Fuming - About Ready to Hang it Up

[sgwink]

This may be a dumb suggestion, but it has happened to me. When I was taking mash temperatures I was taking temperature of the liquid surrounding my bag (BIAB). I thought I was in the perfect temp range. I was always was confused about why my temps would fluctuate so much more than other peoples experiences and why my efficiency was in the 60's. Turns out the actual mash was 10-15 degrees lower than the outside water. My 2 cents is to make sure strike water is hot enough and that you stir for a good 5 to 10 minutes to make sure your mash is all the same temperature AND to take the temperature of the grains and NOT the water.

 

[doug293cz]

Go back to batch sparge. Run your mash thickness so that you get equal volumes from the first and second runnings. I use Brew365.com to do my volume and temp calcs for brewing and I've had excellent results.

...

This is sound advice for a normal gravity beer, but turns out to be difficult to do with really big beers. The problem is that the mash gets too thick if you try to do equal run-off volumes.

I ran a simulation using 25 lbs of grain, 5.5 gal post-boil volume target, 90 min boil with 1.5 gal total boil-off, and 95% conversion efficiency. In order to maintain a 1.25 qt/lb max mash thickness, the strike volume was 7.81 gal, sparge volume 2.31 gal. First runnings volume was 4.69 gal and sparge runnings were 2.31 gal. Pre-boil SG was 1.0805, and OG came in at 1.1025. To get equal run-off volumes, the mash thickness went up to 1.06 qt/lb (6.63 gal strike, 3.5 gal sparge.) OG only went up 1 pt to 1.1035.

Brew on

 

[whovous]

I would argue this is bad advice. 43% is really, really low efficiency and leaves a lot of room for a big oops in the opposite direction. He's likely not far away from being able to consistently get 70% or better. Just need to hone in on the exact issue or issues leading to this.

Band-aid fixes don't fix the underlying issue and just lead to more problems.

Of course you want to solve the problem. The question is what to do in the meantime. Do you target a 6% beer and settle for a 3% beer?

There is no risk of a big oops in the opposite direction. If your target is 1.060 and you hit 1.090, you just add water and, viola, you hit 1.060.

I admit this idea may not work with a really big beer.

 

[schematix]

Of course you want to solve the problem. The question is what to do in the meantime. Do you target a 6% beer and settle for a 3% beer?

There is no risk of a big oops in the opposite direction. If your target is 1.060 and you hit 1.090, you just add water and, viola, you hit 1.060.

I admit this idea may not work with a really big beer.

No you take all of the advice offered here, fix the issue, target 70% and try again.

Nearly all of of us have figured this out and the OP should be able to repeat it as well.

 

[Brewjangle]

I haven't seen anyone ask or mention it yet, but...
You are allowing your wort to cool before recording your OG, right? Hot and even warm wort will read much lower than once it's cooled to below 90.
You may very well being doing this, just wanting to rule that out.

 

[madscientist451]

A puzzling situation, for sure.
A few thoughts: Some of the responses here mention BIAB, but the OP is just using a brew in a bag BAG in a mash tun, so its not the BIAB method at all, the bag is just replacing a false bottom in the tun and I don't see why that would have any impact on efficiency.
I also use a BIAB in a cooler mash tun and it works fine.
I'm wondering if your mash temp is really staying stable for the whole time.
Using a 15 gallon keggle for a mash with 3.5 gallons of water plus the grain leaves a lot of head space that could be dropping your temp pretty quick. Are you pre-heating the tun with hot tap water?
Not sure any of these could be the culprit, just tying to think of everything.
As others have suggested, I shoot for at least 1.25 qts/lb mash thickness. I'd aslo switch to a batch sparge and use a pitcher to do a manual re circulation for about 5 minutes at the end of the mash and sparge.
I had some trouble hitting , my numbers until I took the time to recirculate a little.
Having two pitchers to work with makes this go a bit smoother. I just use my mash paddle as a diverter to pour the wort from the pitcher back into the tun to prevent channeling issues.
Before you start your boil, pull a gravity sample, chill it down and check your gravity.
If its too low, I'd dump it back in to the mash tun (you have plenty of volume) and let it sit in there a while.
Recirculate again and see if you get any improvement.
You also have enough volume in that keggle to do a full volume mash, maybe try that?

 

[Gytaryst]

Your grist ratio is pretty thick... Have you tried a thinner mash?

No, I've always tried to stay around 1.25. I'm definitely going to try thinner next brew. Some of my problem is that I haven't wanted to change too many things from one brew to the next because then I have no way of knowing for sure where the problems might have been. So I've been trying to keep my water to grain ratio around 1:1.25. I'm going to bump it up to 1:1.5 next time.

... I have an eHERMS and I fly sparge.

I was considering getting a pump and a stainless coil and going that route, but lately I'm more interested in simplifying things rather than adding more stuff and making it more complicated. I would love to be able to do step mashes just to try it, but I'm thinking not enough to get into pumps and recirculating systems or heating elements . . . I'm actually considering getting rid of this stuff and going back to 2.5 gallon BIAB batches on the kitchen stove.

... You've also touched on crush a bit.. Do you have a picture of your crushed grain? Might get some pointers there as well or help to rule that out.

