# Vienna lager - better efficiency



## Chris79 (20/10/17)

Hi all,

I brewed a Vienna lager on Wednesday. This was my second brew on my electric Cheeky Peak kettle (36 ltr, Keg king PID temp controller).

After I had completed my mash, I had a measured mash eff of 43%. You'll see from the attached my main grains were Vienna and Munich I (both Weyermann). When I had drafted the recipe, I had Pils in, but I took it out (just because, I think I was thinking I'd save some time on my mash/boil).

Just an overview of the process I followed for my mash: I started with 20 litres of water, then added the grains at 55 C, and straight up to 62, then 68, 72, and 78. Step time is in an attachment. After reaching 78, I sparged with about 9-10 litres of water (I've setup a hoist etc for my grain bag for my BIAB brewing).

Boiled for 60 minutes.

I did some research today. From what I could tell malts like Vienna have a lower diastatic power, thus a lower conversation in the mash. I thought the time of around 30 min at 63 or under would have worked fine for reasonable conversion.

I think the main thing I need to do next time is, add about 20% pils malt to have greater diastatic power in the mash. The second thing I thought I could do was, mashed with 15 litres, and sparged with 15 litres again. Thus making sure I get those higher concentrate sugars out of the mash.

Do you think those main two corrections should see me in the right direction of better efficiency?

Cheers
Chris


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (20/10/17)

Typically both Vienna and Munich malts have a WK value around 200 - 250, and saccharification times of "normal"* to 20 minutes.

This means that in ideal conditions 100 g of malt has enough functional enzyme to convert starch to 200 - 250 g of reducing sugars. In rough round figures, if the average of your grain bill has 100 WK you will get complete conversion**.

Take home lesson: look elsewhere for your efficiency issues, there were enough enzymes and time to extract everything in your mash.


* the first iodine test in a standard malt analysis is done at 10 minutes, if it has converted by then saccharification is reported as "normal".

**Properly, you should get compete conversion with WK = % Extract * 1.1.
WK = 100 allows for a margin of error.


----------



## malt junkie (20/10/17)

First and best place to look is your crush (no I'm not saying this because of any BB I'm doing , it's closed anyway) too course and enzimes and malty goodness can't release into the wort, too fine (even with Biab) and the sugars get trapped in a 'stuck' sparge. Second place to look is your water and PH in the mash. Just ball parking mine grabbed 5 points.

The other thing is don't chase numbers, once your in the mid 70's or better try and hit that number each time.


----------



## Chris79 (20/10/17)

Lyrebird_Cycles said:


> Typically both Vienna and Munich malts have a WK value around 200 - 250, and saccharification times of "normal"* to 20 minutes.
> 
> This means that in ideal conditions 100 g of malt has enough functional enzyme to convert starch to 200 - 250 g of maltose. In rough round figures, if the average of your grain bill has 100 WK you will get complete conversion**.
> 
> ...



So to summaries: I'm hearing a few things: in your opinion there was enough enzymatic power in this grain bill from my 75 min mash to get a reasonable conversion. Secondly, conversion may not have been complete? Lastly, I don't understand your second point in regards to your explanation at the two asterisk.


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (20/10/17)

.....


Chris79 said:


> So to summaries: I'm hearing a few things: in your opinion there was enough enzymatic power in this grain bill from my 75 min mash to get a reasonable conversion.



Yes



Chris79 said:


> Secondly, conversion may not have been complete?



If you mean starch conversion: there is enough enzyme to convert available starch to soluble extract but this didn't happen so something is either limiting the availability of the starch or inhibiting the conversion. I think the former is more likely.



Chris79 said:


> Lastly, I don't understand your second point in regards to your explanation at the two asterisk.



Not important, just use the short version.

The reason for the difference is that the test is based on enzyme extracted from 100 g of malt which is added to lab grade purified starch and the conversion is measured. Since in an all grain mash the malt is converting itself, what matters is the extract level of the malt (it won't have to convert anything else). The x 1.1 bit is because we measure reducing sugars and 100g of starch will produce ~ 110 g of reducing sugars. I said maltose originally, I'm not sure if that's correct as the test involved is Layne Eynon which responds to all reducing sugars.


