[Big Monk]

People should only concern themselves with Conversion η and to a lesser degree Lauter η. Brewhouse η is a waste of time AFAIK.

[goose]

People should only concern themselves with Conversion η and to a lesser degree Lauter η. Brewhouse η is a waste of time AFAIK.

Your point is well taken.  However, I shoot for consistency when I re-brew a beer so conversion efficiency is important to me.  I guess that is the geek in me coming out.

[Big Monk]

People should only concern themselves with Conversion η and to a lesser degree Lauter η. Brewhouse η is a waste of time AFAIK.

Your point is well taken.  However, I shoot for consistency when I re-brew a beer so conversion efficiency is important to me.  I guess that is the geek in me coming out.

Right, that’s exactly my point. Conversion η is of paramount importance. For the brewer concerned with wort quality, Conversion is the key efficiency parameter.

[Robert]

^^^^
+1.  To steer this back to the OP's concern, I wonder if he's tried tracking conversion efficiency or is just looking at brewhouse efficiency.  We could better diagnose the drop off in his yield if we knew where it was happening. (And if it's just lautering it's not really a big deal.  Buy more grain.) Pope, if you're out there and we haven't put you to sleep, have you been checking conversion?  Do you have a refractometer?

[Pricelessbrewing]

I'm glad this is starting to catch on.

If you're having efficiency issues, always determine conversion first. Lauter, and therefore mash/brewhouse will always change with every recipe, but conversion is usually the issue unless you're leaving behind lots of wort of sparging in a bad way.

Conversion should generally be >85%, but typically good conversion occurs in the 90-95% range. Per braukaiser definition, note: brewersfriends formula is incorrect for conversion efficiency.

[Big Monk]

I'm glad this is starting to catch on.

If you're having efficiency issues, always determine conversion first. Lauter, and therefore mash/brewhouse will always change with every recipe, but conversion is usually the issue unless you're leaving behind lots of wort of sparging in a bad way.

Conversion should generally be >85%, but typically good conversion occurs in the 90-95% range. Per braukaiser definition, note: brewersfriends formula is incorrect for conversion efficiency.

In my sheets, I have Conversion η set as a user input. I then calculate a target first wort gravity using Kai’s equation and 100% Conversion η hardcoded. Then I calculate another first wort gravity based on the Conversion η user input.

[BrewBama]

I have my gap at 0.030" (approximates ASBC coarse grind) and get over 90% brewhouse efficiency, with no runoff problems at all (fast and clear,) fly sparging with a false bottom.   So you could obviously go finer than that with a BIAB.  I do check the adjustment with my feeler gauges every few runs.  Every so often it needs readjustment, even with exponentially less use than a LHBS mill.

EDIT One trick to milling fine is to keep the rpm's down.  Milling slower will limit husk damage even with a narrow gap.  I guess that's another thing that's less relevant to BIABers.  But LHBS should slow their mills and they could tighten the gap for everybody.  <150 rpm is a good target.

Robert, I am curious how 0.030" approximates ASBC coarse grind (I assume no 14 sieve). I am thinking Darcy’s law and pH to increase my efficiency. Like mentioned above it’s probably only a pound or two of grain and gallon of water difference for a total of 5 bucks but I feel like it’s my job to try to increase efficiency.

I am using a drill for my JSP Malt Mill so I may employ a clamp to eliminate the variability between the mill and drill (aka my finger).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is in Palmer and Kaminski, Water, p. 71, on trials on effects of gap on pH: "The 0.8 mm setting on a two roller mill is probably most similar to the American Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC) coarse grind condition, which is determined not by roller spacing but by 75% of a malt sample remaining on a No. 30 sieve...."  That's where I got that,  0.8 mm is 0.032".  But that's not why I picked the setting.  LHBS owner said 0.030" was working for him, I tried it, I liked it, I stuck with it.

I too use a JSP with a drill.  If you come up with a mechanical improvement on the human finger, please post details and pics!

Aside: I'm just like you on feeling it's my "job" to try to increase efficiency.  But I just accidentally happened on this from George Fix today: "However, it is rare in brewing for efficiency and beer quality to be in harmony."  Guess we should relax now and then, and buy the extra malt.  Oh, who am I kidding? 

As a homebrewer, I no longer chase efficiency. I am after better beer.

...but why is one exclusive of the other? What if a homebrewer wants to use less resources to brew better beer?  Not necessarily chase efficiency increase but improve good brewing techniques and as a result use less water and grain.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[hopfenundmalz]

Doing a modified no sparge has given me better tasting wort, but lower efficiency. I can use a little more grain to make up for that.

[ynotbrusum]

Doing a modified no sparge has given me better tasting wort, but lower efficiency. I can use a little more grain to make up for that.

Exactly my thoughts. I do step mash BIAB with HERMS.

[Robert]

I think I kinda fall in with Bama.  Not to be obsessive, or pursue efficiency to the detriment of quality (again, no corporate accounting department on our tails,) but, within your chosen system, why be gratuitously wasteful.  Optimize.  If you live somewhere with water use restrictions....  And I've drifted to a greater and greater brew length to leave all the trub behind (especially since switching to hop pellets a couple years back.)  I use more malt and water, but to minimize that increase (limited tun size) I want to be as efficient as I can in conversion and lautering, even though my "yield to fermenter" is rather ineffecient -- another thing a homebrewer might consider fine but a bean-counting pro would find horrifying.  And again, tracking efficiency, a change can alert you to some other problem, but only if you're consistent in the first place.

