Efficiency, decoction mash versus single infusion?

[doug293cz]

he took the gravity reading for the presumed mash wort gravity from a photograph I published on here... it is not a true reading of the homogeneous mash wort it came from the re-circulation arm.

Unless you are brewing on a system with a malt pipe, the wort in a recirculating mash should be very close to homogeneous (unless you have channeling during recirculation.) While conversion is ongoing, the wort SG will be constantly increasing, so homogeneity of the recirculated wort might not be perfect. But, once conversion is complete, then recirculation should give good wort homogeneity, and a sample from the recirc loop should be representative.

Do you have a rationale why the above is not true?

In a malt pipe system, the wort between the pipe sidewall and the vessel wall usually has significantly lower SG than the wort in the pipe, and the wort being recirculated. So, recirc in these systems does not lead to wort homogeneity. Doing conversion efficiency calcs on wort from the recirc loop will give a falsely high estimate of conversion efficiency, since you are basing it on wort with a higher than average SG.

Brew on

 

[jambop]

Unless you are brewing on a system with a malt pipe, the wort in a recirculating mash should be very close to homogeneous (unless you have channeling during recirculation.) While conversion is ongoing, the wort SG will be constantly increasing, so homogeneity of the recirculated wort might not be perfect. But, once conversion is complete, then recirculation should give good wort homogeneity, and a sample from the recirc loop should be representative.

Do you have a rationale why the above is not true?

In a malt pipe system, the wort between the pipe sidewall and the vessel wall usually has significantly lower SG than the wort in the pipe, and the wort being recirculated. So, recirc in these systems does not lead to wort homogeneity. Doing conversion efficiency calcs on wort from the recirc loop will give a falsely high estimate of conversion efficiency, since you are basing it on wort with a higher than average SG.

Brew on

 

[Oleson M.D.]

Decoction has always been more efficient than an infusion mash for us.

 

[doug293cz]

Decoction has always been more efficient than an infusion mash for us.

This indicates that your infusion mash process does not get complete conversion, as the there is no way the decoction vs. infusion could affect lauter efficiency (if your pre-boil volumes and lauter process are the same for both.) Higher efficiency for decoction does not prove that you get 100% conversion there. You might, but would need the appropriate data to determine that.

I would say that what you observe is due to getting more complete gelatinization of the starch, which makes sense since gelatinization speeds up as the temperature goes up, and you are essentially doing a cereal mash on a portion of your grain. Also, decoction mashes often spend more total time in the active enzyme temp range, which would also allow for more complete gelatinization.

Data from my own brewing, and others, shows that you don't need to do decoction to get 100% conversion. I regularly get 100% conversion with a single infusion mash of 60 - 75 minutes, using a pretty fine crush (since I BIAB.)

Brew on

 

[jambop]

Crisp Malting base their extract analysis figure on their malt being milled at 0.7 mm and normal infusion mashing ... true story. They do not say whether they regularly get 100 % conversion but going on the basis that they know what they are doing I would hazard a guess the do?

 

[doug293cz]

Crisp Malting base their extract analysis figure on their malt being milled at 0.7 mm and normal infusion mashing ... true story. They do not say whether they regularly get 100 % conversion but going on the basis that they know what they are doing I would hazard a guess the do?

Does Crisp explain why they don't follow the analysis methods recommended by standards bodies (ie Congress mash)? Do they provide process details for their "proprietary" analysis method?

Brew on

 

[jambop]

Does Crisp explain why they don't follow the analysis methods recommended by standards bodies (ie Congress mash)? Do they provide process details for their "proprietary" analysis method?

Brew on

They are a British malting company the sell malt to Brewers who want to make good beer not fanny around trying to impress with conversion effc's . They reach out to their customers in a very interesting way. I mean what is the possible good in carrying out a test on you product that does in no way relate to what you the brewer are doing? It sort of makes a lot of sense . I believe the 0.7mm grain crush is regarded as being a course crush. However when one considers what quality craft brewers are doing and I would say some home brewers the approach makes sense. Strangely they do not give a time for maximum extraction?

