A basic thing with the efficiency and cloning recipes of large breweries.

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

Kristoffer84

Active Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
28
Reaction score
15
Location
Kiel, Germany
Its a question on brewhourse efficiency. So in Germany we call it Sudhausausbeute. Its calculated completly different than brewhourse efficiency but that doesnt matter for my issue. i posted that thread in another forum too, so i get most answeres and opinions. Would be intressting to see your view on that.

So going with german numbers a proffesionel brewing company goes with 70-75% Sudhausausbeute (SHA). A hobbybrewer will get arround 60-65 with "normal" fly sparge and a BIAB brewer get 50-55% SHA. That said shows for me a big issue when converting a recipe of a big company to homebrew levels. I listened to John Keeling on a podcast when he said: "That beer got 80% base 10% Crystal 10% Amber.. etc.." When he says that, he considers the SHA of his company which is 70%-75%.
So a homebrewer normaly just type in that numbers into an editor and according to HIS OWN efficiency. That is a mistake in my opinion.
Let me explain it.
Lets say you have a Stout recipe. The company which makes it uses at their high efficiency of 70-75% and the recipe lets say (at 20 Liters) is 78% Base, 10% Brown and 5% Black Malt. That would make for example: 3610g Base, 420g Brown and 210g black malt.
Thats how the Recipe looks in the brewery but nobody knows since people only give out the % values... so if i then take my own efficiency lets say i am a BIAB homebrewer and take 50% the recipe would look like that: 5410g basemalt, 640g Brown Malt and 320g black malt. So over 100g of black malt and 100g brown malt more than in the original recipe of the brewery. So a complete different beers since even at very low efficiency the black malt will not care a bit and will pumb 320g of roastiness into your brew. And 100g difference is much... Do you get my point?
The level of brewhouse efficeny is taken to see how much sugar (gravitiy) you get out of a certain amount of malt BUT that calculation system NEVER see the aromes you get form speciality malt. I did some experiment where i did exactly that. i put in an amount of black malt into a cup of water and calculated it up to lower SHA. I didnt include base or other malt. at the end the aromes of the malt tea (as we call that here) was sooooo much harsher and undrinkable when calculated on 50% than on 75%... So since then if i clone a recipe of a big company i allways see it as given that their % numbers are counted on 70-75 SHA so i trick as i would have lets say 70% SHA and put the recipe in. Then i remember the gramm numbers of each special malt (at 70%SHA) and then just reduce the SHA to my known level (50% for example) and put in the speciality malt gramm numbers of the 70% SHA. All the malt i need more for lower efficency i adjust with base malt.

Am i right here with that thinking or what you say guys ?
 

NotSure

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2021
Messages
90
Reaction score
334
Location
Kent, UK
Makes sense to me. In a nutshell, you're making-up for lack of efficiency by increasing the amount of base malts and leaving the specialty malt amounts as if you had the same efficiency as the professional brewery.

I can see this working fine when there's a wide divide between a malt (pilsner vs. black malt/sugar vs. roastiness), but I'd think the method you're using would require some fine tuning for malts that contribute significant sugars and have an appreciable amount of character.
 

eric19312

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
3,792
Reaction score
2,374
Location
Long Island
Malt and adjuncts contribute sugars (some fermentable some less fermentable), flavors and color to beer. Efficiency really only focuses on sugars, and is a tool to predict/target original gravity from a given mash. Extraction of flavor or color might not be terribly impacted by efficiency... a pound of roasted barley contributes same amount of roastiness and color in a high efficiency mash as it does in a low efficiency mash. Or perhaps flavor is partially impacted by efficiency but color is not. Who knows?

I think homebrewers put way too much weight on ingredient lists in recipes and not enough on process when attempting to make a targeted beer profile. A recipe from another brewer be they commercial, or homebrewer, or even a kit sold by a big corporation purporting to be a clone of some great commercial beer, should really only be considered as a starting point. If your goal is to actually clone a beer...say to the point where blinded tasters can't pick odd beer out of a triangle test, you might start with that recipe and over many many batches tweak the recipe and process until you get all the way there. Every aspect of the recipe is subject to tweaking, the ingredients, the mash, the boil, fermentation, carbonation, packaging... At the end you will have a new recipe, and if you send me that recipe as a list of ingredients, mash temperature and fermentation temperature and I run it on my system, I will probably get a different beer. Might be pretty close to your beer, might be pretty close to the beer you cloned, but it is probably going to be different.

