BH Effec experiment!

[bracconiere]

For some reason i'm still dying to know if my trick works for everyone, or if it's just me.

I do a step at, well i add gluco, so the first step isn't important to me. but then i pull off some of the mash and boil it, add it back a few times, till my mash is 162f. i go from 83% effec to 92% doing this.

i want someone else to try this that keeps track of their effec, so i know if it's a good trick for better effec. or just shut up, and sit down! lol

anyone willing to try next brew?

 

[VikeMan]

Well, you're doing decoctions, which can improve efficiency. But from 83% to 92% (assuming same grain bill size) as a result of just adding decoctions? I'm a bit sceptical. Are you measuring your actual volume before computing the efficiency? Maybe share some numbers for both cases here.

 

[bracconiere]

well, i've been doing it for a few years now.

here the one i did on 4-5-21.

i don't think typical decoctions go up to 162f though?

(you can ignore the "mash/carb/ferm" stuff. i never use those...

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

I think BrewHouse efficiency is lower than mash, lauter and conversion efficiency because it includes sugars lost throughout the entire brewing process. On my BIAB set up with 80% mash efficiency, 90% conversion efficiency, and 89% lauter efficiency my brewhouse efficiency is 71%.

 

[bracconiere]

well, i always just use the same one in beersmith. just so i know if i'm doing better or worse, on a batch to batch basis.

 

[VikeMan]

For the BeerSmith example above, what was your measured post boil volume?

 

[bracconiere]

well it was a bit below my 10 gallon notch, so i guessed 9.73 (mostly for comedy in the how many gallons thread i think)

but i'm not trying to figure 'proper' effec %'s. just that whatever you want to call that one, doing a step between 145-155, then one at 162f for ~30min, changes that number from 83% to 92%, usually. i think i might have rushed that sparge.


(i don't know what the harm in someone else trying to confirm or deny this trick true/false would be?)


edit: i should say that's a solid 162f i tried skimping at 159-160. only got 88%

 

[VikeMan]

Honestly, I'm not sure what you can make of those numbers. If you don't know your volumes, which could very well be different batch to batch, you can't know your efficiencies. And trying to compare one unknown-volume-computed efficiency to another doesn't mean anything. I agree it would make an interesting experiment, with proper measurements.

 

[Barbarossa]

Maybe you could do a last thin decoction to reach mash out temp of 168 and gain a few points?

 

[bracconiere]

Honestly, I'm not sure what you can make of those numbers. If you don't know your volumes, which could very well be different batch to batch, you can't know your efficiencies. And trying to compare one unknown-volume-computed efficiency to another doesn't mean anything. I agree it would make an interesting experiment, with proper measurements.

i do measure? 0.95" a gallon?

Maybe you could do a last thin decoction to reach mash out temp of 168 and gain a few points?

i'll try that next batch, but the point of a mash out is to denature the enzymes? at 162f alpha is still working?

 

[Barbarossa]

I'm a n

i'll try that next batch, but the point of a mash out is to denature the enzymes? at 162f alpha is still working?

Well, I'm kind of a noob, but I read a lot recently about that stuff. Apparently, the mash out temp is dual purpose. It also helps to liquify the sugars stuck to the grain, making them go in the wort instead of stuck to the grains, and can help with efficiency.

But @VikeMan is also watching this thread, so please, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[bracconiere]

It also helps to liquify the sugars stuck to the grain, making them go in the wort instead of stuck to the grains, and can help with efficiency.

what is this kung pow enter the fist and they've been teaching me wrong on purpose? lol all i hear people say is cold water works just as good for a sparge?

edit: secretly, i never believed them though, so you make more sense to me...

 

[day_trippr]

[...]Apparently, the mash out temp is dual purpose. It also helps to liquify the sugars stuck to the grain, making them go in the wort instead of stuck to the grains, and can help with efficiency.[...]

"Paging @VikeMan" no doubt

Pretty sure it has been demonstrated that sparge temperature does not affect extract efficiency.
What can happen, otoh, is additional liquification of starches that lead to greater conversion, during the ramp from "mash temperature"...

Cheers!

 

[VikeMan]

Well, I'm kind of a noob, but I read a lot recently about that stuff. Apparently, the mash out temp is dual purpose. It also helps to liquify the sugars stuck to the grain, making them go in the wort instead of stuck to the grains, and can help with efficiency.