Rather than using the iodine test to check for mash completion, I recommend using the method here, that actually allows you to calculate the percent conversion (conversion efficiency), and can't get fooled by starch hidden in the cores of grits.

I saw that on this forum a while ago but didn't write it down so I could never find it again... Thanks for reposting it.

... I agree with your plan to try mashing thinner (as many have already recommended.) And also agree that with your equipment, you should go back to batch sparging. The photo of the inside of your MLT convinced me that you likely have severe channeling issues.

That's pretty much the conclusions I've come to as well.

... And lastly, 45 min is too short a mash when doing a big beer. You really want to make sure you give sufficient time to get close to 100% conversion, since you can't avoid losing significant lauter efficiency due to the large grain bill. The method linked above will let you know when the mash is actually done.

Brew on

Great advice and much appreciated.

... I would absolutely NOT recommend going too thin on the mash but upping it to 1.5 would not be the end of the world and may actually help with it being a bigger beer/larger grain bill with his efficiency.

Whatever or whenever my next brew is, I'm going to up the ratio to 1:1.5 and switch to batch sparging. It's tempting to try a full volume BIAB just for convenience sake, but from what I've read it seems like that would present a whole host of different problems.

I brewed a chocolate raspberry stout a few months ago and it came out a lot drier than I wanted. It's very good, in fact when I sampled one after being bottled for only 3 weeks, the chocolate and raspberry flavors hadn't developed that much, it was a little boozy and very dry, and tasted a lot more like a Guinness than a chocolate stout. It smelled almost like a cup of coffee and I didn't add any coffee. Now that it's sat a few months it's developed very nice. When I started planning this most recent stout I was almost tempted to do another chocolate raspberry brew - but I decided to go the mocha route instead.

Thanks for all the responses and advice guys. I truly appreciate all the help.

 

[sandyeggoxj]

Crush looks fine to me. But I would have kept that flour that's on the garage floor in the grain!

Do you underlet or add the grain to the water? Did you talk about your water? Municipal or RO?

I like going back to basics. Batch sparge, double check temps, make sure your mashing for long enough, and that sort of thing is my best guess for you right now.

If we are truly troubleshooting here then once you think you've found the problem you can reinstate said problem and see if the behavior matches and you go back to where you start. But that means risking another not-as-good batch. On the other hand that is what you are used to so it will just be normal?

 

[Gytaryst]

... Do you underlet or add the grain to the water? Did you talk about your water? Municipal or RO?

R/O water.
Ca - 56
Mg - 8
Na - 26
SO4 - 54
Cl - 46
HCO3 - 129

I added the water to the mash tun at a little over 170* and let it come down to 164* My grain was at 80* I stirred it at least 5 minutes and the temp was dead on 153*. Closed it up and let it sit 45 min. I've always done either a 60, 75 or 90 minute mash. I have no idea why I decided to check it at 45 minutes. I did the iodine test and it appeared to be fully converted. The temp was around 150* at 45 minutes. When I've done 6 gallon batches in the past I only lost 1 degree in 60 minutes with this keggle MLT. There was a lot of dead space for this mash so I'm guessing that is why the temp dropped so much. I still wasn't too upset at 150* tho.

... I like going back to basics. Batch sparge, double check temps, make sure your mashing for long enough, and that sort of thing is my best guess for you right now.

If we are truly troubleshooting here then once you think you've found the problem you can reinstate said problem and see if the behavior matches and you go back to where you start. But that means risking another not-as-good batch. On the other hand that is what you are used to so it will just be normal?

Ha ha ha. Yup. The good thing about brewing so many mediocre beers is that there's no where to go but up. (I probably shouldn't have said that)

I was using cooler mash tuns; I had a 48 qt rectangular ice chest, then I had a 5 gallon Igloo water cooler for a while, then a 10 gallon Igloo. I was okay with the results but I kept reading stuff about how the plastic in these coolers isn't rated for or intended for these kinds of high temps, and there's a chance there might be some chemical leeching... maybe - maybe not. Maybe it was enough to taint the beer - maybe not. There didn't seem to be a definitive answer one way or the other on it so to err on the side of caution I decided to switch to the stainless keggle.

But like I said earlier - I'm probably going to lose this set up and scale back to 10 gallon pots. I had a 10 gallon Bayou Classic stainless pot I just sold when I changed over to keggles. Wishing now I'd have kept that and got rid of the keggle. Keggles seem to be more hassle than they're worth imho. I'm definitely not liking this bottom drain MLT (AT ALL)

One of these days I'll get it figured out

Cheers - and thanks again

 

[sandyeggoxj]

Sounds like you have a good attitude about it all! I've made my share of mistakes but it is still fun. I love drinking my own beer, making what I WANT to drink and sharing with friends. It is a labor of love and learning.

Cheers!

 

[FatDragon]

Ha ha ha. Yup. The good thing about brewing so many mediocre beers is that there's no where to go but up.

I've told myself this for so long that I'm having a hard time believing it anymore

Actually, there's a pretty distinct cycle for me: 3-4 good beers, then I get cocky and stop doing my due diligence with every brewday and I end up with 2-4 mediocre/crappy beers before I get it together again. You'd think I'd figure it out after a while and start doing every brewday right, but I'm kinda stupid like that.

