Efficiency, decoction mash versus single infusion?

[user 338926]

I made a decoction brew yesterday and I ran into a number of strange things. I brewed a beer that I have brewed many times before with reasonably consistent results. It's an 18 lb grain bill for 10 gallon batch. -11 to FV. I have always done single infusion mashes before and even with playing with the mill Gap, OG has always run between 1.039 and 1.043 let's say. Finish volume also varies a little bit and I don't stress over it or correct it. So it adds to my variation of og.

Yesterday I did what was planned to be a double decoction, but more on that later. I ended up with a OG of 1.055. That's a pretty huge Improvement in efficiency. Is that normal?

I've got one of those 10 gallon Igloo cooler mash tuns. Beer Smith said to use 9 gallons of water for my amount of grist but I can't fit 9 gallons in it. So I chose 7.5. Even with only 7.5, I was unable to raise the temperature of the mash at each step using the amount of grist I could capture. My target steps were at 122, 142 and 158. I started a tiny bit warm at about 123.5, pulled as much grist as I could and when I added it back, I made it to 137.5. So I had to pull it again and boil it again in order to get up to 142. Same thing happened on the way to 158 except this time after two boils I still haven't reached 158. So I figured 156.5 was good enough.

For the first decoction, I pulled the grist and I raised it to 158 and held it there for 15 minutes as I have seen suggested some places. So that did get a sach rest before I boiled it. It did not take long to get there so it didn't get much of a rest at the 140 range.

I would have expected beer Smith to tell me my estimated ABV or whatever would have been higher if this was a normal thing. I used my same recipe but simply changed the mash profile. All else remained the same. And in fact the 7.5 gallons used initially is what I would do with a single infusion. All the water additions were the same. I confess I did not check the pH but I'll go out on the limb and say it was 5.4 as the last ones have been.

Any insights as to why this was so different?

 

[whattabrau]

Yes, it's normal that for conversion: decoction > multi-infusion > single infusion. I'd expect 18lb for 10gal to be closer to 1.050 even with infusion, so 1.055 isn't particularly unbelievable.

For a normal thickness mash, you shouldn't have too much trouble scooping up enough thick mash to hit the next temperature. Maybe you were being overly pedantic about decocting just the grist.

Tangentially, I don't find that a "full" decoction really does anything. I usually do just separate beta and alpha rests with a decoction. In that case, you don't even have to pause at the alpha temperature with the decoction, since the mash you pulled is already ~80% converted and won't turn into a brick once the remaining starch gelatinizes.

Also, an Igloo is probably not the optimal mashtun for decoctions, or at least mine cracked pretty quickly after I started using a decoction pretty much with every beer. Also, boiling temperatures and plastic made me uneasy. I still brewed maybe 50 beers that way, but something to consider.

 

[Spartan1979]

I do a decoction once a year and I get about 10 percentage points (86 vs. 76) on that beer compared to my normal single infusion mashes. The first time I had to take out about 2 gallons of wort (in 11 gallons) and add water! It took me a couple of batches to trust those numbers.

 

[user 338926]

Yes, it's normal that for conversion: decoction > multi-infusion > single infusion. I'd expect 18lb for 10gal to be closer to 1.050 even with infusion, so 1.055 isn't particularly unbelievable.

For a normal thickness mash, you shouldn't have too much trouble scooping up enough thick mash to hit the next temperature. Maybe you were being overly pedantic about decocting just the grist.

That's hard to say. I might have had a little less liquid than I've seen people show in videos, but not much less. I've never actually done one of these in person with anybody.

Tangentially, I don't find that a "full" decoction really does anything. I usually do just separate beta and alpha rests with a decoction. In that case, you don't even have to pause at the alpha temperature with the decoction, since the mash you pulled is already ~80% converted and won't turn into a brick once the remaining starch gelatinizes.

You're saying you find the 122 rest to be largely unnecessary?

Also, an Igloo is probably not the optimal mashtun for decoctions, or at least mine cracked pretty quickly after I started using a decoction pretty much with every beer. Also, boiling temperatures and plastic made me uneasy. I still brewed maybe 50 beers that way, but something to consider.

I already bought another Kettle which I can convert into a mashtun. But I don't have a valve on it yet and just used it for heating sparge water yesterday. The entire purpose of that purchase was for decoctions. It just happens the igloo is what I have so I used it. They sure are proud of those things. Mine is easily 10 years old and I see they're about $175. How ridiculous.

I use a Dipper to dip the decoction back into the mash, so I'm sure I'm not producing any undue amount of heat. I'm also stirring as I put it in. But your point is well taken, I'll work on converting things over to the new kettle.

