What is your typical mash efficiency?

[Jaybird]

On most all my beers under about 1.060 to 1.055 OG I will hit in the high high 80's. 87-89... if I am making a larger beer 1.060 and up it seem I drop a few points into the 85-ish range. I do fly sparge. I try and keep my HLT temps in the 175* range knowing it drops about 5-7 deg during transfer. I have been hitting those numbers for YEARS!

Cheers
Jay

 

[Gavin C]

Im sure Brad Smith took pains to make sure his calculator was as accurate as yours...no?

I'm not so sure. Priceless' calculator is IMHO a better numbers tool. I don't use it but have played with it using my data and it's right on the money.

Unlike priceless' tool there is no correction for volumetric expansion in pre-boil volumes in Beersmith. A glaring error if you ask me but what the flock do I know.

This results in an overly inflated mash efficiency unless you make the appropriate correction yourself. (Not hard to do)

Once I started doing that an irksome mysterious constantly aberrant missing sugar percentage from pre-boil to post boil vanished and my numbers made more sense.

Think about it for a sec

We measure a sample of the wort to assess it's density but must cool it to 60/68F to get a true reading. That then is the wort density at 60 or 68F.

We must measure the volume at that same temperature if an accurate mash-efficiency is to be measured. That is an irrefutable truth and not something that is adjusted for in BS.

I actually emailed Beersmith about this issue and started a thread about it when I first realized this. I never got a reply.

 

[Stillraining]

OK now you've gone and done it... Now my head hurts ... I'm just a simple ditch digger after all.

OK I will bite on that Gavin...I have no reason not to... and I too have a couple issues with beer smith although not near so primal in nature.

I transferred all my numbers to the BIAB Calculator and it came out as 83% mash efficiency.

Quite the difference.

I suppose considering my rudimentary brewing system compared to others this seems logically a closer number if all you seasoned veterans are not seeing the numbers I thought I was seeing.

Dang I hate getting wrong information.

So now my question..Why is this called "brew in bag calculator" if I'm able to use it ?

And if your not using it what do you use?

 

[pricelessbrewing]

There's currently some discrepancies for unusual grain bills (high % of adjuncts or wheat or something) that might be present when using my calculator, as it's currently set to assume an average grain yield of 36 points. This isn't super realistic, but until I get the recipe formulation section in place, it's usually pretty accurate. To be honest, I do manually change the yield when I use it myself because I can cheat and manipulate the code. I'll add that as an input on saturday so you can too. Should yield more accurate numbers. There's also one smaller error that's been bugging me regarding estimated post boil og vs measured post boil og predicted using preboil volume and gravity. It's pretty minor, but there's about a half gravity point variance between the two and it's annoying. Probably due to rounding error but not sure.

Re: brew in a bag calculator, because that's what it started out as and I haven't been bothered to think of a new name. It's pretty much an all in one calculator now, on par with several of the big ones in my biased opinion. Once I get the recipe formulation working, I truly believe that it will be the best software package available for homebrewers. There are several more crazy ideas I'm thinking/hoping about implementing once I flesh out the formulas and finish working on other things. There are a couple other homebrewers on other websites that I'm reaching out to that have awesome utilities, that even if they aren't perfect, are really interesting and fun to play with and I hope I'll be able to incorporate some of them into my software. (see Scott Janish' work on hop oil flavor/aroma profiles)

Re: BS2. I don't want to badmouth Brad, since he obviously has done A LOT for homebrewers and his software is incredible for what it accomplishes. I'm not exactly a fan of the user interface, it's unnecessarily cumbersome to navigate and the way it's setup has a steeper learning curve than is really necessary and I know for a fact that a more than small minority of the user base agrees. Very few updates have come out that actually change or update the formulas behind the scenes, I listed out about 10-15 features, but deleted them as it seemed like too much mud throwing. that would be easily implemented/updated given more recent knowledge in the brewing world (see refractometer tool for one glaring impression). I emailed him regarding this as well, as I wanted to help him make BS2 better but since I didn't know the languages he's using it didn't really end up going anywhere.

I'm no brilliant programmer, I'm an amateur compared to what he's done. I just know basic programming, math and am pretty good at coming up with useful ideas.

 

[Gavin C]

OK now you've gone and done it... Now my head hurts ... I'm just a simple ditch digger after all.

OK I will bite on that Gavin...I have no reason not to... and I too have a couple issues with beer smith although not near so primal in nature.

I transferred all my numbers to the BIAB Calculator and it came out as 83% mash efficiency.

