Efficiency Mash to Boil to Fermenter
- Thread starter SWK
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
Was just reading this it explains alot. What makes a BIAB less efficient then a HERMS tho? If both systems convert 100% of starch to sugar is it only because the BIAB system doesnt get a good rinse to get out all of the potential sugars?
http://beersmith.com/blog/2014/11/0...vs-mash-efficiency-in-all-grain-beer-brewing/
http://beersmith.com/blog/2014/11/0...vs-mash-efficiency-in-all-grain-beer-brewing/
chickypad
lupulin shift victim
BIAB isn't necessarily less efficient than a system set up with HERMs. You may lose lauter efficiency from not sparging, but you gain some back by having less grain absorption, and usually less deadspace. There is a wide range of what folks actually get in practice for both methods.
One thing I don't agree with in that article is that "Brewhouse efficiency generally remains constant from batch to batch when brewing on the same system". I find that my brewhouse efficiency is greatly affected by the type of beer I'm brewing, for example IPA's have a lot of trub loss from the hops so my brewhouse efficiency goes down even compared to a different beer with the same gravity. I find it's easier to target post boil volumes and gravities, as that stays very consistent.
One thing I don't agree with in that article is that "Brewhouse efficiency generally remains constant from batch to batch when brewing on the same system". I find that my brewhouse efficiency is greatly affected by the type of beer I'm brewing, for example IPA's have a lot of trub loss from the hops so my brewhouse efficiency goes down even compared to a different beer with the same gravity. I find it's easier to target post boil volumes and gravities, as that stays very consistent.
If you use whole hops in a basket instead of pellets does that make a difference in the amount of trub in your IPAs?
Do like I did. Start with a recipe that was designed for 70% brewhouse efficiency and make the beer. Check your volumes and OG and see what you got. Do it again, taking good notes each time. Now you know how your system/method compares and you can adjust the base malt to account for the difference in brewhouse efficiency that you achieved. I had to choke down a couple high alcohol batches until I believed that my efficiency was so much higher than the recipe was made for and began adjusting the base malt to account for that.
Will try that once I pick a system I want to go with. Looking at the Unibrau but may wait for SS brewtechs all in one. thanks for the advice
I find two fundamental efficiency points- into the kettle (getting the wort gravity right) and into packaging (volume). Others are secondary (not that they don't matter, but they're important in leading to the two above).
For example, if you're just dumping all your trub into your fermenter, your batch size and brewhouse efficiency will be higher on paper than someone who leaves the trub in the kettle, but when it comes time to package you leave it all in the fermenter and you may end up packaging the same amount of volume, so that efficiency increase really didn't exist at all. Or if you're converting 100% of the mash but leaving sugars in the grains, you're also not very efficient.
From there, my view is that wort properties are far more important than final volume. So I dial in efficiency going into the kettle. To me hitting my gravity is paramount to how much wort/beer I end up with.
You still get variance with conversion/lauter efficiency based on gravity and how well you sparge, but that's far more predictable than hop/trub/yeast loss. If you do same beer enough times you can even notice a change between different lots of the same hop (and not even just adjusting amounts for changing alphas, different sources and lots absorb more or less or compact more or less tightly changing how much clear wort/beer you can get out).
I think the "no-sparge BIAB is less efficient" idea came from when it was thought to be harmful to squeeze the bag, which has been shown (at least by perceptive standards) to not really be the case. As said above, this drives BIAB grain absorption (and the sugars with it) way down.
Now, I haven't done a BIAB batch in a good number of years, and I believe I used to get lower 80s efficiency into the kettle when I did (but I also squeezed and sparged). I get in the lower 90s efficiency into the kettle using a traditional continuous sparge (on a standard gravity beer, if I go big it'll dip into the 80s or if I go upwards of 25°P I'll hit the high 70s). However I can't confidently say if that's inherent to the process or if I'm just a better brewer than back when I did BIAB.
For example, if you're just dumping all your trub into your fermenter, your batch size and brewhouse efficiency will be higher on paper than someone who leaves the trub in the kettle, but when it comes time to package you leave it all in the fermenter and you may end up packaging the same amount of volume, so that efficiency increase really didn't exist at all. Or if you're converting 100% of the mash but leaving sugars in the grains, you're also not very efficient.
From there, my view is that wort properties are far more important than final volume. So I dial in efficiency going into the kettle. To me hitting my gravity is paramount to how much wort/beer I end up with.
You still get variance with conversion/lauter efficiency based on gravity and how well you sparge, but that's far more predictable than hop/trub/yeast loss. If you do same beer enough times you can even notice a change between different lots of the same hop (and not even just adjusting amounts for changing alphas, different sources and lots absorb more or less or compact more or less tightly changing how much clear wort/beer you can get out).
I think the "no-sparge BIAB is less efficient" idea came from when it was thought to be harmful to squeeze the bag, which has been shown (at least by perceptive standards) to not really be the case. As said above, this drives BIAB grain absorption (and the sugars with it) way down.
Now, I haven't done a BIAB batch in a good number of years, and I believe I used to get lower 80s efficiency into the kettle when I did (but I also squeezed and sparged). I get in the lower 90s efficiency into the kettle using a traditional continuous sparge (on a standard gravity beer, if I go big it'll dip into the 80s or if I go upwards of 25°P I'll hit the high 70s). However I can't confidently say if that's inherent to the process or if I'm just a better brewer than back when I did BIAB.
Similar threads