But @VikeMan is also watching this thread, so please, correct me if I'm wrong.

So yeah, the higher the temperature of the wort, the less viscous it is, so the less sticky it is, so the less it sticks to the grains. That said, the effect is pretty small. I don't have first hand data to compare, but my guess would be on the order of maybe ~1% lauter efficiency difference between an average mash temp and a mashout temp. Hopefully someone has some measurements.

 

[VikeMan]

What can happen, otoh, is additional liquification of starches that lead to greater conversion, during the ramp from "mash temperature"...

I'm sure this does happen during some slow or slow-ish ramp ups (more so than with instant infusions). But I'd add that when it does, it's kind of an indication that the sacch rest(s) (or the grain crush) probably were not quite adequate. IOW, if the main mash step isn't reaching all or almost all) of the starches, why isn't it?

 

[Barbarossa]

Thanks @VikeMan!

Our friend @bracconiere is on the quest to squeeze out (literally) every little bit of sugar out of his grain.

 

[RM-MN]

Thanks @VikeMan!

Our friend @bracconiere is on the quest to squeeze out (literally) every little bit of sugar out of his grain.

Then he needs to mill his grain much finer and use a bag for the filter.

 

[bracconiere]

Then he needs to mill his grain much finer and use a bag for the filter.

i allready mil at 0.28", i could probably get away with 0.26".....and i squeeze my mash with water, slowly, to force to sugar down the drain pipe....lol


edit: if only the garden shops around here carried 50lb bales of rice hulls! i'd run my grain bill through my wonder mill, see if i could pull 99%!

 

[doug293cz]

I'm a n
Well, I'm kind of a noob, but I read a lot recently about that stuff. Apparently, the mash out temp is dual purpose. It also helps to liquify the sugars stuck to the grain, making them go in the wort instead of stuck to the grains, and can help with efficiency.

But @VikeMan is also watching this thread, so please, correct me if I'm wrong.

All the sugar in the wort is in solution the instant it is formed (sugar molecules are created one by one and in solution), there is nothing to "liquify." You cannot get a mash with enough sugar to cause any to precipitate out of solution at mash temp. The saturation concentration of maltose in water at 150°F is 66 - 67°Plato (or in excess of 1.300 SG.) The sugar concentration of the wort at the surface of grits may be higher than in the bulk, but none of it is "stuck" to the grain. A good stir prior to run-off will homogenize the wort throughout the mash vessel.

So yeah, the higher the temperature of the wort, the less viscous it is, so the less sticky it is, so the less it sticks to the grains. That said, the effect is pretty small. I don't have first hand data to compare, but my guess would be on the order of maybe ~1% lauter efficiency difference between an average mash temp and a mashout temp. Hopefully someone has some measurements.

The change in wort viscosity going from 150°F to 170°F is about 16%. This will allow wort to drain a little faster at the higher temp, and may lead to slightly lower amounts of wort coating the grits after run off (in the case of batch or no-sparge.) However, diluting the wort (a thinner mash) has a bigger effect - a mash at 1.25 qt/lb is 26% more viscous than a mash at 1.6 qt/lb (near optimal wort thickness for lauter efficiency with 1X batch sparge.) A full volume mash will have an even lower viscosity.

Would be interesting to measure wort absorption ratio for different thickness mashes at a couple of different temps. Have to be careful to have exactly the same grind for each test mash and same % conversion.

"Paging @VikeMan" no doubt

Pretty sure it has been demonstrated that sparge temperature does not affect extract efficiency.
What can happen, otoh, is additional liquification of starches that lead to greater conversion, during the ramp from "mash temperature"...

Cheers!

I'm sure this does happen during some slow or slow-ish ramp ups (more so than with instant infusions). But I'd add that when it does, it's kind of an indication that the sacch rest(s) (or the grain crush) probably were not quite adequate. IOW, if the main mash step isn't reaching all or almost all) of the starches, why isn't it?

Kai Troester showed sparge temp had no effect on lauter efficiency, as long as conversion was ~100% prior to run off.

If you see an increase in mash efficiency from doing a step mash or mash out - it is almost certainly due to increasing your conversion %. The same effect could be achieved just by increasing mash time. If conversion isn't 100% after 60 minutes or so, it is because you have not gelatinized all of the starch. Hydrolysis (conversion to sugars, dextrins, and soluble starches) of gelatinized starch occurs in seconds.

Brew on