What's your MASH conversion effeciency

[Horseflesh]

I have to mash for 90 minutes to hit 72% mash efficiency and 68% brewhouse efficiency. (BeerSmith numbers.) Any less than 90 minutes and I’m leaving sugar in there. I can watch gravity climb and level off if I take frequent refractometer readings.

Doing a quick pour over sparge seems to make no difference.

I do a slow recirculation, and always adjust pH. Whether I stir a lot or let it sit makes no difference in efficiency.

I’m double milling at the LHBS.

I think I need a mill. Other people with my same system have much higher numbers. (And some are low like me.)

 

[VTX1300]

Consistently hit 90%+ conversion efficiency (Brewers Friend Calculator). Crush at .022"

 

[RM-MN]

I have to mash for 90 minutes to hit 72% mash efficiency and 68% brewhouse efficiency. (BeerSmith numbers.) Any less than 90 minutes and I’m leaving sugar in there. I can watch gravity climb and level off if I take frequent refractometer readings.

Doing a quick pour over sparge seems to make no difference.

I do a slow recirculation, and always adjust pH. Whether I stir a lot or let it sit makes no difference in efficiency.

I’m double milling at the LHBS.

I think I need a mill. Other people with my same system have much higher numbers. (And some are low like me.)

I think you need a mill too. If the mill at your LHBS is set too coarse you get low efficiency. If whole grains fall through, they will fall through a second time. With BIAB comes the ability to deal with a fine crush which then allows for a shorter mash and greater mash efficiency. Since you have the ability to deal with the fine crush you should take advantage of it.

I can't put a dollar figure on what my time is worth when brewing is a hobby but my typical mash is now 30 minutes and my brewhouse efficiency exceeds 80% with that short mash. That means I have to adjust recipes so I use less grain and it doesn't take too many batches before that reduced grain bill pays for the mill. I also buy my base malt in 55 pound bags which also cuts the cost.

 

[Blackdirt_cowboy]

Best thing I ever did for mash efficiency was get my own mill. Second best thing I did was water chemistry. And that’s a distant second.

 

[Genuine]

I’m usually around 91-98% conversion depending on Brewers Friends predictions. Ive had it as high as 102%.

 

[balrog]

I use Braukaiser efficiency calcs , always getting near ~97% "conversion" efficiency. Since I don't have the specs on pppg ea grain I buy, I know I'll not be 100% accurate. Overall or brewhouse eff is 72 with wheat-heavy grists, 80 with barley grists. I corona mill as tight as I can and BIAB with Wilser bag, 45m typical mash, stir once half way through.

 

[Dhm8484]

Just did a amber ale and got 107%ish conversion. Used 4 different websites all around the same. Turned gap on mill to .025.

 

[SoCal-Doug]

Can someone post a link to all this new common core efficiency math? Large scale commercials are still spending millions in technology to hit the low 90's. I'm stuck in the high 80's. With some new math, we can all kick a$$ and feel better

 

[Gnomebrewer]

Can someone post a link to all this new common core efficiency math? Large scale commercials are still spending millions in technology to hit the low 90's. I'm stuck in the high 80's. With some new math, we can all kick a$$ and feel better

Are you talking about brewhouse efficiency, or mash efficiency? Both commercial microbreweries (3300L and 1400L systems) that I've spend some time in run in the low 90's for brewhouse efficiency.

 

[SoCal-Doug]

Pick one. Mash, Lauter or BH. I'm just LMAO wondering how people are calculating these values. I'm obviously using a whole different set of equations

 

[Gnomebrewer]

Pick one. Mash, Lauter or BH. I'm just LMAO wondering how people are calculating these values. I'm obviously using a whole different set of equations

This thread's about mash efficiency. Lauter and BH efficiency have nothing to do with it. My post #26 details how I do my calculations - if I just want an estimate of the efficiency I use my quick method, if I want a more accurate measurement I work out based on ppg for each grain type. Most others seem to be using software. If you don't agree with my equations, let me know.

IME brewers who are getting unrealistically high BH efficiency are putting in more grain than they should be. Eg, I've brewed with a mate who always bragged about 90% BH efficiency, but was dumping about 10% trub (which, of course, would mean that the rest of his process was 100% efficient). It turned out he was rounding down measurements of grain (eg. 732g measured would be recorded as 700g). It's an easy way to boost efficiency! However, achieving MASH efficiency in the 90's isn't too hard if you can crush fine. It's processes downstream of that (especially the lauter) that are harder to do at high efficiency.

 

[SoCal-Doug]

Dont be offended. I didn't have any single post in mind when I questioned anything

Now that you point out your post though... Wow, your 100% mash efficiency is pretty awesome. I think I saw someone else mention 107% though. I'm slackin' in the efficiency department I 'spose. I think i'll sell all my stuff and go pick up a turkey fryer and a Wilshire bag

 

[Gnomebrewer]

Now that you point out your post though... Wow, your 100% mash efficiency is pretty awesome.

