Bigscience
Well-Known Member
Just curious, how do the people who claim >90% measure their volumes into their fermenters? Kettle volumes?
93% efficiency?
- Thread starter insanim8er
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
OP
OP
insanim8er
Well-Known Member
I have a blichmann boilermaker with a sight gauge
Bigscience
Well-Known Member
insanim8er said:
What increments is it calibrated to? What about your fermenter?
OP
OP
insanim8er
Well-Known Member
It's a 20 gallon pot and the lines area set at half gallon marks. As for my fermenter, I ferment in 1/4 slim kegs. I weigh the liquid with a scale. 8lb = a gallon.
Bigscience
Well-Known Member
insanim8er said:
So if I'm understanding you right, you put you wort into your keg fermenter and then weigh it to see what your volume is? Total weight minus empty keg weight divided by 8 is your batch yield?
GotPushrods
Well-Known Member
I'd be careful with using weight to get volumes unless you're using a few more significant digits. The errors might be larger than you think.
Chilled to 65*F, a US gallon has a density of 0.9985 g/mL and weighs 8.333 pounds.
That's a 4.2% error IF you were measuring water.
The average wort has a density of 1.050 g/mL and would weigh 8.750 pounds, and have a whopping error of 9.4%.
Assume you weighed the liquid to find 40.0 pounds. You would think you had 5.0 gallons. However you need to divide 40.0 by 8.75, giving you an actual volume of 4.6 gallons.
Your efficiency would be slightly lower than calculated, since you though you had collected 250 points of sugar (50 * 5 gallons) whereas you only collected 230 points (50 * 4.6 gallons).
OP
OP
insanim8er
Well-Known Member
I only weigh to make sure I'm at about 5.5 gallons in my 1/4 keg fermenter.
8-8.25lb is close enough to assure I won't get blow off through my spunding valve. When I measuring my efficiency, it's out or the mash. So it's not critical I'm getting an exact measurement down to the oz.
8-8.25lb is close enough to assure I won't get blow off through my spunding valve. When I measuring my efficiency, it's out or the mash. So it's not critical I'm getting an exact measurement down to the oz.
13ONK
Active Member
I think you hit the nail on the head. Usually first runnings are used to measure the conversion effiancy. Conversion should always be above 90% or your brewhouse efficancy will suffer greatly.
Brewer's friend has a great write up of the different types of efficancy, I posted a quick link to there graphic below. The question is, what efficancy is OP talking about?
http://cdn.brewersfriend.com/understanding_efficiency_large.png
Without knowing when he took his measurments, it's hard to say what he's talking about. He mentioned 11 gallons at 1.077 (After watering it down). Assuming this is what ended up in the fermentor with his fermentables, that calculates to over 100% brewhouse efficancy.
There is an entire write up of how there calulator measures efficancy here for anyone interested.
http://www.brewersfriend.com/faq/#brewsessions5
OP
OP
insanim8er
Well-Known Member
I don't know why there is confusion. All the info is on the op.
It's the efficiency out for the mash pre boil. It was measured after first and second runnings were combined into the boil kettle.
I took 11.5 gallons combined at 1.064 - this is the information I plugged into the calculator for the post mash/pre boil efficiency.
I boiled it and the numbers were too high, so I diluted it down some and finished the boil with 11 gallons @ 1.077 before I added my lactose.
The 11 gallons was what went into the fermenter. And it's happily fermenting a way.
emprbasist
Well-Known Member
The confusion is based on everyone using the term "efficiency" to describe what is normal and what isn't, and some of them are referring to different types of efficiency. The OP is slightly confusing because, while I read it as pre-boil efficiency due to the numbers given, the calculator states it is "brew house" efficiency, which I think actually refers to the final product into the fermenter.
OP
OP
insanim8er
Well-Known Member
I see... I copied and pasted the results from the calculator page, but their instructions indicated that the calculations are for efficiency from the mash tun. It shows how well the sugar was converted over from the mash pre boil.
In addition, I took a small sample from each fermenter to see how it's progressing. One fermenter is down a lot more points than the other. I can also see more pressure built up on it. I think that one got better oxygen or something, but both are down a bit from the OG. So it's fermenting away fine.
So It's going well... The sample tastes great. It's obviously still overly sweet, but I'm not worried at all about tannins. So far It's tasting like an awesome milk stout is near!
13ONK
Active Member
That is considered conversion efficiancy. It should be as close to 100% as possible.
93% is perfectly normal. I read somewhere that it should always be above 90% but can't find it listed now, but it makes sense. It's how much available sugar you where able to convert from the grains in the mash tun.
