Do people report mash efficiency or brewhouse efficiency?

[SkiNuke]

sorry for waking up this thread, but I still haven't come to terms with my loss in efficiency. Here is what I posted in a different thread that died out before this one started:

I decided to revive this thread since I have the same question and am hoping someone has found an answer. I calculated my pre-boil efficiency to be up near 85%, but my post-boil efficiency was down at 77%. I know my readings are as accurate as I can get. I adjusted for temperature for all SG measurements, but for the volume measurements I did not adjust (doesn't matter much anyways since its off by less than a percent).

I had 7.33 gallons of pre-boil wort with an SG of 1.047 and 5.25 gallons of post-boil wort with an SG of 1.059. I adjusted the pre-boil SG to be based off of a volume of 5.25 and got an SG of 1.066. I then calculated the density of the two volumes, then multiplied by the volumes to get the total mass of the two measurements. I then found the total loss to be about 133 grams of sugar.

All I do is boil in 2 pots, chill with my immersion chiller, and pour the wort into the fermenter through a strainer to remove the hops (most of my recipes use less than 2 oz of hops). Would this be enough contact to lose 133 grams of sugar?

 

[alestateyall]

OG = PG*PV/FV

Where:

OG: expected original gravity
PG: preboil gravity
PV: preboil volume
FV: Fermenter volume

The equation above never exactly works for me. I don't think I am loosing much sugar in the boil though. I pour everything (hops & trub included) from the kettle into my fermenter.

I think a lot of the loss is from the hot and cold break (trub). Before boiling the trub is suspended in the liquid and raises the density of the liquid. After boiling & cooling the trub drops out and that loss of trub decreases the density of the liquid. I THINK this loss is significant and not reflected in the top equation.

My last beer had mash efficiency of 78% and brew house efficiency of 73%. I think the 5% difference MAY come from the losing the density of the trub.

 

[AnOldUR]

Agree, volume loss is not efficiency loss.

Tell that to the guy's in accounting. You buy grain with the potential for a known amount of beer. Anything less than that going out the door (or in your belly) is a hit on your brewhouse efficiency. :cross:

 

[jdauria]

Fairly new at all-grain and have one batch using fly sparge instead of batch sparging under my belt. My mash efficiency was a whopping 98% which I did not anticipate so my pre-boil gravity was 1.058 instead of the estimated 1.045. Brewhouse was 84.5%.

So if I read this thread correctly, when entering say a BYO recipe, which is at 65% efficiency into Beersmith, I should be changing the efficiency up to my brewhouse's 84%?

 

[TyTanium]

So if I read this thread correctly, when entering say a BYO recipe, which is at 65% efficiency into Beersmith, I should be changing the efficiency up to my brewhouse's 84%?

Yes, assuming your system consistently yields 84%. One data point wouldn't be enough for me to adjust. And if you're not crushing your grain, I certainly wouldn't bump to 84%. Probably 75% would be a fair assumption, and you can adjust accordingly during your boil.

 

[CanadianQuaffer]

OK, I'm a bit confused.
I read through most of the thread and seemed to see several conflicting opinions.

Here's what I do:
After my entire mashing process is done (ie: first runnings and all subsequent sparge runnings) I measure the volume of all the collected wort and take a gravity reading BEFORE the boil.
I then multiply the gravity points by the volume of the pre-boil wort in gallons and divide by the grain bill in pounds. That gives me a number usually in the range of 29-32, depending on the recipe, of course. I then compare that number to the maximum extraction potential of my grain bill (using John Palmer's table) to get my efficiency, which is usally around 80%.

Have I calculated brewhouse or mash efficiency with that method? I'd love to know as I use Beer Smith so I would plug that number in to my customized brewhouse settings.

Cheers,

Nick

 

[afr0byte]

OK, I'm a bit confused.
I read through most of the thread and seemed to see several conflicting opinions.

Here's what I do:
After my entire mashing process is done (ie: first runnings and all subsequent sparge runnings) I measure the volume of all the collected wort and take a gravity reading BEFORE the boil.
I then multiply the gravity points by the volume of the pre-boil wort in gallons and divide by the grain bill in pounds. That gives me a number usually in the range of 29-32, depending on the recipe, of course. I then compare that number to the maximum extraction potential of my grain bill (using John Palmer's table) to get my efficiency, which is usally around 80%.

