BYO Recipe Efficiency 65% vs. Your Efficiency

[ultravista]

BYO lists their brewhouse efficiency at 65% for all recipies.

What do you guys and gals do when your efficiencies are much greater? Do you adjust / scale the recipe for the higher efficiency?

For example, I mash in a voile bag and the grains are crushed quite fine. I have no worries about anything getting stuck and there is zero loss in the mash tun. Sparing is easy with the bag and I run-off until I reach my target boil size.

When boiling, I hop in a 200 micron bag, so there's nothing left in the kettle.

I estimate my efficiency at 80+ due to the mash and hopping in a bag.

I plan on brewing the BYO May / June Rogue Shakespeare Stout clone and wondering if I should adjust the recipe for my systems efficiency.

What do you do?

 

[Flomaster]

use a program and convert the recipe to match your numbers and equipment.

I use beersmith2

-=Jason=-

 

[kappclark]

I think I am lucky to be getting 56-59% consistently.

I use ProMash so I sim7ply adjust the grain bill to achieve the expected gravity, with 57sk as the efficiency

It works pretty well.

 

[dezman]

pulg the recipe into brewtarget (free) or beersmith and see what gravitys will be and adjust to your liking. I use brewtarget and there is a place where you can adjust for your efficiency and it'll adjust gravs for you automatically.

 

[ultravista]

kappclark - why such low efficiency?

 

[Yooper]

I adjust any recipe for my own efficiency, no matter the source. So, yes, adjust the recipe accordingly keeping the percentages of the grain in the recipe the same.

 

[ChillWill]

Do you really keep the percentages of grains the same? If a recipe wants 0.5lb roast barely in a 75% setup, then someone with only 60% would use the same percentage but end up with loads more roast barley which would taste completely different surely.

 

[Reelale]

Do you really keep the percentages of grains the same? If a recipe wants 0.5lb roast barely in a 75% setup, then someone with only 60% would use the same percentage but end up with loads more roast barley which would taste completely different surely.

You scale the recipe. All malts in the grain bill increase or decrease, but the percentage of each malt remains the same. Ten percent is ten percent.

 

[ChillWill]

So you're saying a recipe with 10lb grain and 10% dark malt (1lb) would taste the same as the same beer made with compensation for lower efficiency (say 12lb) which would give an extra 0.2lb dark grain? I'm not so sure.

 

[Keith_Mahoney]

So you're saying a recipe with 10lb grain and 10% dark malt (1lb) would taste the same as the same beer made with compensation for lower efficiency (say 12lb) which would give an extra 0.2lb dark grain? I'm not so sure.

You just got to look at your efficiencies. If in the 10lb recipe you are getting 80% eff. then you are only theoretically extracting 80% of that 1lb of dark malt, or .8 lbs extract

So for your 12 pound recipe you must be getting an eff. of 67% so 1.2lbs of dark malt divided by 67% efficiency equals .804 lbs extract

Either way as long as you keep the percentages the same you will get the same amount of extract out of each amount of malt according to your efficiency

 

[ChillWill]

But you're not really extracting any gravity points from those grains are you? And using more might do weird stuff to mash pH and maybe make for a hash beer as you've got more roasted matter per gallon of wort.

 

[Yooper]

But you're not really extracting any gravity points from those grains are you? And using more might do weird stuff to mash pH and maybe make for a hash beer as you've got more roasted matter per gallon of wort.

Of course you're extracting gravity points.

And the percentage stays the same, so how can the mash pH do "weird stuff"? 10% of XXXX grain is always 10%, if you scale the recipe. That's the whole point.

 

[Keith_Mahoney]

If it's malt like when you mentioned "black malt" then yes you get sugar or gravity points from it.

It will not do anything weird to the mash ph because you are also (in the correct percentages) upping your base grain and water amount added to the mash.

 

[Keith_Mahoney]

Oops beat me to it Yooper. I guess I just type too slow.

 

[ChillWill]

Of course you're extracting gravity points.

And the percentage stays the same, so how can the mash pH do "weird stuff"? 10% of XXXX grain is always 10%, if you scale the recipe. That's the whole point.

Thanks for clearing up that 10% is 10%, although I wasn't having a problem with that so I'm not sure why you mention it?

The point I was making was if you convert a recipe to account for lower efficiency that 10% becomes bigger by mass. Or to put it in your terms 10% of x grain will weigh less than 10% of xxxxxxx grain.