My sources (brewers friend again, I love that site) states that Lauter efficiancy should be below 90% or you risk extracting tannins. At 93% conversion you're fine.
http://www.brewersfriend.com/2012/11/30/making-sense-of-efficiency-definitions/
93% is perfectly normal. I read somewhere that it should always be above 90% but can't find it listed now, but it makes sense. It's how much available sugar you where able to convert from the grains in the mash tun.
My sources (brewers friend again, I love that site) states that Lauter efficiancy should be below 90% or you risk extracting tannins. At 93% conversion you're fine.
http://www.brewersfriend.com/2012/11/30/making-sense-of-efficiency-definitions/
Huh, something doesn't add up. Your dilution, with water I'm assuming, means that you, in effect, boiled a 1.064 wort down to 11 gallons from 11.5. Your reading after the dilution should have been 64 * 11.5 = x * 11, so x ~= 1.067. Adding a pound of lactose wouldn't get you to 1.077 either. EDIT: Perhaps 1.077 is a typo?
OP
OP
insanim8er
Well-Known Member
Idk ... But my FG was 1.077 before the addition of lactose. I didn't add water. I added left over wort from my second runnings. I don't remember how much I actually added. I didn't really measure it out.
I don't remember the exact number, but I think I was at something like 1.09X before I added the wort to dilute it down.
How do you estimate what the gravity should be after say a gallon of boil off? Is there a way?
64points * 11.5gallons = Xpoints * 10.5gallons .. x = 64*11.5/10.5 = 70.09 (~1.070) ... You would have had to have boiled down to 64*11.5/77 = ~9.55 gallons to get to 1.077
OP
OP
insanim8er
Well-Known Member
Hmm... Then I'm not sure because when I took that final reading before I added my lactose, I was at 19 brix. The wort I added was around 1.019. And my kettle showed 11 gallons when the boil was finished. I put that into beer smith on my ipad and it says 1.077
So the entire basis of this thread is a number spit out by beersmith? I think that's where the confusion lies. I don't use that program, but know it's quite complex with lots of potential input/output errors. GIGO one of my teachers used to always say. Garbage in, garbage out. My point? You should be able to manually do all calculations in brewing before blindly trusting a number spit out by your computer. How else could you know if you're using it properly? Lots of brewers throw their efficiency numbers around like they lifted them on a bench press. I couldn't care less; I care what the brew in my glass tastes like. Knowing your mash efficiency can be useful info to help you understand your process better, but getting it from a computer will hardly generate the understanding you need to make better beer. If I want to spend all day wringing every last drop out of my grains I'm sure I could improve my efficiency. I'd rather spend an extra $2, shorten my brew day and focus on variables that will actually make my beer taste better...
OP
OP
insanim8er
Well-Known Member
Well in glad that works for you. I want to know my efficiency especially on this new equipment. Yes I did and do use software to make the conversions easier. I'm a computer science major not a math major.
But were kind of going away from the OP.
I'm originally talking about mash efficency. This 1.077 was post boil. I converted my brix then used homebrewing.com
Yes, I agree that the final product is all that matters. But I care about my efficency, so I can properly adjust my grain and hopefully save some money in the long haul.
It's not that I don't want to know it, I'm just not highly motivated to achieve very high numbers. If you got 93% and I got 73%, who's beer is better? You've got to taste it to find out right? That's all I'm saying.
By the way, your post boil gravity shouldn't be used in the calculation. That would most definitely be inaccurate...
By the way, your post boil gravity shouldn't be used in the calculation. That would most definitely be inaccurate...
OP
OP
insanim8er
Well-Known Member
Ya I agree with you there. I'm not aiming for high efficiency. I just don't want another ~ 40% efficency. I've read a bunch since I posts this and learned a lot. I'd like to be around 80% and consistent.
The consistent is probably more important than the 80%. Whatever it settles out to be, keep in mind it will fluctuate somewhat based on the recipe. If you work in gravity points the boil off/original gravity numbers are simple to figure. It's easy once you've done it a few times. Basically you just subtract 1.0 (the gravity of water) from your gravity reading. Say it's 1.070, you have 70 points per gallon. If you're sparging away and have 6 gallons, that's 420 points. If you stop there and fire up the kettle and boil it down to 5 gallons, what will your OG be? Simple, the points don't change because ONLY water boils off. Divide your 420 points by your new volume of 5 gallons. 420/5=84. Add back your 1.0 for water and you've got 1.084. It's even more convenient the other way. Say you're brewing a 1.060 APA. You want a 5 gallon batch with a one hour boil and boil off 1 gallon per hour. First, how many points do you need? 60x5=300. Next, what gravity will your 6 gallons have to be for 300 points? 300/6=50, or 1.050. With a refractometer, it's easy to take many readings as you go. So, if you get 300 points before your diaries volume is reached, you have a choice to make. You can stop the sparge and top up to desired volume with water, you can make more 1.060 beer, or you can make higher gravity beer. On the other hand, if you get to 6 gallons and have not reached 300 points, your choices are different. You could settle for lower gravity, add DME/LME, or continue to sparge until you get to 300 points. If you continue, you'll simply have to lengthen the boil to account for the extra water.