EXTRACT – AS IS​

This is the amount of soluble material within the malt. The IoB method mashes the grain for 60 mins at 65℃ so it strongly approximates the infusion method of brewing. The EBC mashing method uses a stepped temperature programme so is more representative of a typical continental mashing process. This is the extract value used in calculations in the brewhouse.

 

[doug293cz]

I believe the 0.7mm grain crush is regarded as being a course crush.

0.7 mm = 0.0276". I don't know any brewers who consider that a coarse crush. Although it might be the "coarse" crush used in standard analysis methods as opposed to the "fine" crush which as I understand it is close to flour.

Brew on

 

[jambop]

0.7 mm = 0.0276". I don't know any brewers who consider that a coarse crush. Although it might be the "coarse" crush used in standard analysis methods as opposed to the "fine" crush which as I understand it is close to flour.

Brew on

I use a far more course crush at 0.045 " which is in my opinion alright a good size for mash and sparge . Although I still struggle to get a good complete sparge because of channeling in the grain bed, this is also true of what happens in the mash process itself with these cheap Grainfather S40's ... who knows it may be ubiquitous throughout these sort of systems ? What i really should get though is a set of feeler gauges to set my mill I use the markings on the dials ... cannot be a good way of setting up the mill in my opinion

 

[VikeMan]

They are a British malting company the sell malt to Brewers who want to make good beer not fanny around trying to impress with conversion effc's .

Hmm? No maltster publishes "conversion efficiencies," impressive or otherwise. Conversion efficiency is brewery process dependent, and not just a function of crush.

 

[doug293cz]

I use a far more course crush at 0.045 " which is in my opinion alright a good size for mash and sparge . Although I still struggle to get a good complete sparge because of channeling in the grain bed, this is also true of what happens in the mash process itself with these cheap Grainfather S40's ... who knows it may be ubiquitous throughout these sort of systems ? What i really should get though is a set of feeler gauges to set my mill I use the markings on the dials ... cannot be a good way of setting up the mill in my opinion

Have you quantified your conversion efficiency and sparge efficiency separately (ie not just look at mash efficiency or brewhouse efficiency)? You can't really know how good a job you're doing unless you actually measure it. I'm not suggesting you have to chase efficiency, just promoting understanding just what yours is.

Brew on

 

[jambop]

Hmm? No maltster publishes "conversion efficiencies," impressive or otherwise. Conversion efficiency is brewery process dependent, and not just a function of crush.

Exactly they sell to brewers who are trying make good beer not get ridiculously high efficiencies like the ones who were pounding the grain in an effort to hopefully reach 98 % using some pounding device . Carlsberg use such things in their euro piss breweries ... contrary to what their adverts say Carlsberg actually make some of the crappiest beers available. They have destroyed every brewery they have taken over in search of profit over quality honestly some of the stuff they turn out is absolute piss.

 

[VikeMan]

Exactly they sell to brewers who are trying make good beer not get ridiculously high efficiencies like the ones who were pounding the grain in an effort to hopefully reach 98 % using some pounding device .

I think you may be missing a point of the congress mash numbers. Let's say you've been using a pilsner malt from Malster X. You know from experience exactly how much of it to use in your recipe to hit the gravity you need. Next, say you want to or have to (maybe due to a shortage) use a different maltster's pilsner malt. If both maltsters publish Dry Basis Fine Grind and Moisture numbers, you can easily determine how much of the second maltster's malt you need. This is true if you are crushing coarse, fine, or anywhere in between. Or even using a hammer mill. As long as your process is consistent, the numbers allow you translate between the two malts. This is important to many commercial brewers and home brewers.

 

[jambop]

Have you quantified you conversion efficiency and sparge efficiency separately (ie not just look at mash efficiency or brewhouse efficiency)? You can't really know how good a job you're doing unless you actually measure it. I'm not suggesting you have to chase efficiency, just promoting understanding just what yours is.

