| |
Main
Date: 13 Nov 2006 17:56:37
From: Matt
Subject: What should I change before I result to this
|
I've been brewing all grain for about 7 months now and have been
struggling with efficiency issues. I double crush my grain at the LHBS,
usually nail my target temperatures, and I batch sparge. My efficiency
tends to fluxuate around 60-65%. My mash tun is a round gott cooler
with an easymasher type of SS braid, and my water is filtered with an
under the sink charcol filter. Ok...
That being said, I still believe my crush is the problem. However
before I run out and get a mill, I'm wondering if there's maybe another
variable that I'm over looking. I usually mash for about 60 min wih
1.25 qts/lb. and do single infusion, mostly pales and IPA. Should I let
it sit longer? I always have such a hard time hitting gravities even
though as far as I know I'm nailing everything (yes, insert joke here),
and my brew days go well (until I get my gravity reading after
sparging).
I've been exploring the other benefits of having a mill such as buying
grain and bulk and maybe less trips to the LHBS which is 1/2hr away.
I'd just be bummed if my efficiencies still sucked after buying a mill
when there might have been another problem all together. Any ideas? Let
me know if I left out any vital info. Thanks.
|
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 08:29:25
From:
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
How does the grist look when you hold it in your hand? Are the grains
just broken and not crushed? Do you have much flour? How does the spent
mash look when you are dumping it? Are there areas of dark color...big
sugar pockets?
Have you tried a continous sparge, keeping the grain bed nicely
hydrated? What is your initial gravity when you begin to runoff?
gravity twoards the end of the runoff?
I suspect its your crush. Bring your next grain bill to a local brewery
and see if they will run it through their mill for you. Remember to
compliment their beer alot. heh heh
good luck!
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 08:29:14
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
Matt wrote:
> I've been brewing all grain for about 7 months now and have been
> struggling with efficiency issues. I double crush my grain at the LHBS,
> usually nail my target temperatures, and I batch sparge. My efficiency
> tends to fluxuate around 60-65%. My mash tun is a round gott cooler
> with an easymasher type of SS braid, and my water is filtered with an
> under the sink charcol filter. Ok...
>
> That being said, I still believe my crush is the problem. However
> before I run out and get a mill, I'm wondering if there's maybe another
> variable that I'm over looking. I usually mash for about 60 min wih
> 1.25 qts/lb. and do single infusion, mostly pales and IPA. Should I let
> it sit longer? I always have such a hard time hitting gravities even
> though as far as I know I'm nailing everything (yes, insert joke here),
> and my brew days go well (until I get my gravity reading after
> sparging).
Your mash schedule is fine -- unless your temperature is way off or your
time is unusually short, your efficiency should not be affected. You can
fiddle with your mash pH but in my experience this is generally not a
major factor in extraction.
One other common trouble spot with mash efficiency (although crush is
the most common) is your lautering system, although I'd expect that
you'd get at least 70% - 75% with the SS braid, though. Perhaps if you
tell us more about how you sparge, that might provide a clue.
Finally, be sure your measurements are correct -- sometimes an
efficiency problem is really just a measurement problem.
Hope that helps -- m
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 04:49:08
From: MarkMc
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
Hi Matt
I've never tried batch sparging myself as I've always been happy with
fly sparging with my set up. However, after following the whole batch
sparge vs fly sparge debate some time ago on rcb, and listening to
Denny Conn on BN discussing batch sparging, it may be that your setup
is one of those that will see a lower efficiency when used for batch
sparging. Some guys apparently see an efficiency increase after
switching to batch sparging. I think you're just not one of those
guys.
It is claimed that run-off speed makes no difference with batch
sparging, but you could try two things.
1. run-off your mash tun slower when batch sparging. Give the mash a
good stir-up when you dump your second load of water in the mash. Do a
good vorlauf
2. Try fly sparging to see if it makes any difference.
One thing I've learned is that to get a better efficiency, especially
for big beers (like a barley wine) you need to run-off and sparge as
slowly as possible. Actually I sparged my last batch (a 1.065 Porter)
way too quickly and I ended up with a 62% efficiency. Almost every
other time I've been in the high 70's.
