Calculate my efficiency

[Zippox]

Two questions: What was my mash efficiency at 9 gallons? And would my efficiency have been the same if I didn't add water and continued sparging, yielding my pre-boil volume of 12.88 gallons?

Here's what went down.
In the recipe my estimated pre-boil volume was 12.88 gallons and estimated pre-boil gravity was 1.041. I had inputted that I was expecting to get 70% efficiency.

So during the sparge I checked the boil kettle and it had 9 gallons in it with a gravity of 1.066. -So here's where my first question comes into play: "What was my mash efficiency at 9 gallons?"

And then "would my efficiency have been the same if I didn't add water and continued sparging, yielding 12.88 gallons?"


As a side note, I added a bunch of water while continuing to sparge after that 9 gallon measurement and the runoffs were still around 1.020+ so I had no fear about extracting tannins. I ended up with a preboil volume of 16 gallons and yielded 14 of gallons of beer in the carboys instead of 10.25

 

[Zippox]

To reply to my own question, I ran it through an online calculator and I believe that I was getting 84% efficiency when I was at the 9 gallon mark. But I'd like to have some others back that up.

 

[Yooper]

Doesn't Beersmith give you that calculation on another tab? Beersmith is far better at math than I am.

It looks like you have it at 70% brewhouse efficiency with an OG of 1.048. If you click on the mash tab, it should have the mash efficiency based on the preboil SG.

 

[doug293cz]

Your grain bill has about 700 potential gravity points. 9 gal of wort at 1.066 has:

9 gal * 66 pts/gal = 594 points​

So, your mash efficiency at that point was

594 / 700 = 0.85 => 85%​

Our numbers may be different due to different assumptions on grain potential.

Edit: forgot to answer the second question. Your mash efficiency would have increased if you sparged more. Mash efficiency = Sugar into BK / Max Potential Sugar. The amount of water doesn't actually come into the rigorous calculation (only the simplified calc using points.) Additional sparging would have rinsed more sugar out of the spent grains, so more sugar in the BK means higher efficiency.

Brew on

 

[brewkinger]

Edit: forgot to answer the second question. Your mash efficiency would have increased if you sparged more. Mash efficiency = Sugar into BK / Max Potential Sugar. The amount of water doesn't actually come into the rigorous calculation (only the simplified calc using points.) Additional sparging would have rinsed more sugar out of the spent grains, so more sugar in the BK means higher efficiency.

Brew on

His mash efficiency would have DECREASED...

Using all the same numbers from above posts.

If he had continued sparging to his preboil volume he would have gotten 12.88 gallons at 1.041

12.88×41= 528 points

528÷700 = .75 or 75% efficiency

The amount of water DOES figure into the calculations because you are using it to get more sugars into the kettle.

 

[specharka]

His mash efficiency would have DECREASED...

Using all the same numbers from above posts.

If he had continued sparging to his preboil volume he would have gotten 12.88 gallons at 1.041

12.88×41= 528 points

528÷700 = .75 or 75% efficiency

The amount of water DOES figure into the calculations because you are using it to get more sugars into the kettle.

Nope. It's total sugars extracted, independent of the amount of water required to do so.

And actually if he would have continued to sparge with just water (no additional extracted sugars), his preboil gravity would have been 1.046, not 1.041:

(9 x 1.066 + 3.88 x 1.00)/12.88=1.046

Which corresponds to the same extract efficiency:

(46 x 12.88)/700 = 85%

 

[Zippox]

Thank you all for the responses, it's very informative. Now I'd like to take this info and apply it back to my equipment profile and recipes in beersmith so I can purchase the right amount of grain in the future.

Would I change my "Brewhouse Efficiency" in the equipment profile to 85%?

Would I put that same number into the "Total Efficiency" field on each recipe?

And lastly, we have calculated my Efficiency at 9 gallons was 85%. What I didn't see or possibly overlooked was did anyone calculate or predict what my efficiency would have been if I kept sparging all the way until I reached my preboil volume of 12.88? Is it still 85% or is it not a number that can be predicted?

 

[Pappers_]

If you use Beersmith, enter all the correct info, brew a batch, and it will tell you what your actual total efficiency was. Use that number in creating the recipe for your next batch. Brew it and let Beersmith tell you your actual efficiency again. Repeat until you are achieving consistent efficiencies.

 

[doug293cz]

Thank you all for the responses, it's very informative. Now I'd like to take this info and apply it back to my equipment profile and recipes in beersmith so I can purchase the right amount of grain in the future.

Would I change my "Brewhouse Efficiency" in the equipment profile to 85%?

Would I put that same number into the "Total Efficiency" field on each recipe?

And lastly, we have calculated my Efficiency at 9 gallons was 85%. What I didn't see or possibly overlooked was did anyone calculate or predict what my efficiency would have been if I kept sparging all the way until I reached my preboil volume of 12.88? Is it still 85% or is it not a number that can be predicted?

If you kept sparging (instead of just topping off) your efficiency would have been higher than 85%. However, predicting the efficiency of a fly sparge process is extremely difficult, and is never done in a homebrew setting.

Brewhouse efficiency is less than or equal to mash efficiency (depends on volume losses between BK and fermenter.) Brewhouse efficiency is basically:

Volume in Fermenter / Post-Boil Volume in BK [corrected for temperature when measured.]​

You want to determine what your brewhouse efficiency is with your process and equipment, and put that into your equipment profile.

