved the quality, but I'm not sure that I'm where I want my beers to be.

At this point, I'm probably going to bump that amount of reserved sparging water up (less of the calculated sparging water will go into the tun) and just live with the reduced system efficiency. I think better beer is made with lower efficiency. So Dave's comment to worry less about efficiency and more about attenuation is exactly the way I feel too.

I've implemented nearly the exact same process changes for the exact same reasons to the betterment of the beer and detriment of my brewhouse/system efficiency. Less of my sparge water actually sees the grain and ends up directly in the boil kettle instead.  I've taken it a step further in that I will pick a method of sparging and amount to sparge with based on grainbill size and water:grist ratio, and while it may sound more complicated it's actually a faster and easier process in the end.

[dmtaylor]

...At this point, I'm probably going to bump that amount of reserved sparging water up (less of the calculated sparging water will go into the tun) and just live with the reduced system efficiency. I think better beer is made with lower efficiency. So Dave's comment to worry less about efficiency and more about attenuation is exactly the way I feel too.

I've implemented nearly the exact same process changes for the exact same reasons to the betterment of the beer and detriment of my brewhouse/system efficiency. Less of my sparge water actually sees the grain and ends up directly in the boil kettle instead.  I've taken it a step further in that I will pick a method of sparging and amount to sparge with based on grainbill size and water:grist ratio, and while it may sound more complicated it's actually a faster and easier process in the end.

I'm happy to see some reasonably credible anecdotal evidence supporting my theory!

As I shall always say... more experiments are needed!  Don't take anybody's word as gospel, even mine.

[a10t2]

I'm happy to see some reasonably credible anecdotal evidence supporting my theory!

Until you test it, it's just a(n?) hypothesis.

This message courtesy your resident... Well, maybe not evil scientist, per se, but evil TA for sure.

[AmandaK]

Obviously attenuation is much more important - you certainly can't taste efficiency! 

Ah.... but can't you?!  Again, more experiments are needed!  I've been meaning to run such an experiment for a long time, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

Oh, you're evil! 

[dmtaylor]

Until you test it, it's just a(n?) hypothesis.

This message courtesy your resident... Well, maybe not evil scientist, per se, but evil TA for sure.

Scientists and rationals may claim that I rely too much on my intuition, and need to provide objective evidence.  My response is, yeah, maybe someday... but also if I never get around to it due to my laziness or whatever, then who really gives a rat?!  As long as I'm happy, I'm happy -- right!?   

Anyone who is interested is certainly invited to run their own experiments proving my theory true or false, which I can choose to accept or ignore.  It's all good!! 

[RPIScotty]

Since I've tried blended partigyle I've been even less concerned with efficiency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dmtaylor]

Since I've tried blended partigyle I've been even less concerned with efficiency.

Same here!  Partigyle is a sure-fire way to know how high efficiency is..... not the yummiest thing.  Taste them second runnings.  Even after they are boiled separately for an hour or two or whatever.... taste is WEAK.

Amanda -- sorry if we're derailing this again.  [/derail]

[RPIScotty]

Since I've tried blended partigyle I've been even less concerned with efficiency.

Same here!  Partigyle is a sure-fire way to know how high efficiency is..... not the yummiest thing.  Taste them second runnings.  Even after they are boiled separately for an hour or two or whatever.... taste is WEAK.

Amanda -- sorry if we're derailing this again.  [/derail]

I PM'd you Dave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brulosopher]

Please keep this discussion on topic and respectful.

Where's the fun in that!?

Seriously, awesome experiment, I look forward to reading more about the final results. Any plans to present the beers to blind tasters?

[brewinhard]

I too have come to conclusion that high system efficiency is not a good or worthwhile goal.

I started monitoring mashing efficiency (measured by undiluted wort gravity from mash and compared to theoretical gravity calculated for the water/grist ratio) and found that I get a little over 100% when compared to Kai's efficiency chart (he apparently used a conservative assumption in creating the chart). So my mashing performance is great. However, its the extraction and transfer of that sugar content from the tun to the kettle (system efficiency) that is problematic for me.

