Mash Efficiency vs Brewhouse Efficiency??

[Allekornbrauer]

I am little confused about which Efficiency to be looking at for brewing no sparge BIAB batch’s??

 

[Big Monk]

I am little confused about which Efficiency to be looking at for brewing no sparge BIAB batch’s??

Mash efficiency. Brewhouse Efficiency actually has nothing to do with mash extract and shouldn’t be used in estimating it.

 

[ba-brewer]

maybe take a look at this this site
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency

I use beersmith which everything is based on brewhouse efficiency.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

I am little confused about which Efficiency to be looking at for brewing no sparge BIAB batch’s??

It might be best to break Overall Efficiency into two parts: Mash Efficiency and Brewhouse Losses. To start off with, you have to extract a reasonable percentage of the sugars from the grain (Mash Efficiency). Mash Efficiency sets the upper limit of your Overall Efficiency. If you only extract 50% of the sugars, your Overall Efficiency will always be less than 50%.

If you don't care about your final volume, then Brewhouse Losses might not be that important. If you end the boil with a 1.060 wort, you will have a 1.060 wort into your fermenter and the same beer into your keg/bottle.

For me, my overall goal for a batch is something like "I want 5 gals of a 1.060 beer into my keg" (well...really 1.060 is to drive a FG and ABV). So that is where Overall Efficiency comes in...the combination of Mash Efficiency and Brewhouse Losses then drive the amount of grains and water than I need at mash time to hit my target. If you lose 1/2 gal of wort in a pump and lines, then you need more water and grain up front to hit your target.

My overall goal is not to maximize Mash Efficiency or to minimize Brewhouse Losses, but more to get reasonable values for both and to understand the values so I can account for them during recipe formulation.

 

[VirginiaHops1]

I use brewersfriend software and monitor my brewhouse efficiency but haven't ever calculated my mash efficiency. I rarely even measure my pre-boil gravity. All I really care about is my brewhouse efficiency is reasonable and more importantly consistent.

 

[lump42]

maybe take a look at this this site
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency

I use beersmith which everything is based on brewhouse efficiency.

I use brewer's friend and it also bases recipe on brewhouse.

In my head brewhouse is the total efficiency going into the fermentor. Mash efficiency is a part of the total brewhouse efficiency and is how efficient the starch conversion was. If you are looking to improve your efficiency breaking brewhouse (total) efficiency helps find the area that can stand the most improvement.

 

[Big Monk]

I use brewer's friend and it also bases recipe on brewhouse.

In my head brewhouse is the total efficiency going into the fermentor. Mash efficiency is a part of the total brewhouse efficiency and is how efficient the starch conversion was. If you are looking to improve your efficiency breaking brewhouse (total) efficiency helps find the area that can stand the most improvement.

Brewhouse Efficiency actually has nothing to do with Mash Efficiency. I treat Brewhouse Efficiency as a completely separate metric.

I understand that many programs use it to predict gravity and I can't figure out why the developers think that's a good idea.

For instance, If I brew 2 separate beers and my kettle losses differ significantly between the 2, my brewhouse efficiency will be impacted and will affect my gravity calculations even though kettle losses have nothing to do with gravity.

The metric to really care about is Mash Efficiency and it's related Conversion and Lauter Efficiency components. That's what sets your batches extract potential. In fact, it's only in the mash and with evaporation that you can change gravity at all.

Brewhouse Efficiency is actually a measure of how efficiently you get your desired volume into the fermenter, not gravity.

 

[lump42]

Brewhouse Efficiency actually has nothing to do with Mash Efficiency. I treat Brewhouse Efficiency as a completely separate metric.

I understand that many programs use it to predict gravity and I can't figure out why the developers think that's a good idea.

For instance, If I brew 2 separate beers and my kettle losses differ significantly between the 2, my brewhouse efficiency will be impacted and will affect my gravity calculations even though kettle losses have nothing to do with gravity.