I do a decoction once a year and I get about 10 percentage points (86 vs. 76) on that beer compared to my normal single infusion mashes. The first time I had to take out about 2 gallons of wort (in 11 gallons) and add water! It took me a couple of batches to trust those numbers.

Ok, thanks. I wonder why BeerSmith doesn't just adjust the numbers when you change that mash profile. I do have version 2, I've not sprung for version 3 yet. Can't really see what else it's going to do that I need, but maybe it actually figures those efficiencies now. I added three quarts of water to this and still ended up at 1.055. This beer that I was targeting 4.2% looks like it's going to be closer to 6.... I guess just don't smoke when you drink it.

 

[doug293cz]

Ok, thanks. I wonder why BeerSmith doesn't just adjust the numbers when you change that mash profile. I do have version 2, I've not sprung for version 3 yet. Can't really see what else it's going to do that I need, but maybe it actually figures those efficiencies now.​

BeerSmith (any version) does nothing to model predicted efficiencies. You input your expected brewhouse efficiency, and BeerSmith back calculates your expected mash efficiency by using the following formula:

Mash Efficiency = Brewhouse Efficiency * Post-Boil Volume / Fermenter Volume (Batch Size)​

​

So, unless you increase your estimated brewhouse efficiency, which you input to BeerSmith, BeerSmith won't make any adjustments to it's assumed efficiencies (and your OG estimates won't increase.)

Brew on

 

[user 338926]

Hmmm, ok. Most other stuff it calculates regardless of what value you input. For instance in the mash if you type in you're going to mash in with 7 gallons, it calculates the number of quarts per pound or whatever that metric is. But if you type in the quarts per pound, it will calculate the gallons.

Since I had never done a decoction before, I simply chose that Mash profile and figured they would have some baseline Brewhouse efficiency. I saw it was the same 68% and just figured that it didn't matter how you mash, it's pretty much all the same thing. I guess not, lol.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[doug293cz]

I made a decoction brew yesterday and I ran into a number of strange things. I brewed a beer that I have brewed many times before with reasonably consistent results. It's an 18 lb grain bill for 10 gallon batch. -11 to FV. I have always done single infusion mashes before and even with playing with the mill Gap, OG has always run between 1.039 and 1.043 let's say. Finish volume also varies a little bit and I don't stress over it or correct it. So it adds to my variation of og.

Yesterday I did what was planned to be a double decoction, but more on that later. I ended up with a OG of 1.055. That's a pretty huge Improvement in efficiency. Is that normal?

There are a number of individual efficiency values that combine to make up mash efficiency and brewhouse efficiency:

Conversion efficiency is the fraction/percentage of actual extract (sugar, etc.) created in a mash based on the maximum potential extract in the grain bill.

Conversion Efficiency = Actual Amount of Extract Created in Mash / Max Potential Extract in Grain Bill​

​

Lauter Efficiency is the fraction/percentage of extract that makes it into your BK based on the actual amount of extract that was created in your mash.

Lauter Efficiency = Amount of Extract in BK / Amount of Extract Created in Mash​

​

Transfer Efficiency = Volume in Fermenter / Post-Boil Volume

The composite efficiencies are:

Mash Efficiency = Conversion Efficiency * Lauter Efficiency

Brewhouse Efficiency = Mash Efficiency * Transfer Efficiency
Brewhouse Efficiency = Conversion Efficiency * Lauter Efficiency * Transfer Efficiency

It should be obvious that the type of mash (single infusion, step infusion, decoction) can only affect the conversion efficiency, and not lauter efficiency or transfer efficiency.

The primary determinant of conversion efficiency is what percentage of the available starch gets gelatinized during the mash. Gelatinized starch is converted to soluble starch almost immediately by alpha amylase action, but neither alpha or beta amylase, nor limit dextrinase, can act on starch that has not been gelatinized. Therefore starch gelatinization is the rate limiting factor for saccharification during the mash.

Accelerated gelatinization is where decoction can increase the conversion efficiency. Like all reactions, gelatinization occurs faster at higher vs. lower temperatures, but unlike the enzyme reactions, gelatinization does not get limited by denaturing as temps increase.

The time to reach full gelatinization (required for 100% conversion efficiency) is dependent on the size of the grain grits and the temperature profile of the mash. Smaller grits gelatinize fully before larger grits. If your crush is sufficiently fine, you can get 100% gelatinization and conversion efficiency in 60 minutes (or less) with a single infusion mash. With coarser crushes, it is quite common not to get 100% gelatinization in a 60 minute mash, so conversion efficiency comes up short of 100%. In this case, anything that increases the level of gelatinization will increase your conversion efficiency, and mash and brewhouse efficiency as well.

