Membership questions? Log in issues? Email info@brewersassociation.org

Author Topic: efficiency  (Read 7978 times)

Big Monk

  • Guest
Re: efficiency
« Reply #30 on: July 08, 2018, 10:21:59 am »
Conversion efficiency is king for 2 main reasons:

1.) The components that influence it (crush, pH, etc.) are directly attributable to wort quality;
2.) Its influence on Mash efficiency holds much more sway than Lauter efficiency.

All other metrics (Lauter efficiency, Brewhouse efficiency) are of the bean counter variety and are only of interest if you feel you are being wasteful.

I’d rather waste preboil and knockout wort to get clear wort into the kettle and fermenter than be efficient past the mash tun.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2018, 01:20:47 pm by Big Monk »

Offline BrewBama

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 6048
efficiency
« Reply #31 on: July 08, 2018, 11:55:19 am »
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.

I’m tracking.

That’s where I am (mid/high 60(s).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: July 08, 2018, 11:59:43 am by BrewBama »

Offline Pope of Dope

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Gozer is a hoser.
Re: efficiency
« Reply #32 on: July 08, 2018, 03:18:39 pm »
^^^^
+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?

Just a hydrometer. And, the reason I am concerned with efficiency is not for bragging rights or to save $4 worth of grain, but to get consistency. Tired of getting my 7% IPA in a 4% version.
Generally you don't see that kind of behavior in a major appliance.

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 27090
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: efficiency
« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2018, 03:35:47 pm »
^^^^
+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?

Just a hydrometer. And, the reason I am concerned with efficiency is not for bragging rights or to save $4 worth of grain, but to get consistency. Tired of getting my 7% IPA in a 4% version.

Quick question that might have been covered already...have you tried adjusting the recipes to your system efficiency, even if it's only a guess?
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline Robert

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 4214
Re: efficiency
« Reply #34 on: July 08, 2018, 03:37:30 pm »
Here's everything you could want to know and more about efficiency. 

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Efficiency

The section of the Braukaiser site after this is on troubleshooting efficiency.

In the link, it explains how you can determine conversion efficiency, which as others have said is the key to consistency.  You'll see it's easiest to track with a refractometer because all you need is a couple of drops of your mash liquid. But I'm getting ahead.

I know it's all a lot to digest, but I bet the answer to your conundrum is in there somewhere.  And you know people around here will answer questions that arise.  :)
Rob Stein
Akron, Ohio

I'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 27090
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: efficiency
« Reply #35 on: July 08, 2018, 03:56:18 pm »
Here's everything you could want to know and more about efficiency. 

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Efficiency

The section of the Braukaiser site after this is on troubleshooting efficiency.

In the link, it explains how you can determine conversion efficiency, which as others have said is the key to consistency.  You'll see it's easiest to track with a refractometer because all you need is a couple of drops of your mash liquid. But I'm getting ahead.

I know it's all a lot to digest, but I bet the answer to your conundrum is in there somewhere.  And you know people around here will answer questions that arise.  :)

If it's mash efficiency you're measuring, sample size doesn't matter much since you can return it to the kettle/tun.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Big Monk

  • Guest
Re: efficiency
« Reply #36 on: July 08, 2018, 04:45:29 pm »
Here's everything you could want to know and more about efficiency. 

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Efficiency

The section of the Braukaiser site after this is on troubleshooting efficiency.

In the link, it explains how you can determine conversion efficiency, which as others have said is the key to consistency.  You'll see it's easiest to track with a refractometer because all you need is a couple of drops of your mash liquid. But I'm getting ahead.

I know it's all a lot to digest, but I bet the answer to your conundrum is in there somewhere.  And you know people around here will answer questions that arise.  :)

If it's mash efficiency you're measuring, sample size doesn't matter much since you can return it to the kettle/tun.

I think Robert is suggesting samples throughout the mash to see conversion progress.

Big Monk

  • Guest
Re: efficiency
« Reply #37 on: July 08, 2018, 06:04:13 pm »
So we are all on the same page (different forms of efficiency are being thrown around), maybe it’s a good idea to clarify:

Conversion Efficiency = The measure of how much of the fermentable extract you put into solution based on the malt analysis numbers for all the malts used. Crush, pH, infusion temps (as it relates to gelatinization) can all have an effect on conversion.

Lauter Efficiency = Pre-Boil Volume / Strike Volume -> Some May argue for more complex ways of determining this but this is the simplest and most effective. It covers absorption loss and mash tun Deadspace Losses.

Mash Efficiency = Conversion Efficiency * Lauter Efficiency

Brewhouse Efficiency = Conversion Efficiency * ( Fermenter Volume / Strike Volume )

Again, some may argue for more laborious and sophisticated ways of calculating these things but I doubt the accuracy is warranted. The take away is that conversion efficiency has the most profound affect on beer quality of all efficiency numbers.

Big Monk

  • Guest
Re: efficiency
« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2018, 05:27:36 am »
I threw a quick sheet together:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=180TM4PH1LlXipmjKrHfIyiPc1EUrS6zb

Follow the legend and enter all user inputs (I use metric values but included a few converters for those who don't). I am assuming No-Sparge here but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter, as you can just assume the strike water to include the sparge water.

Once you get a target pre-boil extract value you can use that and compare the value to the one measure on the brewday. If they match, you know that your assumption for the Conversion Efficiency cell was valid. If you are lower or higher than expected, assure the volumes you entered match the ones measured and then vary the Conversion Efficiency cell until the measured and estimate extract values match.

Note that if you don't know the DBFG or Moisture values for the malt which makes up the largest amount of the grain bill, just enter 80% and 4% respectively.