Low efficiency really isn't a bad problem. And not one to get too
concerned about, but I understand that it actually feels like some kind
of accomplishment to be able to consistently get a respectable
efficiency *and* good beer.
As long as you are getting consistent results, then you can compensate.
Grain really is cheap at home brew levels for the cost not to be an
issue.
Regards,
Mark
|
| | |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 15:06:08
From:
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
: I've never tried batch sparging myself as I've always been happy with
: fly sparging with my set up. However, after following the whole batch
: sparge vs fly sparge debate some time ago on rcb, and listening to
: Denny Conn on BN discussing batch sparging, it may be that your setup
: is one of those that will see a lower efficiency when used for batch
: sparging. Some guys apparently see an efficiency increase after
: switching to batch sparging. I think you're just not one of those
: guys.
Not sure if it'll help, but here are the things I generally consider for my
technique that don't require extra equipment...
I've never batch sparged, but I do a sorta "hybrid" between batch and fly.
Before the vorlauff, I give the whole mash a good stir. After the vorlauff, I don't
touch the grainbed. I let the wort level go down below the top of the grains so they
appear "dry" on the top before carefully adding sparge water. After that, I add a few
inches on top and leave it alone until that's gone. Do the same thing a few more
times and you get out the 7 gallons or so necessary.
My thought is so long as there's water on the top, the pressure is equal
everywhere. What I *don't* want to do however, is dilute the sweet wort on the top
with lots sparge water.
FWIW, my setup uses four lengths 1/2" PVC with a billion or so 3/16" holes
drilled in it. Grain bed thickness is about 8" for a 1.065 beer, and I generally get
80-82% efficiency boiling 7 gallons down to 5.5.
-Cory
--
*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 12:35:00
From: William Benz Jr
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
"Matt" <djembefola24@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1163469397.353969.282020@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I've been brewing all grain for about 7 months now and have been
> struggling with efficiency issues. I double crush my grain at the LHBS,
> usually nail my target temperatures, and I batch sparge. My efficiency
> tends to fluxuate around 60-65%. My mash tun is a round gott cooler
> with an easymasher type of SS braid, and my water is filtered with an
> under the sink charcol filter. Ok...
>
> That being said, I still believe my crush is the problem. However
> before I run out and get a mill, I'm wondering if there's maybe another
> variable that I'm over looking. I usually mash for about 60 min wih
> 1.25 qts/lb. and do single infusion, mostly pales and IPA. Should I let
> it sit longer? I always have such a hard time hitting gravities even
> though as far as I know I'm nailing everything (yes, insert joke here),
> and my brew days go well (until I get my gravity reading after
> sparging).
>
> I've been exploring the other benefits of having a mill such as buying
> grain and bulk and maybe less trips to the LHBS which is 1/2hr away.
> I'd just be bummed if my efficiencies still sucked after buying a mill
> when there might have been another problem all together. Any ideas? Let
> me know if I left out any vital info. Thanks.
>
Matt,
The mill at my local LHBS produces a lower efficiency than the mills that my
friends and I use. Same mill, JPS maltmill, but we run them as tight as we
can without causing problems. The owner says that fewer customers complain
about lower efficiency than about stuck sparges. He also sells more grain
that way.
According to John Palmers book "How To Brew", batch sparging requires 10%
more grain to get the same gravity wort as fly sparging. Figuring 75%
efficiency for fly sparging to be considered good, 68% would be about right
for batch. I would imagine you could get up to that with your own mill. My
mill paid for itself very quickly with increased efficiency, the savings of
buying grain in bulk, and far less trips to the brew shop. another benefit
is brewing whenever I want at a moments notice. I always keep some dry
yeast on hand.
Hope this helps.
Bill
|
| | |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 09:04:58
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
William Benz Jr wrote:
> According to John Palmers book "How To Brew", batch sparging requires 10%
> more grain to get the same gravity wort as fly sparging. Figuring 75%
> efficiency for fly sparging to be considered good, 68% would be about right
> for batch.
