Explain efficiency please!!!

[pricelessbrewing]

If you're getting 70-80% conversion, you're having issues somewhere. It should be 90-98%.

Conversion % is the amount of extract/sugar/gravity points present in the mash . Meaning the wort in the mash and the wort absorbed by the grain, not just the wort drained from the mash. Which is what it looked like you were describing

 

[Qhrumphf]

If you're getting 70-80% conversion, you're having issues somewhere. It should be 90-98%.

Conversion % is the amount of extract/sugar/gravity points present in the mash . Meaning the wort in the mash and the wort absorbed by the grain, not just the wort drained from the mash. Which is what it looked like you were describing

I got the impression, from how he described things, that he's going no sparge full volume BIAB. When sparging is taken out of the equation, mash efficiency and conversion efficiency become much the same thing (or at least functionally interchangeable), and grain absorption can be treated as a volume loss. It's an unconventional way of thinking about it, but functional as far as I can tell.

 

[petrolSpice]

If you're getting 70-80% conversion, you're having issues somewhere. It should be 90-98%.

Conversion % is the amount of extract/sugar/gravity points present in the mash . Meaning the wort in the mash and the wort absorbed by the grain, not just the wort drained from the mash. Which is what it looked like you were describing

Durr I see now! Yes, good point. So my 20-30% efficiency loss is because some of the sugar is staying in the grain and going into the trash instead of my beer. I will refer to this as mash efficiency for now on.

I'm curious if a small dunk sparge would help my mash efficiency. I would have to balance it with mash thickness so my pre-boil volume is correct. I like thin mashes because it helps my mash efficiency.

 

[ajdelange]

So, what was my efficiency?

Your efficiency is 100 times the ratio of the mass of extract you realized to the mass of the grains you mashed. For example if you mash 10 kg of grain and wind up with 8 kg of extract in the kettle then your efficiency, to the kettle, is 80%. A well run commercial operation can get close to this. A home brewer will generally be at about the 70% level.

To determine the mass of extract weigh the wort or measure its volume. Correct the volume to room temperature. Measure the SG at room temperature and multiply the SG by the volume and then by 0.998203 kg/L. Now use the ASBC tables or polynomial to convert SG to ° Plato, divide that by 100 and multiply the resulting decimal fraction by the weight of the wort. The result is the weight of the extract.

 

[pricelessbrewing]

I got the impression, from how he described things, that he's going no sparge full volume BIAB. When sparging is taken out of the equation, mash efficiency and conversion efficiency become much the same thing (or at least functionally interchangeable), and grain absorption can be treated as a volume loss. It's an unconventional way of thinking about it, but functional as far as I can tell.

Nope. The volume loss in mashing contains sugar.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Nope. The volume loss in mashing contains sugar.

It does. But so does the volume loss to a plate chiller or left behind with trub.

What I'm getting at is that with solid mashing process and no sparging, by knowing your conversion efficiency and grain absorption rates you can determine what volume of wort, and at what gravity you'll have in the kettle ahead of time, much like you would with knowing your mash efficiency.

Like I said, it's not a conventional approach or conventional terminology, but in terms of accurately and consistently predicting results, it's functional. But it sounds like you were correct and he was just mixing up terms so never mind.

 

[petrolSpice]

Like I said, it's not a conventional approach or conventional terminology, but in terms of accurately and consistently predicting results, it's functional. But it sounds like you were correct and he was just mixing up terms so never mind.

Exactly. My process works, it's just than my terminology and thinking was a bit off