Both cases were no-sparge. Reason for this is that another poster suggested that the difference that Kai saw was due to the different water volumes. So I calculated what the difference just due to water volume would be.
Brew on
Another Efficiency Issue...
- Thread starter dnye
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
Brew on
After seven years of BIAB, I tend to agree. I see lower numbers with gigantic grain bills, but that is just expected for me.
Lower efficiency with larger grain bills, and same/similar pre-boil volume, is just the way lautering works, and is entirely predictable for batch and no-sparge processes. Affects fly sparge as well, but fly sparge is not predictable. A larger grain bill absorbs a larger percentage of the total wort, so it also retains a larger fraction of the total extract.
Brew on
Alright guys got the report from Ward labs. Hopefully someone here can tell me what all these numbers mean:
pH 7.5
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Est, ppm 148
Electrical Conductivity, mmho/cm 0.25
Cations / Anions, me/L 2.6 / 2.3
ppm
Sodium, Na 6
Potassium, K 1
Calcium, Ca 31
Magnesium, Mg 9
Total Hardness, CaCO3 115
Nitrate, NO3-N 0.2 (SAFE)
Sulfate, SO4-S 8
Chloride, Cl 8
Carbonate, CO3 < 1.0
Bicarbonate, HCO3 94
Total Alkalinity, CaCO3 78
Total Phosphorus, P 0.38
Total Iron, Fe < 0.01
"<" - Not Detected / Below Detection Limit
pH 7.5
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Est, ppm 148
Electrical Conductivity, mmho/cm 0.25
Cations / Anions, me/L 2.6 / 2.3
ppm
Sodium, Na 6
Potassium, K 1
Calcium, Ca 31
Magnesium, Mg 9
Total Hardness, CaCO3 115
Nitrate, NO3-N 0.2 (SAFE)
Sulfate, SO4-S 8
Chloride, Cl 8
Carbonate, CO3 < 1.0
Bicarbonate, HCO3 94
Total Alkalinity, CaCO3 78
Total Phosphorus, P 0.38
Total Iron, Fe < 0.01
"<" - Not Detected / Below Detection Limit
McKnuckle
Well-Known Member
Interesting. You have fairly low mineral water that should be good for brewing many styles, but which will benefit from modest SO4 and/or Cl additions, both of which will increase Ca to the typically recommended level >= 50 ppm. The alkalinity is borderline high and needs to be bumped down, especially for a pale beer.
I plugged the grain bill, mash volume, and water profile into Mash Made Easy and it came up with an estimated mash pH of 5.89. That is outside the preferred range of 5.2-5.6, and fixing that is an easy place to start. The spreadsheet suggests 8.28 oz of acid malt, or 6.55mL of lactic acid to drop the pH to 5.4.
To get a little more technical, you mashed at 148 which favors beta amylase, and beta apparently is most effective within a pH range of 5.0-5.6 (some sources limit the high end to a lower figure). Alpha range is 5.3-5.8.
How badly the high pH will affect efficiency is anyone's guess, but it is definitely not "right" from a process standpoint and it's very easy to remedy and test.
I plugged the grain bill, mash volume, and water profile into Mash Made Easy and it came up with an estimated mash pH of 5.89. That is outside the preferred range of 5.2-5.6, and fixing that is an easy place to start. The spreadsheet suggests 8.28 oz of acid malt, or 6.55mL of lactic acid to drop the pH to 5.4.
To get a little more technical, you mashed at 148 which favors beta amylase, and beta apparently is most effective within a pH range of 5.0-5.6 (some sources limit the high end to a lower figure). Alpha range is 5.3-5.8.
How badly the high pH will affect efficiency is anyone's guess, but it is definitely not "right" from a process standpoint and it's very easy to remedy and test.
Last edited:
Alright so have some updated information. And I think some good news.
After getting the water report I have since brewed another batch. I have a friend with bru'n water and was able to help with the water additions. I also went to the homebrew store to get the grain myself. I was able to set the mill myself down to .0020. Here are pictures: https://imgur.com/gallery/Y6YwmnA, I think it looks good this time.
The recipe I chose was a Black IPA as follows:
10# 2 Row
3# Pale Ale
1# Carafa III
0.5# Crystal 40L
Boil 60 min
1.25oz Centennial 45 min
1.25oz Centennial 30 min
I'm trying to use the efficiency calculator on BrewersFriend and I'm getting a little confused.