The metric to really care about is Mash Efficiency and it's related Conversion and Lauter Efficiency components. That's what sets your batches extract potential. In fact, it's only in the mash and with evaporation that you can change gravity at all.

Brewhouse Efficiency is actually a measure of how efficiently you get your desired volume into the fermenter, not gravity.

I disagree that they are separate metrics. I measure brewhouse efficiency as desired volume into the fementor at certain gravity.
Brewhouse efficiency = Conversion efficiency - lauter losses - kettle losses

Mash efficiency is conversion efficiency and lauter losses, but they are the starting point for brewhouse efficiency. Whether they matter depends on the brewers goal (gravity, volume, or both; at the end of boil or into the fermentor). Lauter losses should matter as much as the kettle losses. By your logic mash efficiency shouldn't matter only conversion efficiency.

The kettle losses and lauter efficiencies may be fairly constant for a system and once figured out can mostly be ignored, but are still important in getting a consistent product going into the ferement. Conversion efficiency is the only part of my process that tends to vary, I throw that up to different maltsters and lots, since it's only varies a few points.

You're welcome to disagree, but your definition of brewhouse efficiency is only accounting for physical losses and not the inclusive term that I see most refer to it as.
This sums up how I was taught to view the different efficiencies https://www.brewersfriend.com/faq/#brewsessions5

 

[Big Monk]

I disagree that they are separate metrics. I measure brewhouse efficiency as desired volume into the fementor at certain gravity.
Brewhouse efficiency = Conversion efficiency - lauter losses - kettle losses

Mash efficiency is conversion efficiency and lauter losses, but they are the starting point for brewhouse efficiency. Whether they matter depends on the brewers goal (gravity, volume, or both; at the end of boil or into the fermentor). Lauter losses should matter as much as the kettle losses. By your logic mash efficiency shouldn't matter only conversion efficiency.

The kettle losses and lauter efficiencies may be fairly constant for a system and once figured out can mostly be ignored, but are still important in getting a consistent product going into the ferement. Conversion efficiency is the only part of my process that tends to vary, I throw that up to different maltsters and lots, since it's only varies a few points.

You're welcome to disagree, but your definition of brewhouse efficiency is only accounting for physical losses and not the inclusive term that I see most refer to it as.
This sums up how I was taught to view the different efficiencies https://www.brewersfriend.com/faq/#brewsessions5

My only issue is that if I have a 1.060 beer post boil, it doesn't matter if my kettle losses are 1 liter or 10 liters, I'll still have a 1.060 beer. Changes in volume post boil don't change gravity.

Your equation above and the generally accepted definition of Brewhouse Efficiency says it will.

If people have their process dialed in and get repeatable results then i have no beef with that. I just worry about people taking their software at face value and not understanding the mechanics.

The volume component is important in Mash Efficiency because the water is the medium by which you move sugar into solution and out to the boil kettle. So in that part of the process, volume and the efficiency of the lautering process is important.

By the time you are in the BK, the only way to shape gravity on it's way to the fermenter is through boiling. Post boil there are no further changes in gravity. So an efficiency metric concerning itself with final volumes seems at odds.

Again, if I have a 1.060 post boil wort, it doesn't matter if I have one drop or 19 liters, it's still 1.060.

Sorry for the rant I have just had this topic on my mind and it seemed like an ideal place to discuss it.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I agree with RPIScotty! Brewhouse efficiency simply needs to go away. I can't see how it could validly be used to determine anything that has gone on up stream, when standing alone as the sole efficiency variable. I can't believe that Brewer's Friend still attempts to rely upon it.

 

[VirginiaHops1]

For instance, If I brew 2 separate beers and my kettle losses differ significantly between the 2, my brewhouse efficiency will be impacted and will affect my gravity calculations even though kettle losses have nothing to do with gravity.