Brew on

 

[applescrap]

I feel like an idiot i ever opened my mouth to you guys sorry.... but I have certainly offered my opinion on efficiency.. .thanks for the math work....i dont get it but im trying. My first thought was that if he kept going he would have ended up with the numbers he wanted? This isn't less efficient is the confusing part

 

[Zippox]

If you use Beersmith, enter all the correct info, brew a batch, and it will tell you what your actual total efficiency was. Use that number in creating the recipe for your next batch. Brew it and let Beersmith tell you your actual efficiency again. Repeat until you are achieving consistent efficiencies.

Again right now I'm just trying to extrapolate what my efficiency would have likely been if I were to not have started adding straight water to the kettle in addition to continuing the sparge once I hit that 9 gallon mark. So its not really possible for me to plug and play that info into beersmith to tell me the efficiency.

You're right though that I will need to keep brewing and dial in my process and complete the sparge to the estimated pre boil volume (without intervention like I did this time) to accurately determine what my efficiency is.

I'll probably just enter 80 percent for the two areas that beersmith asks for efficiency. Then find out if I'm high or low on my next couple batches for a pre boil gravity.

Thanks again for the responses. Cheers to continued learning and crazy beer math.

 

[brewkinger]

I concede my point now that i am rested and thinking clearly.

Not sure what I was thinking about last night other than it did not make sense to me how doing more work and sparging would make the process more efficient.

Sorry for the confusion.

I would love to hear more about your process OP...
Getting better than 85% mash efficiency is a good thing!!!

 

[Zippox]

I would love to hear more about your process OP...
Getting better than 85% mash efficiency is a good thing!!!

For this particular beer I mashed at 148 in a Home Depot Rubbermaid 10 gal cooler. It was supposed to mash for apprx. 60 minutes but my beersmith phone app crashed and so I had to guess at how long it was mashing for. I likely did a 75 minute mash accidentally. Then I threw my sparge water into my HLT (a 17.5 gallon Coleman xtreme cooler) and it leveled out to around 163 degrees (I wanted it at 168 but decided I didn't care too much). I then did a slow fly sparge. I simply have a long silicone tube that comes out of my HLTs ball-valve that I wrap in a circle on top of the grain bed and make sure there's always a couple inches of water above the grains during the process.

One thing that I did not mention that is likely to have skewed my mash efficiency is that I began applying heat to the boil kettle while I was sparging. The temp of the beer when it was at 9 gallons was probably around 175-180(ish) so definitely not evaporating as much as a full-boil would, but again I'm sure that this made my efficiency appear just a bit higher since I am technically slightly concentrating the wort by applying some heat.

 

[brewkinger]

For this particular beer I mashed at 148 in a Home Depot Rubbermaid 10 gal cooler. It was supposed to mash for apprx. 60 minutes but my beersmith phone app crashed and so I had to guess at how long it was mashing for. I likely did a 75 minute mash accidentally. Then I threw my sparge water into my HLT (a 17.5 gallon Coleman xtreme cooler) and it leveled out to around 163 degrees (I wanted it at 168 but decided I didn't care too much). I then did a slow fly sparge. I simply have a long silicone tube that comes out of my HLTs ball-valve that I wrap in a circle on top of the grain bed and make sure there's always a couple inches of water above the grains during the process.

One thing that I did not mention that is likely to have skewed my mash efficiency is that I began applying heat to the boil kettle while I was sparging. The temp of the beer when it was at 9 gallons was probably around 175-180(ish) so definitely not evaporating as much as a full-boil would, but again I'm sure that this made my efficiency appear just a bit higher since I am technically slightly concentrating the wort by applying some heat.

So to be clear...
You took a sample of wort (at the 9 gallon volume)
How did you measure the gravity?
Refractometer or hydrometer?

If you used a hydrometer and tested at high temps, then your gravity reading is definitely skewed.

 

[Zippox]

So to be clear...
You took a sample of wort (at the 9 gallon volume)
How did you measure the gravity?
Refractometer or hydrometer?

Refractometer:
Thoroughly stirred wort for a long time, ladeled a tiny bit out to cool for a minute, used a dropper to put 3 drops on my calibrated refractometer and took the reading.

 

[brewkinger]

stupid phone...
double post

 

[brewkinger]

Refractometer:
Thoroughly stirred wort for a long time, ladeled a tiny bit out to cool for a minute, used a dropper to put 3 drops on my calibrated refractometer and took the reading.

Sounds good to me.
Plenty of time to cool down.
Refractometer was calibrated correctly using distilled water??

 

[Zippox]

Refractometer was calibrated correctly using distilled water??

Close, the next best thing: reverse osmosis water.

 

[applescrap]

Nope. It's total sugars extracted, independent of the amount of water required to do so.

And actually if he would have continued to sparge with just water (no additional extracted sugars), his preboil gravity would have been 1.046, not 1.041:

(9 x 1.066 + 3.88 x 1.00)/12.88=1.046

Which corresponds to the same extract efficiency:

(46 x 12.88)/700 = 85%

Does this formula assume same rate till end sorry just curious

 

[doug293cz]

Does this formula assume same rate till end sorry just curious

There is no rate involved in the formula. It's just dilution of a known volume of wort, at a known SG, with a known volume of water. It's not about sparging.

Brew on

 

[applescrap]

Aghhh i don't get it! It will come to me someday i hope...thank you though.

View attachment 1446790174176.jpg