My main numbers. I started with 8 gallons of water for the mash. Added 4.8mL of Lactic Acid and ended up with a pH of 5.44 (measured probably 10 min into the mash). Mashed at 152 for 60min. Did a mash out at 165 for 10 minutes. After the mash and letting the bag hang for a while I was left 6.7 gallons at 1.054. After the boil I had 5.5 gallons at 1.065.
BrewersFriend says conversion efficiency is 81.5% which seems great. When I switch to preboil and my numbers of 1.054 and 6.7, efficiency drops to 68.26%. Does this make sense? Does this efficiency apply to BIAB? Why does it drop so much? Finally when I set it to ending kettle and 1.065 and 5.5 it drops again to 67.45%.
So can someone explain, am I using this tool correctly? Would my ending efficiency really be 67.45%? I think this is a dumb last question, but when people here discuss efficency, everyone lists ending kettle right?
After getting the water report I have since brewed another batch. I have a friend with bru'n water and was able to help with the water additions. I also went to the homebrew store to get the grain myself. I was able to set the mill myself down to .0020. Here are pictures: https://imgur.com/gallery/Y6YwmnA, I think it looks good this time.
The recipe I chose was a Black IPA as follows:
10# 2 Row
3# Pale Ale
1# Carafa III
0.5# Crystal 40L
Boil 60 min
1.25oz Centennial 45 min
1.25oz Centennial 30 min
I'm trying to use the efficiency calculator on BrewersFriend and I'm getting a little confused.
My main numbers. I started with 8 gallons of water for the mash. Added 4.8mL of Lactic Acid and ended up with a pH of 5.44 (measured probably 10 min into the mash). Mashed at 152 for 60min. Did a mash out at 165 for 10 minutes. After the mash and letting the bag hang for a while I was left 6.7 gallons at 1.054. After the boil I had 5.5 gallons at 1.065.
BrewersFriend says conversion efficiency is 81.5% which seems great. When I switch to preboil and my numbers of 1.054 and 6.7, efficiency drops to 68.26%. Does this make sense? Does this efficiency apply to BIAB? Why does it drop so much? Finally when I set it to ending kettle and 1.065 and 5.5 it drops again to 67.45%.
So can someone explain, am I using this tool correctly? Would my ending efficiency really be 67.45%? I think this is a dumb last question, but when people here discuss efficency, everyone lists ending kettle right?
I'm not a fan of the BrewersFriend efficiency calculators. I have my own mash & efficiency calculator that is inspired by work by Kai Troester here and here. The biggest problem is with BF conversion efficiency calculator, which incorrectly assumes that the wort volume in the mash is equal to your strike volume. This neglects the volume due to converted/extracted sugar.
With 8 gal of strike water, 14.5 lb of grain at an average potential of 1.037, and 100% conversion efficiency, the actual wort volume is 8.84 gal. Using BF's methodology, the SG of the mash wort @ 100% conversion efficiency calc would be: 14.5 lb * 37 pts/lb / 8.0 gal = 67 pts/gal for an SG of 1.067. They would then calculate your conversion efficiency at 100% * 54 / 67 = 80.5%. The difference between this calc, and the BF calc is probably due to a different assumed average grain potential.
If BF had used the correct wort volume the conv eff calc would have looked like this: 14.5 lb * 37 pts/lb / 8.884 gal = 60/7 pts/gal for an SG of 1.0607, and conv eff = 100% * 54 / 60.7 = 89%.
Using my more rigorous calculation (that corrects for some minor effects) the wort SG @ 100% efficiency would be 1.0582. If I use the goal seek in the spreadsheet to back calculate conv eff from your wort SG of 1.054, I get your conv eff = 92%. This is not bad conversion efficiency, but you should be able to get it above 95% if all the planets align. Not sure why they didn't align better for you, since you seem to have done everything right.
I get your mash efficiency at 70.3% and lauter efficiency at 76.3%. Since any efficiency calc is only good to about 3-4% due to errors in weights, volumes, grain moisture content, and grain potential, my calculated mash efficiency is statistically indistinguishable from BF's (67.5%-68.3%.)