This is why you could never calculate brewhouse efficiency on one system and try to use it to estimate your numbers on a different system(which I think most advanced brewers understand?). However, on the same system it is a very useful metric. Now that I have my system/process dialed in very well I always hit my numbers very closely using estimated brewhouse efficiency as the driver.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

I use brewersfriend software and monitor my brewhouse efficiency but haven't ever calculated my mash efficiency. I rarely even measure my pre-boil gravity. All I really care about is my brewhouse efficiency is reasonable and more importantly consistent.

I did that for many years. I followed the same basic process, and as long as my fly sparge went okay I would come close enough to the numbers that the app I was using told me for 75% efficiency. I usually just took a gravity reading as my chilled wort was going into the fermenter. I made good beer. I never measured mash efficiency.

Lately I have been measuring more (and I picked up a refractometer to help) because I moved to BIAB and I am still working to tune in my process and numbers. I do see where a few readings along the way gives you a little more lead time to make adjustments.

I disagree that they are separate metrics. I measure brewhouse efficiency as desired volume into the fementor at certain gravity.
Brewhouse efficiency = Conversion efficiency - lauter losses - kettle losses

I am on board with you. The various losses and efficiency numbers all put together tell you how much grain and water you need to start with to get your desired volume and gravity into the fermenter (or into packaging). That is really what I care about.

 

[lump42]

My only issue is that if I have a 1.060 beer post boil, it doesn't matter if my kettle losses are 1 liter or 10 liters, I'll still have a 1.060 beer. Changes in volume post boil don't change gravity.

Your equation above and the generally accepted definition of Brewhouse Efficiency says it will.

If people have their process dialed in and get repeatable results then i have no beef with that. I just worry about people taking their software at face value and not understanding the mechanics.

The volume component is important in Mash Efficiency because the water is the medium by which you move sugar into solution and out to the boil kettle. So in that part of the process, volume and the efficiency of the lautering process is important.

By the time you are in the BK, the only way to shape gravity on it's way to the fermenter is through boiling. Post boil there are no further changes in gravity. So an efficiency metric concerning itself with final volumes seems at odds.

Again, if I have a 1.060 post boil wort, it doesn't matter if I have one drop or 19 liters, it's still 1.060.

Sorry for the rant I have just had this topic on my mind and it seemed like an ideal place to discuss it.

The difference is your target is just a 1.060 beer. The brewers I've talked to are looking for 5.5 gal at 1.060 (myself included) So if your kettle losses a quart, liter, or hogshead, that brewer's target is missed. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the gravity is only affected by the mash efficiency.

The difference that seems missed is that not everyone has the same target. Some brewers only want 6 gallons of roughly a certain gravity, but don't care what the exact original gravity is. Others seem only concerned about hitting your gravity, squarely on the head. Still others want to hit a specific volume at specific gravity.

Also brewhouse efficiency is helpful if you make a change to your system. What impact did changing getting a different kettle have, did changing the lauter filter improve, batch sparge to no sparge, hop spiders, pumps, etc. Any equipment/ process change has a potential to affect brewhouse efficiency. If that terms bothers you, try thinking of it as brewhouse yield. Again, volume and gravity is included in brewhouse efficiency.

 

[lump42]

I am on board with you. The various losses and efficiency numbers all put together tell you how much grain and water you need to start with to get your desired volume and gravity into the fermenter (or into packaging). That is really what I care about.

Exactly, I shoot for into the fermentor because it gives me a little wiggle room. I've never tracked how much yeast volume I get compared to the gravity/volume. I aim for 5.5gal to the carboy so I can pull clear beer into keg and a bit to collect the yeast slurry for later.

 

[Big Monk]

This is why you could never calculate brewhouse efficiency on one system and try to use it to estimate your numbers on a different system(which I think most advanced brewers understand?). However, on the same system it is a very useful metric. Now that I have my system/process dialed in very well I always hit my numbers very closely using estimated brewhouse efficiency as the driver.

The difference is your target is just a 1.060 beer. The brewers I've talked to are looking for 5.5 gal at 1.060 (myself included) So if your kettle losses a quart, liter, or hogshead, that brewer's target is missed. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the gravity is only affected by the mash efficiency.