----------



## Chris79 (20/10/17)

malt junkie said:


> First and best place to look is your crush (no I'm not saying this because of any BB I'm doing , it's closed anyway) too course and enzimes and malty goodness can't release into the wort, too fine (even with Biab) and the sugars get trapped in a 'stuck' sparge. Second place to look is your water and PH in the mash. Just ball parking mine grabbed 5 points.
> 
> The other thing is don't chase numbers, once your in the mid 70's or better try and hit that number each time.



You know I was thinking about the crush yesterday/today. For now, I get my grains crushed by The Brew Shop, I do specific crushed for BIAB. I was wondering if the crush may have been too course (do you reckon brew shops just crush the same for BIAB and 3V system setups?). So, next time I was thinking I should ask them for a finer crush, and see what happens next brew?

My water is filter through this bench top filter. I live in Norwest Sydney.

I did add 5gm of Cal Chloride to the mash. Did test (yes with the humble ph strips) when the wort was room temp-ish. It was around 5.4.

Yep, agree to not get hung up on the numbers. But when my mash eff is dialled in. I'll aim to just hit those numbers again and again using Beersmith.

Cheers


----------



## Chris79 (20/10/17)

Lyrebird_Cycles said:


> .....
> 
> 
> Yes
> ...



alrighty, cool thanks!


----------



## MHB (20/10/17)

The two things that do jump out are The Grind (as above), and Temperatures, Measuring something only counts if the thermometer is accurate - always well worth calibrating your thermometers and sensors.
The 68 and 72oC steps are probably redundant, or at least one of them is, just the one rest somewhere between the two would probably be enough.
The most obvious sign that the grind is way too coarse would be there are a large number of uncracked grains in the expended malt (they are pretty easy to spot) - more than 1-2 in a large handful of grist and I would be asking questions of the miller.

I sort of agree that perusing efficiency for its own sake is a bit futile for a home brewer, but 45%! yep something is wrong and the question well worth asking.
Mark


----------



## Chris79 (21/10/17)

MHB said:


> The two things that do jump out are The Grind (as above), and Temperatures, Measuring something only counts if the thermometer is accurate - always well worth calibrating your thermometers and sensors.
> The 68 and 72oC steps are probably redundant, or at least one of them is, just the one rest somewhere between the two would probably be enough.
> The most obvious sign that the grind is way too coarse would be there are a large number of uncracked grains in the expended malt (they are pretty easy to spot) - more than 1-2 in a large handful of grist and I would be asking questions of the miller.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the feedback.

Firstly, I'll request getting a finer crush of grains. I might even be able to double check that still, as the grains are in my compost!

I would be confident the temperature control should be ok, as it's the reasonable new Keg King temp control unit that controls the mash in the thermowell.

Maybe I'll just simplify the steps to 62, 68 then mash out at 78. Is that a better idea Mark?

Cheers


----------



## Jack of all biers (21/10/17)

Don't be confident just because your thermo is new. Incorrect mash temps from dodgy thermometers is probably one of the most common causes of mash efficiency issues. Everybody does the same thing. They look at the grains, the crush, the mash schedule, think about adding enzymes and all sorts of things before they finally look at their equipment. 

Test your thermometers by filling a glass with ice (crushed is best) then top up with cold water. Leave a few mins then test your thermometers. Should read 0. Then boil some water on the stove and test again. Should read 100. If they're out at either temp then they are out at mash temps.

I have a thermo thats out by 1 degree at temps below 70, but at 100 or more it's closer to 5 degrees out, so it's not always linear.


----------



## manticle (21/10/17)

If you're going to step, go 62, 72, 78.

But crush and most importantly, calibration of measuring equipment (thermo, hydro/refrac) are first on the list.