Once at our homebrew club about 6 of us with varying levels of brewing experience all brewed the same recipe from Brewing Classic Styles (think it was the American Pale Ale). My brewing partner and I actually brewed both the all grain version and the extract version and fermented side by side. Everyone brought their beers to a club meeting and we had 7 very different beers on the table. Actually the extract and all grain versions I made were to me more similar to each other than they were to half the other beers on the table.
 

bwible

I drink, and I know things
HBT Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
4,299
Location
Oxford, PA
Doesn’t efficiency come into play as the total amount of grain needed? And percentages are still percentages.

If a local brewpub is making 3 barrels of beer and has 80% base malt, 8% crystal, etc those are the percentages of their total grain bill. It doesn’t matter what their efficiency is. They have a recipe with the total amount of grain they need to reach their target gravity for their efficiency. So you just have to figure out how much grain you need total at the volume you are brewing for your efficiency and then what each percentage of that is. In theory they should be very similar beers.
 

bwible

I drink, and I know things
HBT Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
4,299
Location
Oxford, PA
“ So over 100g of black malt and 100g brown malt more than in the original recipe of the brewery”

But you also have 1800g more base malt so its the same percentage
 

RM-MN

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
15,122
Reaction score
6,223
Location
Solway
Doesn’t efficiency come into play as the total amount of grain needed? And percentages are still percentages.

If a local brewpub is making 3 barrels of beer and has 80% base malt, 8% crystal, etc those are the percentages of their total grain bill. It doesn’t matter what their efficiency is. They have a recipe with the total amount of grain they need to reach their target gravity for their efficiency. So you just have to figure out how much grain you need total at the volume you are brewing for your efficiency and then what each percentage of that is. In theory they should be very similar beers.

Efficiency is really the amount of sugars you can convert from starch and extract from the grain as compared with the total possible sugars. I've learned that I need to reduce the amount of base malt to account for my higher efficiency than most recipes are written for but also have to reduce the other malts as I extract more flavor and color too. For instance, a nice red ale becomes a brown ale unless I reduce the roasted barley.
 

bwible

I drink, and I know things
HBT Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
4,299
Location
Oxford, PA
Efficiency is really the amount of sugars you can convert from starch and extract from the grain as compared with the total possible sugars. I've learned that I need to reduce the amount of base malt to account for my higher efficiency than most recipes are written for but also have to reduce the other malts as I extract more flavor and color too. For instance, a nice red ale becomes a brown ale unless I reduce the roasted barley.
And thats where you get into tweaking a recipe. When you have higher efficiency you are using less total grain. So the percentages of the total will all be less. That’s how you start to convert a recipe - with the total amount of grain you need for your system and percentages. That’s why big breweries do percentages - because its universal
 

hotbeer

Opinionated Newb
HBT Supporter
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
1,444
Reaction score
1,030
When the breweries give you the efficiency value in their recipes, I've felt it's more just so you can see where they come up with the gravities and other values. So seeing that number I can quickly see if I am going to need to adjust one way or the other with grain amounts.

I'd not even think that's the efficiency of their actual process. Just something they put out there for us to use.
 

doug293cz

BIABer, Beer Math Nerd, ePanel Designer, Pilot
Staff member
Mod
HBT Supporter
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
13,412
Reaction score
10,283
Location
Renton
Its a question on brewhourse efficiency. So in Germany we call it Sudhausausbeute. Its calculated completly different than brewhourse efficiency but that doesnt matter for my issue. i posted that thread in another forum too, so i get most answeres and opinions. Would be intressting to see your view on that.

So going with german numbers a proffesionel brewing company goes with 70-75% Sudhausausbeute (SHA). A hobbybrewer will get arround 60-65 with "normal" fly sparge and a BIAB brewer get 50-55% SHA. That said shows for me a big issue when converting a recipe of a big company to homebrew levels. I listened to John Keeling on a podcast when he said: "That beer got 80% base 10% Crystal 10% Amber.. etc.." When he says that, he considers the SHA of his company which is 70%-75%.
So a homebrewer normaly just type in that numbers into an editor and according to HIS OWN efficiency. That is a mistake in my opinion.
Let me explain it.
Lets say you have a Stout recipe. The company which makes it uses at their high efficiency of 70-75% and the recipe lets say (at 20 Liters) is 78% Base, 10% Brown and 5% Black Malt. That would make for example: 3610g Base, 420g Brown and 210g black malt.
Thats how the Recipe looks in the brewery but nobody knows since people only give out the % values... so if i then take my own efficiency lets say i am a BIAB homebrewer and take 50% the recipe would look like that: 5410g basemalt, 640g Brown Malt and 320g black malt. So over 100g of black malt and 100g brown malt more than in the original recipe of the brewery. So a complete different beers since even at very low efficiency the black malt will not care a bit and will pumb 320g of roastiness into your brew. And 100g difference is much... Do you get my point?
The level of brewhouse efficeny is taken to see how much sugar (gravitiy) you get out of a certain amount of malt BUT that calculation system NEVER see the aromes you get form speciality malt. I did some experiment where i did exactly that. i put in an amount of black malt into a cup of water and calculated it up to lower SHA. I didnt include base or other malt. at the end the aromes of the malt tea (as we call that here) was sooooo much harsher and undrinkable when calculated on 50% than on 75%... So since then if i clone a recipe of a big company i allways see it as given that their % numbers are counted on 70-75 SHA so i trick as i would have lets say 70% SHA and put the recipe in. Then i remember the gramm numbers of each special malt (at 70%SHA) and then just reduce the SHA to my known level (50% for example) and put in the speciality malt gramm numbers of the 70% SHA. All the malt i need more for lower efficency i adjust with base malt.