You must have read someone else's post. I've never had 100% mash efficiency. I achieve 95% quite easily with a 0.025" crush (actually a bit over), stir several times, and a decent rest at 160. Sometimes it's up to 96 or 97%, but I've NEVER got 100%, even leaving it for an extra hour.

 

[SoCal-Doug]

I was pretty sure you said #27. Guess I read it wrong. I stand corrected with and will correct my statement to: Wow! 95% to 97% mash efficiency is pretty awesome. And is whoever's 100% and whoever's 107%

And I'm still intrigued by whatever math and methods were used to derive those numbers. LOL

 

[Gnomebrewer]

And I'm still intrigued by whatever math and methods were used to derive those numbers. LOL

If your BH efficiency is in the high 80s, your mash efficiency is probably over 95%. Do you measure mash efficiency?

 

[balrog]

...I'm still intrigued by whatever math and methods were used to derive those numbers.

For better or worse, right or wrong, I use the following from http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Efficiency#Conversion_efficiency
I find it a fun number to have, but I do not alter my brew day based on its measurement, yet. When I am finished and sample the FV and measure OG prior to yeast pitch, I may need to dilute with water if I am way off but if low then it's just low.

Latest batch's example was
#grist #qts strike L/Kg ratio MaxEff PreBoil R% MashEff
9.5 30 6.59 10.83 10.7 98.4

Braukaiser:
An approximation of the conversion efficiency, which is most accurate when the conversion is close to 100%, is the ratio between the expected FW extract and the actual FW extract:

where
· CE : conversion efficiency, is the efficiency of the starch conversion in the mash in %
· FWmax is the expected first wort extract that was calculated using the above formula (in Plato, Brix or %)
· FWmeasured is the actual first wort extract that was measured (in Plato, Brix or %)

Peter Hopcroft pointed out that the accurate formula for the conversion efficiency is

The extract content in Plato (close enough to Brix and extract % for these cases) can be estimated form specific gravity with this formula:
Plato = (sg - 1.000) * 1000 / 4

The first wort extract can also be calculated from the mash thickness, which removes the actual grain weight and water volume from the equation:

· R is the water to grain ratio in l/kg. If the mash thickness is known in qt/lb, multiply by 2.09 to convert to l/kg

 

[schematix]

Public Service Announcement: You cannot get >100% conversion efficiency. 100% is the best you can do. No extra credit i'm afraid. You can however get more than you expected, but that doesn't mean you did better than 100%.

Kai's formulas are the foundation of determining mash conversion efficiency. Every grist is different. Even the same grist from different lots is different. Note that each ingredient has its own e_grain and you need to calculate the weighted average of it for your entire grist in order to get a good approximation of your '100%' number.

Kai's formulas are also much easier to deal with when you brew using the Plato scale. The plato scale is the %w/w of sugar in the solution. So a 10 plato beer is 10% sugar by weight (i.e. 1lb of sugar dissolved into a total mass of 10lbs, or 1lb of sugar and 9lbs of water). If you look closely at kai's FW_max formula you'll see they are essentially calculating the mass of sugar you get into your mass of mash water.

 

[balrog]

Public Service Announcement: You cannot get >100% conversion efficiency. 100% is the best you can do.

Agreed. Fully. And without specifics about the grains used, one can never be completely accurate either, not knowing what potential sugar there is.

When used as a measure of the process (in my case) going from buying double crush grist from supplier to using Corona mill, it is just useful data.

 

[Blackdirt_cowboy]

I think when software says you are over 100% mash efficiency, it’s because there’s a difference in the actual amount of starch in the grain versus what the program assumes is in the grain. That, or your scale is off, and you’re mashing more grain than what you think. I’ve had brewers friend tell me I reached 102% mash efficiency before. I know that’s not possible and have attributed to one of the two factors I just mentioned. Of course, there’s always the possibility that the programmed equations are not correct.

I’ve calculated my efficiencies by hand as well, and have always come within a percent or two of what brewers friend tells me. These conversations about efficiency are very difficult to have, as there’s no standard nomenclature. For example: mash efficiency/conversion efficiency; preboil efficiency/lauter efficiency. I have no doubt near 100% MASH efficiency is possible. I have my doubts when homebrewers talk about 85% plus BREWHOUSE efficiency. That’s getting into the territory of the commercial brewers, and I just don’t think our homebrew equipment is capable of that.

 

[Gnomebrewer]

I have my doubts when homebrewers talk about 85% plus BREWHOUSE efficiency. That’s getting into the territory of the commercial brewers, and I just don’t think our homebrew equipment is capable of that.