----------



## MHB (21/10/17)

To knock your efficiency down to 45% the malt would have to be barely crushed if at all (I think it was Thirstyboy who tried mashing uncrushed malt and got a similar yield), still well worth checking.
Uncrushed grain looks like little beads or pearls among the grist, ones you see them its pretty obvious. Spread a handful out on a dark surface.
Its rarely one thing that gives really low efficiency but rather a sum of several working together. If you are having a look at your expended malt look for dry bits (dough balls) and I always taste my expended malt (not perhaps out of the compost bin) if it tastes sweet - that's extract left behind - and it points to poor lautering...
Getting 80% plus isn't hard and usually is just getting the basics right, often hard when you are starting out to know what to look at first.
Mark


----------



## Chris79 (21/10/17)

I'll test my thermometer Jack / manticle. Good idea on how to go about that. I'll do that next time I have time.

I'll request a finer crush next time. How much finer do you think it might need to be? Or is that completely different for each mill?

To test my hydro is calibrated, can I use my filtered tap water or does it need to be distilled or RO water?


----------



## Jack of all biers (21/10/17)

Filtered tap water is fine for Hydro calibration. Heck even unfiltered works for my hydro, but it's not an accurate lab grade thing. Test your thermometer first as you want to test the hyrdo calibration sample temp also to ensure it's not out from what your hydro is calibrated too (normally 20C, but sometimes 15C).

The mill setting is very dependant on the mill. You should talk to your HBS as to what they recommend. Unless they are careless, they will know very well what mill gap setting works and no doubt they use it for their own brews.

EDIT - as Mark pointed out, I'd check your last crush to see if there where any issues before getting a finer crush. A finer crush could cause you other issues like a stuck sparge, which is a frustrating PITA.


----------



## Chris79 (21/10/17)

Thanks Jack.

So, first I'll check the thermometer first in ice then boiling water. Re my hydro calibration. Are you saying it won't read 1.000 until I find its calibration temp of 20 or whatever it is.

Yes, I'll talk to Andrew at The Brew Shop, about what has happened.

My last crush, and first beer in this kettle was a Helles. my mash eff was 65% and that was with no spare. Yes, mainly pils malt.


----------



## Tony121 (21/10/17)

They are very helpful at the Brew Shop so it would be worth having a chat. I have not used them for crushed grain for a while, but when I did there was no issue so I would be looking at equipment/process as others have mentioned.


----------



## Chris79 (21/10/17)

These are my grains, I could get them out as ive just started composting again.


----------



## manticle (21/10/17)

Chris79 said:


> Thanks Jack.
> 
> So, first I'll check the thermometer first in ice then boiling water. Re my hydro calibration. Are you saying it won't read 1.000 until I find its calibration temp of 20 or whatever it is.
> 
> ...



Calibration between 15 and 20 is pretty small variance. If you're reading very close to 1.000 within that range, the answer is elsewhere.

My money would be on calculation of efficiency being incorrect but go step by step and check all points.


----------



## Chris79 (21/10/17)

Understand what your saying Mark. I do have lots to practically learn. But I have been doing Biab over a bit over a year. Back on point, my last brew on this equipment had a mash eff of 65% with no sparge. 

But I'm always learning from here and The Brewing Network especially. I will do the suggested tests above from Jack.


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (21/10/17)

Chris79 said:


> These are my grains, I could get them out as ive just started composting again.



Two things leap out: you have a very high percentage of whole corns, and there looks to be unmodified starch in some of the cracked corns (top right hand corner is an example).


----------



## Bribie G (21/10/17)

Chris I'm doing a full volume BIAB brew today with a fair amount of Vienna as well as Barrett Burston pale and I'll post a piccie of some spent grains later this evening by way of comparison.
As LC says, the ones in the photo look way too coarse IMHO.

With regard to Mark, he's a guy to follow. I remember when he was at Islington, even using a pretty nifty industrial sized mill (ex Murrays I think) he would always check the grist by rubbing some between his hands, in case of uncracked grains.


----------



## Chris79 (21/10/17)

Lyrebird_Cycles said:


> Two things leap out: you have a very high percentage of whole corns, and there looks to be unmodified starch in some of the cracked corns (top right hand corner is an example).



Lyrebird by whole corn I assume your referring to the barley? So, therefore the barley could have been crushed finer?

What does unmodified starch look like? And if there's unmodified starch then the conversion was incomplete? Have I got that right? Or is that caused by something else?