As much as I respect John, I totally disagree with this, and he knows
it! Batch sparging is not inherently less efficient than fly sparging.
when I began batch sparging, I followed the increased grain ROT and
wound up overshooting my OG every time. All you need to do is adjust
ANY recipe for the efficiency of YOUR systme, no mattter what sparge
technique you use.
---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 22:26:30
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:04:58 -0800, <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > wrote:
> William Benz Jr wrote:
>
>> According to John Palmers book "How To Brew", batch sparging requires 10%
>> more grain to get the same gravity wort as fly sparging. Figuring 75%
>> efficiency for fly sparging to be considered good, 68% would be about right
>> for batch.
>
> As much as I respect John, I totally disagree with this, and he knows
> it! Batch sparging is not inherently less efficient than fly sparging.
It is in theory, but not in reality. I suspect John is talking theory
in his book. As I mentioned in another post, efficiencies in reality are
going to be all over the place for different brewers. There's no way you
can put a single number comparing the two methods.
> All you need to do is adjust ANY recipe for the efficiency of YOUR systme,
> no mattter what sparge technique you use.
Absolutely!! I couldn't agree more.
John.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 08:40:25
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
William Benz Jr wrote:
>
> Matt,
>
> The mill at my local LHBS produces a lower efficiency than the mills that my
> friends and I use. Same mill, JPS maltmill, but we run them as tight as we
> can without causing problems. The owner says that fewer customers complain
> about lower efficiency than about stuck sparges. He also sells more grain
> that way.
>
> According to John Palmers book "How To Brew", batch sparging requires 10%
> more grain to get the same gravity wort as fly sparging. Figuring 75%
> efficiency for fly sparging to be considered good, 68% would be about right
> for batch.
While "How to Brew" a great resource, I should note that John's 10%
assertion is basically incorrect in my experience. I batch sparge and
get efficiencies in the low to mid 80s with normal gravity beers, which
is the same I got when I fly sparged. I think there's probably a
theoretical difference between the two methods, but at the homebrew
level it's probably quite small. With an EasyMasher type setup in the
same tun, my efficiency drops to the low-mid 70s with either method.
I do find double crushing makes a difference of a few points, but I use
a non-adjustable MaltMill. If I use my neighbor's BarleyCrusher, which
is set pretty tight, I get about the same efficiency as a double-crush.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 22:22:35
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:40:25 -0600, <mikey666@666swampgas.666com > wrote:
>> According to John Palmers book "How To Brew", batch sparging requires 10%
>> more grain to get the same gravity wort as fly sparging.
>
> While "How to Brew" a great resource, I should note that John's 10%
> assertion is basically incorrect in my experience.
Yeah, there's just no way you can put any sort of universal number on it. It's
going to be different for everybody. The difference an individual brewer
sees between the methods is going to come down to how well they personally
perform each method. Specifics in technique as well as equipment design are
going to have an impact on what efficiency difference you get, as well as
which one is higher. A good batch sparge will beat a bad fly sparge, a good
fly sparge will beat a bad batch sparge... etc.
Theoretically a "perfect" fly sparge may be 10% better than a "perfect" batch
sparge, but you're never going to see that in reality. The real number is
going to be all over the place.
John.
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 17:01:03
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> Theoretically a "perfect" fly sparge may be 10% better than a "perfect" batch
> sparge, but you're never going to see that in reality. The real number is
> going to be all over the place.
Yes -- but you're forgetting that just as all children are, by
definition, innocent, all batch sparges are, by definition, perfect.
After all, most of the great philosophers and scientists throughout
human history were batch spargers: Aristotle, Pythagoras, Spinoza, L.
Ron Hubbard, Einstein, David Coppefield and, of course, Jesus.
Sure, you probably thought Jesus was more of "a wine guy" -- but as it
turns out the Aramaic word for wine actually means beer.
