efficiency

Brewing Processes
21

In my sheets, I have Conversion η set as a user input. I then calculate a target first wort gravity using Kai’s equation and 100% Conversion η hardcoded. Then I calculate another first wort gravity based on the Conversion η user input.

22

…but why is one exclusive of the other? What if a homebrewer wants to use less resources to brew better beer?  Not necessarily chase efficiency increase but improve good brewing techniques and as a result use less water and grain.

23

Doing a modified no sparge has given me better tasting wort, but lower efficiency. I can use a little more grain to make up for that.

24

Exactly my thoughts. I do step mash BIAB with HERMS.

25

I think I kinda fall in with Bama.  Not to be obsessive, or pursue efficiency to the detriment of quality (again, no corporate accounting department on our tails,) but, within your chosen system, why be gratuitously wasteful.  Optimize.  If you live somewhere with water use restrictions…  And I’ve drifted to a greater and greater brew length to leave all the trub behind (especially since switching to hop pellets a couple years back.)  I use more malt and water, but to minimize that increase (limited tun size) I want to be as efficient as I can in conversion and lautering, even though my “yield to fermenter” is rather ineffecient – another thing a homebrewer might consider fine but a bean-counting pro would find horrifying.  And again, tracking efficiency, a change can alert you to some other problem, but only if you’re consistent in the first place.

26

I am not sure what modified no sparge is but I do a full volume no sparge step mash and recirculate constantly.

As far as efficiency: the hoses, pumps, vessels, and other apparatuses are all thirsty. They reduce the amount of liquor from the HLT into the MLT, sweet wort from the MLT to the BK, bitter wort from the BK to the fermenter, and beer from the fermenter to the keg/bottle. I believe all this loss is necessary to make my best beer by controlling the process and leaving undesirables behind at each step. If an additional pound or two of grain and gallon of water makes a better end product but reduces BH efficiency into the mid 60(s), then so be it.

I can get (and routinely did get) 80+ BH efficiency by dumping every drop of liquor into the MLT (vs underlet), lifting the filter bag from the MLT to get every drop of sweet wort (along with all the sludgy crap that comes with it), batch sparge by dumping sparge liquor into the grain bed, draining the contents of the BK through a strainer into the fermenter, etc.

Using my current process I get clear sweet wort in the BK, clear bitter wort in the fermenter, and a crystal clear beer from the keg into my glass.  …but while doing that I also believe I should try to be responsible for resources, reduce where I can, and strive to improve.  If I can improve my process and reduce water or grain (or energy) I should.

An APA

Wheat

The same APA

27

I mash at about 2 qts per pound, add water at the end of the mash time, recirculate, then pump to the kettle. The SG Of the final running is around 1.020 or more. Some sugar is left behind, but so are tannins.

28

Sage advice. Good efficiency is desirable, but I can assure you that high efficiency can be problematic (read: tannins!!). I can produce an overall efficiency in the low 90% range with my system, but also incurred a low tannic edge in my beers. I purposely reduce my efficiency into the low 80% range by reducing the amount of sparging water that I place into the tun.

My goal is to keep the gravity of my final runnings above 1.015. That is well above the 1.008 that is commonly touted as a proper end-point for runoff. I typically place only about 3/4 of the calculated sparging volume in the tun and that reserved 1/4 of the sparging water is added directly to the kettle as needed to top up the volume to my pre-boil volume.

Efficiency is the enemy of good beer, but do strive to get your system efficiency into the 70 to 80 percent range, if you can.

29

I’m unclear on “2 qts per liter”. Possibly this is a typo and should be 2 qts per lb.  I believe I’ve read Josh Weikert uses a similar modified method.

Four brews in on this new system configuration and I am only a few points shy of 70 now. I am thinking my HLT/BK and MLT dead space and pump/hoses loss volume measurements could be erroneous. On my next brew day I’ll take more accurate measurements of those losses. This could be a simple math error.  However, I would also like conversation a bit higher and will apply effort there as well.

30

Brain fart the morning after the club picnic. Fixed.

Somewhere I read a long time ago that Jamil Z said he was around 65% eff, but he was trying to get high quality wort. I have been around 68% efficiency the last couple of years.

31

Conversion efficiency is king for 2 main reasons:

1.) The components that influence it (crush, pH, etc.) are directly attributable to wort quality;
2.) Its influence on Mash efficiency holds much more sway than Lauter efficiency.

All other metrics (Lauter efficiency, Brewhouse efficiency) are of the bean counter variety and are only of interest if you feel you are being wasteful.

I’d rather waste preboil and knockout wort to get clear wort into the kettle and fermenter than be efficient past the mash tun.

32

I’m tracking.

That’s where I am (mid/high 60(s).

33

Just a hydrometer. And, the reason I am concerned with efficiency is not for bragging rights or to save $4 worth of grain, but to get consistency. Tired of getting my 7% IPA in a 4% version.

34

Quick question that might have been covered already…have you tried adjusting the recipes to your system efficiency, even if it’s only a guess?

35

Here’s everything you could want to know and more about efficiency.

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Efficiency

The section of the Braukaiser site after this is on troubleshooting efficiency.

In the link, it explains how you can determine conversion efficiency, which as others have said is the key to consistency.  You’ll see it’s easiest to track with a refractometer because all you need is a couple of drops of your mash liquid. But I’m getting ahead.

I know it’s all a lot to digest, but I bet the answer to your conundrum is in there somewhere.  And you know people around here will answer questions that arise.  :slight_smile:

36

If it’s mash efficiency you’re measuring, sample size doesn’t matter much since you can return it to the kettle/tun.

37

I think Robert is suggesting samples throughout the mash to see conversion progress.

38

So we are all on the same page (different forms of efficiency are being thrown around), maybe it’s a good idea to clarify:

Conversion Efficiency = The measure of how much of the fermentable extract you put into solution based on the malt analysis numbers for all the malts used. Crush, pH, infusion temps (as it relates to gelatinization) can all have an effect on conversion.

Lauter Efficiency = Pre-Boil Volume / Strike Volume → Some May argue for more complex ways of determining this but this is the simplest and most effective. It covers absorption loss and mash tun Deadspace Losses.

Mash Efficiency = Conversion Efficiency * Lauter Efficiency

Brewhouse Efficiency = Conversion Efficiency * ( Fermenter Volume / Strike Volume )

Again, some may argue for more laborious and sophisticated ways of calculating these things but I doubt the accuracy is warranted. The take away is that conversion efficiency has the most profound affect on beer quality of all efficiency numbers.

39

I threw a quick sheet together:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=180TM4PH1LlXipmjKrHfIyiPc1EUrS6zb

Follow the legend and enter all user inputs (I use metric values but included a few converters for those who don’t). I am assuming No-Sparge here but in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter, as you can just assume the strike water to include the sparge water.

Once you get a target pre-boil extract value you can use that and compare the value to the one measure on the brewday. If they match, you know that your assumption for the Conversion Efficiency cell was valid. If you are lower or higher than expected, assure the volumes you entered match the ones measured and then vary the Conversion Efficiency cell until the measured and estimate extract values match.

Note that if you don’t know the DBFG or Moisture values for the malt which makes up the largest amount of the grain bill, just enter 80% and 4% respectively.

40

Thank you