The lauter eff, and thus mash eff, is relatively low because of the relatively large grain bill, and wort absorption of 0.09 gal/lb. Grain absorption can be reduced by squeezing the bag, and perhaps by just an extended drain.
The chart below shows how lauter efficiency varies with the grain weight to pre-boil volume ratio (yours was 2.164.) Your 0.09 gal/lb grain absorption would put you half way between the bottom two solid lines.
Had your grain bill been only 10 lb, pre-boil volume still 6.7 gal, and conv eff still 92%, your strike volume would have been 7.6 gal, grain weight to pre-boil volume ratio 1.5, lauter eff 82.3% and mash eff 76%
Brew on
With 8 gal of strike water, 14.5 lb of grain at an average potential of 1.037, and 100% conversion efficiency, the actual wort volume is 8.84 gal. Using BF's methodology, the SG of the mash wort @ 100% conversion efficiency calc would be: 14.5 lb * 37 pts/lb / 8.0 gal = 67 pts/gal for an SG of 1.067. They would then calculate your conversion efficiency at 100% * 54 / 67 = 80.5%. The difference between this calc, and the BF calc is probably due to a different assumed average grain potential.
If BF had used the correct wort volume the conv eff calc would have looked like this: 14.5 lb * 37 pts/lb / 8.884 gal = 60/7 pts/gal for an SG of 1.0607, and conv eff = 100% * 54 / 60.7 = 89%.
Using my more rigorous calculation (that corrects for some minor effects) the wort SG @ 100% efficiency would be 1.0582. If I use the goal seek in the spreadsheet to back calculate conv eff from your wort SG of 1.054, I get your conv eff = 92%. This is not bad conversion efficiency, but you should be able to get it above 95% if all the planets align. Not sure why they didn't align better for you, since you seem to have done everything right.
I get your mash efficiency at 70.3% and lauter efficiency at 76.3%. Since any efficiency calc is only good to about 3-4% due to errors in weights, volumes, grain moisture content, and grain potential, my calculated mash efficiency is statistically indistinguishable from BF's (67.5%-68.3%.)
The lauter eff, and thus mash eff, is relatively low because of the relatively large grain bill, and wort absorption of 0.09 gal/lb. Grain absorption can be reduced by squeezing the bag, and perhaps by just an extended drain.
The chart below shows how lauter efficiency varies with the grain weight to pre-boil volume ratio (yours was 2.164.) Your 0.09 gal/lb grain absorption would put you half way between the bottom two solid lines.
Had your grain bill been only 10 lb, pre-boil volume still 6.7 gal, and conv eff still 92%, your strike volume would have been 7.6 gal, grain weight to pre-boil volume ratio 1.5, lauter eff 82.3% and mash eff 76%
Brew on
BeeRRunBrewery
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 8
IMHO water contact with grain will affect efficiency. So crushing the grain more fine will help as will improved recirculating (mixing). Back when I used to just recirculate with a 1/2” silicone tube sticking partially down into the bag, I would need to stir the mash several times to improve efficiency. I now use a manifold with several nozzles. Also in my experience I get better efficiency with thinner mashes; again more water contact with grain: 80% efficiency on normal gravity beers; 75% with DIPA / high alcohol Belgians. I single crush and it’s definitely not powder.
@BeeRRunBrewery This might sound like a dumb question, but I have been really confused/struggling with understanding efficiency numbers. when you say 80% efficiency, any chance you could post numbers from an example brew day? Like grain bill, water volumes and gravity for mash and pre and post boil? I'd like to see that math that others are doing when they say 80% efficiency and make sure I'm not just doing something stupid with the calculators. I'm beginning to run out of sources of error and am starting to not trust my numbers.
BeeRRunBrewery
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 8
So I don’t do my own mash calculations per se.... I use the Brewersfriend website to determine what my o.g. will be for a certain recipe. I’m confident in Brewersfriend after making several beers to understand what my system can do. I know that I lose 1 1/2 gallons during a 60 min boil. When I first started I’d put in an estimated efficiency in Brewersfriend and would recalculate if my o.g. reading was something different. After brewing several times did I feel confident predicting my efficiency. Hope this helps some. Let me know if you have any other questions. I’ll do my best to answer and help!!