Since getting my own mill, I've noted that my system efficiency has been pretty high (82 to 90 percent). Most would say: "Great". But I found that my beer quality actually suffered a bit. I chased a tannin problem for half a year and finally determined that I needed to avoid putting too much of my sparging water through the mash bed. Now I reserve a good 1 to 1.5 gal of sparging water and only add that remaining water directly to the kettle as needed to meet my pre-boil volume (5.5 gal batch size). That improved the quality, but I'm not sure that I'm where I want my beers to be.

At this point, I'm probably going to bump that amount of reserved sparging water up (less of the calculated sparging water will go into the tun) and just live with the reduced system efficiency. I think better beer is made with lower efficiency. So Dave's comment to worry less about efficiency and more about attenuation is exactly the way I feel too.

I switched my wort production to a modified no-sparge for all of my beers because of this^^^^.  Turns out it is easier and more hands free than my previous way.  I vary in efficiency from 65-68% with average gravity beers (1.050) down to 44% with huge gravity beers (1.100+).  These high gravity beers also typically need a longer boil (sometimes 2 hrs) to reach my expected OG (unless there are large amounts of sugar additions). 

I like the rich flavor profile from the no-sparge, although lately I feel that some beers can become a bit too bold for the style using this technique.  So I am currently revamping some of my grain bills to account for this.  We shall see how things go with competition season approaching in early spring with this.   

[ynotbrusum]

With the Zymatic, it seems that you might simply make a larger beer and dilute it down to get a 5 gallon batch of a desired original gravity beer...would that be the basis for another experiment on efficiency-taste effect with the Zymatic?  I know that would be a factor for me in whether to go with a Zymatic or not, since my batches are typically larger than the Zymatic-sized batch....

[Hooper]

At the risk of being "banned" I hate the 'play nice' reference in this thread. I really enjoyed the back and forth in the original thread. I think brewers/people can get passionate at times...apologies required at times...but man...screw playing nice...and who are the wimps who emailed the moderator on his day off to complain about some crazy 400 brewed "IT" lager fiend who over expressed his (passion) if nothing else...where's the fun in 'play nice'...

[RPIScotty]

At the risk of being "banned" I hate the 'play nice' reference in this thread. I really enjoyed the back and forth in the original thread. I think brewers/people can get passionate at times...apologies required at times...but man...screw playing nice...and who are the wimps who emailed the moderator on his day off to complain about some crazy 400 brewed "IT" lager fiend who over expressed his (passion) if nothing else...where's the fun in 'play nice'...

You have the ability to delete this post and let the rest of us get on with it. Don't stir the pot unnecessarily.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[beersk]

At the risk of being "banned" I hate the 'play nice' reference in this thread. I really enjoyed the back and forth in the original thread. I think brewers/people can get passionate at times...apologies required at times...but man...screw playing nice...and who are the wimps who emailed the moderator on his day off to complain about some crazy 400 brewed "IT" lager fiend who over expressed his (passion) if nothing else...where's the fun in 'play nice'...

Bryan did not end up getting banned. He left of his own volition.

Playing nice means being respectful and there wasn't a lot of that going on in that other thread among certain individuals.

But, on topic, I love the nature of this experiment. I was doing Hochkurz infusion mashes for a couple years, but recently have been doing single infusions because I wasn't sure it made a difference. But now I'm thinking I may go back to doing some Hochkurz mashes again. I liked doing 145/158 for 30 minutes each rest using a gallon of boiling RO water for my infusion to 158. I'd usually start out around 1.25-1.3qt/lb for the 145 rest.
Some have mentioned pH changes in adding untreated water for the infusion. Not sure sure how much a gallon of RO would change it. Usually, I'd treat all the mash water the same, pull out the gallon for the infusion, and mash in with the rest.
Can't wait to hear the results!

[Phil_M]

How important are the ramp curves between rests? I'd imagine a more vertical line is better, but how much of an impact would a slow ramp vs. a fast ramp have on the final outcome?

I'd test this myself, but my system is only capable of a "slow" ramp, otherwise I end up with scorching.