Have I calculated brewhouse or mash efficiency with that method? I'd love to know as I use Beer Smith so I would plug that number in to my customized brewhouse settings.

Cheers,

Nick

That's your mash efficiency (I prefer to call it the efficiency in to the boiler because that seems more inclusive of first runnings + sparge runnings.). Brewhouse efficiency is the % of the theoretical maximum amount of sugar for a given grain bill and volume of finished product (It includes losses of volume because of trub, etc.). Brewhouse efficiency is only really a concern in commercial breweries where a 5-10% efficiency drop would mean real money. So, if I had a 10lb MO SMaSH with 38ppg I'd have a max of 10*38 = 380 gravity points. If i get my normal 80% efficiency then I have 304 gravity points in to 6 gallons. I normally put 5 gallons in to the keg, which would include 253.3 gravity points. So, my brewhouse efficiency is only about 66.6%.

 

[CanadianQuaffer]

OK, I think I get it it.
So mash efficiency deals strictly with the conversion process, while brewhouse deals with overall points that make it into a keg/bottles? Which then gets into things such as dead space, trub loss, etc, like you said?

 

[afr0byte]

OK, I think I get it it.
So mash efficiency deals strictly with the conversion process, while brewhouse deals with overall points that make it into a keg/bottles? Which then gets into things such as dead space, trub loss, etc, like you said?

Well, I'd say conversion efficiency is different than mash efficiency (EDIT: Or, perhaps it's the same, but not the same as in to the boiler efficiency.), but I believe you get the idea about what brewhouse efficiency is. I would consider conversion efficiency to be the % of starches converted to sugars in the mash (out of a theoretical max). Then there's lauter efficiency, which is the percentage of the newly created sugars that are washed in to the boil kettle. Your lauter and conversion efficiency make up your in to the boiler efficiency. If your conversion efficiency is 100% then your lauter efficiency is your in to the boiler efficiency.

 

[Dan]

There are three distinct points in the process where efficiency can be recorded as a useful datapoint.

Mash Efficiency measures sugars derived from the grain as they currently exist in the mashing vessel. This is essentially a measure of conversion.

Mash/Lauter Efficiency takes Mash Efficiency and incorporates sugar losses in the lauter/sparge process and getting it into the boiler. In other words, any sugar left in the tun or lines leading to the kettle reduce the initial Mash Efficiency numbers.

Last, BrewHouse effeciency is net result of the brew day. How much of the theoretical sugar finally made it into your fermenter. This accounts for all losses including conversion loss, lauter loss, trub left in the kettle, and any spillage. This is by definition, the lowest number of the three. The name "brew house" should be your guide here. The mash tun, lauter tun, boil kettle, and whirlpool (not usually separate in homebrewing) are all part of the brewhouse so losses at any of those steps would be included in that figure.

I agree that people are confused, unintentionally vague, and the software all calls this stuff different things. Terms like "into the boiler" would represent Mash/Lauter Efficiency while "into the fermenter" represents Brew House.


Let's try to remember that discussions about terminology and definitions need not degrade into "who cares about efficiency?" or "consistency is more important" rhetoric. While those may be valid points, that's not what this thread was about.

Thanks Teach. As always, you make complicated simpler to understand.

 

[AnOldUR]

Last, BrewHouse effeciency is net result of the brew day. How much of the theoretical sugar finally made it into your fermenter.

Agree with Bobby except for this. For the homebrewer, bottling or kegging is part of the brewhouse. I say that brewhouse efficiency isn't what goes into the fermenter, but what makes it into the bottle/keg.

Some here dump everything into the fermenter. Some filter out break and hop material. Some whirlpool, wait and then only drain from above what's settled, leaving some wort behind. Any solids that make it into the fermenter will only give you the illusion of more volume and better efficiency, but hopefully they'll settle and not make it into the bottle.

I'd go as far as to say that if you spilled a gallon of beer on the floor while bottling, your brewhouse efficiency sucks. :cross:

Personally, I use the volume in the brewpot at the end of the boil (after chilling.) That post-boil efficiency number is the one that's important to me for consistency from batch to batch. That's the number I'll give if someone askes what my efficiency is.

In my view brewhouse efficiency has nothing to do with the quality of the beer served and shouldn't be considered too important by the homebrewer. It's real value is for commercial brewing where the bottom line is a major concern.

