Search results

I agree. It’s much of what I try to help with also. Troubleshooting pH and efficiency are my side hobbies.

Just a bit of a nitpick but the Source pH is a factor in the mEq contribution of the alkalinity of the source water, of which bicarbonate content is a proxy value. Since the QAlkalinity (mEq) is pH dependent, it’s a factor in the charge balance/equilibrium of the mash and should be considered...

True. I misspoke there. More to the point: I can’t bring myself to finely grind my grist, especially because of my constant recirculating preference. Not to mention other mash related factors. So, 100% “whatever you want to call it” efficiency is not in the cards for me.

Right. It’s really extract quality that matters, not quantity.

I guess maybe that’s my hang up. I could never achieve 100% because I would never finely grind my malt or squeeze extract from my mash tun liner. (EDIT: see Vikeman’s response below to explain strikethroughs) In this case it seems it’s just methods outside my SOP, i.e. I’d rather stick with...

This could quickly devolve into a semantic battle but let’s just say I’m not sure I agree that your definition (and BF and BS) of Conversion Efficiency can equal 1 in any practical sense. It would imply that dividing maximum potential gravity by actual gravity equals 1, or conversely that...

I don't believe 100% Conversion/Extraction Efficiency is possible. You can Convert 100% of the available starches to sugars but you can't Extract 100% of the possible sugars from the grain. That's why I feel "Conversion Efficiency" is a confusing term. Should be "First Wort Efficiency". You'd...

Mine as well. One thing i love about Excel is the Solver. one of the things I've incorporated that make is essential as a troubleshooter tool: The "Conversion\Extraction" Efficiency Solver Macro: This button allows you to set the ratio of Actual versus First Wort Extract by changing the...

@doug293cz We seem to utilize the same calcs from Kai for extract. I was curious and tested your sheet against my own and it was a dead ringer.

Recirculation is also a very useful helper in achieving higher extraction, faster and more stable conversion, etc.

In the case of homebrew sized fermenters, it's really a "CYA" statement, i.e. why have the extra space if you don't need it. This is especially true when fermentation ceases activity and you don't want to have a larger amount of O2 in the headspace than is avoidable. In a commercial brewery...

While not a lager brewer myself, I am always amazed at what variety the bigger German breweries can get out of such a similar (and small) ingredient pool. Goes to show you how simplicity is king with lagers and the Trappist ales I love so much.

Just to offer another perspective: All I brew is Trappist inspired ales. I never carbonate to greater than 2.7 volumes. I think the lower carbonation helps to "soften" some of the yeast derived flavors in the younger beer and makes for a better drinking experience. In my opinion, one of the...

I didn't make the point I wanted to. What I should have said is that protein content, etc. arrives out of the FGDB measurement, not the other way around.

I don’t think you have a basis for this though. It’s a WAG even in the best case, and does not have enough basis to be considered a SWAG.

Right. Fine Grind Dry Basis IS the 100% maximum potential yield for malt, it's just on a Sugar basis. Think per unit calculations in electrical engineering.

This is sort of "baked-in" to the beer mathematics. You have to compare possible/theoretical sugars to something, and I have always used 46.21 as the basis. We know right off the bat that we need to adjust for moisture and extraction/conversion efficiency. We know that extraction/conversion...

We are WAY off-topic but Extract is one of my favorite brewing topics so I am going to plow ahead anyway! As long as you don't mind Larry. What maltsters typically list is their FGDB (Fine-Grind Dry-Basis) extract value. That value cannot be considered remotely realistic until moisture is...

I agree with this and this is how I define Extraction Efficiency. The reason I like "Extraction" vs. "Conversion", is that Conversion itself is a separate process. I don't think this is merely a semantic argument either. You can technically have 100% Conversion (of the available starches) and...

I never nitpick unless I feel it is important. I think "Extraction Efficiency" is a better term than "Conversion Efficiency". I have used the two interchangeably for a LONG time and I feel it causes less confusion between the actual process of conversion.