 

[Bobby_M]

This is an interesting case so I wanted to participate. There are a few factors I believe are killing efficiency in a fly sparge here. First, with a 16" diameter mash and only a 10" diameter drain cavity, your sparge is channeling at LEAST to the 10" disc. So, out of potentially 200 square inches you're only using 80 to drain. The area of the bag resting on keg material is not draining. To fix this, you can put in a 15" diameter rack. The other problem is that the mash itself was likely wider than it was tall so it made the channeling worse. There's also a limit to how fine you can crush when you're doing a fly sparge. Sure, the bag itself will filter out smaller particles but your overall grain bed was likely very compacted since there are no fluffy components to keep things flowing well throughout. Since you have your own mill, I highly recommend trying to precondition your grain by hand mixing in about 5 ounces of water 10 minutes before milling. Leave the gap the same as you just had it.

You didn't mention it, I don't think, but did you establish at least an inch of sparge water over the grain before you started draining?

Are you sure you have at least 50ppm calcium? Don't forget you can test your conversion by taking a gravity of the mash wort and comparing it against the available sugars at the mash's current dilution.

 

[Gytaryst]

This is an interesting case so I wanted to participate. There are a few factors I believe are killing efficiency in a fly sparge here. First, with a 16" diameter mash and only a 10" diameter drain cavity, your sparge is channeling at LEAST to the 10" disc. So, out of potentially 200 square inches you're only using 80 to drain. The area of the bag resting on keg material is not draining. To fix this, you can put in a 15" diameter rack. The other problem is that the mash itself was likely wider than it was tall so it made the channeling worse.

That makes perfect sense now that I see it. When I was considering how to do the drain I was only concerned with not having too much space under the grain bed. I read some other posts where guys had issues with too much liquid underneath and they had to adjust volumes to keep the grain bed properly soaked. I read something about using a smaller diameter FB that would sit lower and at the time THAT made sense too. What you're saying makes a lot of sense - I just never even thought about it from that angle. Thanks.

There's also a limit to how fine you can crush when you're doing a fly sparge. Sure, the bag itself will filter out smaller particles but your overall grain bed was likely very compacted since there are no fluffy components to keep things flowing well throughout. Since you have your own mill, I highly recommend trying to precondition your grain by hand mixing in about 5 ounces of water 10 minutes before milling. Leave the gap the same as you just had it.

Yes. One mistake I made. This is the first brew where I added oats since I started milling my own grain and without thinking I threw the flaked oats in with everything else.

It's going to be awhile before I try fly sparging again. This is the third brew in a row I've tried it, (hoping to raise efficiency). Instead it's added time to my brew day, been more trouble than it's worth, and my efficiency has gone down. I'm sure if all the planets were aligned just right, it was the proper phase of the moon, the barometric pressure and temperature were optimal and I mashed at precisely the correct hour of the day . . . a fly sparge might increase my efficiency a point or two. But for now I'm going to go back to batch sparging and focus on other things for a while. Maybe later I'll feel up to trying the fly sparge thing again.

You didn't mention it, I don't think, but did you establish at least an inch of sparge water over the grain before you started draining?

Yes. I vorlauffed quite a bit while I had the sparge water dripping in. I have a sparge arm I used once but didn't like it. So I just set the silicone tube on top of the grain bed the way the Sabco Brew Magic system instructions say to do it. When the liquid level was high enough I started the slow drain into the BK. It was only a 3.4 gallon batch so there was just over 4 gallons of water in the mash and only 2.8 gallons for sparge. I had the drip to the BK set so it took about 45 minutes for everything to drain out, but I'm pretty sure the water draining from the HLT to the mash tun stopped way before that 45 minutes. I didn't check that too closely so I don't know how long that inch above lasted.

Are you sure you have at least 50ppm calcium? Don't forget you can test your conversion by taking a gravity of the mash wort and comparing it against the available sugars at the mash's current dilution.

According to Bru N Water I should have had 56ppm calcium. Because this was a smaller batch than I usually brew in a 15.5 gallon keggle I was more concerned temperature. I decided to check it at 45 minutes rather than an hour just to be safe. It was down from 153* to 150* so I did a (very quick) iodine test. I felt rushed because I didn't want the temp to drop anymore so in retrospect it's possible I just called the iodine test "close enough" and rushed into the sparging.

I might brew one more beer this year - but more than likely I'll just wait until after the holidays and make sure I got all my ducks in a row. Everything i have was acquired with the idea of doing 5 to 10 gallon batches. But now I'm looking into downsizing everything and scaling back to 2.5 to 3 gallon batches. I'm the only one who ever drinks my beer and 5 gallons is too much. Even if it's decent beer - I get bored with it. Thinking I'd rather scale back the volume and brew more often.

Thanks for the input. Your youtube videos were invaluable when I got started and I still go back and reference them.