Quite the difference.

I suppose considering my rudimentary brewing system compared to others this seems logically a closer number if all you seasoned veterans are not seeing the numbers I thought I was seeing.

Dang I hate getting wrong information.

So now my question..Why is this called "brew in bag calculator" if I'm able to use it ?

And if your not using it what do you use?

LOL, sorry mate.

I use Beersmith. Despite what I previously mentioned I do find it to be a very useful, and overall a very accurate tool. I am a fan. But it's not perfect.

There is nothing magical that happens wort/grain/dissolved sugars by employing a bag as an aid to lautering. Any calculator can be used for any type of brewing.

The math doesn't give a rat's a$$ if you use a bag, false bottom, braid or entwined layers of straw during lautering. It's one of my pet peeve's with BIAB's name, it sems to be billed as this wildly different methodology. It's not, it just uses fewer vessels. The fundamentals are identical.

The article I linked earlier was written with a view to clarifying what really should be very simple conversations about efficiency. In my massively biased and shameless plugging opinion, it's worth a read.

____________________________________

Mash efficiency: How good a job did you do at getting sugars from the grain into your kettle.

Brewhouse efficiency: How good a job did you do at getting sugars from the grain into your fermentor.
________________________________________

That's it. Once you know where you're at each brew it's much easier to brew the intended beers, not ones dictated by measurement error or our systems' inefficiencies. You're the brewer, take control of your beer.

*steps down off beer-filled soap box*

 

[Stillraining]

Thanks Mate!

 

[Stillraining]

There's currently some discrepancies for unusual grain bills (high % of adjuncts or wheat or something) that might be present when using my calculator, as it's currently set to assume an average grain yield of 36 points. This isn't super realistic, but until I get the recipe formulation section in place, it's usually pretty accurate. To be honest, I do manually change the yield when I use it myself because I can cheat and manipulate the code. I'll add that as an input on saturday so you can too. Should yield more accurate numbers. There's also one smaller error that's been bugging me regarding estimated post boil og vs measured post boil og predicted using preboil volume and gravity. It's pretty minor, but there's about a half gravity point variance between the two and it's annoying. Probably due to rounding error but not sure.

Re: brew in a bag calculator, because that's what it started out as and I haven't been bothered to think of a new name. It's pretty much an all in one calculator now, on par with several of the big ones in my biased opinion. Once I get the recipe formulation working, I truly believe that it will be the best software package available for homebrewers. There are several more crazy ideas I'm thinking/hoping about implementing once I flesh out the formulas and finish working on other things. There are a couple other homebrewers on other websites that I'm reaching out to that have awesome utilities, that even if they aren't perfect, are really interesting and fun to play with and I hope I'll be able to incorporate some of them into my software. (see Scott Janish' work on hop oil flavor/aroma profiles)

Re: BS2. I don't want to badmouth Brad, since he obviously has done A LOT for homebrewers and his software is incredible for what it accomplishes. I'm not exactly a fan of the user interface, it's unnecessarily cumbersome to navigate and the way it's setup has a steeper learning curve than is really necessary and I know for a fact that a more than small minority of the user base agrees. Very few updates have come out that actually change or update the formulas behind the scenes, I listed out about 10-15 features, but deleted them as it seemed like too much mud throwing. that would be easily implemented/updated given more recent knowledge in the brewing world (see refractometer tool for one glaring impression). I emailed him regarding this as well, as I wanted to help him make BS2 better but since I didn't know the languages he's using it didn't really end up going anywhere.

I'm no brilliant programmer, I'm an amateur compared to what he's done. I just know basic programming, math and am pretty good at coming up with useful ideas.

OK, Thank you for the Honesty...I will Split the difference between yours and his measured mash efficiency calculations in the mean time... Which comes out to 88% in this case......................It makes me feel better if nothing else

I look forward to the new and improved version of both calculators ....carry on. ...Are you listening Brad?..

 

[BobBailey]

I mashed a wheat beer last night and got 83% efficiency according to beersmith.

Do you guys ever target your efficiency so that it's predictable? I'm just wondering if you ever worry that your efficiency is better than you predicted causing your ABV to potentially be higher than you originally planned.

Mine is very consistent at 78%. I use a 10 gallon round Igloo with a hose braid that spans the diameter. I could probably gain a couple of points by using a copper tube to drop the outlet end of the braid lower, but I'm lazy. I generally don't target efficiency, but it is nice to consistently meet the expected numbers.

