What happened here. Efficiency issue

[Tobor_8thMan]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but final gravity does not impacty mash efficiency or brewhouse efficiency.

You are correct. In my experience with BS, hydro reading and amount is used by BH to calculate mash efficiency.

 

[Tobor_8thMan]

Also, with BS, must pick and configure (if temp/time are different) for the recipe the mash schedule and yeast. These all impact BS estimates.

 

[olotti]

Oh I know I was just giving the numbers. I know it’s about final volume and og right that makes bh efficiency.

Prob final preboil volume and pbg goes in there too but I don’t take pbg readings anymore. Guess maybe I should. I just thought initially my crush from the new lhbs was the culprit of my recent low og readings and I used to have them double crush it then they told me one side of their mill went out of wack so even then when I had them mill grain just one time instead of double my og was still low so that’s when I bought my own mill and using calipers I tightened it to .28 vs their .34 and first batch I milked a month ago was 4-6pta higher and now this is lower using my same .28 setting on my mill with just an added 1/2lb of oats and 1/2lb of wheat vs the other beer I made a month ago.

 

[Tobor_8thMan]

Same malts used in prior brew? If not, once again, malt analysis changes. If using numbers from BS without tweaking this might, might account for slight difference.

 

[VikeMan]

Oh I know I was just giving the numbers. I know it’s about final volume and og right that makes bh efficiency.

Yes, the volume that makes it into the fermenter, its gravity, and the total potential sugars/dextrins in the grain bill determine Brewhouse efficiency.

For Mash efficiency, it's determined by the volume that makes it into the boil kettle, its gravity, and the total potential sugars/dextrins in the grain bill.

More details:
http://sonsofalchemy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Mash_Efficiency_and_Brewhouse_Efficiency.pdf

 

[olotti]

Yeah so I’m this one I upped the flakes oats from 1lb in the previous to 1.5lbs. Instead of 1lb Munich as in the previous I used 8oz and then added 1lb white wheat which I normally use but didn’t in the previous beer otherwise the crust was all the same. 8oz c10, 4oz carapils. I use mostly German Pilsner as my base in my neipas cuz I like the color and flavor vs 2row. I add Munich for color and touch of sweetness and I used 1/2lb in rice hulls in the last mash too cuz With testing my mill and crushing finer I don’t want a stuck mash. I used distilled now since ro filling stations at stores are closed here and adjust that in bru’n water. I always aim for 5.3 ph mash per bru’n water and use lactic acidosis to get it there.

 

[olotti]

Yes, the volume that makes it into the fermenter, its gravity, and the total potential sugars/dextrins in the grain bill determine Brewhouse efficiency.

For Mash efficiency, it's determined by the volume that makes it into the boil kettle, its gravity, and the total potential sugars/dextrins in the grain bill.

More details:
http://sonsofalchemy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Mash_Efficiency_and_Brewhouse_Efficiency.pdf

This is why I’ll prob have to start taking pbg values again. Weird I was always overshooting my og when I had my grain crushed from my previous lhbs but they closed and then before I got my mill I was using another lhbs and I was always short, same process every time so then I got my mill found out what the now new lhbs was milling at and tightened my gap below that down then first brew boom boost in efficiency and now same grain with minor changes same gap setting on my mill .28 and now I miss by 4pts. I was actually expecting it to be over og by four points based on my last beer.

 

[olotti]

Yes, the volume that makes it into the fermenter, its gravity, and the total potential sugars/dextrins in the grain bill determine Brewhouse efficiency.

For Mash efficiency, it's determined by the volume that makes it into the boil kettle, its gravity, and the total potential sugars/dextrins in the grain bill.

More details:
http://sonsofalchemy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Mash_Efficiency_and_Brewhouse_Efficiency.pdf

From the link I’m wondering I use a false bottom custom made by jay bird but when I get my pbv then put the kettle on the burner I then drain the rest of the tun to clean cuz there’s always wort leftover and there’s at least a gallon or two that comes out before the tun dries up enough for me to clean. So should I drain more of this into my kettle and just boil longer??

 

[Tobor_8thMan]

From the link I’m wondering I use a false bottom custom made by jay bird but when I get my pbv then put the kettle on the burner I then drain the rest of the tun to clean cuz there’s always wort leftover and there’s at least a gallon or two that comes out before the tun dries up enough for me to clean. So should I drain more of this into my kettle and just boil longer??

These loses should be accounted for in the BS equipment profile.

 

[olotti]

These loses should be accounted for in the BS equipment profile.

Pretty sure I have them in my profile maybe I don’t I’ll have to double check.

 

[olotti]

These loses should be accounted for in the BS equipment profile.

I’m sure it’s an obvious thing I’m missing here.

 

[Tobor_8thMan]

Sorry for the cliche, but "I feel your pain" as I've been there...

 

[VikeMan]

From the link I’m wondering I use a false bottom custom made by jay bird but when I get my pbv then put the kettle on the burner I then drain the rest of the tun to clean cuz there’s always wort leftover and there’s at least a gallon or two that comes out before the tun dries up enough for me to clean. So should I drain more of this into my kettle and just boil longer??

Yes, if you drain more of that into your kettle, mash efficiency would increase. You could either boil longer, or you could use less water in the mash/sparge. The former would yield better mash efficiency than the latter, but it would also save use more time and energy.

 

[olotti]

Yes, if you drain more of that into your kettle, mash efficiency would increase. You could either boil longer, or you could use less water in the mash/sparge. The former would yield better mash efficiency than the latter, but it would also save use more time and energy.

Idk if this would be an issue but as I just finished cleaning my cooler I noticed where the false bottom has worn away some of the inner plastic and liquid has got in there and as I pressed on it water came out and it stunk. So maybe that was leaching into my mash causing an infection of loss of some sort. Either way I’m getting a new cooler before the next brew day. I’m guessing this may have caused some of the astringency I’ve tasted in my last few beers From infection like it’s almost vomit inducing.

 

[olotti]

Sorry double post

 

[balrog]

Accurate volumes have always been the bane of accurate efficiency calculation.
Add to that the issue of the calculators assuming a standard gravity potential of a given batch of a given type of a given manufacturer's grain.

1.074 5.5 gallons is 407 points.
A couple percent difference in that is about 8, giving 403-411, in (exactly) 5.5 gallons ==> 1.073-1.075

You can easily have a couple % diff in volume and/or grain potential. Then there's the whole "exactly 5.5 finish gallons" which could be 5.4-5.6 if measured by (manufacture embossed or actual measured marks) eye.

I'm just saying I agree that 4 points is not something to fret about.

 

[VikeMan]

Accurate volumes have always been the bane of accurate efficiency calculation.

Definitely true. And responsible for the occasional "I got 97% mash efficiency" post.

Add to that the issue of the calculators assuming a standard gravity potential of a given batch of a given type of a given manufacturer's grain.

Also true. I have noticed some variation from lot to lot (after computing PPGs from the malt analyses), as well as some questionable default PPG numbers published in brewing software databases and even on at least one maltster's web site, i.e. where the PPG listed on the site bears little resemblance to a correctly computed PPG from their own malt analysis.