[RPIScotty]

Your a nuke! Me too. I've got an outage coming up as well.

Hey, another one!  It's surprising how a disproportionate number of nuclear workers are into homebrewing.  Engineers and IT guys especially.  Don't know why, just seems true the world over, not just here but everywhere.

Electrical Design Engineer here.

[yso191]

Being the picky sort, I thought I'd chime in ;-)

A list of flavors from melanoidins from Designing Great Beers, by Ray Daniels:
"Chocolate, Rye bread, Musty, Violets, Buttery, Burnt, Toasted, Fruity aromatic, Rose perfume, Rock candy, Caramel, Bready, maple syrup, Burnt protein, Sweet"

However this is from malt, NOT from the boil.  My understanding is that there is very little melanoidin development in even the most vigorous boil - the level is probably just academic as opposed to something discernable.

Ya know, that book is old enough you have to know what to use and what to ignore.  When it was written, it was common in the brewing world to refer to melanoidins as flavors.  As brewing got more precise, the terminology did also.

But do we not get a lot of those flavors based on roasting or kilning malts to varying levels, and are they not a direct result of melanoidin development?  If not, what accounts for the variety of flavors and flavor changes that occur at differing lovibond levels in malts?

No, those flavors are due to Maillard reactions.  The same reactions create melaniodins also, but they are 2 different things.

Well I guess that's a good example of why you write brewing books and I read them.

[dmtaylor]

Electrical Design Engineer here.

I never know what to tell people.  I'm in Design Eng as well, in the Configuration Management group.  We're essentially the scummy janitors of stuff no one else in Engineering wants to do.  They also call me the paint guy.  I've been the Coatings Engineer for 17 years.  I also know a bit about EQ, and I'm also a CAPCO / Corrective Action nerd.  Yeah, I pretty much do everything that no one else wants to do.  But anyway, we digress.

[RPIScotty]

Electrical Design Engineer here.

I never know what to tell people.  I'm in Design Eng as well, in the Configuration Management group.  We're essentially the scummy janitors of stuff no one else in Engineering wants to do.  They also call me the paint guy.  I've been the Coatings Engineer for 17 years.  I also know a bit about EQ, and I'm also a CAPCO / Corrective Action nerd.  Yeah, I pretty much do everything that no one else wants to do.  But anyway, we digress.

Awesome man. I'm electrical/I&C. I do mostly power engineering: NERC, switch yard stuff, relaying, motors, breakers, change packages. You know the deal. I'm also the station fuse engineer and Aging Management guy for fuses. Lots of change packages, tech evals, etc.

[BurghBeezer]

I boil very vigorously and that means for a 60 minute boil my kettle is fuller than I like.  The Experimental Brewing's episode #9 with the talk of sessions beers has me wanting to brew one.

Now I'm over-thinking...

If I do a 30 minute vigorous boil instead, my batch sparge water drops low enough that I would probably just add it to mash-out.  What efficiency drop would I expect from 'no sparge' and from short boil?

With a low gravity beer in the 1.036-1.038ish range I'm planning on 2.25-2.5 qts./lb. which is way thinner than the 1.25-1.5 qts./lb. I normally do.  I've read that once a mash gets 'too thin' the required mash time goes up; is a 40minute mash possible at 2.5 qts./lb.?

There has been quite a few posts on shortening brewing steps lately that really has me desiring shortening what I can.  Especially since moving to these hop-steeps long ago which have great results, but also add time.  Especially when brewing in the evening and finding myself pitching at midnight or later sometimes.

In the situation you mention, my efficiency is pretty much the same as doing a normal batch sparge.  When I make a small beer and intend to do no sparge, I mash with around my normal ratio...1.75-2qt./lb.  Then I add the rest of the water before runoff.  That way I don't think my mash ratio.

Thanks Denny!  I like the idea of not having a seperate batch sparge for this if I don't need to.  One less vorlauf & drain step.

No-sparge brewing will reduce your efficiency substantially.  I would say it's down to about 55% for a regular strength beer, and maybe a bit better around 60-65% for a small beer around 1.038.

2.5 qts/lb is no big deal at all.  You'll still get sufficient conversion, efficiency & attenuation, mashing at that ratio for just 40 minutes in my experience.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one anymore interested in saving time.  Cheers!

