What Brew House Efficiency to strive for?

[RM-MN]

One of the interesting elements of this for me is the saga of Potosi's Cave Ale. Formerly my favorite beer of all time, all places.

But in summer of 2015 they changed the recipe. Sour finish, lost some of the maltiness I loved....just a real soul-crusher.

The old recipe had an ABV of 6.5 percent. The new one has 5.5 percent. They claimed they didn't change anything with the new recipe, though I know better--they must have reduced the grain bill as their new ABV is down a percent.

They also told me they changed the yeast, but we all know that has nothing whatsoever to do with flavor....right?

I'd guess they saved perhaps 15 percent of their grain bill which, at the scale they're brewing, is likely a significant savings. I just don't like what they did to the beer. Now, this doesn't necessarily explain anything about their brewhouse efficiency, but if they were able to increase that without increasing the grain bill, they'd be closer to the old Cave Ale.

A friend of mine works on the bottling line at the Potosi Brewery. I'm hoping I can get her to introduce me to the brewmaster and find out what yeast they used in the old version. I've also learned that they used US Goldings as the hops; if I can get the right yeast, I might be able to clone it. I've been trying, and while it's close, it's not quite there.

if they changed the recipe to hit a lower ABV and changed the yeast they are no longer brewing Cave Ale and should have changed the name too. :rockin:

 

[mongoose33]

if they changed the recipe to hit a lower ABV and changed the yeast they are no longer brewing Cave Ale and should have changed the name too. :rockin:

You're preachin' to the choir here. I just could not understand why they'd do that. They had a hit--it was on tap in multiple Madison outlets which, to me, is a sign that there's enough demand to justify bringing it in via kegs. I'd introduce people to it in a bar, and guess what? They kept ordering it.

The story was that a new brewmaster wanted to put his own mark on the beer, which made no sense to me. Who screws around with a hit? What he should have done was make a Cave Ale lite, or something else.

The Potosi Brewery has a number of limited run/specialty beers on tap at the Brewery Museum restaurant/bar. Some are quite good, and they should be thinking about bottling those. But why they'd screw around with a good thing I'll never know.

 

[dmtaylor]

 

[stever1000]

It's really not terribly complicated...

1) Crush like mad. Crush dang near into flour.

2) Ensure mash and sparge pH is 5.2-5.5. If not, adjust with salts or acid to get there. Learn and understand exactly what you need to do to get there.

3a) Know and understand and measure all volumes with perfection. Know how much gallons per pound of water your grains will permanently soak up (should be close to 0.1 gal/lb). Know how much volume will be lost in your equipment. Know and understand your exact boiloff rate. Account for volume losses due to cold break, shrinkage in post-boil cooling, trub losses, sample losses, etc., and sparge extra if necessary to account for every loss.

3b) Batch sparge with perfection. Waste nothing. Single infuse with enough water to get exactly half the pre-boil volume, and let every dang drop of wort out of the grains before sparging. Add sparge water to get the second half of your pre-boil, stir well, then drain every dang drop of wort out of the grains. Once the boil begins (many minutes later), check for any more wort dripping out of the mash tun / grain bag, and WHEN found (not "IF" but "WHEN"), add it to the boil as well. Like I said, waste nothing.

And that..... that's about all I have to say about that. Good luck.

P.S. Yes, sparging is absolutely necessary to hit the grail of 90%+. No amount of squeezing the bag will equate with sparging. If you sparge right, you don't need to squeeze the bag at all.

Excellent info! So your description of batch sparging sounds pretty easy for my e-kettle... heat full volume to mash temp, drain half water, mash half volume for required time, then sparge the BIAB bag with the remainder of the hot water to rinse the grains!

Thanks!!

 

[RM-MN]

Excellent info! So your description of batch sparging sounds pretty easy for my e-kettle... heat full volume to mash temp, drain half water, mash half volume for required time, then sparge the BIAB bag with the remainder of the hot water to rinse the grains!

Thanks!!

More work than necessary. Using hot water for sparging does get you to boil faster but cool water works almost as well for sparging.

 

[stever1000]

More work than necessary. Using hot water for sparging does get you to boil faster but cool water works almost as well for sparging.