Brew on

To be honest the only effciency I am interested in is mashing which I usually get a decent figure for brewhouse is always 10% down on anything I get there because of the volumes I generally make. I use 32L SS conicals I have put up to 27 L in but once nearly had a critical situation due to a solid yeast bung blocking the vent another 15 or 20 mins and she would have blown So I keep it to 26L max now but with this system you have to make near enough 30 to get that out in clear wort so you see a 10% margin going down the drain. I have the gear and fridges to do a double batch by way of parti-gyle which would be interesting and that is my next experiment or even just a double batch of low'ish gravity because the system will only take 10 kg of grain .
It is what is is but it does make excellent traditional English beers.
Edit
I also only use hop flowers so transferring the lot and then dumping the trub is not on .

 

[jambop]

I think you may be missing a point of the congress mash numbers. Let's say you've been using a pilsner malt from Malster X. You know from experience exactly how much of it to use in your recipe to hit the gravity you need. Next, say you want to or have to (maybe due to a shortage) use a different maltster's pilsner malt. If both maltsters publish Dry Basis Fine Grind and Moisture numbers, you can easily determine how much of the second maltster's malt you need. This is true if you are crushing coarse, fine, or anywhere in between. Or even using a hammer mill. As long as your process is consistent, the numbers allow you translate between the two malts. This is important to many commercial brewers and home brewers.

I don't think Crisp need to be told anything really. They make excellent malts for their customers. It is interesting that I watched a video given by Crisp and was amazed to fine that they generally crush their Marris Otter at 1.6 mm although one would assume the would crash finer if requested. What you have to get right though is that they are not, as far as I know, selling to huge conglomerates like Carlsberg and Inter brew. I think they are looking to niche markets where the brewers are making high quality beers not high throughput slops.

 

[VikeMan]

I don't think Crisp need to be told anything really. They make excellent malts for their customers. It is interesting that I watched a video given by Crisp and was amazed to fine that they generally crush their Marris Otter at 1.6 mm although one would assume the would crash finer if requested. What you have to get right though is that they are not, as far as I know, selling to huge conglomerates like Carlsberg and Inter brew. I think they are looking to niche markets where the brewers are making high quality beers not high throughput slops.

I see. Is your point that if you are a brewer who makes high quality beers, you don't need to be able to predict how a new malt will perform in your brewery? Because that's exactly what happens if you bring in a malt with incomplete/non-standard specs. Or I guess you could use just Crisp malts and translate easily between them, but not to/from other maltsters.

 

[jambop]

The very point is that Crisp are trying to give their customers a glimpse of the real world capabilities of their malts. If you look at their spec sheets what is very interesting is that in general their malts perform just as well as malts from other maltsters they just use a different method to get them. The give their malt's extract potential and other values in a way that any brewer can understand.

 

[jambop]

Here is another example of another superior maltsters spec sheet. Simpson malts based in the north of England who make malt from the best barley in the world for brewers to show off their art. The quality of their malts for brewers to make real top quality beers is unsurpassed .
Follow the link to see their spec sheets for their malts. Again they use the same methods as Crisp but give results for three different standards.

www.simpsonsmalt.co.uk/our-malts/finest-pale-ale-golden-promise/

​

 

[VikeMan]

@jambop, ok cool. Let's take it as read that Crisp and Simpson are the best maltsters, and they care about their customers, who don't brew high throughput slops.

Please answer with a simple yes or no. Do you think it's important for a brewer to be able to accurately predict how a previously unused malt will perfom in that particular brewer's brewery?

 

[jambop]

" Is your point that if you are a brewer who makes high quality beers, you don't need to be able to predict how a new malt will perform in your brewery? Because that's exactly what happens if you bring in a malt with incomplete/non-standard specs. "



Did you read the product specification sheets ? What was missing or what did you not understand? If there is something missing that is vital to your enterprise? Get in touch with them they have been dealing with brewers for more than 150 years.

 

[VikeMan]

Did you read the product specification sheets ? What was missing or what did you not understand?

Of course I read them. What's missing (with some sheets) is a standard. When a spec sheet doesn't contain standard congress mash data, i.e. a common baseline, there is no way to translate the numbers into performance for your brewery (unless you have already used another malt from the same maltster and can use its numbers and its performance in your brewery as a baseline). The fact they may have used a grind in their non-standard test that's similar to what some brewers may use in the "real world" doesn't make the number useful on it own, because the malt will still be subjected to the efficiencies of the particular brewery. IOW, the particlular brewery's efficiency numbers have to be applied in any case. And if you apply them to a non-standard extract number, you don't get a meaningful answer. I've already explained this in #53 and #56, but you apparently ignored it, and replied with subjective statements about superior maltsters and laughing emojis.