Brew on

 

[user 338926]

Hmmm, that's quite a lot to take in actually. I had to read it a couple times to make sure I understood. Thanks for taking the time to explain all that.

When I first started Brewing I had a Corona Grain Mill, the old hand crank types which I ran with a drill. It more or less ground up the grain, it didn't crush. Stuck sparges were pretty common, so I learned how to deal with that by re-stiring and re-clearing, and it worked out to be no big deal. But I was making a lot of flour. Mash efficiencies were quite High however.

Having heard so often that you don't want to grind the grain, you want to barely crack the kernels, I decided to make my own mill. It does a pretty nice job of not making flour if you set it wide enough. But I recently bought a bag of grain with some really tiny kernels and so I've had to tighten up the gap by .025".

That change only bumped up my starting Gravity by three points. So it wasn't a dramatic change. Doing the same recipe and with no adjustment made to the mill, I saw a 13-point change in addition to the previous three points. That was the one that I didn't understand.

So I guess then you're saying my single infusion mash could have a dramatically higher efficiency if I were to go to a much finer Crush? Of course at the possible expense of the mash having more of a tendency to stick while sparging?

I've seen videos of people doing decoctions and my grain never got to the oatmeal looking gelatin mess that theirs did. Mine still pretty much looked like grain that was crushed and stuck in hot water for a little bit. Certainly never looked cooked down or broken down. And the liquid which maybe I should have kept more in the decoction, but that did not look clear and dark nor did it look syrupy. And I would bet my total boil time was well in excess of an hour. It took me forever to do this.

For example:


And some pics of mine.

 

[user 338926]

One other question I have for whomever might care to answer.

How is it that when you fly sparge you are supposed to keep your water temperature below 169 or you risk pulling bunches of tannins from the hulls into the wort. Yet in a decoction mash, you take those very same hulls up to a boil and keep them there for an extended time, and I'm supposing that does not?

 

[RM-MN]

One other question I have for whomever might care to answer.

How is it that when you fly sparge you are supposed to keep your water temperature below 169 or you risk pulling bunches of tannins from the hulls into the wort. Yet in a decoction mash, you take those very same hulls up to a boil and keep them there for an extended time, and I'm supposing that does not?

When you do a decoction your grains and wort you take for the decoction is at a low pH and stays that way. When you fly sparge you are continually adding water and diluting the wort until it can become much less acidic. To pull tannins requires wort over about pH 6.0 and temperature above about 170. control one of the two and no noticeable tannins. Let the wort pH go over 6.0 but keep the wort cool and you extract few tannins. Keep the wort pH down in the 5.0 to 5.5 range and you can boil the wort without extracting excessive tannins.

 

[user 338926]

When you do a decoction your grains and wort you take for the decoction is at a low pH and stays that way. When you fly sparge you are continually adding water and diluting the wort until it can become much less acidic. To pull tannins requires wort over about pH 6.0 and temperature above about 170. control one of the two and no noticeable tannins. Let the wort pH go over 6.0 but keep the wort cool and you extract few tannins. Keep the wort pH down in the 5.0 to 5.5 range and you can boil the wort without extracting excessive tannins.

I've never heard anybody mention that before. Interesting.

I use Bru'n Water and there's always acid added to my sparge water. For instance on this batch I think there was 7 gallons of sparge water and it called for a 2.92 cc's of phosphoric acid, with an even greater amount of lactic acid added to the strike water. I never even thought to check Bru'n Water and see if it cared if I was doing a single infusion or decoction. I suppose it might be wise to check that.
Either way my mash is always between 5.2 to 5.4 ph.

 

[day_trippr]

When fly sparging and extracting tannins and silicates is a concern key metrics are found in the last runnings pH and gravity. Keep the pH below 5.6, and the gravity above 1.010, and one will largely avoid those concerns...

Cheers!

 

[doug293cz]

So I guess then you're saying my single infusion mash could have a dramatically higher efficiency if I were to go to a much finer Crush? Of course at the possible expense of the mash having more of a tendency to stick while sparging?

Yes, there are compromises associated with most of the choices we make when brewing. For example, I BIAB, so crush grain at ~0.022" gap, and do full volume mash with no-sparge lautering. I get 100% (or very close) conversion efficiency every time. I take a hit on my lauter efficiency since I don't sparge, but then I don't have to ever worry about a stuck sparge. My last batch (1.055 OG) came in at 100% conversion efficiency (single infusion ~65 minutes), and 80% lauter efficiency, for 80% mash efficiency. I could get higher lauter efficiency by sparging, but that would take longer, I would probably have to crush more coarsely, and probably take a hit on conversion efficiency.