The difference that seems missed is that not everyone has the same target. Some brewers only want 6 gallons of roughly a certain gravity, but don't care what the exact original gravity is. Others seem only concerned about hitting your gravity, squarely on the head. Still others want to hit a specific volume at specific gravity.

Also brewhouse efficiency is helpful if you make a change to your system. What impact did changing getting a different kettle have, did changing the lauter filter improve, batch sparge to no sparge, hop spiders, pumps, etc. Any equipment/ process change has a potential to affect brewhouse efficiency. If that terms bothers you, try thinking of it as brewhouse yield. Again, volume and gravity is included in brewhouse efficiency.

We just differ on the method is all. No hard feelings. I track volume very closely and use Conversion Efficiency to set my gravity.

I don’t see the utility or the sense in Brewhouse Efficiency. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for some people.

 

[lump42]

We just differ on the method is all. No hard feelings. I track volume very closely and use Conversion Efficiency to set my gravity.

I don’t see the utility or the sense in Brewhouse Efficiency. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for some people.

That's what I was trying to convey, different methods and definitions for different brewers. Sounds like you are measuring the same things that I do, just lump them differently than I do. Brew on!

 

[Big Monk]

That's what I was trying to convey, different methods and definitions for different brewers. Sounds like you are measuring the same things that I do, just lump them differently than I do. Brew on!

75% agree with you.

I still think that mathematically, if all else was apples to apples (losses, grain amount, volumes, etc.) that someone using Brewhouse Efficiency to estimate their gravity likely has a lower Conversion Efficiency metric in a brew to brew basis. Ultimately, if you include post boil losses in you calculation for gravity, you are shorting yourself somewhere in the chain of gravity calculations. I would expect someone to overshoot gravity with this in kind unless thier conversion Efficiency is actually < 100%.

But that’s small potatoes in the grand scheme. You are essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul but if you hit your gravities it doesn’t really matter.

 

[lump42]

75% agree with you.

I still think that mathematically, if all else was apples to apples (losses, grain amount, volumes, etc.) that someone using Brewhouse Efficiency to estimate their gravity likely has a lower Conversion Efficiency metric in a brew to brew basis. Ultimately, if you include post boil losses in you calculation for gravity, you are shorting yourself somewhere in the chain of gravity calculations. I would expect someone to overshoot gravity with this in kind unless thier conversion Efficiency is actually < 100%.

But that’s small potatoes in the grand scheme. You are essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul but if you hit your gravities it doesn’t really matter.

You're seem to be bordering on obtuse or incendiary by ignoring others definitions of a made up term. It's okay if we don't think the same as you.

In my brewhouse efficiency, my og is set by my conversion efficiency and boil length. The brewhouse efficiency is just a way to measure how efficiently the sugars make it from grain into my fermentor. We understand that we are not gaining additional sugars from this, but since I have a target of og and vol, I desire metric that counts my efficiency at hitting that target.

You and I both measure the gravity in the mash tun, we both take into consideration the volume of mash tun, we both measure the volume going into the fermentor. I just combine them into a single metric that is a measure of the total gravity points available into my fermentor using gravity and fermentor volume. If take measures that lower my kettle losses. I require less initial volume, which means I need less grain to hit my og. Peter's not robbed and they are both paid fairly. There's multiple routes to great beer.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

I'm a brewhouse efficiency guy. I care about volume and gravity and I target specific values for both. Once you know your losses, they're extremely consistent from batch to batch. The only one that changes for me is mash/lauter efficiency, which can drop for really high gravity beers. I expect that and, since those for me are always stouts, I plan for more wort into the kettle and a longer boil. By generating more pre-boil wort, I can run thinner mashes and have more water for my batch sparge, which pretty much negates the loss of mash/lauter efficiency you get with the larger grain bills.