 

[Ski12568]

80-83% mash efficency with a 10 gallon igloo, a bazooka tube, batch sparging.

I now want to shoot for above 90% after reading some of these posts.

 

[specharka]

Mash efficiency: How good a job did you do at getting sugars from the grain into your kettle.

Brewhouse efficiency: How good a job did you do at getting sugars from the grain into your fermentor.

Not to splice hairs here, but technically speaking, brewhouse efficiency should be measured to the keg/bottles rather than to the fermenter. Otherwise people who filter trub prior to the fermenter are at a loss compared to those who dump everything into it.

I typically achieve mash efficiency around 80-85%, but since I filter the trub prior to my fermenter, my brewhouse efficiency is around 75-80%. However, I only get around a quart of fermenter losses, versus a much higher value for those who don't filter the trub out prior to getting there.

 

[Gavin C]

Not to splice hairs here, but technically speaking, brewhouse efficiency should be measured to the keg/bottles rather than to the fermenter. Otherwise people who filter trub prior to the fermenter are at a loss compared to those who dump everything into it.

I typically achieve mash efficiency around 80-85%, but since I filter the trub prior to my fermenter, my brewhouse efficiency is around 75-80%. However, I only get around a quart of fermenter losses, versus a much higher value for those who don't filter the trub out prior to getting there.

Splice away. You are mistaken.

That would be packaging efficiency for want of a better term.

BH efficiency is dictated by the sugars into the FV not the OG and packaging volume.

Idea good or bad, that is the accepted definition.

 

[urg8rb8]

Question. How could mash efficiency be off from brewhouse efficiency? The difference really is the boiling right? So if I get a "high" mash off but a "low" brewhouse efficiency, then that means I didn't boil enough?

 

[Qhrumphf]

Question. How could mash efficiency be off from brewhouse efficiency? The difference really is the boiling right? So if I get a "high" mash off but a "low" brewhouse efficiency, then that means I didn't boil enough?

Brewhouse efficiency will differ when you have physical liquid loss after the chill. Wort left behind with trub in the kettle. Wort left in tubing or inside a plate chiller. Etc. Immersion chiller and the whole kettle dumped into the fermenter and brewhouse and mash should be the same. But as mentioned actual amount packaged is the important part. You don't actually save much if anything by dumping it all in.

 

[schematix]

I've been able to get 92-93% pretty consistently with my pilsners. But that is doing a fairly long Hockhurz mash (~2 hr). Also helps that i pull extra volume due to the 90 minute boil. I also have my volumes dialed in so when I've got 14G in the BK my mash tun is dry and the rims and all tubes are drained.

For a 60 minute mash closer to ~150F i'll get around 88-90. If i go closer to like 156-158 i get more like 85-87.

 

[urg8rb8]

Brewhouse efficiency will differ when you have physical liquid loss after the chill. Wort left behind with trub in the kettle. Wort left in tubing or inside a plate chiller. Etc. Immersion chiller and the whole kettle dumped into the fermenter and brewhouse and mash should be the same. But as mentioned actual amount packaged is the important part. You don't actually save much if anything by dumping it all in.

Ok then I stand corrected. My calculated 83% efficiency is after boil and into the fermenter.

 

[phyllobeddo]

Cereal Killer grain mill set at the width of a credit card. Mash in a bag with 10 gallon round Rubbermaid cooler. I make 2.5 gallon batches and mash with three gallons and wash the grains with the remaining gallon. Beersmith shows high 80s for my last two batches, but there are variances depending on grain bill.

 

[stpug]

You don't actually save much if anything by dumping it all in.

I do not agree. The amount of wort left behind in the BK by avoiding the break material versus the amount of additional sediment that break material causes in the fermenter are not equal. That loose, fluffy break material settles down into a dense layer in the fermenter which "gives back" the wort that was originally "occupied" in the BK. This can be roughly illustrated to a lesser degree by simply collecting the break material you'd dump, putting in a jar, and refrigerating for a couple days to see the wort you could have gained. You'll end up only seeing a portion of the wort you'll reap by dumping it all in. I think the real topic for debate is whether there are negative side-effects by dumping it all in; some say yes, some say no.

Everything else you said I agree with though

 

[Qhrumphf]

I do not agree. The amount of wort left behind in the BK by avoiding the break material versus the amount of additional sediment that break material causes in the fermenter are not equal. That loose, fluffy break material settles down into a dense layer in the fermenter which "gives back" the wort that was originally "occupied" in the BK. This can be roughly illustrated to a lesser degree by simply collecting the break material you'd dump, putting in a jar, and refrigerating for a couple days to see the wort you could have gained. You'll end up only seeing a portion of the wort you'll reap by dumping it all in. I think the real topic for debate is whether there are negative side-effects by dumping it all in; some say yes, some say no.

