93% efficiency?

[c3hutson]

And that's the problem...

Vs random dude on forum that says his beer is fine. Tannins are gross bro.

 

[Trail]

Vs random dude on forum that says his beer is fine. Tannins are gross bro.

Palmer's written a lot of great stuff but he isn't the final word on the topic. Gathering information on what does and does not work is what advances the state of the art.

 

[c3hutson]

Palmer's written a lot of great stuff but he isn't the final word on the topic. Gathering information on what does and does not work is what advances the state of the art.

I agree with that but forum hear-say doesn't hold up as well to me as people that do controlled experiments and have reputations.

 

[passedpawn]

To get very high efficiency ( all the sugars out of the spongy grain bed ), you need to rinse (sparge) well. That probably means you've driven the gravity of the runnings very low, and thus the pH has risen and you risk extracting bitter tannins from the grain husks. I used to do this.

I tend to think that those people claiming high efficiency are not measuring one of the volumes correctly. Maybe they are real, dunno. I used to be very keen on efficiency. At some point I stopped calculating it. It's been 2 or 3 years since I did measure it. Not sure why I cared about it now (can't remember).

Eventually, most brewers settle in the normal 75-80% and concentrate on other parts of brewing to improve the result. That's what I did. Actually, thinking about it now, I probably stopped worrying about efficiency when I went to larger batches. Makes sense I guess.

Over-milling your grain is fine if your lautering system can handle it (i.e., avoid stuck sparges). I think I mill very fine.

John Palmer is great. Sure, he now represents the state of the art. But it's fun to look back to where he got his start, just like a lot of our noobs here. http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/1192.html#1192-6

 

[TrubHead]

It is not that sophisticated - other than it is direct fired by an induction cooker. This is simpler than a RIMS or a HERMS. Basically it is a big pot on a heating device, wrapped in insulation. I turn it off an on manually - no automatic control

Nice. How well does it hold temps?

 

[pjj2ba]

Nice. How well does it hold temps?

It holds temps very well. It has I think maybe 5 layers of aluminized bubble wrap surrounding it.

I used to be very keen on efficiency. At some point I stopped calculating it. It's been 2 or 3 years since I did measure it. Not sure why I cared about it now (can't remember).

I have never been concerned about efficiency. My attitude is, it is what it is. I just changed things around as it went up.

I also mill very fine.

If people just took everything written as the truth and only way to brew, we'd still be brewing in wooden barrels using hot rocks to heat the wort, and using herbs and no hops. It is people who question the status quo and try new things that leads to innovation. Sure lots of new ideas fail, but some don't and that often makes things easier/better for the rest of us. If experimentation is not your thing, that is fine, but if something new comes along, don't automatically assume it doesn't work and pooh pooh it.

 

[rgauthier20420]

I think when people claim >90% they are really thinking 90% of a max extract of 85% (or whatever way they calculate their efficiency).

Look at it this way, you'll leave water stuck in your grains that will have extract in them. Your hops will absorb wort. Your lines will hold some. You will lose a little bit all along the process. You really cant take 90% of the goodness your malt has to give all the way to your fermenter.

I know when I quote an efficiency number, I'm talking about mash efficiency and not brewhouse efficiency. If you boil correctly and hit all your volumes and gravity numbers set by beersmith, you sure can bring that same efficiency to the fermenter.

 

[insanim8er]

John Palmer is great. Sure, he now represents the state of the art. But it's fun to look back to where he got his start, just like a lot of our noobs here. http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/1192.html#1192-6

Interesting read... A lot can change over 20 years. I wonder if he ever found out the beer hunter episodes are on youtube? Lol

 

[Trail]

I know when I quote an efficiency number, I'm talking about mash efficiency and not brewhouse efficiency. If you boil correctly and hit all your volumes and gravity numbers set by beersmith, you sure can bring that same efficiency to the fermenter.

Not if you're leaving the hop sludge and break material behind in the kettle. I always lose about a gallon that way.

 

[helibrewer]

I measure two things; 1) Mash efficiency (conversion) which is very easy to get into the low 90%'s, and 2) Lautering efficiency.

Without knowing each individually you don't know where or how to fix problems in the kettle.

 

[Bigscience]

Just curious, how do the people who claim >90% measure their volumes into their fermenters? Kettle volumes?

 

[insanim8er]

Just curious, how do the people who claim >90% measure their volumes into their fermenters? Kettle volumes?

I have a blichmann boilermaker with a sight gauge

 

[Bigscience]

I have a blichmann boilermaker with a sight gauge

What increments is it calibrated to? What about your fermenter?

 

[insanim8er]

What increments is it calibrated to? What about your fermenter?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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).

 

[insanim8er]

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.

 

[13ONK]

Are we talking total brew house efficiency here or mash efficiency? I get mash efficiencies in the low 90s but my total efficiency (based on post boil gravity and volume) is usually around 78%. Is everyone talking abort the same efficiency calculation? It looked like OP posted pre- boil numbers.

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

 

[insanim8er]

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

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]

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.

 

[insanim8er]

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.

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]

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/

 

[afr0byte]

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.

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?

 

[insanim8er]

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?

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?

 

[afr0byte]

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

 

[insanim8er]

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

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

 

[Demus]

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...

 

[insanim8er]

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...

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.

 

[Demus]

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...

 

[insanim8er]

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...

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.