Am i right here with that thinking or what you say guys ?
You say that SHA is calculated differently than Brewhouse Efficiency, but then you don't tell us what the mathematical definition is. So, it is useless for comparison. What is the rigorous definition of SHA?

Also, your typical efficiencies, as mentioned previously are way off base. It is not difficult to get over 80% mash efficiency with either batch sparge or no-sparge BIAB.

The definitions of efficiency used by BeerSmith, BrewersFriend, and preferred here on HBT are the following:

Conversion Efficiency: Weight of extract dissolved into solution in the mash / Maximum potential extract in the grain bill. 100% conversion efficiency is possible.​
Lauter Efficiency: Weight of extract collected in BK / Weight of extract dissolved in solution in the mash.​
Mash (or Pre-Boil) Efficiency: Weight of extract collected in BK / Maximum potential extract in the grain bill. Also, Conversion Efficiency * Lauter Efficiency.​
BrewHouse Efficiency: Weight of extract delivered to the Fermenter / Maximum potential extract in the grain bill. Also, Mash Efficiency * Fermenter Volume / Post-Boil Volume.​

Extract is all material dissolved in wort, and is about 90% carbohydrates. The carbohydrates are sugars, dextrins, and soluble starches. The non-carbohydrate material is proteins, lipids, etc.

Some writers elsewhere (usually professional brewers and German brewers) define BrewHouse efficiency as Mash Efficiency as defined above. This can lead to confusion, so it is necessary to understand just what definition a writer is using.

How does SHA compare to the above?

As far as adapting recipes goes, the important thing to consider is conversion efficiency. The rate at which the extract available in different types of grain is solubilized (dissolves and goes into solution - starch is solubilized via a hydrolysis reaction) can be different, so the ratio of extract from each grain vs. weight ratio of each grain in the recipe can vary with time. For example roast and caramel/crystal malts do not require as much hydrolysis in order to solubilize their extractable content. This in not necessarily even a commercial vs. homebrew situation, but can affect different homebrew processes as well. For example fineness of crush will have a huge effect.

The ratio of extract from each of the different grains is not changed during lautering, as you are just draining, and optionally rinsing, what went into solution during the mash.

Brew on :mug:
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Kristoffer84

Kristoffer84

Active Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
28
Reaction score
15
Location
Kiel, Germany
Doesn’t efficiency come into play as the total amount of grain needed? And percentages are still percentages.

If a local brewpub is making 3 barrels of beer and has 80% base malt, 8% crystal, etc those are the percentages of their total grain bill. It doesn’t matter what their efficiency is. They have a recipe with the total amount of grain they need to reach their target gravity for their efficiency. So you just have to figure out how much grain you need total at the volume you are brewing for your efficiency and then what each percentage of that is. In theory they should be very similar beers.
When the breweries give you the efficiency value in their recipes, I've felt it's more just so you can see where they come up with the gravities and other values. So seeing that number I can quickly see if I am going to need to adjust one way or the other with grain amounts.

I'd not even think that's the efficiency of their actual process. Just something they put out there for us to use.
You say that SHA is calculated differently than Brewhouse Efficiency, but then you don't tell use what the mathematical definition is. So, it is useless for comparison. What is the rigorous definition of SHA?

Also, your typical efficiencies, as mentioned previously are way off base. It is not difficult to get over 80% mash efficiency with either batch sparge or no-sparge BIAB.