We all make choices based on what's important to us.

Brew on

 

[jambop]

Hmmm, that's quite a lot to take in actually. I had to read it a couple times to make sure I understood. Thanks for taking the time to explain all that.

When I first started Brewing I had a Corona Grain Mill, the old hand crank types which I ran with a drill. It more or less ground up the grain, it didn't crush. Stuck sparges were pretty common, so I learned how to deal with that by re-stiring and re-clearing, and it worked out to be no big deal. But I was making a lot of flour. Mash efficiencies were quite High however.

Having heard so often that you don't want to grind the grain, you want to barely crack the kernels, I decided to make my own mill. It does a pretty nice job of not making flour if you set it wide enough. But I recently bought a bag of grain with some really tiny kernels and so I've had to tighten up the gap by .025".

That change only bumped up my starting Gravity by three points. So it wasn't a dramatic change. Doing the same recipe and with no adjustment made to the mill, I saw a 13-point change in addition to the previous three points. That was the one that I didn't understand.

So I guess then you're saying my single infusion mash could have a dramatically higher efficiency if I were to go to a much finer Crush? Of course at the possible expense of the mash having more of a tendency to stick while sparging?

I've seen videos of people doing decoctions and my grain never got to the oatmeal looking gelatin mess that theirs did. Mine still pretty much looked like grain that was crushed and stuck in hot water for a little bit. Certainly never looked cooked down or broken down. And the liquid which maybe I should have kept more in the decoction, but that did not look clear and dark nor did it look syrupy. And I would bet my total boil time was well in excess of an hour. It took me forever to do this.

For example:


And some pics of mine.

View attachment 820055View attachment 820052View attachment 820053

That is a beautiful crush absolutely prefect ! Don't fanny around doing fancy mashes do a straight forward single or if you want a stepped mash. I bet with a 90 min mash and a good sparge you would get 90% ,or even more, mash efficiency from that! Do not pound it to a flour you will just mess up you sparge and lose out. What is more if you are not a water blender you could avoid extracting unwanted stuff from the pounded husks... proper brewers do not pound their grains

 

[jambop]

If al

Yes, there are compromises associated with most of the choices we make when brewing. For example, I BIAB, so crush grain at ~0.022" gap, and do full volume mash with no-sparge lautering. I get 100% (or very close) conversion efficiency every time. I take a hit on my lauter efficiency since I don't sparge, but then I don't have to ever worry about a stuck sparge. My last batch (1.055 OG) came in at 100% conversion efficiency (single infusion ~65 minutes), and 80% lauter efficiency, for 80% mash efficiency. I could get higher lauter efficiency by sparging, but that would take longer, I would probably have to crush more coarsely, and probably take a hit on conversion efficiency.

We all make choices based on what's important to us.

Brew on

lf the grains in your mash are cracked and completely saturated with the mash liquor then 100 % conversion of all the available starches in Weyermann Pale ale malt takes a maximum of 20 mins that's it according to the Weyermann maltsters scientists. Of course one has to assume that is in perfect conditions regarding pH, temperature etc. So from this we can conclude that most home brewers actually get 100 % conversion from their mashed grains ... extracting the sugars from the grains into the mash liquor is another thing entirely. I habitually do a stepped mash over 90 mins in the belief that I am actually changing the biochemistry of the conversion, which may have been true a long time ago when malted barley grains were poorly modified but today I think it is time wasted ... I still do it though
Most of mashing time is actually extracting the converted sugars from the grains.
Edit
In fact Charlie Bamforth recently in an online session pooh hooed Decoction mashing using modern malted barley.

 

[doug293cz]

lf the grains in your mash are cracked and completely saturated with the mash liquor then 100 % conversion of all the available starches in Weyermann Pale ale malt takes a maximum of 20 mins thurat's it according to the Weyermann maltsters scientists.

Reference link, please.

So from this we can conclude that most home brewers actually get 100 % conversion from their mashed grains ... extracting the sugars from the grains into the mash liquor is another thing entirely

After analyzing multiple cases of brewers who have posted about low efficiency on HBT, and provided enough measurement data to calculate conversion efficiency and lauter efficiency, I can say this is categorically false. In almost all cases, it turns out that the brewer's issue was low conversion efficiency.

The data needed to calculate conversion efficiency is the grain bill weight, the grain bill extract potential, the strike water volume, and the wort SG at the end of the mash.