----------



## Chris79 (21/10/17)

Bribie G said:


> Chris I'm doing a full volume BIAB brew today with a fair amount of Vienna as well as Barrett Burston pale and I'll post a piccie of some spent grains later this evening by way of comparison.
> As LC says, the ones in the photo look way too coarse IMHO.
> 
> With regard to Mark, he's a guy to follow. I remember when he was at Islington, even using a pretty nifty industrial sized mill (ex Murrays I think) he would always check the grist by rubbing some between his hands, in case of uncracked grains.



Bribie, look forward to seeing what your grains look like. I'm beginning to think it is multifaceted like Mark has been saying, including some of either my processes or equipment calibration.

Bribie, I always read Mark's post with keen interest. Not sure if you sensed any ill in what I said, but I didn't mean anything like that.

But, it would seem part of what needs addressing is the size of the crush.


----------



## Chris79 (21/10/17)

MHB said:


> To knock your efficiency down to 45% the malt would have to be barely crushed if at all (I think it was Thirstyboy who tried mashing uncrushed malt and got a similar yield), still well worth checking.
> Uncrushed grain looks like little beads or pearls among the grist, ones you see them its pretty obvious. Spread a handful out on a dark surface.
> Its rarely one thing that gives really low efficiency but rather a sum of several working together. If you are having a look at your expended malt look for dry bits (dough balls) and I always taste my expended malt (not perhaps out of the compost bin) if it tastes sweet - that's extract left behind - and it points to poor lautering...
> Getting 80% plus isn't hard and usually is just getting the basics right, often hard when you are starting out to know what to look at first.
> Mark



Thanks for all those points Mark!

I didn't know that about what spent malt shoukd taste like. So what should it taste like?

I will look into checking the calibration of my equipment as you guys have suggested.


----------



## MHB (21/10/17)

Brewman now has my old mill - Ex Bluetongue actually and the even bigger version (7") of the same model they have at Murrays, rated to 1100kg/hour rather than their little (6") 900kg one. Best thing about it is that its really easy to adjust, when you are suppling home brewers they all want different cracks and different malts behave differently at the same setting, easy adjustment and what it called "Hand Evaluation" of the crush is very important if you want to sell lots of different malts to different customers with different systems.
The Ordering tool (BrewBuilder) at Brewman lets you choose the crush, worth playing with until you get the setting that works best for you.
It might be worth your while getting a grain bill from some one else and seeing how that goes; if you don't get a better result from your current supplier.

As for the flavour, it tastes like wort and grist mixed together (sweet), when all the extract is removed more like dry grass or hay.
The individual seeds of any grain is called a "Corn" as is in a corn mill is a mill for any type of grain not just maize, and yes its a corn of maize, probably why pro-brewers call Corn, Maize, to save on confusion.

Looking at the picture you posted of your grist, LC is dead on there are an alarming number of uncracked corns, which will account for a large fraction of your lost efficiency, but even 65% isn't all that great, so its unlikely the only problem - work to do, fun to be had...
Mark


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (21/10/17)

Chris79 said:


> Lyrebird by whole corn I assume your referring to the barley? So, therefore the barley could have been crushed finer?
> 
> What does unmodified starch look like? And if there's unmodified starch then the conversion was incomplete? Have I got that right? Or is that caused by something else?



Yes, corn is an old English word for grain. It got co-opted to describe the grain which is properly maize because the early settlers in the US called maize "Indian corn". Maltsters tend to refer to individual malt grains as corns.

Unmodified starch will show up as firm bits in the grist pieces*. If it's white and slightly chalky the starch granules didn't gelatinise properly which is usually due to poor mash mixing. If it's translucent the starch gelatinised but wasn't converted, which can have many causes.

* but not the long thin bit that looks like a miniaturised beanshoot, that's the "acrospire", the part that the barley grain was trying to make into a new barley plant before the maltster cruelly dashed its chances by killing it with fire.


----------



## Bribie G (21/10/17)

Here's the pre-mash grains (doughing in shortly). The big bits are all empty husks.

I use a Marga mill that I modified from a thread on AHB about 10 years old and get a finer crush by drilling an extra hole in a certain control wheel ... wouldn't have a clue what the actual gap is but this crush gives me a pretty consistent 74% efficiency - you could set your clock by it. I'll be interested in what I get with my new bulk buy mill when I get it settled down.


