Efficiency, decoction mash versus single infusion?

[jambop]

I'm not trying to obtain the same extract as any testing lab. The testing lab's numbers are used as a standard baseline from which to compute efficiencies, which in turn can be applied to any malt tested under the same standard, but not necessarily to other standards.

Yes I see. As a point of interest are you using Crisp or Simpsons malts?

 

[DBhomebrew]

I use both Crisp and Simpson's, as if it matters in this regard. Knowing my process achieves 98-99% conversion compared to their reported numbers allows me to write a recipe for 1040 or 1060 or 1090. And they go into the fermenter within a point or two of my goal. Without ever having brewed with that particular malt.

 

[jambop]

I use both Crisp and Simpson's, as if it matters in this regard. Knowing my process achieves 98-99% conversion compared to their reported numbers allows me to write a recipe for 1040 or 1060 or 1090. And they go into the fermenter within a point or two of my goal. Without ever having brewed with that particular malt.

Amazing well done! How do the prices of these malts compare with domestic malts? It is crazy that I can buy Crisp malt here in France cheaper than brewers can buy it in the UK. The same applies for EU malts Dingemans and Weyermanns are eye watering prices in the UK and here they are much cheaper and I am not talking two or three euros a sack we are taking 20+ euro . My guess is the homebrew shops are making a killing.

 

[VikeMan]

Yes I see. As a point of interest are you using Crisp or Simpsons malts?

I've used both, in recipes with other malts. And when I do, I'm essentially guessing at the numbers I need to plug into my software, which is not ideal.

 

[VikeMan]

I use both Crisp and Simpson's, as if it matters in this regard. Knowing my process achieves 98-99% conversion compared to their reported numbers allows me to write a recipe for 1040 or 1060 or 1090. And they go into the fermenter within a point or two of my goal. Without ever having brewed with that particular malt.

Are you converting between standards using the previously mentioned formula (or any formula)? If not, how are you handling mixed standard computations?

 

[jambop]

I've used both, in recipes with other malts. And when I do, I'm essentially guessing at the numbers I need to plug into my software, which is not ideal.

I just use the numbers from their site.

 

[VikeMan]

I just use the numbers from their site.

And, presumably, you are applying your mash efficiency to their numbers, right?

 

[DBhomebrew]

Are you converting between standards using the previously mentioned formula (or any formula)? If not, how are you handling mixed standard computations?

I use their reported ASBC number and let BrewCipher & Doug's spreadsheet crunch the numbers. But I'm not really going back and forth through malts. A sack of grain for me lasts a good year. It's more about writing different recipes with the same malt than the same recipe with different malts.

 

[DBhomebrew]

How do the prices of these malts compare with domestic malts?

Expensive. I'm about to buy a sack of Fawcett Optic for $90/55lb. Briess Pale Ale is $58/50lb.

 

[VikeMan]

I use their reported ASBC number and let BrewCipher & Doug's spreadsheet crunch the numbers. But I'm not really going back and forth through malts. A sack of grain for me lasts a good year. It's more about writing different recipes with the same malt than the same recipe with different malts.

Of course, there's an underlying assumption in BrewCipher that the "PPG" will get the result of the below calc (using ASBC numbers). Or, I should really say that the pre-loaded grain tab PPG numbers were the result of that calc wherever possible.

FGDB x (1 - Moisture) x 46.21

 

[doug293cz]

Of course, there's an underlying assumption in BrewCipher that the "PPG" will get the result of the below calc (using ASBC numbers). Or, I should really say that the pre-loaded grain tab PPG numbers were the result of that calc wherever possible.

FGDB x (1 - Moisture) x 46.21

That's something that has always bothered me (at least since I started to understand what potentials and efficiencies were all about) - are the database numbers for SG potential/PPG based on "dry basis" or "as-is", and are they all done to the same basis?

While I'm ranting, I would love to know how the 46.21 potential for sucrose was determined. If I calculate it from the definition of Plato and the ASBC equation for SG from Plato, I come up with 46.17 (i know, angels on pinheads...)

And another thing - who came up with the "units" of "Points per Pound per Gallon"? From a dimensional analysis, grain has Points/lb and wort has Points/Gal.

Brew on

 

[VikeMan]

While I'm ranting, I would love to know how the 46.21 potential for sucrose was determined. If I calculate it from the definition of Plato and the ASBC equation for SG from Plato, I come up with 46.17 (i know, angels on pinheads...)