Potential Extract Weight = Grain Weight * (1 - Moisture Content) * Extract Potential​

Moisture Content is fractional, eg 4% => 0.04​

Extract Potential is Fine Grind Dry Basis (FGDB) typically ~80%, or ~0.80 fractional​

Wort SG [in °P] = 100°P * Actual Extract Weight / (Actual Extract Weight + Strike Water Weight)​

or​

Actual Extract Weight = SG[°P] * Water Weight / (100°P - SG[°P])​

then​

Conversion Efficiency = 100% * Actual Extract Weight / Potential Extract Weight​

​

Brew on

 

[jambop]

That has nothing to do with conversion that is the brewers efficiency in EXTRACTING the converted sugars from the grains. All the available sugars have been converted you have just not got them out of the grains and into your brewing liquor. Weyermann say that independent testers can completely convert in 20mins . Now one has to assume they use ideal conditions to do that. Most brewers I know mash for in excess of 20 mins I myself mash for 90mins then mash out for 10 mins . My most recent brew gave some 84 % mashing efficiency and I stopped sparging at a gravity of 1.017 there was a lot of sugar still left in the grains I could have reclaimed but my pre-boil volume would have been much greater than ideal. I am confident that I had the right conditions and converted all the available sugars in my grains during my mash I just did not recover them from the grains into my wort Conversion and efficiency are two entirely different things .
However you will find the data under saccharification time .
there is nothing wrong with you arithmetic you are just confusing efficiency and conversion.
https://www.weyermann.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Weyermann_Pale_Ale_Malt_Specification.pdf

 

[jambop]

When fly sparging and extracting tannins and silicates is a concern key metrics are found in the last runnings pH and gravity. Keep the pH below 5.6, and the gravity above 1.010, and one will largely avoid those concerns...

Cheers!

Fuller's brew and make some of their beers using the Parti-Gyle technique they will take their second runnings as low as 1.005 ! As the head brewer says in an article from Beer and Brewing
And about that efficiency? Keeling says the second wort is really allowed to run until the extract gets as low as 1.005. “[We] get everything [we] can out of the mash tun.”

 

[DBhomebrew]

I am confident that I had the right conditions and converted all the available sugars in my grains during my mash I just did not recover them from the grains into my wort Conversion and efficiency are two entirely different things .

I applaud your confidence, but your conversion efficiency was not 100%.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/hitting-my-og.727265/post-10264054

 

[jambop]

I applaud your confidence, but your conversion efficiency was not 100%.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/hitting-my-og.727265/post-10264054

There you go again I never said my efficiency was 100% I said I am confident I had full conversion .

 

[VikeMan]

lf the grains in your mash are cracked and completely saturated with the mash liquor then 100 % conversion of all the available starches in Weyermann Pale ale malt takes a maximum of 20 mins that's it according to the Weyermann maltsters scientists. Of course one has to assume that is in perfect conditions regarding pH, temperature etc.

That 20 minutes is determined in a laboratory, using congress mash (or similar) conditions. It doesn't represent, nor is it intended to approximate, commercial or home brewery conditions. It also only applies to that particular base malt, i.e. it doesn't account for the presence of additional malts/grains in the mash, which typically have low or no diastatic power. That said, conversion speed is a function of several factors, one of which is gelatinization (perhaps what you mean by "completely saturated"). You are right about "perfect" conditions, or at least correct conditions, being necessary.

So from this we can conclude that most home brewers actually get 100 % conversion from their mashed grains

Odd conclusion that doesn't follow.

there is nothing wrong with you arithmetic you are just confusing efficiency and conversion.

I would bet a year's salary that @doug293cz is not confusing anything regarding the components of mash efficiency.

 

[VikeMan]

There you go again I never said my efficiency was 100% I said I am confident I had full conversion .

There is a thing called conversion efficiency. There is a thing called lauter efficiency. Both are components of mash efficiency. @DBhomebrew said that your conversion efficiency was not 100%. He was referring the conversion efficiency evidenced by your own data in the linked thread. And he's right.

 

[jambop]

There is a thing called conversion efficiency. There is a thing called lauter efficiency. Both are components of mash efficiency. @DBhomebrew said that your conversion efficiency was not 100%. He was referring the conversion efficiency evidenced by your own data in the linked thread. And he's right.

With due respect the figure I gave for the gravity of my mash wort at the end of the mash is a total guess really because with the Grainfather S40 you have 8 L of brewing liquor below the grain basket and the the wort in the grain basket itself the two in no way homogeneous so I really do not know what that true SG is at the point I made that reading. The wort is recirculated and to be honest totally unreliable as to whether the 8 L below the basket has actually fully played its part in the process it is a cheap system I take my sample from the recirculating arm and it has to be set a low rate to avoid the bottom running dry there could be dead spots anywhere in the system I have no idea.