Everything else you said I agree with though

May depend on a bunch of factors. One would think that the turbulence of fermentation and the mixing of floccs of yeast in there may disrupt. I've noticed numbers line up almost exactly between what stays out of the fermenter vs what is left behind in the fermenter.

 

[Natdavis777]

I am usually around 80-85%... If I am brewing high gravity, I assume lower. My last batch though, in which I was measuring 85% for a sessionable beer (4.5%) ended up coming out at 92%! So It was over 5% abv which I didnt want. I rarely brew beers under 5% so it is just an adjustment I need to take in just as I adjust for lack of efficiency when brewing very high gravity beers.

 

[doug293cz]

Not to splice hairs here, but technically speaking, brewhouse efficiency should be measured to the keg/bottles rather than to the fermenter. Otherwise people who filter trub prior to the fermenter are at a loss compared to those who dump everything into it.

I typically achieve mash efficiency around 80-85%, but since I filter the trub prior to my fermenter, my brewhouse efficiency is around 75-80%. However, I only get around a quart of fermenter losses, versus a much higher value for those who don't filter the trub out prior to getting there.

The definition of brewhouse efficiency is pretty well established as efficiency to fermenter. Trying to redefine it to suit your tastes isn't likely to be very productive. I agree that brewhouse efficiency has problems when used for comparisons between trub filterers and trub dumpers. The proper efficiencies for comparisons are mash efficiency and packaged efficiency.

Brew on

 

[urg8rb8]

This is what I did to get my 83% number: mashed then boiled the wort down to five gallons. Took a SG reading and plugged it into beersmith and it told me 83%. This is the brewhouse efficiency right?

 

[pricelessbrewing]

Not to splice hairs here, but technically speaking, brewhouse efficiency should be measured to the keg/bottles rather than to the fermenter. Otherwise people who filter trub prior to the fermenter are at a loss compared to those who dump everything into it.

I typically achieve mash efficiency around 80-85%, but since I filter the trub prior to my fermenter, my brewhouse efficiency is around 75-80%. However, I only get around a quart of fermenter losses, versus a much higher value for those who don't filter the trub out prior to getting there.

While I agree with the reasoning, you can't just redefine something that's EVERYONE else agrees on just because it doesn't make sense, it's too late, the damage is done. See 300 years of physicists and engineering being mad at benjamin franklin for defining electrons as negative, just because.

Brewhouse is define by the gravity and volume of the wort post boil after being chilled that makes it's way into the fermenter.

I agree however that packaging efficiency would be the more neutral ground as some people dump everything into fermenter, and some do not.

This is what I did to get my 83% number: mashed then boiled the wort down to five gallons. Took a SG reading and plugged it into beersmith and it told me 83%. This is the brewhouse efficiency right?

Did you dump it all into the fermenter, was it chilled? How did you determine it was 5 gallons exactly? If all of those are answered yes, then you got 83% brewhouse.

 

[Qhrumphf]

This is what I did to get my 83% number: mashed then boiled the wort down to five gallons. Took a SG reading and plugged it into beersmith and it told me 83%. This is the brewhouse efficiency right?

That assumes that you have all the equipment data in there correctly. BeerSmith spits out some weird efficiency numbers if you don't have the equipment set up just right.

A few of these guys have calculators to do it for you, but it goes like this:

Add up the total points per pound per gallon of all your grain (Clarification edit: I mean to take each individual grain, multiply its extract potential (PPG) x weight, and total them). Divide that by 5 gallons. This is the MAXIMUM gravity you can obtain in 5 gallons with that grain bill. Then take your ACTUAL gravity at 5 gallons, and divide that by the maximum. (The whole time working with the short form of gravity- 1.056 expressed simply as 56)

That's assuming zero loss. The loss is where brewhouse efficiency comes in. If you hit 83% mash efficiency and boil down to 5 gallons, but you leave 0.5 gal behind between trub in the kettle, chiller, and tubing, the gravity between the kettle and fermenter stays the same but the volume changes. And then the brewhouse efficiency goes down.

That's where BeerSmith can screw things up- if it thinks that your batch size (fermenter) is 5 gallons, and is factoring in a loss in the equipment, it's assuming your post boil volume is higher, and the gravity would be proportionately lower at the same efficiency. So if you actually have lower volume than it thinks you do, putting in the gravity as if it's the same will make the efficiency seem artificially inflated.