[BrewBama]

Doing a modified no sparge has given me better tasting wort, but lower efficiency. I can use a little more grain to make up for that.

I am not sure what modified no sparge is but I do a full volume no sparge step mash and recirculate constantly.

As far as efficiency: the hoses, pumps, vessels, and other apparatuses are all thirsty. They reduce the amount of liquor from the HLT into the MLT, sweet wort from the MLT to the BK, bitter wort from the BK to the fermenter, and beer from the fermenter to the keg/bottle. I believe all this loss is necessary to make my best beer by controlling the process and leaving undesirables behind at each step. If an additional pound or two of grain and gallon of water makes a better end product but reduces BH efficiency into the mid 60(s), then so be it.

I can get (and routinely did get) 80+ BH efficiency by dumping every drop of liquor into the MLT (vs underlet), lifting the filter bag from the MLT to get every drop of sweet wort (along with all the sludgy crap that comes with it), batch sparge by dumping sparge liquor into the grain bed, draining the contents of the BK through a strainer into the fermenter, etc. 

Using my current process I get clear sweet wort in the BK, clear bitter wort in the fermenter, and a crystal clear beer from the keg into my glass.  ...but while doing that I also believe I should try to be responsible for resources, reduce where I can, and strive to improve.  If I can improve my process and reduce water or grain (or energy) I should.

An APA


Wheat


The same APA



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[hopfenundmalz]

I mash at about 2 qts per pound, add water at the end of the mash time, recirculate, then pump to the kettle. The SG Of the final running is around 1.020 or more. Some sugar is left behind, but so are tannins.

[mabrungard]

I mash at about 2 qts per liter, add water at the end of the mash time, recirculate, then pump to the kettle. The SG Of the final running is around 1.020 or more. Some sugar is left behind, but so are tannins.

Sage advice. Good efficiency is desirable, but I can assure you that high efficiency can be problematic (read: tannins!!). I can produce an overall efficiency in the low 90% range with my system, but also incurred a low tannic edge in my beers. I purposely reduce my efficiency into the low 80% range by reducing the amount of sparging water that I place into the tun.

My goal is to keep the gravity of my final runnings above 1.015. That is well above the 1.008 that is commonly touted as a proper end-point for runoff. I typically place only about 3/4 of the calculated sparging volume in the tun and that reserved 1/4 of the sparging water is added directly to the kettle as needed to top up the volume to my pre-boil volume.

Efficiency is the enemy of good beer, but do strive to get your system efficiency into the 70 to 80 percent range, if you can.

[BrewBama]

I mash at about 2 qts per liter, add water at the end of the mash time, recirculate, then pump to the kettle. The SG Of the final running is around 1.020 or more. Some sugar is left behind, but so are tannins.

Sage advice. Good efficiency is desirable, but I can assure you that high efficiency can be problematic (read: tannins!!). I can produce an overall efficiency in the low 90% range with my system, but also incurred a low tannic edge in my beers. I purposely reduce my efficiency into the low 80% range by reducing the amount of sparging water that I place into the tun.

My goal is to keep the gravity of my final runnings above 1.015. That is well above the 1.008 that is commonly touted as a proper end-point for runoff. I typically place only about 3/4 of the calculated sparging volume in the tun and that reserved 1/4 of the sparging water is added directly to the kettle as needed to top up the volume to my pre-boil volume.

Efficiency is the enemy of good beer, but do strive to get your system efficiency into the 70 to 80 percent range, if you can.

I’m unclear on “2 qts per liter”. Possibly this is a typo and should be 2 qts per lb.  I believe I’ve read Josh Weikert uses a similar modified method.

Four brews in on this new system configuration and I am only a few points shy of 70 now. I am thinking my HLT/BK and MLT dead space and pump/hoses loss volume measurements could be erroneous. On my next brew day I’ll take more accurate measurements of those losses. This could be a simple math error.  However, I would also like conversation a bit higher and will apply effort there as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hopfenundmalz]

I mash at about 2 qts per liter, add water at the end of the mash time, recirculate, then pump to the kettle. The SG Of the final running is around 1.020 or more. Some sugar is left behind, but so are tannins.

Sage advice. Good efficiency is desirable, but I can assure you that high efficiency can be problematic (read: tannins!!). I can produce an overall efficiency in the low 90% range with my system, but also incurred a low tannic edge in my beers. I purposely reduce my efficiency into the low 80% range by reducing the amount of sparging water that I place into the tun.

My goal is to keep the gravity of my final runnings above 1.015. That is well above the 1.008 that is commonly touted as a proper end-point for runoff. I typically place only about 3/4 of the calculated sparging volume in the tun and that reserved 1/4 of the sparging water is added directly to the kettle as needed to top up the volume to my pre-boil volume.

Efficiency is the enemy of good beer, but do strive to get your system efficiency into the 70 to 80 percent range, if you can.

I’m unclear on “2 qts per liter”. Possibly this is a typo and should be 2 qts per lb.  I believe I’ve read Josh Weikert uses a similar modified method.

Four brews in on this new system configuration and I am only a few points shy of 70 now. I am thinking my HLT/BK and MLT dead space and pump/hoses loss volume measurements could be erroneous. On my next brew day I’ll take more accurate measurements of those losses. This could be a simple math error.  However, I would also like conversation a bit higher and will apply effort there as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brain fart the morning after the club picnic. Fixed.

Somewhere I read a long time ago that Jamil Z said he was around 65% eff, but he was trying to get high quality wort. I have been around 68% efficiency the last couple of years.