As for ph, I was under the impression dark malts made for a more acid mash. Now you'll probably say 'yeah but you scale' however a 5 gallon batch with low efficiency and 'scaled' will have more dark grain per gallon than a high efficiency system and therefore surely would be more acidic.

 

[BrewKnurd]

As for ph, I was under the impression dark malts made for a more acid mash. Now you'll probably say 'yeah but you scale' however a 5 gallon batch with low efficiency and 'scaled' will have more dark grain per gallon than a high efficiency system and therefore surely would be more acidic.

But if you have a low efficiency setup, that's going to offset the "more dark grain per gallon", I would think. If your low efficiency comes from poor mash and extraction efficiency, then you're going to be getting less out of that dark grain. If your low efficiency comes from loss of volume throughout the process (i.e. trub loss, chiller loss, or whatever) then you would have added more water to account, and you wouldn't have more grain per gallon at all.

 

[Yooper]

The point I was making was if you convert a recipe to account for lower efficiency that 10% becomes bigger by mass. Or to put it in your terms 10% of x grain will weigh less than 10% of xxxxxxx grain.

As for ph, I was under the impression dark malts made for a more acid mash. Now you'll probably say 'yeah but you scale' however a 5 gallon batch with low efficiency and 'scaled' will have more dark grain per gallon than a high efficiency system and therefore surely would be more acidic.

Thanks for clearing up that 10% is 10%, although I wasn't having a problem with that so I'm not sure why you mention it?

Because...................it answers your entire question? Over and over.

Please think about your last post and why you think you'd have "more dark grain". How could you possibly? If you have 10% of roast barley and 90% of two-row, the grainbill is exactly the same. You wouldn't have a more acidic mash, and YOU'D STILL HAVE 10% ROAST BARLEY.

I don't know how anyone could make it more clear.

 

[Keith_Mahoney]

As for ph, I was under the impression dark malts made for a more acid mash. Now you'll probably say 'yeah but you scale' however a 5 gallon batch with low efficiency and 'scaled' will have more dark grain per gallon than a high efficiency system and therefore surely would be more acidic.

Yes both recipes are going to make the same 5 gallon batch. The point you are forgetting is that all 5 of those gallons are not in the mash. You should be using the same 1.25 quarts per pound (or whatever ratio you use) so the amount of malt compared to the amount of water is the exact same percentages (like I posted earlier).

Now I will admit that the ph of your sparges may vary a bit according to the type of sparging you are doing but I doubt it matters all that much at that point.

What I can tell you is that 1lb of specialty malt with 9lbs of base and 1lb sm with 11 lbs base malt will be much more different than if you had kept the percentages the same.

But in the end just get out there and brew up some batches to figure this out for yourself. You will have a much better understanding in the end.

 

[Keith_Mahoney]

I don't know how anyone could make it more clear.

I'm trying Yooper. Some people just need to see something from a different angle before the light come on.

 

[ChillWill]

Ugh, late night maths forgot to account for extra mash water.

However that's detracting from the point, you'd be using more roast barely by 'mass'. I'm not concerned about extract efficiency, I'm talking about the flavour you'd get from having the extra roast barley in there.... extra by mass. That's mass, not percentage.

Take your 90% 2row 10% example. Now, go and do 10lb grain total on a near 100% eff system so you got 9lb 2row and 1lb roast barley. Then do a bad crush and get 50% so you scale and for a final 5 gallons you have 18lb 2row and 2lb roast barley. That's an extra lb of roasted husks in the same amount of beer.... are you really telling me those beers would taste the same?

 

[Reelale]

are you really telling me those beers would taste the same?

Yes. 50% of 2=1. And 50% of 18=9. Same same. It's scaled to efficiency. Do you really think otherwise? That's exactly why all of the brewing software utilities use scaling. You fine tune the scaling process by keeping your individual grain percentages the same as the original recipe percentages. It's the constant. I really can't explain it any other way. It's really that simple.

 

[ChillWill]

Yes I do.

If you get some coffee that is weak in flavour (maybe bad grind so you don't get enough oil out), you add more... but do you also add more sugar and milk to scale it up properly to make it taste the same?

Beer flavour doesn't just come from the sugar extracted from the grains, If it did, what would be the point in using anything other than pale malt that converts easily?

 

[Reelale]

Yes I do.

If you get some coffee that is weak in flavour (maybe bad grind so you don't get enough oil out), you add more... but do you also add more sugar and milk to scale it up properly to make it taste the same?