Doing that I can hit my gravity and volume consistently, which is what I want. Hitting my target of 1.060 wort when there's only 4 gallons doesn't cut it.

As far as post boil losses not affecting gravity...that may or may not be true. I know some home brewers that will add water to wort that's too high. But the key is that losses post boil do affect volume and I want my recipes to account for that so that I can hit my gravity and volume targets.

I can't imagine building a recipe and not taking volume into consideration throughout the process.

 

[ba-brewer]

I am little confused about which Efficiency to be looking at for brewing no sparge BIAB batch’s??

More or less confused now?

What kind of brewing have you done before and which efficiency did you use for those batches?

 

[Big Monk]

You're seem to be bordering on obtuse or incendiary by ignoring others definitions of a made up term. It's okay if we don't think the same as you.

I apologize if we got off on the wrong foot. Obtuse is a rather strong salvo on your part but text is a tough medium sometimes.

I took the extract portion of my "The Brewing Engine" sheet out of the main and modified it for comparison purposes with Brewer's Friend.

I kept volumes, grain amounts, etc. all apples to apples and ran some analysis.

I you correct for ppg (in this case I dropped the stock German Pilsner ppg to 1.036) then my calcs and BF match. So obviously grain input is important.

The important point is I stand corrected. I'll take my crow medium well, hold the feathers. Although it should be noted that we represent the 1% of homebrewers. If nothing else, conversations like this and even cursory analysis help others not as well versed to understand the mechanics.

 

[Big Monk]

As far as post boil losses not affecting gravity...that may or may not be true. I know some home brewers that will add water to wort that's too high. But the key is that losses post boil do affect volume and I want my recipes to account for that so that I can hit my gravity and volume targets.

I certainly hear you guys. I track volume backwards. I start at Packaged Volume and break out all losses while adding toward strike. You guys are just incorporating that concept by using Brewhouse Efficiency.

Like I said above, I stand corrected and now fully understand the logic behind the term.

My preference is to break out all the separate efficiencies which makes Brewhouse Efficiency a null term. I understand the utility of the Brewhouse Efficiency term now.

 

[McKnuckle]

I am on the same page as Derek. I understand why Brewhouse is useful, but I break things down into conversion efficiency, and volume losses measured in gallons across each stage in the process.

The volume losses help me calculate my total water volume. The conversion efficiency lets me figure out how much grain to use. It makes sense for me to split them up.

 

[Big Monk]

I am on the same page as Derek. I understand why Brewhouse is useful, but I break things down into conversion efficiency, and volume losses measured in gallons across each stage in the process.

The volume losses help me calculate my total water volume. The conversion efficiency lets me figure out how much grain to use. It makes sense for me to split them up.

This is the point I was trying to get across but did so very poorly.

I was just trying to point out that Brewhouse Efficiency kind of short changes you from an analysis and troubleshooting standpoint. If you have an issue upstream of the fermenter, trying to change your Brewhouse Efficiency to compensate doesn’t take into account all the variables in the “black box”.

For instance, I was troubleshooting a batch with my pal The Beerery recently. Since our extract calcs break out every volume and loss and all the efficiencies, plus individual FGDB and moisture values for each grain, we were able to pinpoint certain loss values, volumes, and even conversion efficiency to dial in the calcs.

Now granted, you might only do troubleshooting like that when writing new calcs, testing new equipment, or using new ingredients but the option is there.

I went into my profile in Brewers Friend and it seems the volume tracking was limited. I didn’t mean to get anyone stirred up, just voicing genuine concern about the process and trying to help out.

 

[lump42]

I apologize if we got off on the wrong foot. Obtuse is a rather strong salvo on your part but text is a tough medium sometimes.

I took the extract portion of my "The Brewing Engine" sheet out of the main and modified it for comparison purposes with Brewer's Friend.

I kept volumes, grain amounts, etc. all apples to apples and ran some analysis.