Thanks Dave!  When I started all-grain brewing years ago everything I seem to read made it seem like 1.0 qt/lb was normal and 1.5qt/lb was a very thin mash.  I moved towards the 1.5qt/lb because I never seem to have a negative from it, but mainly with a cooler as a mash tun I found the more water helped maintain mash temperature dramatically.  It seems that lots of folks on here are in the >1.5qt/lb without problems.

Definitely looking forward to thinner mashing as I hate seeing the temperature drops I have with thick mashes.
 
I have read or listened to so many brewing blogs/forums/research papers/podcasts over the years I sometimes don't know where fact, fiction, or myth begins or ends.  Since I don't brew often, but spend stupid amounts of time on the internet, I look for trends in forums essentially and then if reasoning makes sense I'll give things a try.

[Pricelessbrewing]

No-sparge brewing will reduce your efficiency substantially.  I would say it's down to about 55% for a regular strength beer, and maybe a bit better around 60-65% for a small beer around 1.038.

2.5 qts/lb is no big deal at all.  You'll still get sufficient conversion, efficiency & attenuation, mashing at that ratio for just 40 minutes in my experience.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one anymore interested in saving time.  Cheers!

Agree with the premise, but disagree with the numbers. Typical mash efficiency for no sparge mash tun (as opposed to no sparge biab) is in the 60-65% for a 1.060 brew at a common batch sparge + 1 gal/hr boil off rate. Other typical values can be found in http://pricelessbrewing.github.io/methods/Efficiency/

yeah, but it will take a few brews to know how much

You should have a really good idea of your system, simply adjusting the boil duration doesn't change a whole lot. Typical brews should only be affected .5-2% mash efficiency. To see what changes you can expect, you can run it through a batch sparge simulator, like mine http://pricelessbrewing.github.io/BiabCalc to get an idea. If you fly sparge, you'll have to adjust up based on your normal lauter efficiency variance. (working on a sparge fudge factor)

[RPIScotty]

No-sparge brewing will reduce your efficiency substantially.  I would say it's down to about 55% for a regular strength beer, and maybe a bit better around 60-65% for a small beer around 1.038.

2.5 qts/lb is no big deal at all.  You'll still get sufficient conversion, efficiency & attenuation, mashing at that ratio for just 40 minutes in my experience.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one anymore interested in saving time.  Cheers!

Agree with the premise, but disagree with the numbers. Typical mash efficiency for no sparge mash tun (as opposed to no sparge biab) is in the 60-65% for a 1.060 brew at a common batch sparge + 1 gal/hr boil off rate. Other typical values can be found in http://pricelessbrewing.github.io/methods/Efficiency/

yeah, but it will take a few brews to know how much

You should have a really good idea of your system, simply adjusting the boil duration doesn't change a whole lot. Typical brews should only be affected .5-2% mash efficiency. To see what changes you can expect, you can run it through a batch sparge simulator, like mine http://pricelessbrewing.github.io/BiabCalc to get an idea. If you fly sparge, you'll have to adjust up based on your normal lauter efficiency variance. (working on a sparge fudge factor)

You love plugging that website of yours, don't you?

It's all good man, just messing around.

I'm just picturing Mr. Pragmatic using a batch sparge calculator....

[Pricelessbrewing]

You love plugging that website of yours, don't you?

It's all good man, just messing around.

I'm just picturing Mr. Pragmatic using a batch sparge calculator....

Only when I see inaccurate ball park figures, or misleading info thrown about  So yeah, probably about twice a day between aha, facebooking brewing groups, r/ homebrewing, and hbt.

Hey if you can use beersmith, you can definitely use mine. Way easier to use.

[RPIScotty]

You love plugging that website of yours, don't you?

It's all good man, just messing around.

I'm just picturing Mr. Pragmatic using a batch sparge calculator....

Only when I see inaccurate ball park figures, or misleading info thrown about  So yeah, probably about twice a day between aha, facebooking brewing groups, r/ homebrewing, and hbt.

Hey if you can use beersmith, you can definitely use mine. Way easier to use.

Ultimately, efficiency is the last thing I worry or care about. You can't taste efficiency. Process is more important than the numbers.