The definitions of efficiency used by BeerSmith, BrewersFriend, and preferred here on HBT are the following:

Conversion Efficiency: Weight of extract dissolved into solution in the mash / Maximum potential extract in the grain bill. 100% conversion efficiency is possible.​
Lauter Efficiency: Weight of extract collected in BK / Weight of extract dissolved in solution in the mash.​
Mash (or Pre-Boil) Efficiency: Weight of extract collected in BK / Maximum potential extract in the grain bill. Also, Conversion Efficiency * Lauter Efficiency.​
BrewHouse Efficiency: Weight of extract delivered to the Fermenter / Maximum potential extract in the grain bill. Also, Mash Efficiency * Fermenter Volume / Post-Boil Volume.​

Extract is all material dissolved in wort, and is about 90% carbohydrates. The carbohydrates are sugars, dextrins, and soluble starches. The non-carbohydrate material is proteins, lipids, etc.

Some writers elsewhere (usually professional brewers and German brewers) define BrewHouse efficiency as Mash Efficiency is defined above. This can lead to confusion, so it is necessary to understand just what definition a writer is using.

How does SHA compare to the above?

As far as adapting recipes goes, the important thing to consider is conversion efficiency. The rate at which the extract available in different types of grain is solubilized (dissolves and goes into solution - starch is solubilized via a hydrolysis reaction) can be different, so the ratio of extract from each grain vs. weight ratio of each grain in the recipe can vary with time. For example roast and caramel/crystal malts do not require as much hydrolysis in order to solubilize their extractable content. This in not necessarily even a commercial vs. homebrew situation, but can affect different homebrew processes as well. For example fineness of crush will have a huge effect.

The ratio of extract from each of the different grains is not changed during lautering, as you are just draining, and optionally rinsing, what went into solution during the mash.

Brew on :mug:


Okay guys, so we get some missunderstanding here. I made a graphic to explain what i mean. Pls check it out.
I uploaded it on a host so you can read all, since that forum won allow me to make it as large as it is needed. If you cant read all tell me pls.

 

doug293cz

BIABer, Beer Math Nerd, ePanel Designer, Pilot
Staff member
Mod
HBT Supporter
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
13,412
Reaction score
10,283
Location
Renton
Okay guys, so we get some missunderstanding here. I made a graphic to explain what i mean. Pls check it out.
I uploaded it on a host so you can read all, since that forum won allow me to make it as large as it is needed. If you cant read all tell me pls.

That graphic is pretty much illegible, but from what I can tell, it doesn't add anything to your original post.

And, you still haven't explained how your "SHA" efficiency is defined, nor justified your "efficiency" values for "homebrewres" and "BIAB" brewers, since they are lower than many of the values reported by members here.

Also, I don't believe I have misunderstood anything in your original post, I just think you are looking at it in an incomplete, and overly simplistic way. I tried to explain this in my previous post.

Brew on :mug:
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Kristoffer84

Kristoffer84

Active Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
28
Reaction score
15
Location
Kiel, Germany
That graphic is pretty much illegible, but from what I can tell, it doesn't add anything to your original post.

And, you still haven't explained how your "SHA" efficiency is defined, nor justified your "efficiency" values for "homebrewres" and "BIAB" brewers, since they are lower than many of the values reported by members here.

Also, I don't believe I have misunderstood anything in your original post, I just thick you are looking at it in an incomplete, and overly simplistic way. I tried to explain this in my previous post.

Brew on :mug:
Ah there is no official Conversion formula to make your Efficiency to SHA. BUT some guy did a try and it worked out pretty well... take SHA and divide it by 0,8. Then you reach Your Efficiency as you know it. So going to what i write for example for BIAB its lets say 55% you go 55/0,8 = 68 % your Efficiency . As for flysparge you can say SHA of 63% for example its 63/0,8 = 78 your Efficiency . Hope this helps. As for the other Topic i guess its not overall simplified. I talked to some professional brewers and they are same opinion that the Flavlours which go out of the Malt into the Mash are nearly the same at ANY Mash Efficiency, means that Black Malt for example doesnt care if you run on low or high Efficiency when it comes to flavour. Its the Amount (in gram) what makes the taste.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2017
Messages
4,160
Reaction score
3,148
Location
_
If you cant read all tell me pls.
(Windows 10 laptop, 1920x1080, FireFox): When I click on the image, the three "screen shots" in the image are not readable by default. If I "zoom in" on the image, the text on the recipe software images is maybe a 6 point font. It's not readable.

