Lacking Efficiency

[MalFet]

So you want to split the batch to help you simulate two separate smaller batches? I suppose that would work, but it won't improve your efficiency on this particular batch.

Main thing is, get some measurements. As it stands, you don't really have the data to even say that you're having low efficiency.

 

[broadbill]

Well, frankly that's what I'm trying to do. As you pointed out previously, efficiency and gravity are two seperate things. Also, that the yield from the initial mash conversion is generally more consistent compared to that obtained from sparging techniques.

So, by doing two seperate batches I can take readings with both using the exact same methods and more extensive notes. That way the results would be more telling.

Plus, my problem has really been the OG of my initial wort is lower than expected regardless of my grain bill. Based on the fact that as the grain bill increases the efficiency decreases (due to trouble with accurate sparging techniques I assume) then it makes sense that no matter how much grain I add to compensate the end result will remain the same: low OG. I was confusing this originally with bad efficiency.

I don't care about spending more time finding out exactly where my methods or equipment are lacking. I figure it will save me from many headaches and frustrating times in the future if I nail down the exact reason why my numbers aren't adding up now. Plus, I will ensure that I will meet what I expect for an OG on my next batch.

I could oversparge and just boil that excess off, I guess, but then it will be just one sample experimentation with more intense note taking (which I have not really done but will definitely do this next time) vs. two samples to provide a comparison.

Is something wrong with this logic? It might be excessive but it seems like my equipment is not performing as well as it should and if I rely on factors that are not consistent with how I brew, or what I brew with, then that doesn't really help me whenever I solely use what I had originally. Correct?

Again, my take FWIW:

+1 to Malfet--first off, you don't know if you have a problem in the first place because you don't know volumes you are working with.

Second, you are trying to troubleshoot this problem following a recipe that is has its own host of issues associated with it...i.e. inherent issues with efficiency with high OG recipes.

How are you going to discriminate between a problem with your technique/equipment/process (something you can fix) versus the inherent problems working with high gravity AG recipes (something you can't do much about)?

Third-The definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Why split/halve this recipe, only to mash each one identically? That tells you nothing about anything. There are all sort of things you try and change here, but you seem unwilling to vary the one thing that is the easiest to change....the recipe. Try a lower gravity recipe and see if you have the same problems. With brings me to my fourth point:

Fourth--how many times do you need to brew this damn thing? Sounds like you've brewed it once or twice and going for it again. are going to have upwards of 10 gallons of 1.1-- wort, maybe close to 20 gallons if you do what you say you are going to do....That is alot of high-gravity stuff to have around? Are you sure this recipe is enough of a winner to have that much of it around?

I guess I'm now wondering what you goals are here....to improve a process or to have enough barleywine to get the entire island bombed out their skulls:cross:

 

[MalFet]

I guess I'm now wondering what you goals are here....to improve a process or to have enough barleywine to get the entire island bombed out their skulls:cross:

Not that there's anything wrong with that latter goal, of course...

High grav brews are fine, but a 60% efficiency (if that actually is what you're getting) is a relatively reasonable number for a bigbig beer. That's why we're recommending you work on your process as you actually plan to use it (i.e., not splitting up the batch).

 

[Aloha_Brew]

Not that there's anything wrong with that latter goal, of course...

High grav brews are fine, but a 60% efficiency (if that actually is what you're getting) is a relatively reasonable number for a bigbig beer. That's why we're recommending you work on your process as you actually plan to use it (i.e., not splitting up the batch).

Like I've been saying, I confused efficiency with expected OG. I've done several different high gravity bills now, the most recent being two different IPAs. One had 19 lbs while the other had 16.5 lbs, while both had 12 lbs of 2 row. The smaller bill had an OG of 1.074 but the larger was 1.073. So, the argument for just adding more grain to reach my desired OG obviously doesn't work for me...for whatever reason.

For my next batch my grain bill has half 2 row and half specialties (recipe given earlier). So, it would not be two identical mashes but 2 similar weights. There isn't much else I can measure with the exception of true efficiency. Once I am sure about that then I can move on to the next step to see where my major loss is occuring.