However looking at the mashing efficiency and the gravity of the runnings at the point I stopped sparging which was 1.017 I am confident I made full conversion there is still a lot of sugars left in those grains in the basket which were never recovered. I calculated my mashing Eff at around 87 % but it will have been slightly higher as I used 500g of flaked barley which has less return.

 

[Bassman2003]

To the OP, decoction is a tool used by past breweries to get into under-modified grain. Modern breweries have kept the practice around because it increases yield in commercial brewhouses and also helps with lautering. So they can buy/use less grain over time. I believe it is as much or more of a commercial decision as it is a flavor/tradition decision to use the method or not.

So a takeaway you might have is - how can I get my non-decocted mashes to perform better? Maybe you can improve upon your normal mashes on your system to yield a bit more. Although at our level, it is not a commercial decision. A little longer mash or maybe the crush (but I am more of a fan of a .035-.038 crush myself).

You might have had the O.G. bump due to water additions. If you started with the exact same amount of water as a normal mash, and you were sloshing and boiling, it stands to reason that you are going to lose some during the process. This would have an impact on the O.G.

 

[jambop]

To the OP, decoction is a tool used by past breweries to get into under-modified grain. Modern breweries have kept the practice around because it increases yield in commercial brewhouses and also helps with lautering. So they can buy/use less grain over time. I believe it is as much or more of a commercial decision as it is a flavor/tradition decision to use the method or not.

So a takeaway you might have is - how can I get my non-decocted mashes to perform better? Maybe you can improve upon your normal mashes on your system to yield a bit more. Although at our level, it is not a commercial decision. A little longer mash or maybe the crush (but I am more of a fan of a .035-.038 crush myself).

You might have had the O.G. bump due to water additions. If you started with the exact same amount of water as a normal mash, and you were sloshing and boiling, it stands to reason that you are going to lose some during the process. This would have an impact on the O.G.

To be honest when someone like Charlie Bamforth says something it outdated and not worth the effort I just go with it. It is a thing I have never done so I don't know seems like a hell of a faff to be honest and with the better modified grains today probably something I will never do.

 

[Bassman2003]

I would only do one if a certain flavor could be had. I have always been trying to improve my hefeweizen and might try one just to see with that style. I am looking at my system and trying to decide if I can pull it off and for it to be somewhat easy at the same time.

 

[jambop]

I

I would only do one if a certain flavor could be had. I have always been trying to improve my hefeweizen and might try one just to see with that style. I am looking at my system and trying to decide if I can pull it off and for it to be somewhat easy at the same time.

make English style beers 99% of the time but a few months back I made a Pilsner for the first time and it turned out really well. Crystal clear even after being chilled in the fridge overnight at 4C see photo. The glasses were bought for a Paulaner attempt but I have not done it yet . I think I am trying to get it done next week but I will be doing a straight forward mash. My sister lived in Munich and I drank many litres of different brands on draught it was easy drinking and always served with a slice of lemon floating in it.

 

[VikeMan]

However looking at the mashing efficiency and the gravity of the runnings at the point I stopped sparging which was 1.017 I am confident I made full conversion there is still a lot of sugars left in those grains in the basket which were never recovered. I calculated my mashing Eff at around 87 % but it will have been slightly higher as I used 500g of flaked barley which has less return.

Perhaps you could show your math that indicates final runnings of 1.017 in your case means full conversion.

There are always lots of sugars (and dextrins) left in the grains, because there's no such thing as lauter efficiency of 100%. Not even with a mash press. But the fact that there are lots of sugars/dextins left in the grains doesn't, without doing the measurements and the math, imply 100% conversion efficiency. With the proper measurements, you can determine what your actual conversion effiency is. It has nothing to do with confidence. And I'd wager that it's not achieved in most mashes, though many come close.

 

[jambop]

Perhaps you could show your math that indicates final runnings of 1.017 in your case means full conversion.

There are always lots of sugars (and dextrins) left in the grains, because there's no such thing as lauter efficiency of 100%. Not even with a mash press. But the fact that there are lots of sugars/dextins left in the grains doesn't, without doing the measurements and the math, imply 100% conversion efficiency. With the proper measurements, you can determine what your actual conversion effiency is. It has nothing to do with confidence. And I'd wager that it's not achieved in most mashes, though many come close.