I also suspect that people on tables and mobile devices do not read links or click on images.
 

doug293cz

BIABer, Beer Math Nerd, ePanel Designer, Pilot
Staff member
Mod
HBT Supporter
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
13,412
Reaction score
10,283
Location
Renton
Ah there is no official Conversion formula to make your Efficiency to SHA. BUT some guy did a try and it worked out pretty well... take SHA and divide it by 0,8. Then you reach Your Efficiency as you know it. So going to what i write for example for BIAB its lets say 55% you go 55/0,8 = 68 % your Efficiency . As for flysparge you can say SHA of 63% for example its 63/0,8 = 78 your Efficiency . Hope this helps. As for the other Topic i guess its not overall simplified. I talked to some professional brewers and they are same opinion that the Flavlours which go out of the Malt into the Mash are nearly the same at ANY Mash Efficiency, means that Black Malt for example doesnt care if you run on low or high Efficiency when it comes to flavour. Its the Amount (in gram) what makes the taste.
There has to be an "official", rigorous definition of SHA, otherwise it is just meaningless nonsense. If you can't define how it is calculated from the brew day data, then you can't justify any of the stated values. I'm not asking for a conversion factor.

Brew on :mug:
 
OP
OP
Kristoffer84

Kristoffer84

Active Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
28
Reaction score
15
Location
Kiel, Germany
(Windows 10 laptop, 1920x1080, FireFox): When I click on the image, the three "screen shots" in the image are not readable by default. If I "zoom in" on the image, the text on the recipe software images is maybe a 6 point font. It's not readable.

I also suspect that people on tables and mobile devices do not read links or click on images.
Thats strange if i click on it it goes small. if i click on that small it goes big and perfectly readable.
 
OP
OP
Kristoffer84

Kristoffer84

Active Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
28
Reaction score
15
Location
Kiel, Germany
There has to be an "official", rigorous definition of SHA, otherwise it is just meaningless nonsense. If you can't define how it is calculated from the brew day data, then you can't justify any of the stated values. I'm not asking for a conversion factor.

Brew on :mug:
There is of course as Sudhausausbeute is the one used in all over germany. Here is a link with all you need... but in german i am afraid.
 

doug293cz

BIABer, Beer Math Nerd, ePanel Designer, Pilot
Staff member
Mod
HBT Supporter
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
13,412
Reaction score
10,283
Location
Renton
There is of course as Sudhausausbeute is the one used in all over germany. Here is a link with all you need... but in german i am afraid.
This isn't useful on a forum where the official language is English. Yes there are many participants here who's 1st language isn't English, but if they all wrote in their native language, HBT would be much less useful to a large majority of members.

Brew on :mug:
 
OP
OP
Kristoffer84

Kristoffer84

Active Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
28
Reaction score
15
Location
Kiel, Germany
This isn't useful on a forum where the official language is English. Yes there are many participants here who's 1st language isn't English, but if they all wrote in their native language, HBT would be much less useful to a large majority of members.

Brew on :mug:
The Problem is, i guess that as i stated before there is NO official calculation from SHA into your Eff. SHA is used by all major Brewerys and Homebrewers in germany. I think you also have to calculate after it by law if you are a brewery so the customs can see what you did. Its bad of course i cant find any english explanation. So maybe we find one some time but now its only german, wich i understand actually since its only used by non english speaking Countrys. Also i think you hang up to much on that SHA. My topic wasnt to talk about SHA cause it doesent matter really if its SHA or Eff. or anything else:) its just about flavour in the beer...
 

Miraculix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
6,341
Reaction score
5,017
Location
Bremen
Ah there is no official Conversion formula to make your Efficiency to SHA. BUT some guy did a try and it worked out pretty well... take SHA and divide it by 0,8. Then you reach Your Efficiency as you know it. So going to what i write for example for BIAB its lets say 55% you go 55/0,8 = 68 % your Efficiency . As for flysparge you can say SHA of 63% for example its 63/0,8 = 78 your Efficiency . Hope this helps. As for the other Topic i guess its not overall simplified. I talked to some professional brewers and they are same opinion that the Flavlours which go out of the Malt into the Mash are nearly the same at ANY Mash Efficiency, means that Black Malt for example doesnt care if you run on low or high Efficiency when it comes to flavour. Its the Amount (in gram) what makes the taste.
You are correct with all your assumptions. I brought this up some time ago with another example, the addition of simple sugars given in % off the weight of the total grist. It just doesn't work that way for the same reason as your example with the roasted malt also doesn't work.

The take away is, use these numbers you get from others as a ball park number and adjust according to your own knowledge of your own experience and your own system.

Btw. I also have the feeling that not many people here actually understood what you meant to say.
 

doug293cz

BIABer, Beer Math Nerd, ePanel Designer, Pilot
Staff member
Mod
HBT Supporter
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
13,412
Reaction score
10,283
Location
Renton
The Problem is, i guess that as i stated before there is NO official calculation from SHA into your Eff. SHA is used by all major Brewerys and Homebrewers in germany. I think you also have to calculate after it by law if you are a brewery so the customs can see what you did. Its bad of course i cant find any english explanation. So maybe we find one some time but now its only german, wich i understand actually since its only used by non english speaking Countrys. Also i think you hang up to much on that SHA. My topic wasnt to talk about SHA cause it doesent matter really if its SHA or Eff. or anything else:) its just about flavour in the beer...
Apparently, you can read German, which is a useful skill to have for a brewer, but many of us do not. Is it beyond your capabilities to translate the calculation method into English? If you want to build an audience, you need to go to them, not expect them to come to you.