Plus, I'm in the Navy and well aware of insanity. Definitely got a ways to go! And I have liked higher ABV beers for some time now...just brewing these to learn more and to drink myself silly...

 

[MalFet]

Adding more grain WILL increase your OG, there's no doubt about that. Something else was going on. Plus, you definitely shouldn't mash the two row and the specialty grains separately. You won't get conversion.

 

[Aloha_Brew]

Adding more grain WILL increase your OG, there's no doubt about that. Something else was going on. Plus, you definitely shouldn't mash the two row and the specialty grains separately. You won't get conversion.

I thought I heard about that conversion thing from somewhere... but the specialty grains included are 10 lbs Munich(48%), Peated(28%), and Pilsen(18%) with 1.5 lbs including half pale choco and Rausch. Wouldn't these convert well by themselves without the 2 row?

Understood that the OG should have been higher but it most definitely was not. That's why I started this thread with efficiency as the topic. Couldn't think of any reason why my actual OG was so low.

 

[broadbill]

I thought I heard about that conversion thing from somewhere... but the specialty grains included are 10 lbs Munich(48%), Peated(28%), and Pilsen(18%) with 1.5 lbs including half pale choco and Rausch. Wouldn't these convert well by themselves without the 2 row?

Understood that the OG should have been higher but it most definitely was not. That's why I started this thread with efficiency as the topic. Couldn't think of any reason why my actual OG was so low.

The munich is able to self-convert, but not much more than that. The peated and pilsner are able to self-convert and also convert specialty grains without enzymatic power. The question is it is enough?

Can you post the complete recipe? I don't think the recipe in your OP had rausch, peated or any of that other stuff in it. Where did you get this recipe?

 

[MalFet]

I thought I heard about that conversion thing from somewhere... but the specialty grains included are 10 lbs Munich(48%), Peated(28%), and Pilsen(18%) with 1.5 lbs including half pale choco and Rausch. Wouldn't these convert well by themselves without the 2 row?

Understood that the OG should have been higher but it most definitely was not. That's why I started this thread with efficiency as the topic. Couldn't think of any reason why my actual OG was so low.

If that is your recipe, it will convert. The term specialty grain generally refers to grains without diastatic power, which doesn't apply to this recipe.

Something else was different between your two batches, and this has been my point from the beginning: your process is not consistent enough to make any kind of generalizations about efficiency. You are of course welcome to split your batch, but it will not fix your efficiency problem. There is something more fundamentally amiss with your process if you are seeing those kinds of swings.

 

[Aloha_Brew]

I agree! Wish I knew what it was. But I'll take in-depth notes for the next brew day and ask for assistance if I still can't figure it out.

 

[Pivovar_Koucky]

Have you checked your pH?

If not get some pH strips and a pound of crushed grain, drop it into 1.5 quarts of your brewing water @ 115 deg. F. Wait 10 min and then check the pH. If it's not between 5-5.5 you have pH problems.

I also don't know how much you trust your thermometer, that could be a problem

 

[Aloha_Brew]

Have you checked your pH?

If not get some pH strips and a pound of crushed grain, drop it into 1.5 quarts of your brewing water @ 115 deg. F. Wait 10 min and then check the pH. If it's not between 5-5.5 you have pH problems.

I also don't know how much you trust your thermometer, that could be a problem

Have not checked the PH but all water on island comes from the same source. Water reports and others who brew specifically in my area though say that PH is fairly neutral.

I might check that with strips before I brew this weekend...

 

[Aloha_Brew]

I'll start another thread if I get no responses but for continuity purposes here's my most recent data:

Just mashed two batches as follows-
#1 5lbs Munich, 3lbs Peated, 2lbs Pilsen, .75lbs Rauche, .75lbs Pale Chocolate.
#2 10lbs 2 Row.

I used the aforementioned formula for max gravity along with the Excel spreadsheet mentioned before to come up with my numbers.