But one last time, said a slightly different way... If two maltsters give you an "extract" number of, say, 80%, but they arrived at them by different methods, it's unlikely that those two malts will perform the same in any given brewery. OTOH, if two maltsters give you the same Dry Basis Fine Grind (congress) and Moisture numbers, you can reasonably expect the two malts to perform the same in any given brewery. Do you have any reason to believe that anything in this paragraph is not true?

 

[DBhomebrew]

They do use a standard.

IoB (.7mm & single infusion) vs EBC (.2mm & stepped).

ETA: The simplest way to is to convert EBC to IOB: IOB = (EBC-1.705)/0.2586

https://crispmalt.com/en-us/news/working-out-a-grist-using-ebc-extract/

 

[jambop]

Of course I read them. What's missing (with some sheets) is a standard. When a spec sheet doesn't contain standard congress mash data, i.e. a common baseline, there is no way to translate the numbers into performance for your brewery (unless you have already used another malt from the same maltster and can use its numbers and its performance in your brewery as a baseline). The fact they may have used a grind in their non-standard test that's similar to what some brewers may use in the "real world" doesn't make the number useful on it own, because the malt will still be subjected to the efficiencies of the particular brewery. IOW, the particlular brewery's efficiency numbers have to be applied in any case. And if you apply them to a non-standard extract number, you don't get a meaningful answer. I've already explained this in #53 and #56, but you apparently ignored it, and replied with subjective statements about superior maltsters and laughing emojis.

But one last time, said a slightly different way... If two maltsters give you an "extract" number of, say, 80%, but they arrived at them by different methods, it's unlikely that those two malts will perform the same in any given brewery. OTOH, if two maltsters give you the same Dry Basis Fine Grind (congress) and Moisture numbers, you can reasonably expect the two malts to perform the same in any given brewery. Do you have any reason to believe that anything in this paragraph is not true?

All the malts sold by those two have been tested to IoB and EBC standards and Simpson will also give ASBC

 

[DBhomebrew]

Back to the question of conversion efficiency, @jambop you still haven't caught up to the difference between a brewer's conversion efficiency of >98% vs the maltsters' data point for extract.

The maltsters' extract isn't going for 100%. There's no way for the husk for example to provide any dissolved solids.

A brewer, on the other hand, is aiming for 100% conversion efficiency. That's a ratio of the brewer's achieved extract compared to the maltsters' extract in their standardized mash.

For a maltster, 80% extract is pretty good. For a brewer, 80% conversion efficiency is rather poor.

If a maltster reports 80% extract on a particular malt and a brewer achieves 100% conversion efficiency with that malt, they both have the same gravity wort. [Given the same water/grist.]

[This has nothing to do with malt quality. It's a quantitative comparison. Crisp, Simpsons, Baird's, Munton's, Weyermann, Dingeman, Prairie, Breiss, bracconiere's back porch. They all have a maximum extract percentage which the brewer can attempt to reach. That achievement or not is conversion efficiency.]

 

[jambop]

Back to the question of conversion efficiency, @jambop you still haven't caught up to the difference between a brewer's conversion efficiency of >98% vs the maltsters' data point for extract.

The maltsters' extract isn't going for 100%. There's no way for the husk for example to provide any dissolved solids.

A brewer, on the other hand, is aiming for 100% conversion efficiency. That's a ratio of the brewer's achieved extract compared to the maltsters' extract in their standardized mash.

For a maltster, 80% extract is pretty good. For a brewer, 80% conversion efficiency is rather poor.

If a maltster reports 80% extract on a particular malt and a brewer achieves 100% conversion efficiency with that malt, they both have the same gravity wort.