Brew on :mug:
 

doug293cz

BIABer, Beer Math Nerd, ePanel Designer, Pilot
Staff member
Mod
HBT Supporter
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
13,412
Reaction score
10,283
Location
Renton
With the stated definition of BrewHouse Efficiency accepted, as @doug293cz points out, I wonder why it does not account for wort loss between the fermentor and bright tank.
Yes, this gets to the root of my personal issue with the widespread use of BrewHouse efficiency as defined by BS, BF, etc. IMO the the important efficiencies are Conversion Efficiency, Lauter Efficiency (which combined give you Mash Efficiency), and Packaged Efficiency (how much you got into bottles/kegs.) The first two let you understand your process. The last one tells you how efficiently your "business" is running end-to-end.

Brew on :mug:
 
OP
OP
Kristoffer84

Kristoffer84

Active Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
28
Reaction score
15
Location
Kiel, Germany
Yes, this gets to the root of my personal issue with the widespread use of BrewHouse efficiency as defined by BS, BF, etc. IMO the the important efficiencies are Conversion Efficiency, Lauter Efficiency (which combined give you Mash Efficiency), and Packaged Efficiency (how much you got into bottles/kegs.) The first two let you understand your process. The last one tells you how efficiently your "business" is running end-to-end.

Brew on :mug:
You are Lucky :D I just got that link. Hope it help explain. Brewhouse Yield - BrewReCa! – Müggelland Brauerei
 

ScrewyBrewer

ezRecipe - The Easy Way To Awesome Beer!
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
580
Location
New Jersey
Yes, this gets to the root of my personal issue with the widespread use of BrewHouse efficiency as defined by BS, BF, etc. IMO the the important efficiencies are Conversion Efficiency, Lauter Efficiency (which combined give you Mash Efficiency), and Packaged Efficiency (how much you got into bottles/kegs.) The first two let you understand your process. The last one tells you how efficiently your "business" is running end-to-end.

Brew on :mug:
Packaged Efficiency, I like it. Probably the most important BrewHouse metric of any brewery.
💰
 

Miraculix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
6,341
Reaction score
5,017
Location
Bremen
For his question, the way the efficiency is calculated is completely irrelevant. It might be nice to know, but if you think it matters in this case, you understood the question wrong. It was a tactical mistake to post it this way from him. I was expecting many people to get distracted by this...
 
OP
OP
Kristoffer84

Kristoffer84

Active Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
28
Reaction score
15
Location
Kiel, Germany
For his question, the way the efficiency is calculated is completely irrelevant. It might be nice to know, but if you think it matters in this case, you understood the question wrong. It was a tactical mistake to post it this way from him. I was expecting many people to get distracted by this...
Exactly what i think happened here :)
 

doug293cz

BIABer, Beer Math Nerd, ePanel Designer, Pilot
Staff member
Mod
HBT Supporter
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
13,412
Reaction score
10,283
Location
Renton
Ah there is no official Conversion formula to make your Efficiency to SHA. BUT some guy did a try and it worked out pretty well... take SHA and divide it by 0,8. Then you reach Your Efficiency as you know it. So going to what i write for example for BIAB its lets say 55% you go 55/0,8 = 68 % your Efficiency . As for flysparge you can say SHA of 63% for example its 63/0,8 = 78 your Efficiency . Hope this helps. As for the other Topic i guess its not overall simplified. I talked to some professional brewers and they are same opinion that the Flavlours which go out of the Malt into the Mash are nearly the same at ANY Mash Efficiency, means that Black Malt for example doesnt care if you run on low or high Efficiency when it comes to flavour. Its the Amount (in gram) what makes the taste.
You are Lucky :D I just got that link. Hope it help explain. Brewhouse Yield - BrewReCa! – Müggelland Brauerei
Here is the definition of SHA from the link you provided.
AS = Stw * SG * 0,96 * VA / Sch​
AS: brewhouse yield in %​
Stw: Original gravity in %w (°P)​
SG: Specific Gravity​
0,96: Correction factor​
VA: Wort volume (hot) in liter​
Sch: grain amount in kg​
0.96 * VA is just the correction of wort volume at boiling temp to room temp (100°C to 68°C.) Multiplying by SG just gives you the total weight of the wort assuming water has a density of 1.0 kg/L (but it's actually 0.9982 kg/L @ 68°C.) Stw or °P is just the weight % of extract in the wort, so the numerator in the formula for AS is just the weight of extract in the wort. So the formula is essentially:

SHA = 100 * Weight of Extract in BK / Weight of Grain (the 100 factor just changes a fractional efficiency to percent)
Compare this to the formula I gave for mash efficiency above:

Mash Efficiency = Weight of extract collected in BK / Maximum potential extract in the grain bill.
The above is for a fractional efficiency, and if you multiply by 100, you get percent efficiency.