I think you'll agree that the first scenario (getting desired points early) is easier to deal with. If you want MAXIMUM efficiency all the time, you might be dealing with the second scenario quite often. Saving a few bucks is cool, but saving a few hours is better!
I think you'll agree that the first scenario (getting desired points early) is easier to deal with. If you want MAXIMUM efficiency all the time, you might be dealing with the second scenario quite often. Saving a few bucks is cool, but saving a few hours is better!
ssgross
Well-Known Member
it seems that everyone is assuming the sight glass on the blichmann pot is accurate. while I believe that blichmann didn't lie when they wrote "calibrated to within +- 1 quart", I do not know what temp the liquid was when it was calibrated. if they used water at 70F room temp, and you are measuring 10 gal. at 212F at the beginning of the boil, then you are recording an extra .43 gals because water volume goes up 4.3% between 70F and 212F.
The ProMash documentation include interesting information on the differences in how efficencies are calculated in different settings. In particular, the way breweries calculate efficiency according in a way that high numbers will be rare. for the homebrew calculations, higher numbers are common since they include values for each malt as reported by the malsters, or as entered by you based on practice.
The point is, the numbers are meaningless without context of their calculation. For me, I know my process is sound, regardless of the calculation. I care about the efficiency calculation I use (first by hand, later I used ProMash homebrewer settings) because I care about the consistency of my process from one batch to the next, and repeatability in the beers I consider mastered (according to my own palate). If my numbers are consistent, then I can alter recipes and determine exactly the cause of the new outcomes. By consistency in my process, I learn some very precice information about what changes might effect the final product and how.
Certain homebrewers (none of you all
) annoy me when they tout their mash efficiency number as a "Mine is bigger than yours". For the "high efficiency = tannin off flavor taboo police" people. Your equation/prediction is meaningless since it depends entirely on how you calculate efficiency. I measure Ph all the time and never come close to the Ph and temp where this would happen, and I get "91%". See rant above about the purpose of my calculation. I will close with giving my own "mine is bigger than yours" quote. My efficiency is calculated at 91.4% +- 0.2% for every brew. I never miss a target gravity by more than +- .0009. +-.0005 is the margin of error of my lab grade hydrometer, and the other .0004 I assume comes from the variability of malt quality. On a small scale (10 gal batches) and with careful measurements, you can hope for the same as well. Sorry I am in a 
of a mood. I hope I added perspective on the efficiency debate. Cheers.
The ProMash documentation include interesting information on the differences in how efficencies are calculated in different settings. In particular, the way breweries calculate efficiency according in a way that high numbers will be rare. for the homebrew calculations, higher numbers are common since they include values for each malt as reported by the malsters, or as entered by you based on practice.
The point is, the numbers are meaningless without context of their calculation. For me, I know my process is sound, regardless of the calculation. I care about the efficiency calculation I use (first by hand, later I used ProMash homebrewer settings) because I care about the consistency of my process from one batch to the next, and repeatability in the beers I consider mastered (according to my own palate). If my numbers are consistent, then I can alter recipes and determine exactly the cause of the new outcomes. By consistency in my process, I learn some very precice information about what changes might effect the final product and how.
Certain homebrewers (none of you all
) annoy me when they tout their mash efficiency number as a "Mine is bigger than yours". For the "high efficiency = tannin off flavor taboo police" people. Your equation/prediction is meaningless since it depends entirely on how you calculate efficiency. I measure Ph all the time and never come close to the Ph and temp where this would happen, and I get "91%". See rant above about the purpose of my calculation. I will close with giving my own "mine is bigger than yours" quote. My efficiency is calculated at 91.4% +- 0.2% for every brew. I never miss a target gravity by more than +- .0009. +-.0005 is the margin of error of my lab grade hydrometer, and the other .0004 I assume comes from the variability of malt quality. On a small scale (10 gal batches) and with careful measurements, you can hope for the same as well. Sorry I am in a of a mood. I hope I added perspective on the efficiency debate. Cheers.Similar threads