----------



## Bribie G (21/10/17)

Totally off topic but a couple of centuries ago, bulk salt was sold in big granules that resembled wheat grains, and were called "corns" of salt. 
When used to preserve boiled beef for sea voyages, winter usage whatever the product came to be known as "corned beef". 
Again nothing to do with maize. 

Now where were we?...................


----------



## Jack of all biers (21/10/17)

Well, I was away for the morning and the boys have provided you some great insight. Between them there is a wealth of brewing knowledge there. 

Wow, that photo shows a lot of un-crushed corns. I stopped counting at 15! Considering the small amount you have there that percentage is terrible indeed. Maybe show your home brew store that photo when you explain your issue. It must have slipped through when they milled it. We all make mistakes and don't be too hard on them.

Still it's a good learning experience and it would still be good for you to test your equipment and review your processes as you have said you will. At least you'll know for any future issues. As Lyrebird said, you have lots of unmodified starch there and there is also likely to be mix of issues (ie a process issue like mixing or dough balls going on too). 

Great learning curve this hobby isn't it.

EDIT - grammar and general poor English used!


----------



## Chris79 (21/10/17)

MHB said:


> Brewman now has my old mill - Ex Bluetongue actually and the even bigger version (7") of the same model they have at Murrays, rated to 1100kg/hour rather than their little (6") 900kg one. Best thing about it is that its really easy to adjust, when you are suppling home brewers they all want different cracks and different malts behave differently at the same setting, easy adjustment and what it called "Hand Evaluation" of the crush is very important if you want to sell lots of different malts to different customers with different systems.
> The Ordering tool (BrewBuilder) at Brewman lets you choose the crush, worth playing with until you get the setting that works best for you.
> It might be worth your while getting a grain bill from some one else and seeing how that goes; if you don't get a better result from your current supplier.
> 
> ...



I'll look into Brewman's order tool. Sounds a good idea.

Yes, I'll try getting my next grain bill from someone else. 

I'll taste test my grain when I've completed my next mash. I didn't know they were classified like that.

So it's clear the crush is a factor....think my hydro is a factor too. I'll post a pic in that soon.


----------



## Chris79 (21/10/17)

Lyrebird_Cycles said:


> Yes, corn is an old English word for grain. It got co-opted to describe the grain which is properly maize because the early settlers in the US called maize "Indian corn". Maltsters tend to refer to individual malt grains as corns.
> 
> Unmodified starch will show up as firm bits in the grist pieces*. If it's white and slightly chalky the starch granules didn't gelatinise properly which is usually due to poor mash mixing. If it's translucent the starch gelatinised but wasn't converted, which can have many causes.
> 
> * but not the long thin bit that looks like a miniaturised beanshoot, that's the "acrospire", the part that the barley grain was trying to make into a new barley plant before the maltster cruelly dashed its chances by killing it with fire.



Ok, cool. Didn't realise about that categorising of things.

I'll try and pay more attention to the colour of my grain and doing my mash. Thinking I might to make sure I stir and mix the grains more throughly at the start of the mash next time.


----------



## Chris79 (21/10/17)

Bribie G said:


> Here's the pre-mash grains (doughing in shortly). The big bits are all empty husks.
> 
> I use a Marga mill that I modified from a thread on AHB about 10 years old and get a finer crush by drilling an extra hole in a certain control wheel ... wouldn't have a clue what the actual gap is but this crush gives me a pretty consistent 74% efficiency - you could set your clock by it. I'll be interested in what I get with my new bulk buy mill when I get it settled down.
> View attachment 109093
> ...



Cool. Good to see someone else's cracked grains.

Really does look more broken down than mine!

I'll be interested to see what they look like after your mash. Thanks


----------



## Chris79 (21/10/17)

Testing my hydro. It's out of calibration, that's part of the problem!

I know it may be a bit hard to read, but I think it's reading 1.006.

So that means I'm getting readings that are giving me a lower or higher gravity? A bit foggy today, fighting off a virus. So my pre-boil read 1.030. My SG read 1.042. What should they have read?