I you correct for ppg (in this case I dropped the stock German Pilsner ppg to 1.036) then my calcs and BF match. So obviously grain input is important.

The important point is I stand corrected. I'll take my crow medium well, hold the feathers. Although it should be noted that we represent the 1% of homebrewers. If nothing else, conversations like this and even cursory analysis help others not as well versed to understand the mechanics.

You're right that was a bit over the top on my part.

I think my main point was that a lot of us are measuring the same volumes and gravities. The difference is where our focus is. I was just trying to explain a different viewpoint and why.

 

[Big Monk]

You're right that was a bit over the top on my part.

I think my main point was that a lot of us are measuring the same volumes and gravities. The difference is where our focus is. I was just trying to explain a different viewpoint and why.

Understood. I only advocate separating everything as a troubleshooting tool.

For instance, if I track volume and loss completely (shown below and I really get in the weeds with delineating everything!) and piece out all the efficiencies (again shown below), our approaches will be equivalent up until the point where something goes wrong and we have to troubleshoot.

In that scenario I feel having everything separated gives the brewer the upper hand.

We are in agreement though. Same end goal and for about 95% of the time, same results.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

Understood. I only advocate separating everything as a troubleshooting tool.

For instance, if I track volume and loss completely (shown below and I really get in the weeds with delineating everything!) and piece out all the efficiencies (again shown below), our approaches will be equivalent up until the point where something goes wrong and we have to troubleshoot.

In that scenario I feel having everything separated gives the brewer the upper hand.

We are in agreement though. Same end goal and for about 95% of the time, same results.

View attachment 624993 View attachment 624994

I measure volumes and gravity for first runnings, second runnings, pre boil, post boil and in the fermenter. Troubleshooting issues with volume or efficiency is not a problem. I set up my equipment profile and use brewhouse efficiency in brewer's friend to build recipes. The equipment profile does what you're describing. The software takes all that info and makes recipe creation easy.

I literally have zero need to do anything differently.

 

[Big Monk]

I measure volumes and gravity for first runnings, second runnings, pre boil, post boil and in the fermenter. Troubleshooting issues with volume or efficiency is not a problem. I set up my equipment profile and use brewhouse efficiency in brewer's friend to build recipes. The equipment profile does what you're describing. The software takes all that info and makes recipe creation easy.

I literally have zero need to do anything differently.

Sounds like you are squared away then.

I’m not a BF user so I may have missed some of its functionality. If it works for you and you have all the data you need then that’s a plus.

Either way, work with what you are comfortable with.

 

[Gnomebrewer]

I am little confused about which Efficiency to be looking at for brewing no sparge BIAB batch’s??

Wow, there's a lot in here that must be confusing!
To answer your question, some brewers never measure gravity (leaving their beer in the hands of the beer gods) and some only measure into the fermenter. Many measure pre-boil (or start of boil) and fermenter gravity. IMO, to hone in your processes and equipment you should measure at three points: the end of the mash, start of boil and into the fermenter. I'll explain each of the three and why I think they're important:
1. Mash gravity and volume (mash conversion efficiency). Use this spreadsheet to measure it http://braukaiser.com/documents/efficiency_calculator.xls tells you if you have full conversion. This helps to hone in for YOUR crush, YOUR water and YOUR system how long it takes to get full conversion. You should be at or close to 100%. Don't rely on the times given in recipes - mash until conversion is complete.
2. Gravity and volume in the boil kettle (mash lauter efficiency). There are many calculators for this and brewhouse efficiency, or use the spreadsheet above. In your case, with no sparge, it tells you how much wort you're leaving behind. You can measure this to compare the effectiveness of hanging the bag to drain, squeezing, or neither.
3. Gravity and volume into the fermenter (Brewhouse efficiency). Measuring this and comparing with pre-boil gravity will help you learn boiloff and wort losses on your system. Once you know these losses, if things are consistent, you can stop measuring if you really want to.

Knowing what's going on at all three stages will help with consistency of batches and getting the right bitterness.