The formula for "Maximum potential extract in the grain bill" is:


Max Potential Extract = Total Grain Weight * As-Is Extract Potential
Where As-Is Extract Potential is expressed as a fraction of the grain weight (typically about 0.76 or 76% for base grains.) Extract Potential should ideally be figured as the weighted average potential of all the different grains in the grain bill.
So, SHA is analogous to Mash Efficiency, but ignoring the fact that you can only get a fraction of the grain weight as extract. The 0.8 factor for converting SHA to mash efficiency ignores the typical 4% moisture content of the grain, and any accounting for lower potential grains in the grain bill.

Brew on :mug:
 
Last edited:

Pkrd

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Dec 27, 2012
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
3,914
Location
New Zealand
Packaged Efficiency, I like it. Probably the most important BrewHouse metric of any brewery.
💰
I want to know that about as much as I want to know how much electricity my kegerator consumes. Ignorance is bliss.

OP can we approximate colour as a surrogate for flavour and if it looks right it should taste about right too? I don't really have a desire to make an identical clone of any commercial beer, ballpark is fine.
 

VikeMan

It ain't all burritos and strippers, my friend.
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
4,692
Reaction score
4,109
I've always had an issue with the idea that efficiencies apply to gravity but not to flavor/color extraction, and that a system with higher efficiencies should therefore use more specialty malts (proportionally), or IOW use less base malt but the same amount of specialty malts.

Looking at the two efficiencies invloved in getting sugars and flavors/colors from the grains to the boil kettle:

Conversion Efficiency: This is a measurement of what percentage of the starches are converted to sugars and dextrins. In my view, and assuming a grist with adequate diastatic power and proper mash conditions, this is essentially a function of waterborne enzymes reaching solubilized starches. If the enzymes are not able to reach some of the starches (due to a coarse crush for example), why would we think the water (that carries these enzymes) is able to reach and extract all of the specialty malts' flavor and color compounds? On what grounds would we assume a significant difference?

Lauter Efficiency: This is a measurement of what percentage of the wort (which already contains all of the sugars, dextrins, and extracted flavor and color compounds) makes it from the mash tun to the kettle. The transfer (or non transfer) of the wort doesn't affect sugars/dextrins one way and colors/flavors some other way.

FWIW, I have scaled several of my own homebrew recipes (and a few homebrew recipes not my own) for commercial breweries (with a variety of processes and efficiencies) and have always scaled all the grains proportionally, according to the brewery's typically efficiencies for the batch size and total grist weight. I've yet to be surprised by the grain related flavors or color of any of the results.
 

ScrewyBrewer

ezRecipe - The Easy Way To Awesome Beer!
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
580
Location
New Jersey
FWIW, I have scaled several of my own homebrew recipes (and a few homebrew recipes not my own) for commercial breweries (with a variety of processes and efficiencies) and have always scaled all the grains proportionally, according to the brewery's typically efficiencies for the batch size and total grist weight. I've yet to be surprised by the grain related flavors or color of any of the results.
I have had similar results as you mention both when scaling 5-gallon recipes to 10-barrel batches and when scaling 10-barrel recipes to 5-gallon batches, including original gravities, color, and alcohol percentages.
 

z-bob

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
3,828
Reaction score
1,641
Location
Rochester, MN
This isn't useful on a forum where the official language is English. Yes there are many participants here who's 1st language isn't English, but if they all wrote in their native language, HBT would be much less useful to a large majority of members.

Brew on :mug:
It's kinda useful if you use the translate button to convert to English. There are some made-up German nouns (it is fine to do that in German) that don't translate, so you can't tell exactly what they are doing, but there's enough there to understand the methodology.

I don't know what my brewhouse efficiency is, but in the brewersfriend software if I plug in 75% I usually hit my numbers almost exactly (unless something goes terribly wrong.)

The premise that the base grains will need more adjustment than the specialty grains seems valid. But I think the specialty malts (even black malt and roasted barley) might need to be increased a little.
 