Another little known, yet undisputed fact: the Nazis invented
fly-sparging. Hitler himself was a notorious fly-sparger. This is not to
say that fly spargers are Nazis -- most have no formal affiliation with
the party at all, that anyone knows of. But I think it should be
self-evident that fly sparging is a product of great malevolent forces
of darkness, despair and global pestilence.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 12:34:22
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
Matt <djembefola24@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I've been brewing all grain for about 7 months now and have been
> struggling with efficiency issues. I double crush my grain at the LHBS,
> usually nail my target temperatures, and I batch sparge. My efficiency
> tends to fluxuate around 60-65%. My mash tun is a round gott cooler
> with an easymasher type of SS braid, and my water is filtered with an
> under the sink charcol filter. Ok...
>
> That being said, I still believe my crush is the problem. However
> before I run out and get a mill, I'm wondering if there's maybe another
> variable that I'm over looking. I usually mash for about 60 min wih
> 1.25 qts/lb. and do single infusion, mostly pales and IPA. Should I let
> it sit longer? I always have such a hard time hitting gravities even
> though as far as I know I'm nailing everything (yes, insert joke here),
> and my brew days go well (until I get my gravity reading after
> sparging).
>
> I've been exploring the other benefits of having a mill such as buying
> grain and bulk and maybe less trips to the LHBS which is 1/2hr away.
> I'd just be bummed if my efficiencies still sucked after buying a mill
> when there might have been another problem all together. Any ideas? Let
> me know if I left out any vital info. Thanks.
>
I have a mill and never double crush anything. My efficiency is always
67%-75%. As I understand it (from reading in here) most of your
efficiency value comes from the sparge.
I also mash/sparge in a 5 gal round cooler. For bigger beers sparging
in it can be tedious, but for a midlevel pale ale (say 1.050) you'll
plenty of room to sparge it - just fill up the mash tun completely
with the sparge water so you get a good thorough "rinse" and then
vorlauf/drain.
Your efficiency should increase with better sparging. I think. Maybe
one of the higher-watt bulbs in here will chime in with more info :-)
-----------------------------------------------
John Bleichert syborg@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!!
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 06:31:22
From: David M. Taylor
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
"Matt" <djembefola24@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1163469397.353969.282020@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I've been brewing all grain for about 7 months now and have been
> struggling with efficiency issues. I double crush my grain at the LHBS,
> usually nail my target temperatures, and I batch sparge. My efficiency
> tends to fluxuate around 60-65%. My mash tun is a round gott cooler
> with an easymasher type of SS braid, and my water is filtered with an
> under the sink charcol filter. Ok...
>
> That being said, I still believe my crush is the problem. However
> before I run out and get a mill, I'm wondering if there's maybe another
> variable that I'm over looking. I usually mash for about 60 min wih
> 1.25 qts/lb. and do single infusion, mostly pales and IPA. Should I let
> it sit longer? I always have such a hard time hitting gravities even
> though as far as I know I'm nailing everything (yes, insert joke here),
> and my brew days go well (until I get my gravity reading after
> sparging).
>
> I've been exploring the other benefits of having a mill such as buying
> grain and bulk and maybe less trips to the LHBS which is 1/2hr away.
> I'd just be bummed if my efficiencies still sucked after buying a mill
> when there might have been another problem all together. Any ideas? Let
> me know if I left out any vital info. Thanks.
It might be the crush. You could always try triple crushing at the LHBS,
although it's probably more of a pain. If you buy your own mill you can set
it however you like, and get it done in one pass instead of two or three.
It doesn't appear there's anything wrong at all with 1.25 qt/lb and 60
minutes. In fact, you could probably reduce the time to 45 or even 30
minutes and still end up with the same result.