For batch #1 I mashed all grains (11.5lbs) with 23 quarts of water at a temp of 153 degrees for 60 minutes. I recycled 3 quarts before draining 4 gallons total with an SG of 1.055. I batch sparged 6 more quarts at 175 degrees, without recycling, and had a total of 5.25 gallons with an SG of 1.052. By the formula I got an efficiency of 58.5% for the 4 gallons and 72.2% for the 5.25 gallons. By the table on Braukaiser my initial wort was 87.3% efficient for the qt/lb. Using the spreadsheet I got 58% brewhouse efficiency, 62% lauter efficiency, and 93% extraction efficiency for the 4 gallons and 69% brewhouse efficiency, 73% lautering efficiency, and 94% extraction efficiency for the total 5.25 gallons w/sparge.

For batch #2 I mashed the 2 row (10lbs) with 20 quarts of water at a temp of 152 degrees for 60 minutes. I recycled 2 quarts before draining 2.75 gallons total with an SG of 1.064. I batch sparged 5 more quarts with 170 degrees, recycling 2 quarts at first and then 2 more again after a stuck filter, and had a total of 4 gallons with an SG of 1.058. By the formula I got an efficiency of 46% for the 2.5 gallons and 61% for the 4 gallons. By the table on Braukaiser my initial wort was 100% efficient for the qt/lb. Using the spreadsheet I got 49% brewhouse efficiency, 49% lauter efficiency, and 100% extraction efficiency for the 2.5 gallons and 65% brewhouse efficiency, 64% lauter efficiency, and 101% extraction efficiency for the 4 gallons w/sparge.

Phew! More than enough for one day. Plus I still have to boil off another gallon and a half in order to make my 5-5.5 gallon batch. I used 32ppg for figuring out the Peated and the Pilsen and 28ppg for the Rausch and Pale Chocolate. So, I could be off with the formula and the spreadsheet because of that but the table is likely correct due to the inclusion of specialty grains and less than perfect yield from the others. However, the 2 row looks to be spot on with the table and for extract efficiency on the spreadsheet.

I guess this means that the grains were ground well enough for this batch but I need to better understand the use of pairing grains to maximize enzyme activity and malt yield if I'm wanting to hit my target gravity. That sound correct to everyone? Any other thoughts or ideas? I'll do a Ph check of my tap water next weekend. I need a beer...

 

[Aloha_Brew]

Can you post the complete recipe? I don't think the recipe in your OP had rausch, peated or any of that other stuff in it. Where did you get this recipe?

I had talked to the brewmaster of Silver City Brewing about the Fat Ale they have. I liked it alot and decided to try it out now. However, 6 months was when I got the basic recipe and I lost it. I do remember most of it and incorporated it into this recipe with a few additions that looked interesting to me. I'll let you know how it turns out. So far it has a strong smoke and coffee-like scent from the Rausch that I hope the chocolate will smooth out, but I'm thinking I should have doubled the pale chocolate.

 

[MalFet]

Nice work!

It all looks about right, and for the whole batch you have a total brewhouse efficiency in the mid-to-high 60s. Even between the two batches, it's more consistent than I would have expected it to be.

So, you're getting conversion, which is key. The slight discrepancy between the two batches is probably just due to the numbers you used to describe the grain being slightly off, which is no big deal. I tend to get right around 95% conversion efficiency every time when using numbers that I trust.

As for brewhouse efficiency, something in the mid-60s if perfectly respectable, and if your only goal is to make good beer I wouldn't even say that you need to change anything. If you want to chase some more efficiency for cost saving purposes, you should be able to get another ten points or so on batch sparging system without anything drastic.

How much deadspace do you have in your mashtun? How do you go about sparging?

 

[broadbill]

I'll start another thread if I get no responses but for continuity purposes here's my most recent data:

Just mashed two batches as follows-
#1 5lbs Munich, 3lbs Peated, 2lbs Pilsen, .75lbs Rauche, .75lbs Pale Chocolate.
#2 10lbs 2 Row.

I used the aforementioned formula for max gravity along with the Excel spreadsheet mentioned before to come up with my numbers.