It is difficult to say what extra gravity points could be recovered . With the S40 system I use I mash and raise the grain basket and allow the wort in the basket to drain into the boiler, I think it is a common practice with these all in one systems. The grains in the basket are then sparged with a fixed volume of brew liquor which flows into the boiler. I then take the basket off and start the boil phase. However as an experiment on this occasion, and because for some time I have thought there are I more sugars available I put the basket in a 35L plastic brew bucket and as best I could tried to evenly wash the grains again with brew liquor I collected two litres of brew liquor but stopped when the gravity readings hit 1.017 . When one considers the original gravity of the beer was only 1.039 the 1.017 was quite significant but I have limited boiler volume and the boil time would have been a lot longer. I have long been in conversation with another English brewer on here about my doubts I was getting a good sparge using the system but it is what is is. I have another idea to do a parti-gyle type brew where I can further sparge the grains knowing they will be blended with wort of a much higher gravity and then make two beers from the one mash. This would be a very interesting thing to do if you think about it. I have an idea and have made a recipe to try doing a Fuller's type brew which is parti-gyle which would hopefully give me 20 L of London pride 4.1 % and 20 L of ESB 5.5%
edit
I think there about 200 or so points to recover from the basket the problem is getting an even sparge to elute them.

 

[DBhomebrew]

I have another idea to do a parti-gyle type brew where I can further sparge the grains knowing they will be blended with wort of a much higher gravity and then make two beers from the one mash.

So many miss that step!

 

[DBhomebrew]

The grains in the basket are then sparged with a fixed volume of brew liquor which flows into the boiler. I then take the basket off and start the boil phase. However as an experiment on this occasion, and because for some time I have thought there are I more sugars available I put the basket in a 35L plastic brew bucket and as best I could tried to evenly wash the grains again with brew liquor I collected two litres of brew liquor but stopped when the gravity readings hit 1.017 .

Your lauter efficiency would be better if you allow the mash to fully drain then move the basket to the bucket with the full amount of sparge water. Get that fully homogenized and then drain it fully again.

Calculate your strike and sparge volumes so that 1st and 2nd runnings are roughly equal.

Think dunk/batch sparge, not pseudo-fly sparge.

FWIW, my 1040 beers come in at ~92% mash efficiency with a conversion efficiency better than 99% at 60m. That's with one dunk sparge and rather fine crush.

 

[jambop]

Your lauter efficiency would be better if you allow the mash to fully drain then move the basket to the bucket with the full amount of sparge water. Get that fully homogenized and then drain it fully again.

Calculate your strike and sparge volumes so that 1st and 2nd runnings are roughly equal.

Think dunk/batch sparge, not pseudo-fly sparge.

FWIW, my 1040 beers come in at ~92% mash efficiency with a conversion efficiency better than 99% at 60m. That's with one dunk sparge and rather fine crush.

Don't laugh but the diameter of my plastic brew bucket causes problems in that the grain basket only just sits in the top which means I cannot sparge like that I would have to lay the basket at an angle so that the runnings do not just flow over the top of the bucket. You see the basket has perforations on the sides and the base and with the basket snug on the top of the bucket the eluted wort from the perforations on the sides runs down and forms a seal around the top of the bucket thus causing a right mess... I tried it once only Now with the grain basket at an angle you can get the wort to flow but you cannot get an even sparge... in short I need a bigger bucket dear Liza

 

[doug293cz]

There you go again I never said my efficiency was 100% I said I am confident I had full conversion .

By definition "full conversion" is 100% conversion efficiency.

Brew on

 

[jambop]

By definition "full conversion" is 100% conversion efficiency.

Brew on

I do not know why you are banging on here. Yes we all know the formulae but here is the rub all the figures you are using are based on a manufacturers extract figure which are false because they are based on a method of over sparging. Even commercial brewers who sparge their wort to death cannot get 100% extraction from their grains it is totally counter productive but that does not mean they do not get 100% of the available sugars converted. Fullers who make one of the world's finest beers parti-gayle and sparge the runnings to 1.005 and even they are not getting all the sugars out of their grist. I stopped sparging at 1.017 with 87% mashing Eff I am very happy with that it is excellent.
However to end the tale I really do not care how you think but you can carry on being obtuse to suit your goal.

 

[VikeMan]

I do not know why you are banging on here.

He's correcting a misstatement, probably so that when other forum users read it, they won't be misled.

Yes we all know the formulae but here is the rub all the figures you are using are based on a manufacturers extract figure which are false because they are based on a method of over sparging.

If you calculate conversion efficiency, lauter efficiency, and mash efficiency using careful measurements and @doug293cz's formulae (in this thread and others), the manufacturer's data (Dry Basis Fine Grind (DBFG) and Moisture (or the resulting "PPG")) are exactly what you need to use (i.e. they are not "false") and will give you the right answer. The DBFG is based on a lab measurement and once adjusted for moisture represents a maximum possible value obtainable using a congress mash. The fact that a real brewery will never attain it, because of less than 100% conversion efficiency (sometimes) and less than 100% lauter efficiency (always) is exactly the point, and part of their reason for existence. Real life mash efficiency is compared to the congress mash baseline (given a brewery's known conversion and lauter efficiencies), to determine grain bill sizes needed, and to help determine if process improvements are warranted.