Cheers

 

[passedpawn]

I've told myself this for so long that I'm having a hard time believing it anymore

Actually, there's a pretty distinct cycle for me: 3-4 good beers, then I get cocky and stop doing my due diligence with every brewday and I end up with 2-4 mediocre/crappy beers before I get it together again. You'd think I'd figure it out after a while and start doing every brewday right, but I'm kinda stupid like that.

haha, right. When I was making 5g batches with a turkey cooker I made some fine beer. Now, I can brew with one eye closed / one had behind back, and I have a lot of mediocrity. I think I tried a LOT harder back then. (but man, my equipment is much shinier now!)

 

[Gytaryst]

The estimated OG and FG for this was 1.104 and 1.023 for an abv of 10.9%.
The measured OG was 1.073 and FG was 1.010 for an abv of 8.3%. It's jet black with a strong alcohol smell and taste. Also from the sample I tasted it's quite a bit drier than I was shooting for. Going to do some serious re-calculating on how I take my mash temps. This is my hydrometer sample this morning:

It sat in primary 14 days. I started at 68* for 5 or 6 days, bumped it up to 70* for a couple days then 72* for the last week, Wyeast #1028 London Ale Yeast). I transferred it to secondary this morning and dropped the temp to 65*. I'm actually thinking about dropping it down to 50* and leaving it there for 60 days? Haven't decided.

I added 2 oz of Sumatra coffee beans to the last 10 minutes of the boil and I plan to add more coffee, (beans or cold brew), and cacao nibs to secondary for the last week.

I appreciate all the encouraging comments above. Now that 2 weeks has passed since brew day the frustration has subsided considerably.

CHEERS!

 

[hawkbox]

Sounds tasty and that's a nice setup. I batch sparge and end up consistently in the 65-70% efficiency range so I'm not sure where you would run into an issue. I use a brew bag as well in my tun as it makes cleanup a whole lot easier.

Someday I will have a nicer setup than

 

[Gytaryst]

Sounds tasty and that's a nice setup. I batch sparge and end up consistently in the 65-70% efficiency range so I'm not sure where you would run into an issue. I use a brew bag as well in my tun as it makes cleanup a whole lot easier.

That looks nice. I want to get away from keggles and switch over to something like that. 10 gallon pots are plenty big enough for my needs. I've only ever brewed 5 to 6 gallon batches and this last batch was 3 gallons. I'm thinking about scaling back and just brewing 2.5 to 3 gallon batches from now on, or brewing 5 gallon batches and splitting the wort into two fermenters. I'm also probably going to go back to the 5 or 10 gallon Igloo water coolers for mashing. I had a lot less issues when I used those. I liked the stainless steel aspect of the keg, but a 15.5 gallon mash tun is way too big for what I do. I couldn't wait to have this 3 vessel keggle system - and now that I have it and have done several brews, I'm not impressed. It would probably be great if I wanted to brew 10 or 11 gallon batches . . . but I've never been interested in that.

 

[balrog]

I see it already asked but this was my thought as well--how is your post mash pre-boil SG?

Rather than using the iodine test to check for mash completion, I recommend using the method here, that actually allows you to calculate the percent conversion (conversion efficiency)

Before you start your boil, pull a gravity sample, chill it down and check your gravity.

Don't forget you can test your conversion by taking a gravity of the mash wort and comparing it against the available sugars at the mash's current dilution.

 

[Big Monk]

Edit

 

[Smellyglove]

I can toss out my experiences about how this efficiency thing works when doing bigger grists.

Efficiency with a bigger beer will drop, if you do it "the normal way", just scale the brew up, without scaling down efficiency.

So #1 is that you have to account for the efficiency drop.

#2: I read in the opening post that the second time you used less water do get a higher density. This will also make your efficiency take a nosedive, as efficiency is a function of both the SG and the wort you're available to extract. More malt will bind more liquid to the malt. And, it's easier to extract more sugars with more water in the mash. A thinner mash.

You can try this to remedy the issue:

If you look at a brew you've done, lets say a light beer which has 50/50 mash/sparge water. If you'd scale that up, you'd be more like 70/30-ish mash/sparge water due to the higher grav beer requires more grains, if you're going for the same mash thickness.
What you can do is use more sparge water, so the 70/30 will get back to 50/50, more sparge water used than calculated in other words. This will make you have to boil it back down in the kettle though, so you're looking at several hours of boil time. But, if you do this, you'll get pretty close to your targeted efficiency without have to scale the efficiency back.

Look at the proportions of the water use at a lower OG beer, and try to target that proportion in the higher grav beer. Take it from there for the next brew after that

 

[doug293cz]

I can toss out my experiences about how this efficiency thing works when doing bigger grists.

Efficiency with a bigger beer will drop, if you do it "the normal way", just scale the brew up, without scaling down efficiency.

So #1 is that you have to account for the efficiency drop.

#2: I read in the opening post that the second time you used less water do get a higher density. This will also make your efficiency take a nosedive, as efficiency is a function of both the SG and the wort you're available to extract. More malt will bind more liquid to the malt. And, it's easier to extract more sugars with more water in the mash. A thinner mash.

You can try this to remedy the issue:

If you look at a brew you've done, lets say a light beer which has 50/50 mash/sparge water. If you'd scale that up, you'd be more like 70/30-ish mash/sparge water due to the higher grav beer requires more grains, if you're going for the same mash thickness.
What you can do is use more sparge water, so the 70/30 will get back to 50/50, more sparge water used than calculated in other words. This will make you have to boil it back down in the kettle though, so you're looking at several hours of boil time. But, if you do this, you'll get pretty close to your targeted efficiency without have to scale the efficiency back.