For batch #1 I mashed all grains (11.5lbs) with 23 quarts of water at a temp of 153 degrees for 60 minutes. I recycled 3 quarts before draining 4 gallons total with an SG of 1.055. I batch sparged 6 more quarts at 175 degrees, without recycling, and had a total of 5.25 gallons with an SG of 1.052. By the formula I got an efficiency of 58.5% for the 4 gallons and 72.2% for the 5.25 gallons. By the table on Braukaiser my initial wort was 87.3% efficient for the qt/lb. Using the spreadsheet I got 58% brewhouse efficiency, 62% lauter efficiency, and 93% extraction efficiency for the 4 gallons and 69% brewhouse efficiency, 73% lautering efficiency, and 94% extraction efficiency for the total 5.25 gallons w/sparge.

For batch #2 I mashed the 2 row (10lbs) with 20 quarts of water at a temp of 152 degrees for 60 minutes. I recycled 2 quarts before draining 2.75 gallons total with an SG of 1.064. I batch sparged 5 more quarts with 170 degrees, recycling 2 quarts at first and then 2 more again after a stuck filter, and had a total of 4 gallons with an SG of 1.058. By the formula I got an efficiency of 46% for the 2.5 gallons and 61% for the 4 gallons. By the table on Braukaiser my initial wort was 100% efficient for the qt/lb. Using the spreadsheet I got 49% brewhouse efficiency, 49% lauter efficiency, and 100% extraction efficiency for the 2.5 gallons and 65% brewhouse efficiency, 64% lauter efficiency, and 101% extraction efficiency for the 4 gallons w/sparge.

You are definitely under-sparging on both of these recipes. You really want to be collecting 7-8 gallons pre-boil. If you are stuck only pulling 5-5.5 gallons pre-boil. I would lower the mash ratio from 2qt/lb to 1qt/lb. It will still convert at that ratio and you will also have more sparge water to add.

Phew! More than enough for one day. Plus I still have to boil off another gallon and a half in order to make my 5-5.5 gallon batch. I used 32ppg for figuring out the Peated and the Pilsen and 28ppg for the Rausch and Pale Chocolate. So, I could be off with the formula and the spreadsheet because of that but the table is likely correct due to the inclusion of specialty grains and less than perfect yield from the others. However, the 2 row looks to be spot on with the table and for extract efficiency on the spreadsheet.

I don't think your numbers are off. However if I were to do this, I wouldn't have just "trusted" that batch #1 had sufficient DP to convert itself. Batch #2, being all 2-row has enough DP to convert itself, the specialty grains with more to spare. Why not make the two batches identical since you were going to pool the running anyway?

I guess this means that the grains were ground well enough

Why do you say this? Actually poor grain crush is the number 1 reason of poor efficiency. The only reason we didn't suggest this from the get-go was because you are trying to mash a huge grain bill. You have a whole host of other problems to contend with.

for this batch but I need to better understand the use of pairing grains to maximize enzyme activity and malt yield if I'm wanting to hit my target gravity. That sound correct to everyone? Any other thoughts or ideas? I'll do a Ph check of my tap water next weekend. I need a beer...

My thoughts:

1. Check your crush. Crush finer.
2. Mix your specialty grains with the 2-row. Don't mash separately, even though theoretically there is enough DP to convert.
3. Collect more runnings and sparge more.

EDIT TO ADD: My analysis and suggestions are just where I see potential issues in your process. I understand you may not be able to fix them based on equipment, time, or ingredient limitations. I just offer them so you have an idea of what to look for to troubleshoot these sort of things. As Malfet points out....given the recipe, you are probably doing the best you can here (given your equipment) and this is just the efficiency you have to work with.

In going forward, I would assume you are going to get 60% efficiency and bump up the 2 row to account for it.

 

[Aloha_Brew]

How much deadspace do you have in your mashtun? How do you go about sparging?

I have a cooler that I think holds 52 quarts. There's no deadspace under the grain bed, just the empty headspace. I have a steel mesh filtration hose attached to a drainage hose/ ball valve combo.