One other thing to consider, instead of buying a mill, and I know this
sounds crazy, is to experiment with your regular household blender. That's
what I use, every time. I put in a scant cup of grain at a time, grind on a
medium setting for about 6 seconds, and my beer ends up tasting great with
an average efficiency of 73%. Just be careful not to crush too far. I do
crush the dark roasted grains by hand though (rolling pin or flat end of a
tenderizer mallet), otherwise astringency can result because the roasted
grains just get pulverized in the blender. If you're crushing 16 pounds of
grain, it takes a good hour or more to get the job done with a blender, but
if you're only doing 9 or 10 pounds, it's not so bad. A mill would probably
save some time, but the blender does work okay.
Good luck.
--
Dave
"Fill your cup with whatever bitter brew you're drinking." -- Brad Paisley
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 20:23:31
From: James
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
Matt wrote:
> Yes, I think I have that covered James. I heat 5 Gal. up to 203
> degrees, then dump into a cooler which brings it down to about 192-193.
> That water mixed with the wet grains brings the temp between 168-170.
Then the crush is the only thing that makes sense. I grind my own using
a phill mill and a drill-I have quite a bit of flour when I'm done-
definitely more than my LHBS.
Good luck,
James
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 19:43:09
From: Matt
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
Yes, I think I have that covered James. I heat 5 Gal. up to 203
degrees, then dump into a cooler which brings it down to about 192-193.
That water mixed with the wet grains brings the temp between 168-170.
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 18:48:18
From: James
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
Matt wrote:
> I've been brewing all grain for about 7 months now and have been
> struggling with efficiency issues. I double crush my grain at the LHBS,
> usually nail my target temperatures, and I batch sparge. My efficiency
> tends to fluxuate around 60-65%. My mash tun is a round gott cooler
> with an easymasher type of SS braid, and my water is filtered with an
> under the sink charcol filter. Ok...
>
> That being said, I still believe my crush is the problem. However
> before I run out and get a mill, I'm wondering if there's maybe another
> variable that I'm over looking. I usually mash for about 60 min wih
> 1.25 qts/lb. and do single infusion, mostly pales and IPA. Should I let
> it sit longer? I always have such a hard time hitting gravities even
> though as far as I know I'm nailing everything (yes, insert joke here),
> and my brew days go well (until I get my gravity reading after
> sparging).
I was suffering the same affliction and grind my grains. I worked on
everything- except one thing. Have you checked your mash bed
temperature when you sparge? I batch sparge as well and just realized I
was only raising the temperature of my mash bed a tiny bit. My
extraction shot up dramatically when used 192 degree water on my last
batch- It got my mash bed up to 168-170. I'm guessing that I finally
washed the sugars from the grain the way I was supposed to be doing.
You'll have to figure it for your system, but if you're only using 170
deg. or so water you may not be getting all the sugars into solution. I
may be way off base on this, but my last batch made me a believer.
James
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 11:32:32
From: Spitzbuben
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
At the treat of sounding like an infomercial listen to the batch sparge
show
(http://www.thebrewingnetwork.com/archive/dwnldarchive08-13-06.mp3)
that Denny did on The Brewing Network
(http://www.thebrewingnetwork.com)... He is the Moses of Sparging, he
lead me to the Promise Land of Higher Efficiency. The last time I
batch sparged I got 90% efficiency ('m totally anal about pH, crash and
tweaking my tun setup). One thing at a time Denny, right? Make sure
you stir after the batch sparge water goes in, no need to let it sit
and recycle it (I'm not even gonna butcher the "V" German word and
misspell it) and depending on your system the efficiency goes up 10-20
points!
Listen to the hippy man...listen to the hippy....
Spitz
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 10:53:04
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
Matt wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the replies so far. When I batch sparge, I drain off the
> first runnings, add my hot water as much as the tun will hold. Then I
> stir it up let it sit for 5 minutes, vorlauf and drain. Then one more
> time to get a total of about 6.5 gallons (I have a 7 gallon pot). Could
> it be that I'm not sparging enough? 6.5 gallons in a 7 gallon pot is
> already a gamble in itself. I'm planing on using some sort of rod to
> measure exact quantities of wort, but for now I've been eyeballing it.