Even commercial brewers who sparge their wort to death cannot get 100% extraction from their grains it is totally counter productive but that does not mean they do not get 100% of the available sugars converted.
Fullers who make one of the world's finest beers parti-gayle and sparge the runnings to 1.005 and even they are not getting all the sugars out of their grist. I stopped sparging at 1.017 with 87% mashing Eff I am very happy with that it is excellent.

You are correct. No amount of sparging can get 100% lauter efficiency. (And nobody has claimed that it can.) Depending on process, they might get 100% conversion efficiency, but they won't know if they have unless they measure it. Taking a gravity reading of final fly sparge runnings isn't the measurement that will reveal conversion efficiency.

 

[jambop]

@VikeMan You are missing the point he took the gravity reading for the presumed mash wort gravity from a photograph I published on here... it is not a true reading of the homogeneous mash wort it came from the re-circulation arm. I take readings from this to try to monitor what is going on in the mash in general, and I do it for every mash I do, there are readings taken at 15, 30, 60 , 90 and 100 mins it is just something I do like taking a pH reading at 15 mins and the SG readings are not representative of a homogeneous wort. I would have to stir up the mash remove the grain basket drain and mix the wort every time to get readings that were representative and I am not going to do that it would completely F up my mash!
There are only two reading that can be taken as being representative of the wort and those are the preboil and the post boil and even those are not really going to be exactly right because the readings I take from hot side wort are made with a refractometer and the post boil with is chilled and cold is taken with a hydrometer, which I feel is more accurate. However if you go to those photographs you will see the two figure are very compatible.
So I think you will see my point he is making calculation for conversion efficiency based on a reading which is not accurate or representative of the entire mash wort. I am basing my supposition on my mash efficiency and the fact there was still a lot of residual sugars remaining in the grain basket when I stopped sparging . He can say what he likes but there is no way to prove anything from the figure he used it is not possible. I on the other hand am content to make an educated guess that the missing sugars are there in the grains in that grain basket. Photographs seen on this thread FWIW.
www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/hitting-my-og.727265/#post-10264054

 

[VikeMan]

^ Right, so I'll summarize. @doug293cz used the data you provided. You have since then explained (or at least opined) that the data you provided is not reliable. So nobody, including you, knows what your conversion efficiency is. But you are content to guess that it's 100%.

 

[jambop]

^ Right, so I'll summarize. @doug293cz used the data you provided. You have since then explained (or at least opined) that the data you provided is not reliable. So nobody, including you, knows what your conversion efficiency is. But you are content to guess that it's 100%.

Sorry bud what is your agenda? I have explained in detail and supplied photographic evidence of my brew day note book yet you are calling me out on that why? The real clue as to any estimate of conversion is the only reliable gravity readings those are for pre boil and post boil together with the recorded volumes you can calculate the mash eff . If you cannot correlate mash eff of 87 % and ending my sparge at 1.017 then you are in denial .

 

[VikeMan]

Sorry bud what is your agenda?

Accuracy.

If you cannot correlate mash eff of 87 % and ending my sparge at 1.017 then you are in denial .

In denial of what? (It might be better to state facts than personal attacks.) If by denial you mean regarding 100% Conversion Efficiency, I would appreciate seeing the math that correlates 87% mash efficiency and final runnings of 1.017, in regard to calculating conversion efficiency.

 

[doug293cz]

The real clue as to any estimate of conversion is the only reliable gravity readings those are for pre boil and post boil together with the recorded volumes you can calculate the mash eff .

With those data points you can calculate the mash efficiency. But, mash efficiency equals conversion efficiency * lauter efficiency. There is no way you can get an accurate calculation of conversion efficiency from just these data points. In a previous post, I went thru the detail of what data was required, and how to do the calculations for conversion efficiency. Once you know both mash efficiency and conversion efficiency, you calculate lauter efficiency as:

Lauter Efficiency = Mash Efficiency / Conversion Efficiency.​

If you cannot correlate mash eff of 87 % and ending my sparge at 1.017 then you are in denial .

You cannot correlate the end of sparge runnings SG to anything if you are fly sparging, because there is a concentration gradient of extract thru the grain bed (low [~0] extract at the top, and highest concentration at the bottom.) Since you don't know the details of this gradient, you cannot determine how much extract is left in the grain bed.

Brew on