85%+ is achievable at HB scale, especially with single vessel BIAB (with a fly sparge or dunk sparge in a separate pot + squeeze the bag) and if all trub is dumped into the fermenter (actually I'd believe BIAB efficiency approaching 95% using these methods). Commercial brewers have to pump out from under their mash and don't/can't squeeze the grain and also whirlpool after the boil and leave behind the hot break/trub. Most commercials I'd expect to run in the low to mid 90's, so I'd think 3 vessel HERMS/RIMS mimicking them could realistically run to mid to high 80's. My current RIMS is about 82% BH efficiency, and I leave behind a lot of break material (a big hit to efficiency).

 

[Gnomebrewer]

I use brewer's friend for the calculation.

I can't find a conversion calculator on Brewer's friend. Could you link the one you use?

 

[balrog]

Re BFriend calc, I think all they have is brewhouse and preboil if that's the vols/SG you use, but that makes it after mash/lauter, which is your point I think?

 

[Gnomebrewer]

Re BFriend calc, I think all they have is brewhouse and preboil if that's the vols/SG you use, but that makes it after mash/lauter, which is your point I think?

Yep. In fact, I can't find a mash CONVERSION calculator anywhere - they all want pre-boil gravity and volume, which then includes the efficiency of the lauter/sparge. I'm playing around with Beersmith at the moment (no calculator in it, but it does give measured mash efficiency in the session data....using BS3). There was an earlier comment that it calculates mash efficiency from brewhouse efficiency - this seems to be what it does for the mash efficiency estimate (which makes sense), but it seems to calculate 'Measured Mash Efficiency' independently. After a very quick look, it seems to give percentages a few points higher than what I get from my formula. It may be doing the calculation correctly by converting to mass, calculating percentage sugar by mass (plato) then converting back to SG (as described by Braukaiser). Maybe that gives a few points different to my method, which would explain why I can never get to 100%! It's also worth noting that Kai (Braukaiser) suggests that if mash conversion efficiency is under 90% there is a problem (i.e. 90% is easily achievable).

 

[Gnomebrewer]

I've found a mash conversion calculator on Braukaiser's website. It's an excel spreadsheet
http://braukaiser.com/documents/efficiency_calculator.xls
Plugging in a few basic recipes, it seems that this spreadsheet calculates a couple of point lower than my method, and BS3 a couple of points higher. So, if I've calculated 95% efficiency, BS3 says it's 97 to 98%, Braukaiser says about 93%. I trust Braukaiser's calculators so will now use it instead of my calculation (although mine seems quite reasonable).

 

[balrog]

I just plugged the Kai formulas into Excel and register lbs grain in a cell, qts water, and Refractometer measurement right after mash. Since I BIAB no sparge that's all I need

EG YoopersOatSt#110 10.0lbs, 28qts, R% 12.0, BKaiMashEff=99.1%

 

[Gnomebrewer]

Out of interest, would you mind listing each grain and weight so that I can see what BS3 gives as the mash efficiency?

 

[Gnomebrewer]

Well, after playing around a bit more with mash efficiency in BS3, I've realised that it's a piece of crap for calculations. For some reason it uses measured post-mash gravity and measured pre-boil volume to calculate mash efficiency! So, it's actually calculating some bastardised mix of mash conversion and mash lauter/sparge efficiency that is irrelevent (unless you input your pre-boil gravity in to the post mash gravity field, even though there is a separate place for pre-boil gravity). It was only by random chance when using it earlier that it came close to my calculations! In short, BS3 doesn't calculate conversion efficiency (I'm happy to be corrected if that's incorrect).

 

[Gnomebrewer]

Awesome - for the batch I'm about to brew, my calculation came in the same as Braukaisers.
9.26lbs of Joe White ale malt (1.037, 4% moisture)
0.88lbs of Simpsons Medium Crystal (1.032, 5% moisture)
3.8gallons of mash water = 4.62gallons for the mash (using BS3)

100% efficiency = (9.26x37 + 0.88x32) / 4.62 = 80 points (1.080)
I'll be aiming for somewhere around 1.076 or higher at the end of my mash (before sparging).

 

[wilserbrewer]

Is 107% mash efficiency 7% free beer?
Lol

 

[303Dan]

85%+ is achievable at HB scale, especially with single vessel BIAB (with a fly sparge or dunk sparge in a separate pot + squeeze the bag) and if all trub is dumped into the fermenter (actually I'd believe BIAB efficiency approaching 95% using these methods). Commercial brewers have to pump out from under their mash and don't/can't squeeze the grain and also whirlpool after the boil and leave behind the hot break/trub. Most commercials I'd expect to run in the low to mid 90's, so I'd think 3 vessel HERMS/RIMS mimicking them could realistically run to mid to high 80's. My current RIMS is about 82% BH efficiency, and I leave behind a lot of break material (a big hit to efficiency).

Agreed. I regularly get 82-85% brewhouse efficiency on my 3 vessel eHERMS system and I'm not really striving for high efficiency. I do 60 minute mashes, have a pretty conservative gap set on my mill, and don't stir at all in those 60 minutes.