Beer flavour doesn't just come from the sugar extracted from the grains, If it did, what would be the point in using anything other than pale malt that converts easily?

Well it's obvious no one here can convince you otherwise. Maybe an experiment would be in order. If you find, through experimentation, that your results differ from the norm, please post back.

 

[kappclark]

kappclark - why such low efficiency?

Not sure - I was getting in the mid to upper 60's about 3 months ago ... I am using a new local Pale malt and I figure I will go through that and see if new grain changes eff... Perhaps it doesn't have the diastatic power as other grains (?) I do know the crush could be finer, but 2 yr old Schmidling Malt Mill is non-adjustable. I can't remember my last doughball in the mash, so I bet crush could be finer

Think I will test crush theory by buying ingredients crushed from NB to see if eff changes... do not want to buy new malt mill ... some have suggested crushing twice...

For me, as long as I know what my system produces efficiency-wise., I am glad to throw in a few extra pounds to get expected gravity..

And I adjust grain bill by percentages (thank you Pro Mash)

 

[Yooper]

Yes I do.

If you get some coffee that is weak in flavour (maybe bad grind so you don't get enough oil out), you add more... but do you also add more sugar and milk to scale it up properly to make it taste the same?

Beer flavour doesn't just come from the sugar extracted from the grains, If it did, what would be the point in using anything other than pale malt that converts easily?

Ok, since you brought up coffee, let's use coffee.

You have a 4 cup pot, so you use 3 scoops of coffee. But your neighbor has a 16 cup pot. So, you use 12 scoops of coffee. You scale up. You don't put sugar and cream in the pot- that's for later and not part of the profile of the coffee.

Same with the grain, in a way. If I'm making 5 gallons of stout, using 9 pounds of two-row and 1 pound of roasted barley, that's just like making a 20 gallon batch with 36 pounds of two-row and 4 pounds of roasted. But if I get a typical 1.060 with that grainbill, and YOU get a 1.050 on your system with the same grainbill, next time, you could use more grain. Scale it up- 90% two row and 10% roasted.

Beer flavor does come from the grains- that's the whole point of using them. Professional breweries ALWAYS do their grainbills in percentages. It's the only way to do it with accuracy and repeatable results.

 

[MikeYoung]

Folks, I think chillwill is making the point that the flavor contribution of the roast malt isn't measured in the mash efficiency. It's a good time to discuss this. Is the flavor, body, mouth feel, etc. retained by keeping the same grain proportions when adjusting for efficiency?

 

[eltorrente]

I see both points, however - I think there's a point to be made about not always arbitrarily increasing every single malt type by whatever percentage, because there is indeed a larger effect with certain malts, in my experience.

I always look at certain grains as being more bang-for-the-buck than others. For instance, whether or not I had a 90% efficiency, or a 65%, I would likely stick to 1/4lb black patent for a given stout recipe. If I liked it, but it had a bit lower OG than expected, I'd add a bit more base malt to get me up there - but would leave the roasted and black patent alone.

The flavor and color comes out of those malts much more readily than does starch conversion from base grains.

 

[bullinachinashop]

So can we scale our buzz too?
If I drink 5 pints of my 8% IPA, will I need to drink 8 pints of my 5% cream ale to get the same buzz????????

Bull

 

[mrgstiffler]

Folks, I think chillwill is making the point that the flavor contribution of the roast malt isn't measured in the mash efficiency. It's a good time to discuss this. Is the flavor, body, mouth feel, etc. retained by keeping the same grain proportions when adjusting for efficiency?

Yeah, that kind of hit me too reading through the thread. Some grains add flavor not just through extraction. Heavily roasted grain is a good example.

 

[ChillWill]

I'm glad some of you can see where I'm coming from.

Yoops - I'm well aware how to scale, that isn't the issue and I don't know why you think that is. The point is, if you just blindly scale then you're basically saying flavour/colour extraction increases or decreases at the same rate as sugar extraction, this is what I have an issue with and I don't believe it to be true.

In your opinion; is the flavour of dark grains extracted at the same rate as sugar?

In my mind sugar relies on enymes whereas the flavour contribution is more about the roasted bits being dissolved in water and therefore it is unlikey they're at a the same rate.

If it was depended on mashing, how come if you steep dark grains with no base malt you get flavour and colour?