I've found it best to zero out all post-boil losses in BeerSmith and just factor those in myself, and this way BeerSmith treats brewhouse efficiency and mash efficiency as the same number. I know how much I will lose to yeast/trub based on experience, so I know how much I need in the fermenter to package the volume that I want.

 

[bob1852]

There is no loss in mash efficiency.

Mash efficiency (i.e. conversion efficiency) is purely the % of potential sugars you convert given an amount of grain and a volume of water. That's it. There's no reason you shouldn't be in the upper 90%.

Once you drain, or do anything else, you're no longer calculating mash efficiency. Give this a read: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency

 

[Qhrumphf]

There is no loss in mash efficiency.

Mash efficiency (i.e. conversion efficiency) is purely the % of potential sugars you convert given an amount of grain and a volume of water. That's it. There's no reason you shouldn't be in the upper 90%.

Once you drain, or do anything else, you're no longer calculating mash efficiency. Give this a read: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency

Depends on how you're defining it. As that linked article makes pretty clear, there's a lot of ways of defining it. It even breaks down how BeerSmith does it.

Common US homebrewer usage (as well as popular homebrewing texts) indicates that mash efficiency is the total extract in the kettle- the combo of your conversion efficiency and your lautering efficiency.

 

[pricelessbrewing]

There is no loss in mash efficiency.

Mash efficiency (i.e. conversion efficiency) is purely the % of potential sugars you convert given an amount of grain and a volume of water. That's it. There's no reason you shouldn't be in the upper 90%.

Once you drain, or do anything else, you're no longer calculating mash efficiency. Give this a read: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency

Not the same.

Conversion efficiency you should be 92%+

Mash efficiency is usually defined as the combination of lauter efficiency (which has mash tun losses and grain absorption accounted for) and conversion efficiency and should be in one of the following broad ranges, ymmv with process, equipment.

Mash tun brewer, no sparge: 65-75%.
Mash tun batch sparge, 75-85%
Mash tun fly sparge, 80-90%

biab no sparge, 70-78%
biab batch sparge, 75-85%
biab fly sparge, you're a crazy person why are you doing this, 85%+

 

[doug293cz]

There is no loss in mash efficiency.

Mash efficiency (i.e. conversion efficiency) is purely the % of potential sugars you convert given an amount of grain and a volume of water. That's it. There's no reason you shouldn't be in the upper 90%.

Once you drain, or do anything else, you're no longer calculating mash efficiency. Give this a read: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency

No, the % of starch converted to sugar is not mash efficiency, it is just conversion efficiency. Mash efficiency is conversion efficiency times lauter efficiency. Lauter efficiency is the percentage of the sugar created by conversion that actually makes it into the boil kettle.

The reference to Kai Troester's discussion of the various definitions of efficiency doesn't clarify things, as it just points out that historically the same terms were used for different things. Both BeerSmith and Brewer's Friend follow the definitions I stated above (http://www.brewersfriend.com/2012/11/30/making-sense-of-efficiency-definitions/, except that BF refers to mash efficiency as "pre-boil efficiency" in the diagram posted earlier in this thread.

Brew on

 

[bob1852]

Mash efficiency is conversion efficiency times lauter efficiency.

That's what I meant.

I was confusing mash v. conversion efficiency.

Oops.

Conversion efficiency is the #1 thing to look at if you're having a problem is with any sort of efficiency issue.

 

[Qhrumphf]

That's what I meant.

I was confusing mash v. conversion efficiency.

Oops.

Conversion efficiency is the #1 thing to look at if you're having a problem is with any sort of efficiency issue.

It's *A* thing to look at, and the first place I would check, but that's because it's very easy to check. Easy thing is to check the gravity of your first runnings. The link you gave has a chart to make it easy (requiring some assumptions). But if your first runnings aren't close to the figure in that chart based on your water to grain ratio, then yes, there's a conversion problem (I routinely get 98-99% conversion efficiency). I'd be concerned to see <95%, and if it goes below 90%, then there's definitely a problem. Usually I'd point to grain crush first. Failing that, I'd point to an insufficient mash time at the given temp (or just flat out bad temp). And failing that, I'd go towards mash pH.

However, if conversion efficiency is high, then it's probably an equipment or process-based lautering problem. Not stirring enough for batch sparging. Channeling for fly sparging. Not fly sparging slow enough. Not sparging enough in either case. And so on.