>
> I don't believe my crushes have much flour into them, the grain is just
> broken up into a few pieces if my memory serves me right. If I were to
> add more grain to compensate, would I just go for a thicker mash? My 5
> gal. tun is usually full with the 12lbs and proportionate water.
Based on your description of both your technique and your crush, I'd say
the crush is the problem. You should be getting quite a bit of flour.
----------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 10:33:15
From: Matt
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
Thanks for all the replies so far. When I batch sparge, I drain off the
first runnings, add my hot water as much as the tun will hold. Then I
stir it up let it sit for 5 minutes, vorlauf and drain. Then one more
time to get a total of about 6.5 gallons (I have a 7 gallon pot). Could
it be that I'm not sparging enough? 6.5 gallons in a 7 gallon pot is
already a gamble in itself. I'm planing on using some sort of rod to
measure exact quantities of wort, but for now I've been eyeballing it.
I don't believe my crushes have much flour into them, the grain is just
broken up into a few pieces if my memory serves me right. If I were to
add more grain to compensate, would I just go for a thicker mash? My 5
gal. tun is usually full with the 12lbs and proportionate water.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 22:14:15
From: Derric
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
> ... I'm planing on using some sort of rod to
> measure exact quantities of wort, but for now I've been eyeballing it.
Matt, that may be your problem right there...
The efficiency calculation depends on pretty exact numbers or it can
be off a good bit. If you're just eyeballing the amount of wort you
extract, that can make a big difference. The same with temperature and
gravity measurements and temp corrections.
Next time be VERY careful about measurements and I bet your efficiency
numbers will be better. Your method looks exactly like mine and I get
about 80% - 85% every time (but I don't wait 5 minutes - that's not
necessary if you stir and vorlauf well). Just drain your wort into a
measuring pitcher then pour into the boiler (or mark a stick like you
mentioned - I have marks on my big wooden spoon).
ALSO - be careful what gravity points you use in the calculations also
... you will get different results whether you use the values in
howtobrew.com or those in various computer programs, etc. It may not
hurt to post your calculations and let everyone look at them too.
Derric
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 22:31:18
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:14:15 -0000, <derric1961@removethis.yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>> ... I'm planing on using some sort of rod to
>> measure exact quantities of wort, but for now I've been eyeballing it.
>
> Matt, that may be your problem right there...
>
> The efficiency calculation depends on pretty exact numbers or it can
> be off a good bit. If you're just eyeballing the amount of wort you
> extract, that can make a big difference. The same with temperature and
> gravity measurements and temp corrections.
I was going to say the same thing. I still suspect his crush, just because
LHBS crushes are commonly a problem. However, I said in my original post
that the number 1 cause of low efficiency is the crush, I also tend to say
that the number 2 cause of "low efficiency" is not calculating it correctly.
You're definitely right, small errors in the volume or SG can really mess
up the efficiency calculation. If the original poster is taking guesses
at either of those, that could be an issue. Maybe their efficiency isn't
as bad as they think it is?
John.
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 08:19:37
From: MarkMc
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
Yeah, I hear what you're saying, but you have to consider your
evapouration rate vs kettle dead-space vs hop absorption when calcing
efficiency from FV vol and gravity, so I think it's more accurate to
take the reading in the kettle pre-boil.
Regards,
Mark
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 01:24:34
From: MarkMc
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
Sounds to me like a couple of problems, perhaps mainly the crush;
I heard a comment on the brewing network (I forget who said it and what
show) where the guy was saying "crush until you're scared"! If you get
a stuck run-off, back off for the next brew.
Also you really need to know your kettle pre-boil volume really
precisely for the efficiency calculations. I have a piece of aluminium
flat 'rod' for a measuring stick that I scratched measurements on by
putting measured jugs of water in to the kettle one at a time. Now I
just dip it in and read off the volume - nice and easy.
Cheers,
Mark
|
| | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 10:00:58
From: Mark R
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
"MarkMc" <mmcnospam@yahoo.co.uk > wrote in message
news:1163582673.954255.255570@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Also you really need to know your kettle pre-boil volume really
> precisely for the efficiency calculations.