Offline BrewBama

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 6048
Re: efficiency
« Reply #39 on: July 09, 2018, 06:47:47 am »
I threw a quick sheet together:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=180TM4PH1LlXipmjKrHfIyiPc1EUrS6zb

Follow the legend and enter all user inputs (I use metric values but included a few converters for those who don't). I am assuming No-Sparge here but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter, as you can just assume the strike water to include the sparge water.

Once you get a target pre-boil extract value you can use that and compare the value to the one measure on the brewday. If they match, you know that your assumption for the Conversion Efficiency cell was valid. If you are lower or higher than expected, assure the volumes you entered match the ones measured and then vary the Conversion Efficiency cell until the measured and estimate extract values match.

Note that if you don't know the DBFG or Moisture values for the malt which makes up the largest amount of the grain bill, just enter 80% and 4% respectively.

Thank you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 27090
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: efficiency
« Reply #40 on: July 09, 2018, 09:08:42 am »
Here's everything you could want to know and more about efficiency. 

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Efficiency

The section of the Braukaiser site after this is on troubleshooting efficiency.

In the link, it explains how you can determine conversion efficiency, which as others have said is the key to consistency.  You'll see it's easiest to track with a refractometer because all you need is a couple of drops of your mash liquid. But I'm getting ahead.

I know it's all a lot to digest, but I bet the answer to your conundrum is in there somewhere.  And you know people around here will answer questions that arise.  :)

If it's mash efficiency you're measuring, sample size doesn't matter much since you can return it to the kettle/tun.

I think Robert is suggesting samples throughout the mash to see conversion progress.

All of which can be returned to the mash
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Big Monk

  • Guest
Re: efficiency
« Reply #41 on: July 09, 2018, 09:17:09 am »
Here's everything you could want to know and more about efficiency. 

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Efficiency

The section of the Braukaiser site after this is on troubleshooting efficiency.

In the link, it explains how you can determine conversion efficiency, which as others have said is the key to consistency.  You'll see it's easiest to track with a refractometer because all you need is a couple of drops of your mash liquid. But I'm getting ahead.

I know it's all a lot to digest, but I bet the answer to your conundrum is in there somewhere.  And you know people around here will answer questions that arise.  :)

If it's mash efficiency you're measuring, sample size doesn't matter much since you can return it to the kettle/tun.

I think Robert is suggesting samples throughout the mash to see conversion progress.

All of which can be returned to the mash

Right. All samples can be returned. I'm not sure Robert was hinting at an issue with sample size to begin with.

I think what he was saying was separate from that, i.e. it's just a lot easier taking multiple refractometer samples than multiple hydrometer samples. Something along those lines.

Tracking conversion can be done by sampling the wort throughout the mash and recording the gravity values. Obviously if gravity is increasing toward the estimate value for first wort gravity you are on the right track. If for some reason it isn't, then you can troubleshoot based on that information.

Another interesting way of doing it that not everyone is setup for is tracking conversion visually through a sight glass and using constant recirculation in the mash.



« Last Edit: July 09, 2018, 09:34:06 am by Big Monk »

Offline Robert

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 4214
Re: efficiency
« Reply #42 on: July 09, 2018, 12:38:16 pm »
Yeah, I was just suggesting that if you're tracking conversion during the mash as Derek describes, as some of us do, it's a heck of a lot easier to take a couple drops, put them on the refractometer stage, and Bob's your uncle, than to pull multiple hydrometer samples, separate the solids, and try to quickly cool them.*  Now, should I be returning all those little drops to the mash mixer...?  🤔

*For that, I remember a guy had a very clever solution in last year's gear issue of Zymurgy. Like a little jockey box to pour a sample through.
Rob Stein
Akron, Ohio

I'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 27090
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: efficiency
« Reply #43 on: July 09, 2018, 12:50:06 pm »
Yeah, I was just suggesting that if you're tracking conversion during the mash as Derek describes, as some of us do, it's a heck of a lot easier to take a couple drops, put them on the refractometer stage, and Bob's your uncle, than to pull multiple hydrometer samples, separate the solids, and try to quickly cool them.*  Now, should I be returning all those little drops to the mash mixer...?  🤔

*For that, I remember a guy had a very clever solution in last year's gear issue of Zymurgy. Like a little jockey box to pour a sample through.

Separate the solids?  Not on yer life!  ;)  And why do that for a hydrometer and not a refractometer anyway?
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline Robert

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 4214
Re: efficiency
« Reply #44 on: July 09, 2018, 02:04:42 pm »
Yeah, I was just suggesting that if you're tracking conversion during the mash as Derek describes, as some of us do, it's a heck of a lot easier to take a couple drops, put them on the refractometer stage, and Bob's your uncle, than to pull multiple hydrometer samples, separate the solids, and try to quickly cool them.*  Now, should I be returning all those little drops to the mash mixer...?  🤔

*For that, I remember a guy had a very clever solution in last year's gear issue of Zymurgy. Like a little jockey box to pour a sample through.

Separate the solids?  Not on yer life!  ;)  And why do that for a hydrometer and not a refractometer anyway?
Well, when I take a couple drops from a settled mash with a pipette all I get is clear liquid, but if it's really sludgy having just been stirred, (I do this with fermenting beer too,) I'll put a couple drops through a coffee filter. I find clear samples really give a more accurate reading even on a digital unit.  With a hydrometer sample, you don't want the hydrometer getting pushed up by the suspended particles and giving a false reading (remember the thread about swimming pools and poodles? I mean, suspended yeast?)  So it just seems all in all more trouble to keep taking mash readings with a hydrometer.  But the end result is, you get the same information. Just my preference.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2018, 02:14:05 pm by Robert »
Rob Stein
Akron, Ohio

I'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.