Even more so for me because I brew small batches. If I am less efficient than expected in the mash, I boil longer. If I'm less efficient in the brew house, I just get less bottles.

My excel sheet has always gotten me very close on numbers. ProMash will be even better.

EDIT: I also recognize that there is an issue of scale here. For instance, if I have to put 20% more grain (conservative worst case) into a grain bill to compensate for lackluster efficiency, we are only talking an extra $1.30 (my average grain bill is about 3.5 lbs.).

By the same logic, if someone with a 5 gal grain bill of say 12-15 lbs has to add 20% more grain, that would equate to about $5 extra.

So while I appreciate anyone taking the effort to really dig into the calculations, efficiency doesn't affect me financially or practically enough to really care.

[Pricelessbrewing]

I totally support that, I don't mean to imply chasing higher efficiency just understanding how changing a single variable (in this case boil off rate) effects the overall brewhouse or mash efficiency (read: very little).

One of the very first things I say in the article is about predictable efficiency vs consistent efficiency. The difference being getting 70% on the same recipe over and over again (consistent), and changing one variable and knowing how it will effect the various numbers (predictable). Which you've undoubtable learned intuitively after countless brews, and you know how to adjust your boil duration to account for preboil variations. My intention is merely to make that knowledge more concretely defined, and allow newer brewers to be able to figure it out without having to learn over the course of dozens of brews. First time doing a big brew and don't know where you'll end up, run a quick simulation and find out, only takes about 1-2 minutes.

Now don’t get me wrong, efficiency chasing is not the goal of this article, but rather understanding your system and being able to make a change in order to produce consistent beer.

[RPIScotty]

I totally support that, I don't mean to imply chasing higher efficiency just understanding how changing a single variable (in this case boil off rate) effects the overall brewhouse or mash efficiency (read: very little).

One of the very first things I say in the article is about predictable efficiency vs consistent efficiency. The difference being getting 70% on the same recipe over and over again (consistent), and changing one variable and knowing how it will effect the various numbers (predictable). Which you've undoubtable learned intuitively after countless brews, and you know how to adjust your boil duration to account for preboil variations. My intention is merely to make that knowledge more concretely defined, and allow newer brewers to be able to figure it out without having to learn over the course of dozens of brews. First time doing a big brew and don't know where you'll end up, run a quick simulation and find out, only takes about 1-2 minutes.

Now don’t get me wrong, efficiency chasing is not the goal of this article, but rather understanding your system and being able to make a change in order to produce consistent beer.

Understood, and to your credit, the article is a good read for sure.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RPIScotty]

Out of curiously, does your calculator account for adding sugars preboil?

[Pricelessbrewing]

Out of curiously, does your calculator account for adding sugars preboil?

Not atm, just mashed grains. I'll be adding recipe formulation after about a month or so, once my schedule slows down a bit, which will include adjuncts.

[dmtaylor]

Typical mash efficiency for no sparge mash tun (as opposed to no sparge biab) is in the 60-65% for a 1.060 brew at a common batch sparge + 1 gal/hr boil off rate. Other typical values can be found in http://pricelessbrewing.github.io/methods/Efficiency/

You may be right.  My estimate of 55-60% was a swag.  If you have real data showing the range is a little better than my swag, I should probably believe it.

Priceless, I reviewed your website...... and hot dang!  You've got a wealth of excellent information on there and I agree with at least 95% of it... in fact I can't really point out anything I wouldn't agree with.  It's great.  Well done.

[RPIScotty]

Typical mash efficiency for no sparge mash tun (as opposed to no sparge biab) is in the 60-65% for a 1.060 brew at a common batch sparge + 1 gal/hr boil off rate. Other typical values can be found in http://pricelessbrewing.github.io/methods/Efficiency/

You may be right.  My estimate of 55-60% was a swag.  If you have real data showing the range is a little better than my swag, I should probably believe it.

Priceless, I reviewed your website...... and hot dang!  You've got a wealth of excellent information on there and I agree with at least 95% of it... in fact I can't really point out anything I wouldn't agree with.  It's great.  Well done.

Agreed. The blog posts are well written.

As an Engineer, I'm a bit ashamed I never thought to use a little math to determine volumes with a ruler. This will come in very handy indeed.