Yes that makes sense - conversion would be done so the water temperature doesn't matter, the sparge water is just rinsing the sugars from the grain

 

[dmtaylor]

Heat the water ahead, heat it after... either way, you've got to get all of it to a boil. Whatever works for you.

 

[stever1000]

Heat the water ahead, heat it after... either way, you've got to get all of it to a boil. Whatever works for you.

I've read more into the batch sparging methods and I'm wondering if the amount of sparge water vs strike water has a key role in determining the efficiency? You mention 50/50 split, which would be a thick mash but lots of sparge to rinse the grains. I read on other forums people also use only 1-2 gallons to sparge with a thinner mash.

More reading to do

 

[wilserbrewer]

To be clear, a 50-50
Split is run off volumes for strike and sparge.

Considering absorption, actual strike and sparge are closer to 60-40.

 

[madscientist451]

If you are getting 80%+ efficiency and you are satisfied with the way your beer is turning out, I'd say you have mastered your system and process and should give yourself a pat on the back, a "well done" and celebrate with a homebrew or two.

 

[mongoose33]

I've read more into the batch sparging methods and I'm wondering if the amount of sparge water vs strike water has a key role in determining the efficiency? You mention 50/50 split, which would be a thick mash but lots of sparge to rinse the grains. I read on other forums people also use only 1-2 gallons to sparge with a thinner mash.

More reading to do

The 50-50 effect depends in part on the amount of grain. My grain bills typically are 10-13 pounds. I'll typically mash with 4 gallons of water, perhaps as much as 4.5 gallons.

Then sparge with 4 gallons for a total of 8-8.5 (though typically closer to 8).

I heat sparge water to 170; I've read enough that suggests heating isn't necessary, and I don't doubt that, but I'm taking 2nd runnings that are about 150 degrees and dumping them into the boil kettle, as opposed to what would otherwise be 50-70 degrees. Helps me get to a boil faste.

When all is said and done, I expect to pull off 6.5 gallons or a bit more. A 6.7 gallon yield is normal for me. In fact, I could get a bit more if I waited longer for the trickling sparge water to work through the grain, or if I salvaged the losses in the mash tun.

 

[stever1000]

The 50-50 effect depends in part on the amount of grain. My grain bills typically are 10-13 pounds. I'll typically mash with 4 gallons of water, perhaps as much as 4.5 gallons.

Then sparge with 4 gallons for a total of 8-8.5 (though typically closer to 8).

I heat sparge water to 170; I've read enough that suggests heating isn't necessary, and I don't doubt that, but I'm taking 2nd runnings that are about 150 degrees and dumping them into the boil kettle, as opposed to what would otherwise be 50-70 degrees. Helps me get to a boil faste.

When all is said and done, I expect to pull off 6.5 gallons or a bit more. A 6.7 gallon yield is normal for me. In fact, I could get a bit more if I waited longer for the trickling sparge water to work through the grain, or if I salvaged the losses in the mash tun.

That sounds similar to what I usually brew for grain bill size. How long do you mash for with 4 gallons?

 

[mongoose33]

That sounds similar to what I usually brew for grain bill size. How long do you mash for with 4 gallons?

An hour, typically. There's a mash schedule w/ Biermuncher's Cream of Three Crops that is 90 minutes, IIRC, but everything else is an hour.

From what I've read, most of the starch to sugar conversion is completed in the first 30 minutes. Some of that likely depends on the fineness of crush, as well as PH of the mash, and temperature of the mash. But I do an hour.

I do make sure I stir the mash twice during that hour. I take sample at 15 minutes in, so I can test PH. then I'll stir again at 30 minutes or a bit after that. I found my efficiency went up when I stirred, and it makes sense that it does.

 

[dmtaylor]

To be clear, a 50-50
Split is run off volumes for strike and sparge.

Considering absorption, actual strike and sparge are closer to 60-40.

This.

And yes, I too have heard that the exactness of the 50/50 split doesn't actually matter. However, I do it anyway, because it's easy. More experiments may be needed but I'm fairly certain that Kai Troester(? or others?) already proved that 50/50 split is best. So, why not do it.

In truth, any sparge is always better than no sparge. If you can sparge at all, you're better off for it... IF you care about efficiency and consistency, as previously discussed.