 

[AnOldUR]

Wanted to add:

In Beersmith, I use the post-boil volume as the "Batch Size" for calculating efficiency. You could use a lower number there and then offset it by putting the difference in the "Lost to Boil Trub and Chiller" block. What I don't like about using that feature is that it changes the hop utilization even though the volume of the boil doesn't change. I find that I get more consistency in perceived hop character by leaving that number at zero.

 

[afr0byte]

Wanted to add:

In Beersmith, I use the post-boil volume as the "Batch Size" for calculating efficiency. You could use a lower number there and then offset it by putting the difference in the "Lost to Boil Trub and Chiller" block. What I don't like about using that feature is that it changes the hop utilization even though the volume of the boil doesn't change. I find that I get more consistency in perceived hop character by leaving that number at zero.

That's what I do too. All of my recipes are 6 gallons in BeerSmiith, even though I only end up with 5 gallons in a keg.

 

[jdooley]

You may not be aware of the fact that the hydrometer reading is lower when the temperature is higher. 15 degrees centrigrade is the base level. If you are measuring gravity at higher temperatures, you need to adjust the reading upwards.

 

[Obliviousbrew]

You may not be aware of the fact that the hydrometer reading is lower when the temperature is higher. 15 degrees centrigrade is the base level. If you are measuring gravity at higher temperatures, you need to adjust the reading upwards.

Hydrometers are 90% of the times calibrated to work at 20 celcius actually not 15

 

[StanJohnson]

Hydrometers are 90% of the times calibrated to work at 20 celcius actually not 15

Looks like they can be either way but 15 C looks to be the most common used in brewing.

http://brewwiki.com/index.php/Hydrometer

"The most common type of hydrometer sold for brewing is calibrated for use on water at temperature of 60 F."

http://www.brewersfriend.com/hydrometer-temp/

"Hydrometers are calibrated to 15 °C, 59 °F."

 

[Obliviousbrew]

Well I have seen thousand of hydrometers and I never saw not even a single one calibrated at 15 C, of course never been in America maybe yours are calibrated at 15c here in Europe common thing it´s 20 C and Plato degrees.

 

[jdooley]

Hydrometers are 90% of the times calibrated to work at 20 celcius actually not 15

That wasn't really the point that I was trying to make. Funny how some people choose to not see the wood for the trees, just for the sake of oneupmanship.

 

[Obliviousbrew]

That wasn't really the point that I was trying to make. Funny how some people choose to not see the wood for the trees, just for the sake of oneupmanship.

jizzz... I wasn´t barking to anyone... your point it´s well understood I think... It was just my two cents. Jdooley I always try to be polite and I didn´t knew your skin was so thin. I apologize if I offended you somehow wasn´t my point neither.
Cheers

 

[alestateyall]

jizzz... I wasn´t barking to anyone... your point it´s well understood I think... It was just my two cents. Jdooley I always try to be polite and I didn´t knew your skin was so thin. I apologize if I offended you somehow wasn´t my point neither.
Cheers

My 2cents as an observer.

Jdoiley's skin was not thin. Obliviousbrew you were rude.

 

[Obliviousbrew]

Hydrometers are 90% of the times calibrated to work at 20 celcius actually not 15

Can you explain me what it is that was rude in this sentence?

 

[alestateyall]

Can you explain me what it is that was rude in this sentence?

You tersely called him wrong without bothering to do any research on the subject.

You cited 90% as it were a fact when literature as cited by another poster makes jdooley correct.

Finally, in your later post you accused jdooley of being thin skinned.

 

[TyTanium]

It's the internet guys, relax. I'm sure you're both fine chaps.

 

[watersr]

Hydrometers are 90% of the times calibrated to work at 20 celcius actually not 15

Where did you get this statistic?

 

[Obliviousbrew]

It's the internet guys, relax. I'm sure you're both fine chaps.

Yeah I agree with that that's why don't want to make any more comments... even that I'm dying to

 

[iBrewR]

Yeah I agree with that that's why don't want to make any more comments... even that I'm dying to

 

[jdooley]

Other than figuring out what equipment works best for me, and what doesn't, the one thing that caused me stress with all grain brewing was misreading my Hydrometer. I thought I was only getting 50% efficiency, when in fact it was more like 75%. I kept throwing in extra LDM, and god knows how strong those first few beers really were. All the other mistakes I made didn't adversely affect the beer - it was still good and better than pretty much any kit I'd made. It's a lot more work, but it is enjoyable.