46.21 is as old as the hills, and I also don't know how it was determined. I do understand your derivation of the 46.17. I wonder if the difference is temperature related, i.e. different temperatures were used/implied.

ETA: Or perhaps a small rounding error is embedded in the conversion formula? Or in the original measurement/formula that resulted in 46.21? Or both?

 

[DBhomebrew]

My guess is the homebrew shops are making a killing.

Uh, no.

 

[doug293cz]

Crisp malting Best Ale malt analysis

TYPICAL ANALYSIS​

PARAMETER	IoB	EBC	ASBC
MOISTURE	3.5% max	3.5% max	3.5% max
EXTRACT	306 L°/kg	80.8%	80.8%
COLOUR	5.0-6.5 EBC	5.5-7.2 EBC	2.5-3.1 °L
TN/TP	1.30 - 1.65%	8.0 - 10.0%	8.0 - 10.0%
SNR/KI/ST RATIO	38-48	43-54	43-54

The analysis in #76 is better, although what's presented as ASBC "extract" could be Coarse Grind Dry Basis, Fine Grind Dry Basis, or even an "As Is" (i.e. not excluding moisture) Basis. I would hope that it's Fine Grind Dry, i.e. the most useful one, but it doesn't say

Just looking at the value (80.8%) it looks to me like a FGDB number.

I have emailed Crisp, asking about how the conversion formula was derived and whether the EBC side is coarse or fine grind, as is or dry, etc.

I will admit that I had never heard of IoB (Institute of Brewing, now IBD - Institute of Brewing and Distilling) standards until this thread. An odd-ball collection of standards, used primarily in a limited geographic region, gifted to the world by the same folks that cursed the USA with the Imperial units of measure (however, they don't use imperial units in the IoB standards.)

After a little poking around, I learned that their extract values are the metric analog of PPG. If the definition was written the same way as the PPG definition it would be: "Extract Value" is equal to 1000 * (SG - 1) if you mashed 1 kg of grain with enough water to make 1 L of wort. However, that is a practical impossibility, and you would also be up in the SG region where linearity of SG vs. sugar concentration is no longer a close approximation. so they define it in an even more awkward, but equivalent way. The IoB definition of the "Extract Value" is: The number of liters of 1.001 SG wort that could be obtained by mashing 1 kg of grain with the required amount of water. Took me a while to wrap my head around that.

You use the IoB "L°/kg" just like you use PPG but with volumes in liters, and grain mass in kg.

The conversion of PPG to L°/kg is:

L°/kg = PPG * 3.78541 L/gal * 2.20462 lb/kg​

​

So the 80.8% extract from the quoted specs works out to:

PPG = 80.8% * 46.17 PPG / 100% = 37.3 PPG​

L°/kg = 80.8% * 46.17 PPG * 3.78541 L/gal * 2.20462 lb/kg / 100% = 311.35​

​

If I convert the 311.35 to "as-is" basis @ 3.5% moisture the value becomes 300.45. Given that the spec sheet quoted gives a value of 306, it seems likely that this is a Coarse Grind (0.7mm vs. 0.2mm) Dry Basis value.

The equation: IOB = (EBC-1.705)/0.2586 appears to come from the last equation above. If you ignore the % units and just do the arithmetic that last equation becomes:

​

L°/kg = EBC * 3.8533 = EBC / 0.2595​

​

I'm guessing that the -1.705 is an adjustment factor for coarse grind vs. fine grind. The 0.2586 vs. 0.2595 is probably an artifact of the way they curve fit a bunch of IoB data to EBC data.

Brew on

 

[DBhomebrew]

Of course, there's an underlying assumption in BrewCipher that the "PPG" will get the result of the below calc (using ASBC numbers). Or, I should really say that the pre-loaded grain tab PPG numbers were the result of that calc wherever possible.

FGDB x (1 - Moisture) x 46.2

This is huge, thank you. I had been using the PPGs listed in my BrewCipher recipe to work out weighted PPG for Doug's sheet, leaving his default 4% moisture alone. Then with grains not in the BrewCipher library such as Simpson's Best Pale, I had not applied this calc.

All makes so much more sense and I've finally succeeded in getting BrewCipher & Doug's to fully agree.

-4% here, +4% there, it was close, but never quite right. Thanks again.

ETA: May I suggest adding this calc to the GrainLookup/PPG section of the user guide? Some of us do read it.

 

[VikeMan]

I have emailed Crisp, asking about how the conversion formula was derived and whether the EBC side is coarse or fine grind, as is or dry, etc.

FWIW, I never received an answer. Oh well.