Switched back from RO with additions back to tap and noticed....

[danio]

...a few things:

-My efficiency jumped 13%!!

-When I poured the beer into the carboy from the pot it didn't foam over (totally weird I know but I notice with RO water I get more foam when free hand pouring from pot to boy through funnel)

-My pH was a point high and I had to adjust down with Phosphoric.

If I were going to stay in the house much longer I'd do a water analysis but it's not worth it to me. All the RO machines in town were broke on the same day so I had to try tap. I'll be curious to see how the beer turns out. I used campden tablets since my water has chloramines. What I was blown away by, though, was my jump in efficiency. I normally add about 1tsp CaCl and 1-2tsp Gyp for a 5.5 gal batch. I batch sparge and in general with RO I get around 60% which seems soooo low. Doesn't matter much with the crack, it's all +/- 3%. This time I got 73% with similar techniques but tap water. Amazed.

Anyway, just thought I'd share that random bit of data. Has anyone else seen a major change in efficiency based off of water used?

Dan

 

[Hex23]

-When I poured the beer into the carboy from the pot it didn't foam over (totally weird I know but I notice with RO water I get more foam when free hand pouring from pot to boy through funnel)

This one doesn't surprise me too much. Ever experience how much more soap lathers with soft water vs hard. I bet it's the same principle.

As for the mash efficiency. Did all other variables stay exactly the same? If so, then maybe you had a significant pH problem that got better with your tap water?

 

[danio]

Ah good point about the soap lather. I never thought of that.

My pH was always pretty perfect with my RO water. It was a bit higher with tap (even after phosphoric) so its possible I have been undershooting? Maybe I should be adding some chalk or something if I do RO with simple additions. My strips always say around 5.0 with RO. They indicated slightly higher with tap.

 

[ajdelange]

It's not the water that determines mash efficiency but what pH you realize and how you do a lot of other things too. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions here. If you were getting 60% efficiency with RO water you were doing something wrong. I get about 83% referenced the way most home brewers do it and that's from grain sack to keg.

In soft water soap dissolves and so is able to modify the surface tension of water to the point it forms bubbles. In hard water much of the soap precipitates as calcium stearate and bubbles do not form as readily unless a lot of extra soap is added. When beer/wort foams it is from dissolved proteins. Lack of head indicates that proteins of the proper molecular weight are not present and this generally has to do with improper management of the protein rest or under modified malt or both. Interestingly enough the presence of soaps or fats will destroy protein based heads.

You really can't rely on strips to give you a reliable indication of mash pH. You need a meter for that. If your strips say 5 the pH is about 5.3 which is a tad low but not enough to explain a 13% change in efficiency. I'd check the hydrometer but my guess would be that a grain quantity was mis measured or written down wrong or an addition mistake or something of that sort.

 

[mabrungard]

I agree with AJ. Water and pH has very little effect on efficiency. The water change was not the difference. 60% is not very good and all it would take is a little slower runoff and I'm betting that the efficiency would rise. Extending the runoff duration to around an hour will improve extraction efficiency. I'm assuming that the OP is sparging the mash.

 

[Hex23]

Extending the runoff duration to around an hour will improve extraction efficiency. I'm assuming that the OP is sparging the mash.

I always assumed the dominating effect in that case was really just additional conversion efficiency, especially with batch sparging with non-mashout temp water. I guess by extraction you're talking about overall mash efficiency, not specifically runoff/sparge efficiency?

 

[ajdelange]

The conversion is virtually complete in 15 minutes or so. You sometimes find the number in malt spec sheets.

 

[Hex23]

The conversion is virtually complete in 15 minutes or so. You sometimes find the number in malt spec sheets.

That's true under ideal mash conditions, but I was thinking about cases where something was inhibiting good conversion. I thought time can compensate for these things to a degree. E.g. if the crush is poor, more time will allow more water into the uncrushed kernels and thus more conversion.

 

[ajdelange]

Yes, I see your point and as OP is getting such terrible efficiency something like poor crush, dough balls... may indeed be factors.

 

[danio]

I'm batch sparging. I run off fairly quickly since I've always read that that's not a factor? I stir like crazy with sparge water and I usually get my grain bed to around 168 or so.

As far as crush I've been getting those efficiencies from AHS, LHBS 1, LHBS 2, etc.

I used to fly sparge manually (ladelling in water) and I was getting efficiency in the upper 80s. Then I switched to batch sparging and started getting around 70, then I switched to RO and got 60ish, now that I'm back to tap for one brew and I suddenly got 73. So I'm not sure but it seems like the water is at least part of the equation.

 

[mabrungard]

Not a Factor???? Its a huge factor. I can change my efficiency by over 10 percent easily with a quick runoff. Its good that you are mashing out with a 168 temperature step. I find that it helps efficiency by further solubilizing some last sugars from the kernels.

 

[danio]

Ok, I will slow it down next time around and check my efficiency. I was going off of other thread data like this:

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/batch-sparge-runoff-rate-169263/

I would be very curious about this since I love saving time with a fast drain but not if its costing me ~8%.

 

[Hex23]

I can change my efficiency by over 10 percent easily with a quick runoff.

I saw this effect too - of slower runoff with batch sparging seeming to create higher efficiency, but ultimately (at least in my case) I found it had to do with incomplete conversion. The longer runoff was letting more conversion happen. I found this by monitoring the conversion process and finding that conversion was still happening past 60 minutes. In my case that was due to poor crush.

In my case, I really wasn't really doing a true mashout step. I was adding 168F water, not raising the grain bed to 168F. I would think that if you did a real mashout and stopped conversion, then additional conversion would not be a factor. You are batch sparging, right? Most folks seem to say that runoff speed in a batch sparge has no effect on lautering efficiency. But I have to admit I don't have any data to prove it - i.e. if I went to a slower sparge now that I have my crush (conversion) problem fixed, would I get 85% efficiency instead of 75%? In any case, I'd probably stick to the consistent 75% if it meant I could keep the sparge short.