VikeMan

It ain't all burritos and strippers, my friend.
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
4,692
Reaction score
4,109
The premise that the base grains will need more adjustment than the specialty grains seems valid.

Does it? What evidence or logic makes it seem valid?
 

Miraculix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
6,341
Reaction score
5,017
Location
Bremen
Does it? What evidence or logic makes it seem valid?
My idea would be that the solubilitie of flavor compounds would probably be more determined by the same factors as a tea would be but the solubility of sugar is based on other factors, enzymes, gelatinisation conversion etc. Different paths to walk, can be related but don't have to be.

You can extract flavour without much conversion taking place. But you cannot really extract sugars without extracting flavour as well.
 

VikeMan

It ain't all burritos and strippers, my friend.
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
4,692
Reaction score
4,109
My idea would be that the solubilitie of flavor compounds would probably be more determined by the same factors as a tea would be but the solubility of sugar is based on other factors, enzymes, gelatinisation conversion etc. Different paths to walk, can be related but don't have to be.

I don't disagree with some of this, but I also see no reason to generally favor one over the other. And my personal experience doesn't lead me there either.

You can extract flavour without much conversion taking place. But you cannot really extract sugars without extracting flavour as well.

This is why, in post #34, I included an assumption of a grist with adequate diastatic power and proper mash conditions. I can certainly steep some flavors without conversion either intentionally or with a botched mash. But with nominal mash conditions, I see no reason to generally favor color/flavor extraction over sugars/dextrins, or vice versa.

I suspect, though I don't have hard data, that with a proper mash, there may be different efficiency curves for conversion efficiency and "color/flavor efficiency," and that they may align (or not) differently depending on times, temperatures, pH, and other factors.

As an example of how the curves may differ depending on various factors, consider mash temp. You might get 100% conversion efficiency at 145F for 60 minutes and also at 155F for 60 minutes. But you might get more color/flavor extraction at the higher temp.

Now consider the same example as above, but with 100% conversion at only 30 minutes. Would there be as much color/flavor extracted as at 60 minutes? Maybe not.

But thought experiments aside, I've seen nothing in subjective results to lead me to believe that, for "typical" mashes, these hypothetical curves are significantly different, or that one would usually be favored over the other. IOW, assuming that the two "efficiencies" move more or less in lockstep has served me well.
 

doug293cz

BIABer, Beer Math Nerd, ePanel Designer, Pilot
Staff member
Mod
HBT Supporter
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
13,412
Reaction score
10,283
Location
Renton
I've always had an issue with the idea that efficiencies apply to gravity but not to flavor/color extraction, and that a system with higher efficiencies should therefore use more specialty malts (proportionally), or IOW use less base malt but the same amount of specialty malts.

Looking at the two efficiencies invloved in getting sugars and flavors/colors from the grains to the boil kettle:

Conversion Efficiency: This is a measurement of what percentage of the starches are converted to sugars and dextrins. In my view, and assuming a grist with adequate diastatic power and proper mash conditions, this is essentially a function of waterborne enzymes reaching solubilized starches. If the enzymes are not able to reach some of the starches (due to a coarse crush for example), why would we think the water (that carries these enzymes) is able to reach and extract all of the specialty malts' flavor and color compounds? On what grounds would we assume a significant difference?

Lauter Efficiency: This is a measurement of what percentage of the wort (which already contains all of the sugars, dextrins, and extracted flavor and color compounds) makes it from the mash tun to the kettle. The transfer (or non transfer) of the wort doesn't affect sugars/dextrins one way and colors/flavors some other way.

FWIW, I have scaled several of my own homebrew recipes (and a few homebrew recipes not my own) for commercial breweries (with a variety of processes and efficiencies) and have always scaled all the grains proportionally, according to the brewery's typically efficiencies for the batch size and total grist weight. I've yet to be surprised by the grain related flavors or color of any of the results.
This is similar to what I was trying to say in my first post in this thread. I agree that lauter efficiency should not affect the recovered ratio of extract to "flavor" compounds that were created or released during the mash.

As far a what goes on in the actual mash, it is plausible that gelatinization rates vary for base grains vs. caramel/crystal grains vs. roast grains. This could cause differential rates for solubilization of carbohydrates vs. "flavor compounds" from the specialty grains. For example the process for making caramel/crystal malts pre-converts starch to soluble carbohydrates, which implies that significant gelatinization had to have taken place during the process. It is known that when starch has been gelatinized and then dried, it can be re-gelatinized much more quickly the second time around (this is what's going on with "Minute Rice.")

I have no idea, or data on, how real the effect postulated above is in the real world, so can't say it does or doesn't play a role.

Brew on :mug:
 
Top