A couple of people have said that but I'll beg to differ. You do need to
know your precise volume but it doesn't have to be pre boil. Most people I
know have their fermenters marked out fairly accurately for volume. If you
finish your boil, cool it down, put it in the fermenter and take a sample
then, not only will you have your OG (without having to make 100 degree
temperature corrections) but you can figure the number of points in the
ferment volume. Then compare that to the total points per pound of your
grain and you should still come out with the same number. Simple and you
only have to take one gravity sample.
Mark R
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 17:54:47
From: Derric
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
>> Also you really need to know your kettle pre-boil volume really
>> precisely for the efficiency calculations.
>
> A couple of people have said that but I'll beg to differ. You do need to
> know your precise volume but it doesn't have to be pre boil. Most people I
> know have their fermenters marked out fairly accurately for volume. If you
> finish your boil, cool it down, put it in the fermenter ...
There are several efficiency numbers. If you go all the way to
the fermenter, you're probably measuring more than just your "mash"
efficiency. For example, unless you pour eveything into your fermenter,
you are missing any sugar left in the boil kettle in hop residue and
break material, etc. Also, the hops will add to the volume if you pour
them into your fermenter. These may be large or small values, depending
on your process (I know I've sometimes left QUARTS in the boil kettle
when using lots of whole hopes, for example).
Google will show some older threads where at least these different
efficiencies were discussed:
* mash efficiency
* total brewhouse efficiency
Usually we're talking only about mash efficiency.
Derric
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 22:37:42
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:00:58 -0600, <marknorayspam@noev1spam.net > wrote:
>
> "MarkMc" <mmcnospam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1163582673.954255.255570@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Also you really need to know your kettle pre-boil volume really
>> precisely for the efficiency calculations.
>
> A couple of people have said that but I'll beg to differ. You do need to
> know your precise volume but it doesn't have to be pre boil. Most people I
> know have their fermenters marked out fairly accurately for volume. If you
> finish your boil, cool it down, put it in the fermenter and take a sample
> then, not only will you have your OG (without having to make 100 degree
> temperature corrections) but you can figure the number of points in the
> ferment volume. Then compare that to the total points per pound of your
> grain and you should still come out with the same number. Simple and you
> only have to take one gravity sample.
Pre-boil efficiency and fermenter efficiency are two different things, usually
with different numbers. One is called "mash efficiency" (although it's
really the sparge) and the other is called "system efficiency". The second
way, doing it in the fermenter, also accounts for things like losses in
the kettle, absorbtion by the hops, etc. Typically this is lower than your
pre-boil efficiency.
John.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Nov 2006 10:07:57
From: Mark R
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
>
> Pre-boil efficiency and fermenter efficiency are two different things,
usually
> with different numbers. One is called "mash efficiency" (although it's
> really the sparge) and the other is called "system efficiency". The
second
> way, doing it in the fermenter, also accounts for things like losses in
> the kettle, absorbtion by the hops, etc. Typically this is lower than
your
> pre-boil efficiency.
You are correct sir. As you all pointed out I didn't take into account the
loss of volume during the transfer. To date I've only used pellet hops and
the amount of wort left in the boil pot after transfer is normally less than
a pint. Probably closer to a cup, but either way when measuring a full 6
plus gallons in a brew pot, one or two cups of liquid is only going to
change the level about two or three red hairs so I don't sweat it. However,
depending on the method used to transfer and using whole hops where
absorption can be a bigger factor, I can see the need for preboil
measurements.
Mark R
|
| | |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 22:33:56
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
On 15 Nov 2006 01:24:34 -0800, <mmcnospam@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> Sounds to me like a couple of problems, perhaps mainly the crush;
>
> I heard a comment on the brewing network (I forget who said it and what
> show) where the guy was saying "crush until you're scared"! If you get
> a stuck run-off, back off for the next brew.
Was that you Denny?
"crush until you're scared" is a common phrase we use on here.
John.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 09:20:09
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> Was that you Denny?
>
> "crush until you're scared" is a common phrase we use on here.