Look at the proportions of the water use at a lower OG beer, and try to target that proportion in the higher grav beer. Take it from there for the next brew after that

Correct. It turns out that the lauter efficiency for a fixed lauter process (no-sparge, single batch sparge, double batch sparge, etc.) with constant strike water to sparge water ratio, and consistent grain absorption rate, depends only on the grain weight to pre-boil volume ratio. For example if you do a no-sparge process, a grain bill of 10 lb with a 6.5 gal pre-boil volume will have the same lauter efficiency as a 15 lb grain bill with a 9.25 gal pre-boil volume, which will be the same as a 20 lb with 13 gal. If the grain bill goes up without increasing the pre-boil volume proportionately, the lauter efficiency goes down. Since mash efficiency = conversion efficiency * lauter efficiency, it will also go down, as will brewhouse efficiency which = mash efficiency * fermenter volume / post-boil volume.

Edit: Here's a chart that shows how lauter efficiency varies with the grain bill weight to pre-boil volume ratio for several different sparge processes and two different grain absorption rates (0.12 gal/lb is a typical MLT value, and 0.06 gal/lb represent aggressive squeezing.)



Brew on

 

[Gytaryst]

... Look at the proportions of the water use at a lower OG beer, and try to target that proportion in the higher grav beer. Take it from there for the next brew after that

Correct. It turns out that the lauter efficiency for a fixed lauter process (no-sparge, single batch sparge, double batch sparge, etc.) with constant strike water to sparge water ratio, and consistent grain absorption rate, depends only on the grain weight to pre-boil volume ratio...

It's funny how easily one can get trapped into a certain mindset and develop habits based on that.

A while back I read something (I believe on this forum) that a lower boil-off rate is better than a higher boil-off rate. To be honest it was quite awhile ago and I don't remember anything about the whys and wherefores - all I took away from it was that a lower boil-off rate is preferable; that's what stuck in my head.

I was just reading the thread "Don't Brew Like George Washington" and noting that 2 and 3 hour boils seemed to be common back in the 18th century. Then I switched over and read these responses on this thread and it got me thinking in a whole new direction. Until now I just automatically set every boil at 60 minutes unless I was brewing something with a lot of pilsen malt, then I bumped it up to 90 min. And that was pretty much my only consideration when it came to boil time. After reading this stuff this morning it was like an epiphany - like I've been operating with blinders on.

I'm excited to start experimenting with more pre-boil volume and longer boils. It feels like getting a new tool. :rockin:

 

[h22lude]

refractometer and pH meter were also calibrated the last time I brewed.

Both of these should be checked each brew day. Every brew day my refractometer needs to be calibrated a little. It is usually a few points off. If your pH meter is on the cheap side, it could wander a lot between brew days. You may think you are at 5.5 pH but it could be 5.8 or higher. A high or low pH could affected your efficiency. Probably not the entire issue but it could be part of it.

 

[Gytaryst]

Both of these should be checked each brew day. Every brew day my refractometer needs to be calibrated a little. It is usually a few points off. If your pH meter is on the cheap side, it could wander a lot between brew days. You may think you are at 5.5 pH but it could be 5.8 or higher. A high or low pH could affected your efficiency. Probably not the entire issue but it could be part of it.

Interesting.

To be perfectly honest I was a lot more meticulous with my measuring and testing and note taking when I first started. I've gotten kind of lazy on all that. I kind of take the "close enough for who it's for" approach now. I use the refractometer more than I use the pH meter. I've always just rinsed it off in distilled water and checked to see that it reads zero . . . and so far it always has. I've never actually adjusted anything on it. I adjusted the digital pH meter when I got it but usually I just let it sit in distilled water for 10 minutes or so and check to see if it's close to 7.0. More often than not I use the strips.

I'm sure there are ways to get a lot more accurate and precise readings, but again I'm more of a ballpark home brewer. If my efficiency was within an acceptable range I probably wouldn't have even posted this thread. But without scrolling back thru if I remember right my efficiency was like 43% on this batch.

With all the responses I've received I think I have a fairly decent "ballpark" idea of where I went wrong. I'll make a few adjustments and keep plugging away. Like anything, if I see improvement it'll inspire me to keep trying. If I don't see any improvement eventually I'll give up and move on to something else.

I am extremely appreciative of all the advice and help I receive on this forum. It's been an invaluable part of the whole home brewing experience.

 

[h22lude]

Interesting.

To be perfectly honest I was a lot more meticulous with my measuring and testing and note taking when I first started. I've gotten kind of lazy on all that. I kind of take the "close enough for who it's for" approach now. I use the refractometer more than I use the pH meter. I've always just rinsed it off in distilled water and checked to see that it reads zero . . . and so far it always has. I've never actually adjusted anything on it. I adjusted the digital pH meter when I got it but usually I just let it sit in distilled water for 10 minutes or so and check to see if it's close to 7.0. More often than not I use the strips.