 

[Piratwolf]

I'm not a chemist and I don't even play one on tv. However, it seems to me there's a logical flaw in ChillWill's protest. I think it doesn't matter whether roasted grain flavor & color diffuse at the same rate as sugar. I think that what matters is that roasted grain flavor & color diffuse at a rate that's constant whether there's 10 oz or 10 lbs in the recipe, and that's why they're calculated as a % of the grain bill.

"All your home brew are belong to us!"

 

[MalFet]

In my mind sugar relies on enymes whereas the flavour contribution is more about the roasted bits being dissolved in water and therefore it is unlikey they're at a the same rate.

I certainly see where you're coming from, but I think this line is the crux of the disagreement. With fully modified grain, it seems to me that you *are* pulling both sugar and color at roughly the same rate.

In a proper setup, everyone would agree that efficiency variations should be limited to sparge efficiency, not to conversion efficiency (i.e., if someone is getting conversion efficiency below 95%, it's because of a problem, whereas sparge efficiencies will routinely vary between 65-85% depending on configuration).

But, in either case, it seems that what comes out of your mash tun is proportional to what went in, and I think this notion is borne out empirically. Certainly different quantities of grain will impact pH (slightly), but all the brew calculators actually seem to account for this. But, what you are hypothesizing is that color molecules are pulled into wort at a higher rate than sugar molecules, and I don't think I've seen anything to suggest that's true.

 

[LandofOZ]

they said there would be no math invovled!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BrewKnurd]

Yoops - I'm well aware how to scale, that isn't the issue and I don't know why you think that is. The point is, if you just blindly scale then you're basically saying flavour/colour extraction increases or decreases at the same rate as sugar extraction, this is what I have an issue with and I don't believe it to be true.

In your opinion; is the flavour of dark grains extracted at the same rate as sugar?

In my mind sugar relies on enymes whereas the flavour contribution is more about the roasted bits being dissolved in water and therefore it is unlikey they're at a the same rate.

But you have to keep in mind that they could happen at different rates and still end up at the same place at the end of a 45 minute mash. Lets say it takes 20 minutes to extract all the flavor and color compounds, but 40 minutes to convert the available starches to sugars.... with a 45 minute mash it wouldn't matter that they didn't happen at the same rate, they would end up at the same place. Anyways, those are just numbers I made up, but just believing that the rates are different does not necessarily mean that different efficiencies will result in significantly different impact of dark grains (or any grains, but we've mainly been talking about dark here).

If it was depended on mashing, how come if you steep dark grains with no base malt you get flavour and colour?

I don't think anyone ever claimed that extracting color and flavor from dark grains required mashing.

 

[Barnstormer]

Chillwil: You mentioned coffee. Do you also cook? Many ingredients go into one dish. Some, like salt and garlic come through much stronger than others. If I'm having company and have to double the recipe, it all gets doubled, not just the ones that taste stronger.

Same with the beer. Like cooper said, you scale by %. I understand that the dark grain may contribute color, flavor, ph more heavily. The base malt may contribute less pound for pound, but there is so much more of it that it keeps it in check. Keep the %'s the same and you should be fine.

 

[ChillWill]

Well I don't think this is going anywhere.

To the op, my opinion is, if you're doing a recipe that has 1/4lb special grain then stick with that and adjust your base malt to hit your og unless you're efficiency is wildly different, in which case that's probably the least of your worries. Done.

 

[Bmorebrew]

To the op, my opinion is, if you're doing a recipe that has 1/4lb special grain then stick with that and adjust your base malt to hit your og unless you're efficiency is wildly different, in which case that's probably the least of your worries. Done.

Scale everything. I'm not going to beat the dead horse here - I could offer more evidence or a different analogy, but even ChillWill says himself it's not going anywhere.

If you are only off by a couple of points, for example your BE is 67%, you're close enough that you don't need to add base malt. Don't change anything. If it's 89%, that's another story. I am a chemist, and I'm saying if you need to adjust to hit numbers, scale everything.

 

[ultravista]

OK, well I now have my answer ...

I plan on brewing the recipe as-is and will compensate for higher efficiency post boil. Going from 65% yo 75% isn't that much more expensive. It can all fit in a 6.5 gallon fermenter either way.

I may just end up with more that can fit in the keg. I'll bottle it I guess.

Or I could leave the higher OG and have a stronger ABV post-ferment.

The BYO Rogue Shakespeare Stout recipe (via Jamil) is 1.062 @ 65%. At 75% it jumps to 1.071 and the ABV follows.