Well my understanding is that the maltster sets the standard to which the brewer attempts to emulate . In other words a maltster will say we and independent laboratories have tested our malt to IoB or EBC standard using agreed standard analytical procedures and found x,y or z is the maximum achievable percentage of soluble matter from our malt. Now they are working with shall we say ideal conditions which are more liable to achieve maximum extraction than a brewer who is actually trying to make beer. The laboratory's remit is to obtain the maximum soluble extract from the unit of choice, in EU one Kilogram. As we can see they are not doing the same thing .One has to remember that for example a mash carried out at 72 C will deliver the highest soluble extract but it is also the least fermentable extract so not really of use to a brewer. I could be wrong but I doubt that during the course of a proper beer making mashing process a brewer will achieve the standard level of extraction the maltster did in the lab . Maybe there is a brewer out there who would give comment. One other thing you mention 80% extract and 80% conversion efficiency these are not the same thing 80% extract is conversion100 % efficiency ... as far as I am aware so yes you are right is a brewer did get 80% extract the two would give the same gravity.
So no I am not confused as to efficiencies I do understand very well !

 

[DBhomebrew]

Well, I'm not sure where all the confusion came from then.

I can say that having done very careful measurements (volume to the hundredths of a gallon) over a few dozen batches, conversion of greater than 98% is easily attainable by a stovetop brewer.

[Crisp & Simpson's]

 

[jambop]

Well, I'm not sure where all the confusion came from then.

I can say that having done very careful measurements (volume to the hundredths of a gallon) over a few dozen batches, conversion of greater than 98% is easily attainable by a stovetop brewer.

I don't think you are wrong my friend and never did say you cannot. I would say that it is though very, very difficult to achieve anywhere near 98% mashing efficiency though for any brewer let alone a home brewer. This for me means getting all the gravity points you put into the mash into the final wort in the boiler . Even very efficient mechanised breweries struggle to get near that the best are somewhere around 92 to 97 % mashing efficiency.

 

[VikeMan]

All the malts sold by those two have been tested to IoB and EBC standards and Simpson will also give ASBC

Good on Simpson for including ASBC congress mash numbers. That would be especially useful if they had specified on the sheet whether the dry basis extract % they give is coarse basis or fine grind. It makes a difference.

My point was and is that if we mix extract numbers from various "standards" (in quotes because they can't all be the standard) in brewing computations, we won't get the most accurate results. And, which standard's extract number goes into the denominator when computing the brewery's conversion and mash efficiencies? And if you choose one of them to compute your mash efficiency, how do you apply that mash efficiency to malts tested under different standards?

ETA: The simplest way to is to convert EBC to IOB: IOB = (EBC-1.705)/0.2586

That's interesting. Do we know how that formula was derived? i.e. is it based on a comparison of empirical data from common malts tested under both standards? Or is it basically a unit conversion?

 

[DBhomebrew]

I'm talking conversion efficiency. Of course you can't hit near 100% mash efficiency. Some extract and water will remain in the grist. Hence  lauter efficiency, which is brewery dependent. Has absolutely nothing to do with the maltster.

 

[jambop]

I'm talking conversion efficiency. Of course you can't hit near 100% mash efficiency. Some extract and water will remain in the grist. Hence  lauter efficiency, which is brewery dependent. Has absolutely nothing to do with the maltster.

Totally agree and have never disagreed on that.

 

[DBhomebrew]

That's interesting. Do we know how that formula was derived? i.e. is it based on a comparison of empirical data from common malts tested under both standards? Or is it basically a unit conversion?

Great question. I was quoting the linked Crisp article there. As they say " the calculation is an approximation."

 Your point about different maltsters using different standards makes for no standard is a good one.

So is the reasoning for them. EBC & ASBC makes sense for brewing cultures such as Europe and US (let's be honest, BMC) with their highly fermentable worts. IoB, with its single infusion, makes sense for UK brewing.

 

[VikeMan]

 Your point about different maltsters using different standards makes for no standard is a good one.

So is the reasoning for them. EBC & ASBC makes sense for brewing cultures such as Europe and US (let's be honest, BMC) with their highly fermentable worts. IoB, with its single infusion, makes sense for UK brewing.