 

[wilserbrewer]

In truth, any sparge is always better than no sparge. If you can sparge at all, you're better off for it... IF you care about efficiency and consistency, as previously discussed.

Agreed.

I will offer that at times it can be said that a sparge is not worth the effort and time involved. Typically with mid to lower gravity worts, the boost in efficiency may not amount to a helluva lot of extra grain required to simplify the process and accept using a bit more grain.

 

[dmtaylor]

Agreed.

I will offer that at times it can be said that a sparge is not worth the effort and time involved. Typically with mid to lower gravity worts, the boost in efficiency may not amount to a helluva lot of extra grain required to simplify the process and accept using a bit more grain.

Fantastic point, I agree 100%. I don't sparge when original gravity is down near 1.040-ish, it just ain't necessary.

 

[doug293cz]

An hour, typically. There's a mash schedule w/ Biermuncher's Cream of Three Crops that is 90 minutes, IIRC, but everything else is an hour.

From what I've read, most of the starch to sugar conversion is completed in the first 30 minutes. Some of that likely depends on the fineness of crush, as well as PH of the mash, and temperature of the mash. But I do an hour.

I do make sure I stir the mash twice during that hour. I take sample at 15 minutes in, so I can test PH. then I'll stir again at 30 minutes or a bit after that. I found my efficiency went up when I stirred, and it makes sense that it does.

Time for conversion is heavily dependent on crush size. Before the starch can be acted on by the amylase, it has to be gelatinized. Gelatinization proceeds from the surface of the grits towards the center, so the bigger the grit the longer it takes for water to get all the way to the center of the grit, and complete gelatinization. Once the starch is gelatinized, enzyme action is quite fast.

For larger grains, once the surface starch is gelatinized, the highly gelatinized surface layer can be sloughed off, and the starches proceed to go into solution, where enzyme action is faster than in the gel layer. When the surface layer sloughs, or gets knocked off, then water has better access to the remaining grit, so gelatinization speeds up. This is where stirring, or recirculation, can help. The shear of liquid thru the grain (or vice versa) knocks off the gelatinized surface layers much better than time alone.

To get anywhere near complete conversion in 30 minutes takes a pretty fine crush. If you want to do an iodine test, grab some grist from the mash, do a mortar and pistil number on it, and put the iodine on the grist. That's where any unconverted starch will be, not in the liquid wort. You can also test mash completion by measuring the SG of the wort in the mash using the method described here.

Brew on

 

[mongoose33]

Time for conversion is heavily dependent on crush size. Before the starch can be acted on by the amylase, it has to be gelatinized. Gelatinization proceeds from the surface of the grits towards the center, so the bigger the grit the longer it takes for water to get all the way to the center of the grit, and complete gelatinization. Once the starch is gelatinized, enzyme action is quite fast.

For larger grains, once the surface starch is gelatinized, the highly gelatinized surface layer can be sloughed off, and the starches proceed to go into solution, where enzyme action is faster than in the gel layer. When the surface layer sloughs, or gets knocked off, then water has better access to the remaining grit, so gelatinization speeds up. This is where stirring, or recirculation, can help. The shear of liquid thru the grain (or vice versa) knocks off the gelatinized surface layers much better than time alone.

To get anywhere near complete conversion in 30 minutes takes a pretty fine crush. If you want to do an iodine test, grab some grist from the mash, do a mortar and pistil number on it, and put the iodine on the grist. That's where any unconverted starch will be, not in the liquid wort. You can also test mash completion by measuring the SG of the wort in the mash using the method described here.

Brew on

This is one reason I really like this site. I knew stirring improved conversion and efficiency, and I just assumed it was making sure the enzymes were fully incorporated into the mash liquid. But it turns out something else is going on, and it makes sense.

The first time or two I did all-grain I didn't stir. Didn't have particularly good efficiency, either (low 60s and high 60s as I recall). But when I started stirring? Whambo! Upper 70 to 80 percent.

I love stuff like this because it fills holes in my knowledge and connects to other things as well.

 

[OddBrew]

Cheers all. Threads like this are very informative to a new brewer like me. I'm really enjoying this conversation.