I'm sure there are ways to get a lot more accurate and precise readings, but again I'm more of a ballpark home brewer. If my efficiency was within an acceptable range I probably wouldn't have even posted this thread. But without scrolling back thru if I remember right my efficiency was like 43% on this batch.

With all the responses I've received I think I have a fairly decent "ballpark" idea of where I went wrong. I'll make a few adjustments and keep plugging away. Like anything, if I see improvement it'll inspire me to keep trying. If I don't see any improvement eventually I'll give up and move on to something else.

I am extremely appreciative of all the advice and help I receive on this forum. It's been an invaluable part of the whole home brewing experience.

Nothing wrong with being a little lazy. In the end, you have to like brewing and how you do it.

Just a word of advice, being lazy with calibration can give you a false sense of security. If you think your pH meter is calibrated and take a reading and it reads around where you want, you may skip over it and go to the next step. However that reading could have been way off and you would never know. If you are going to use a pH meter I would calibrate it every brew day just to make sure. If something went wrong and your mash pH was 6.0, this could be the sole reason for your bad efficiency.

 

[Roadie]

Lots of advise here. I use BS as well but have to adjust my efficiency down when brewing high OG worts. I have an 1.130 wort fermenting now and probably got 50% efficiency vs a 1.060 beer at 72% vs a < 1.050 beer at 75-80%. I believe commercial breweries boil high gravity wort for hours so do some of the stuff recommended in the thread but err on the side of a little too much volume to the BK and experiment extending your boil times.

 

[Smellyglove]

It's funny how easily one can get trapped into a certain mindset and develop habits based on that.

A while back I read something (I believe on this forum) that a lower boil-off rate is better than a higher boil-off rate. To be honest it was quite awhile ago and I don't remember anything about the whys and wherefores - all I took away from it was that a lower boil-off rate is preferable; that's what stuck in my head.

I was just reading the thread "Don't Brew Like George Washington" and noting that 2 and 3 hour boils seemed to be common back in the 18th century. Then I switched over and read these responses on this thread and it got me thinking in a whole new direction. Until now I just automatically set every boil at 60 minutes unless I was brewing something with a lot of pilsen malt, then I bumped it up to 90 min. And that was pretty much my only consideration when it came to boil time. After reading this stuff this morning it was like an epiphany - like I've been operating with blinders on.

I'm excited to start experimenting with more pre-boil volume and longer boils. It feels like getting a new tool. :rockin:

Different kinds of beers often calls for differend kinds of techniques

But, the boiloff rate would me more or less constant, even though the total boiloff will be much greater when doing what I wrote earlier.

 

[Gytaryst]

Nothing wrong with being a little lazy. In the end, you have to like brewing and how you do it.

Yes. When I first started out my methods were extremely simple and primitive due to the lack of everything, and the beer was okay. As my interest obsession has grown I've bought a lot more gadgets, (like pH meters and refractometers), to help zero in on... well... whatever the specific gadget is intended to zero in on, and the beer is "okay."

This hobby has been a blast and one of the most interesting and fascinating things I've done. I have learned so much about beer, the history, how it's made, and I have gained a new appreciation for beer that I don't know would have been possible had I not gotten into brewing.

My thinking now is that my pH has always been fairly close, (within a tenth or two at most) of what the BF calculator, or the Bru N Water spreadsheet have estimated it to be. If Bru N Water says my mash pH should be 5.4 based on the data I've entered, and I end up with a reading of 5.4, or 5.3, or 5.5 - I gamble that it's probably close. Is it possible that a calculator estimated the pH should be 5.4 and I took a reading with a meter that was way out of calibration and read 5.4 when the water was actually 6.9? Yeah, I suppose it is "possible." I know I could be a lot more diligent and take steps to know with a greater degree of certainty what my readings are... but...

Maybe lazy isn't the right word. It's not that I don't like brewing anymore - I do. I guess I'm just not as fanatical, or serious, or intense, or . . .
hell, maybe lazy is the right word.

 

[eric19312]

Today I brewed an imperial stout. I normally brew 5.5 to 6 gallon batches, but I cut this one back to 3 gallons - thinking that should improve my numbers even more. BeerSmith estimated OG was 1.104. I hit all my numbers, pH, volumes, temps... everything dead on. Pre-boil gravity was supposed to be 1.077, I had 1.060. So I did a more rigorous boil than normal. Post boil OG was 1.073 . . . 43% efficiency.

How are you measuring volumes in your boil keggle?

I like that you got a preboil gravity and am assuming you are also measuring pre boil volume. While you are figuring out all that stuff about why your mash efficiency is so low (ph, crush, sparge technique, mash out, stirring frequency and whether it is clockwise or counter-clockwise, ) you could at least salvage the in-process brewday by making an adjustment once you see those numbers.

If my preboil gravity at target preboil volume is lower than expected I sparge more and collect more wort. It will be thinner wort and will actually tend to reduce my preboil gravity but mash efficiency increases with every bit of sugar pulled out of the mash tun. Then I compensate for the low gravity by boiling longer/harder. But I always hit target OG because I calculate my target post boil volume from my known preboil gravity/volume and then boil to my volume target. To deal with hop additions I start my hop timer when I estimate based on boil off rate that I have about 60 minutes to go. Normally this will be once I have boiled back to the original target pre boil volume.