I agree to a point. But I'll add that there is a huge number of US commercial breweries (not just BMC) and US homebrewers who are doing primarily single infusion mashes), and who use primarily US malts (Briess, Great Western, etc.). EBC and ASBC both work fine. IOB is probably fine too, in isolation, i.e. not mixed and matched with the others in calculations. Now, if that conversion formula is sufficiently reliable, how nice would it be if brewing software allowed users to specify either one for input on any given malt.

 

[doug293cz]

Some posts here have been getting into personal attacks, and this is not allowed on HBT. Material has been deleted, and the thread is being locked down for a cooling off period.

After it reopens, I caution all posters to remain civil and not to make things personal.

doug293cz
HBT Moderator

 

[doug293cz]

Thread is reopened.

doug293cz

 

[day_trippr]

I'm ready!

 

[jambop]

I agree to a point. But I'll add that there is a huge number of US commercial breweries (not just BMC) and US homebrewers who are doing primarily single infusion mashes), and who use primarily US malts (Briess, Great Western, etc.). EBC and ASBC both work fine. IOB is probably fine too, in isolation, i.e. not mixed and matched with the others in calculations. Now, if that conversion formula is sufficiently reliable, how nice would it be if brewing software allowed users to specify either one for input on any given malt.

I am struggling to understand your problem. British maltsters test their malt to EBC and IoB some will also do ASBC what are you saying , what is your issue ?

Crisp malting Best Ale malt analysis

TYPICAL ANALYSIS​

PARAMETER	IoB	EBC	ASBC
MOISTURE	3.5% max	3.5% max	3.5% max
EXTRACT	306 L°/kg	80.8%	80.8%
COLOUR	5.0-6.5 EBC	5.5-7.2 EBC	2.5-3.1 °L
TN/TP	1.30 - 1.65%	8.0 - 10.0%	8.0 - 10.0%
SNR/KI/ST RATIO	38-48	43-54	43-54

 

[VikeMan]

I am struggling to understand your problem. British maltsters test their malt to EBC and IoB some will also do ASBC what are you saying , what is your issue ?

Crisp malting Best Ale malt analysis

TYPICAL ANALYSIS​

PARAMETER	IoB	EBC	ASBC
MOISTURE	3.5% max	3.5% max	3.5% max
EXTRACT	306 L°/kg	80.8%	80.8%
COLOUR	5.0-6.5 EBC	5.5-7.2 EBC	2.5-3.1 °L
TN/TP	1.30 - 1.65%	8.0 - 10.0%	8.0 - 10.0%
SNR/KI/ST RATIO	38-48	43-54	43-54

My issue with the first Crisp analysis posted in #57 was that is was only IOB, which is not compatible with any brewing software I've seen, not useful for a mixed (with non-IOB spec's malts) grain bill, and a crap shoot for anyone who has not previously determined their own conversion and mash efficiencies using a denominator derived from experience with IOB tested malts.

The analysis in #76 is better, although what's presented as ASBC "extract" could be Coarse Grind Dry Basis, Fine Grind Dry Basis, or even an "As Is" (i.e. not excluding moisture) Basis. I would hope that it's Fine Grind Dry, i.e. the most useful one, but it doesn't say.

 

[VikeMan]

Great question. I was quoting the linked Crisp article there. As they say " the calculation is an approximation."

I have emailed Crisp, asking about how the conversion formula was derived and whether the EBC side is coarse or fine grind, as is or dry, etc.

 

[jambop]

H

I have emailed Crisp, asking about how the conversion formula was derived and whether the EBC side is coarse or fine grind, as is or dry, etc.

Horses for courses as they say. I would noteven be bothering about that, they the testing lab have a remit to obtain the maximal extract per kilo... you on the other hand are making beer which are two entirely different things, To obtain their extract you have to do their mash and as the man says no brewer does that .

 

[VikeMan]

H

Horses for courses as they say. I would noteven be bothering about that, they the testing lab have a remit to obtain the maximal extract per kilo... you on the other hand are making beer which are two entirely different things, To obtain their extract you have to do their mash and as the man says no brewer does that .

I'm not trying to obtain the same extract as any testing lab. The testing lab's numbers are used as a standard baseline from which to compute efficiencies, which in turn can be applied to any malt tested under the same standard, but not necessarily to other standards.