It was...IIRC, Tom Veldhouse said it first...if not him, I KNOW it was
someone here....I just stole it! ;)
---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 20:23:48
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:20:09 -0800, <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>
>> Was that you Denny?
>>
>> "crush until you're scared" is a common phrase we use on here.
>
> It was...IIRC, Tom Veldhouse said it first...if not him, I KNOW it was
> someone here....I just stole it! ;)
Earliest reference I can find was from Brett Hetherington back in 2003.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.brewing/browse_thread/thread/bf68073d742a7e04
John.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 12:33:40
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> Earliest reference I can find was from Brett Hetherington back in 2003.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.brewing/browse_thread/thread/bf68073d742a7e04
Thanks for doin' the research!
----------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 19:37:54
From: Matt
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
Well from all the info here (which I'm thankful for) it looks like a
combination of exact preboil measurements, and a quality crush will
probably solve my problem. I noticed on the grain mill at my LHBS
(which is motorized) that there's a dimmer next to the on switch. I
suppose it's possible that the dimmer controls the speed of the
rollers. Does the crush speed matter?
I think if I started hitting 70-75% efficiency, I'd probably pee myself
with glee. If all goes well, I guess I'll pick myself up a pair of
depends. Thanks again for everyones help, it's much appreciated.
Matt
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 20:14:55
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
On 15 Nov 2006 19:37:54 -0800, <djembefola24@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Well from all the info here (which I'm thankful for) it looks like a
> combination of exact preboil measurements, and a quality crush will
> probably solve my problem. I noticed on the grain mill at my LHBS
> (which is motorized) that there's a dimmer next to the on switch. I
> suppose it's possible that the dimmer controls the speed of the
> rollers. Does the crush speed matter?
I don't think the speed makes too much difference. Do you notice any
way on the mill to adjust how close the rollers are to each other?
> I think if I started hitting 70-75% efficiency, I'd probably pee myself
> with glee. If all goes well, I guess I'll pick myself up a pair of
> depends. Thanks again for everyones help, it's much appreciated.
In reality, how high or low your efficiency is doesn't really matter (other
than some people liking to brag). Consistency is much more important than
having a high efficiency.
John.
|
| |
Date: 15 Nov 2006 22:10:05
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
On 13 Nov 2006 17:56:37 -0800, <djembefola24@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I've been brewing all grain for about 7 months now and have been
> struggling with efficiency issues. I double crush my grain at the LHBS,
> usually nail my target temperatures, and I batch sparge. My efficiency
> tends to fluxuate around 60-65%. My mash tun is a round gott cooler
> with an easymasher type of SS braid, and my water is filtered with an
> under the sink charcol filter. Ok...
>
> That being said, I still believe my crush is the problem. However
> before I run out and get a mill, I'm wondering if there's maybe another
> variable that I'm over looking. I usually mash for about 60 min wih
> 1.25 qts/lb. and do single infusion, mostly pales and IPA. Should I let
> it sit longer? I always have such a hard time hitting gravities even
> though as far as I know I'm nailing everything (yes, insert joke here),
> and my brew days go well (until I get my gravity reading after
> sparging).
>
> I've been exploring the other benefits of having a mill such as buying
> grain and bulk and maybe less trips to the LHBS which is 1/2hr away.
> I'd just be bummed if my efficiencies still sucked after buying a mill
> when there might have been another problem all together. Any ideas? Let
> me know if I left out any vital info. Thanks.
By far, the number 1 cause is the crush. A 60 minute mash should be plenty.
Do you know what brand of mill your LHBS uses? Is it adjustable? If so,
will they let you adjust it to crush finer? Getting poor crushes using a
LHBS mill is actually a pretty common problem.
John.
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 04:31:27
From: MarkMc
Subject: Re: What should I change before I result to this
|
After the boil you still have your evapouration rate to muddy the
waters. If you want to know your mash efficiency, it's safer and more
likely to be accurate taking the pre-boil gravity and volume readings.
Regards,
Mark
|
|