Instead of sparging more and longer boil you could even easier add DME. According to Brewsmith 1.93 pounds DME would of taken your 5 gallons of 1.060 wort to 1.077. I don't much care for messing with DME but if you normally have it on hand for starters etc this could also help.

The key is when you see the lower than expected mash efficiency you have opportunity to make a correction right then to assure the current brew comes out the way you wanted. Tomorrow you can analyze what went wrong with your mash.

 

[h22lude]

Yes. When I first started out my methods were extremely simple and primitive due to the lack of everything, and the beer was okay. As my interest obsession has grown I've bought a lot more gadgets, (like pH meters and refractometers), to help zero in on... well... whatever the specific gadget is intended to zero in on, and the beer is "okay."

This hobby has been a blast and one of the most interesting and fascinating things I've done. I have learned so much about beer, the history, how it's made, and I have gained a new appreciation for beer that I don't know would have been possible had I not gotten into brewing.

My thinking now is that my pH has always been fairly close, (within a tenth or two at most) of what the BF calculator, or the Bru N Water spreadsheet have estimated it to be. If Bru N Water says my mash pH should be 5.4 based on the data I've entered, and I end up with a reading of 5.4, or 5.3, or 5.5 - I gamble that it's probably close. Is it possible that a calculator estimated the pH should be 5.4 and I took a reading with a meter that was way out of calibration and read 5.4 when the water was actually 6.9? Yeah, I suppose it is "possible." I know I could be a lot more diligent and take steps to know with a greater degree of certainty what my readings are... but...

Maybe lazy isn't the right word. It's not that I don't like brewing anymore - I do. I guess I'm just not as fanatical, or serious, or intense, or . . .
hell, maybe lazy is the right word.

Oh yeah I hear ya. I may like researching beer and new gadgets just as much as actual brewing. I never really started slow in this hobby. I started with a stove top extract batch right into AG and kegging and it kept going from there.

I think using Bru'n Water is good. It does usually get you close enough to be ok. Only problem is if you use your tap water. The minerals can fluctuate a lot which will change your mash pH without you knowing. Of course that doesn't matter if you use RO water.

 

[smarch0]

I have been having similar issues. Not sure when it started to be honest as I only brew every couple of months (but have been at it long enough). I brewed an imperial stout last weekend expecting an OG of ~1.090, so imagine my surprise when my pre boil was 1.060! Not to imperial.

I have gone back after the fact and found that the BSII style FG seems to be misreporting. Below BSII says my OG should be 1.090 based on the grain bill. I never really looked at the estimated pre-boil gravity field before looking into this issue, but note it says 1.060 (what I actually achieved on brew day). My boil off rate is set to 8L/h (~2 gallons) so fairly low. Now how does BSII expect it to raise 1.030 points of gravity with an hour boil?!?

I decided to check further and downloaded a free brew software called brew target. I entered everything exactly the same as my equipment profile in BSII but got an expected OG of 1.060 for the same grain bill! At least it is reporting much closer to what I am experiencing.

Next brew day I will be using both software's to see if I can't sort things out and lock in my target.

 

[Gytaryst]

How are you measuring volumes in your boil keggle?

One of the best tools I've purchased so far:

There are most likely better products and better methods. I bought this on a whim not sure if I'd find a use for it or not and it has proven to be indispensable. I can't imagine brewing without it, in fact I'm thinking about getting another one.

Not all the marks are accurate but the 1 gallon mark is dead on and the half gallon mark is only off by maybe an ounce or two. For what I use it for as long as I'm within a half gallon that's close enough for me. I also have a sight glass level indicator on my HLT which is accurate to within a half gallon as well. (My wife has an 8 cup measuring pitcher I use to calibrate volumes on every new piece of equipment I get. I can't be sure that pitcher is accurate to scientific standards, but I figure as long as I'm using the same pitcher to measure and calibrate everything - who cares?

I use the sight glass to measure strike water/sparge water volumes and I use the 1 gallon pitcher to measure my pre-boil volume. When I was trying to fly sparge I had a smaller pitcher I used to vorlauf and to swap out so I didn't have to keep starting and stopping and re-adjusting the flow rate. In retrospect, three attempts at fly sparging was two attempts too many for me, as it turns out. So that's a non-issue now.

I decided against a sight glass on the BK for a number of reasons. I have marks at 1/2 gallon increments on all of my fermentation vessels.

 

[eric19312]

I have been having similar issues. Not sure when it started to be honest as I only brew every couple of months (but have been at it long enough). I brewed an imperial stout last weekend expecting an OG of ~1.090, so imagine my surprise when my pre boil was 1.060! Not to imperial.

I have gone back after the fact and found that the BSII style FG seems to be misreporting. Below BSII says my OG should be 1.090 based on the grain bill. I never really looked at the estimated pre-boil gravity field before looking into this issue, but note it says 1.060 (what I actually achieved on brew day). My boil off rate is set to 8L/h (~2 gallons) so fairly low. Now how does BSII expect it to raise 1.030 points of gravity with an hour boil?!?

2 gallons per hour is a pretty high boil off rate

Your recipe called for collecting 65 Liters but you stopped at 62. The next 3 liters would have brought more sugar to the kettle but your pre boil gravity would be even lower.