I sparge by using my Pyrex pitcher to place a quart of water at a time over the grain bed by pouring it slowly on top. I then stir up the grain bed for about a minute and let it sit there for 10 minutes before draining .

 

[broadbill]

I sparge by using my Pyrex pitcher to place a quart of water at a time over the grain bed by pouring it slowly on top. I then stir up the grain bed for about a minute and let it sit there for 10 minutes before draining .

The Pitcher-on-top and pouring slowly deal is totally unnecessary with batch sparging. At my gentlest I'll be dumping a gallon of sparge water from a height of 1-3 feet, and for the most part I'll grab the sparge water pot and dump the whole 4-5 gallons of water in, all at once. Splash!

Oh yeah, and stir the crap out of it....you really need to get that whole batch of grain nice and washed. For the amount of grain you are doing, you should be using a actual mash paddle and not the dink spoon that came with your extract kit. You should be working that mash paddle like you are in the kayak event for the olympics...:rockin:

 

[MalFet]

Your numbers are still inconsistent, but it looks like you are losing water somewhere.

Batch #1:
11.5lb grain
29qt in
21qt out
liquid loss = 8qt => .17 gal / lb

Batch #2:
10lb grain
25qt in
16qt out
liquid loss = 9qt => .23 gal / lb

Standard grain absorption would be in the vicinity of .11-.13 gal/lb, depending on a few factors. You are losing more than that because you've got deadspace (which isn't just open space below the valve, but any area that doesn't get sufficiently drained of wort), but what is more concerning is that you are getting a significant difference between these two batches. It is hard to tell if that is a measurement problem or if there is some kind of fundamental inconsistency in how you mash.

 

[Aloha_Brew]

Your numbers are still inconsistent, but it looks like you are losing water somewhere.

Batch #1:
11.5lb grain
29qt in
21qt out
liquid loss = 8qt => .17 gal / lb

Batch #2:
10lb grain
25qt in
16qt out
liquid loss = 9qt => .23 gal / lb

Standard grain absorption would be in the vicinity of .11-.13 gal/lb, depending on a few factors. You are losing more than that because you've got deadspace (which isn't just open space below the valve, but any area that doesn't get sufficiently drained of wort), but what is more concerning is that you are getting a significant difference between these two batches. It is hard to tell if that is a measurement problem or if there is some kind of fundamental inconsistency in how you mash.

Well, I have about a quart remaining whenever I clean out my grain bed after mashing, but not much more than that. I always find it at the very botton of the grain bed. The drain valve is about 3/4" above the very bottom of the cooler, so I'm inclined to blame that more than anything. As for the differences in mashing, I only recycled 2 quarts in the second batch with the sparge, and aside from a temp diff of 2 degrees, nothing else otherwise.

 

[MalFet]

Well, I have about a quart remaining whenever I clean out my grain bed after mashing, but not much more than that. I always find it at the very botton of the grain bed. The drain valve is about 3/4" above the very bottom of the cooler, so I'm inclined to blame that more than anything. As for the differences in mashing, I only recycled 2 quarts in the second batch with the sparge, and aside from a temp diff of 2 degrees, nothing else otherwise.

You are losing more water than you should. There's no doubt about that. The question is where.

So long as you are stirring sufficiently, recirculation shouldn't affect your efficiency. Likewise for slight temperature differences, so long as you are getting full conversion.

 

[mrbobble]

Theres a lot of good discussion going on here but I wanted to add my 2 cents. I had been making all grain beer of diminished quality for a while before I finally landed on what the issue was. I got a grain mill, a PH meter, water chemistry analysis etc. The thing that was killing it for me was my bimetal dial thermometers attached to my kegs. All three were off by quite a bit and the one on my mash tun was off by 20 degrees. These were from a reputable manufacturer and I put my faith in them but they returned inaccurate data even after calibration on more than one occasion. Have you verified exactly that your temps are what your measurements are saying they are?

 

[mrbobble]

Nevermind! I just noticed you're doubling up on temp verificatoin.