 

[Kee]

Not all the marks are accurate but the 1 gallon mark is dead on and the half gallon mark is only off by maybe an ounce or two.

I used some pre-marked containers for a while before realizing that they were way off.

 

[smarch0]

2 gallons per hour is a pretty high boil off rate

Your recipe called for collecting 65 Liters but you stopped at 62. The next 3 liters would have brought more sugar to the kettle but your pre boil gravity would be even lower.

Don't mind the measured fields, I did not enter those, except the OG. I did get to 1.085 by doing a 2.5 hour boil :S I did collect the full 65L

In addition my end of running gravity was about 1.030, so it would have only lowered the overall pre-boil gravity. 1.030 + 1.060 wort != >1.060 wort.

I have a 240V 5500W heat stick so my boil is quite strong, plus a 20 gallon pot with quite a bit of surface area. 8L/h is actually conservative!

 

[eric19312]

I decided against a sight glass on the BK for a number of reasons. I have marks at 1/2 gallon increments on all of my fermentation vessels.

I love the sight glass on my BK. I use it to steer the boil cranking heat up or down in order to arrive at desired volume. Obviously you have reasons for not including it but I suggest reconsidering.

 

[eric19312]

Don't mind the measured fields, I did not enter those, except the OG. I did get to 1.085 by doing a 2.5 hour boil :S I did collect the full 65L

In addition my end of running gravity was about 1.030, so it would have only lowered the overall pre-boil gravity. 1.030 + 1.060 wort != >1.060 wort.

I have a 240V 5500W heat stick so my boil is quite strong, plus a 20 gallon pot with quite a bit of surface area. 8L/h is actually conservative!

If you really started with 65 liters of 1.060 wort and boiled it down to 42 liters and didn't burn your sugars to that monster element or boil them all over your stand then your resulting gravity should of been 1.093. To get to 1.085 one or more of your measurements must be off. It's not the software.

Just because you can boil off 2 gallons per hour doesn't mean you should. Can't you dial that heat stick down?

 

[Gytaryst]

I have been having similar issues. Not sure when it started to be honest as I only brew every couple of months (but have been at it long enough). I brewed an imperial stout last weekend expecting an OG of ~1.090, so imagine my surprise when my pre boil was 1.060! Not to imperial.

I have gone back after the fact and found that the BSII style FG seems to be misreporting...

I have the utmost respect for those who design these programs and calculators. Trying to determine how one unique ingredient might react with an infinite combination of other complex ingredients in an infinite number of situations seems impossible. That any of these calculators can even get us in the general ballpark is nothing short of miraculous. Add to that the fact that each software program is limited by the knowledge and the ability of the person designing it, and is further limited by the knowledge and ability of the user inputting the data, (correctly or otherwise) . . .

I use a number of different programs, for no particular reason. I like BSII for listing the general ingredients, but that's pretty much all I use it for. I do like the mash calculator although I don't think I've ever hit the numbers it comes up with. I'm sure the problem is on my end and I just haven't taken the time to sit down and actually go through it all step by step to see where my input is off.

For calculating yeast starters I like the Brewers Friend calculator, and also for figuring the abv when I get my FG reading.

For my water profiles I use the Bru N' Water spreadsheet. I've been using it since I started brewing and the numbers they come up with are usually very close if not identical to what I get in actuality. I've never been dissatisfied with it in my years using it.

I might like BSII better if I actually took the time to sit down and go thru all the tutorials and learn everything it can do. I just haven't had that ambition yet. For me it's really just a glorified list. I add everything I want to use for my beer and take a quick glance to see where the numbers are, (i.e. IBU's, OG, FG, color, abv). I look to see what it says all my numbers should be on brew day, and I print it out to use both as a shopping list and to make notes on brew day.

I will add that I don't think I have ever hit any of the numbers BSII says I should hit dead on. Sometimes I'm closer than other times, but I've never been close enough to where I have complete trust in them.

 

[smarch0]

If you really started with 65 liters of 1.060 wort and boiled it down to 42 liters and didn't burn your sugars to that monster element or boil them all over your stand then your resulting gravity should of been 1.093. To get to 1.085 one or more of your measurements must be off. It's not the software.

Just because you can boil off 2 gallons per hour doesn't mean you should. Can't you dial that heat stick down?

Yes I have manual control on my heatstick and did reduce power over the boil.

My numbers may not be to the liter(quart) exact, but I just wanted to point out the fairly major dependency between estimated OG and estimated pre-boil in the software. Checking my last few brew logs, the estimated pre-boil seems to be the more accurate one for me.

 

[eric19312]

Yes I have manual control on my heatstick and did reduce power over the boil.

My numbers may not be to the liter(quart) exact, but I just wanted to point out the fairly major dependency between estimated OG and estimated pre-boil in the software. Checking my last few brew logs, the estimated pre-boil seems to be the more accurate one for me.

Once your actual preboil gravity and preboil volume are fixed (actual measured not estimated) then your OG is entirely dependent on your post boil volume. Your grain bill is no longer relevant. It is sugar and water in the kettle, as you boil off water the sugar concentration goes up. I am not sure I am understanding your issue. Trying but maybe I am missing something.