Cheers again [emoji482]


----------



## manticle (21/10/17)

Firstly, what temp is the water? It should be between 15-20 and if it is, hydro is reading about 6 points high.

If hotter, it will read lower than it should, if cooler, it will read higher.


----------



## Bribie G (21/10/17)

Mash finished, all leached out and just husk stuff left. Spot on eff as usual. 
Probably the last crush done with the Marga. RIP.


----------



## Chris79 (21/10/17)

manticle said:


> Firstly, what temp is the water? It should be between 15-20 and if it is, hydro is reading about 6 points high.
> 
> If hotter, it will read lower than it should, if cooler, it will read higher.



I’ve just tested the water temp now, and it was 20.5. At that temp I just now got a reading of 1.008.

So give that the temp for taking a reading is ok, my hydro is reading 8 points higher than it should. Am I reading that then the right way?

So I’ll buy a new hydro soon!


----------



## Chris79 (21/10/17)

Thanks Bribie. Success again hitting your numbers!


----------



## manticle (21/10/17)

Chris79 said:


> I’ve just tested the water temp now, and it was 20.5. At that temp I just now got a reading of 1.008.
> 
> So give that the temp for taking a reading is ok, my hydro is reading 8 points higher than it should. Am I reading that then the right way?
> 
> So I’ll buy a new hydro soon!




Yeah 8 points higher.

What temp was the wort when you took your mash efficiency reading?


----------



## Chris79 (21/10/17)

I'm not sure, I took a cup of the wort out of the kettle. Cooled it down in the fridge. So I can't be sure what temp the wort was.

So going forward, I'll test the temp of my wort etc before I take readings etc.

I'll order a new hydro, test it with water at 15-20 c. Then make sure that the wort before boil or after is between 15-20 c before I take a reading, to know where I really stand!

Like Mark said, there were/are a number of factors at play here. It good to be isolating some of the problems, and get more clarity here. Cheers Manticle too


----------



## malt junkie (21/10/17)

Bribie G said:


> Mash finished, all leached out and just husk stuff left. Spot on eff as usual.
> Probably the last crush done with the Marga. RIP.
> 
> View attachment 109103


It'll certainly be interesting to see side by side photos when you get the new mill, most with the mash master fluted have also reported efficiency increases too. I'm going to have to get the braumonster out of moth balls and see where the new limits are.


----------



## Bribie G (21/10/17)

I get consistent conversion but I wouldn't mind betting that a better ratio of husk and flour, hopefully with the new mill, will result in better drainage, less wort trapped in the spent grains, and better eff. I think with my current equipment I'm getting good extraction but still a lot of wort hanging around despite squeezing. That's particularly an issue in BIAB, being no sparge


----------



## Chris79 (21/10/17)

Jack of all biers said:


> Well, I was away for the morning and the boys have provided you some great insight. Between them there is a wealth of brewing knowledge there.
> 
> Wow, that photo shows a lot of un-crushed corns. I stopped counting at 15! Considering the small amount you have there that percentage is terrible indeed. Maybe show your home brew store that photo when you explain your issue. It must have slipped through when they milled it. We all make mistakes and don't be too hard on them.
> 
> ...


Yep, some great insights from those who replied.

I agree, I'll just pass on the information, without being an ass about it. Then I'll just ask for a finer crush.

Yes, testing my hydro, that's part of the issue (and my issue). Yes, I'll look to mix my grains better when starting the mash!

Yep, enjoying the learning curve, and understanding what factors need attention at each step.


----------



## RdeVjun (23/10/17)

This is tending a bit OT. @Bribie G, perhaps you mean its more of a problem with the full volume BIAB variant, no such hassle with MaxiBIAB and similar variants which incorporate a sparge step. Your point though is of course well made and is indeed acknowledged, mate.


----------



## Bribie G (23/10/17)

Yes full volume as opposed to a sparge step. With full volume we need the best-draining mash possible. It's still possible to do a sparge, of course, to get at that trapped wort, which can be quite a bit of wort in a big grain bill, but then you end up with an excessive amount of wort + spargings that needs extra boiling. Keen to see what my eff is with the new mill.


----------



## Deanboy (2/11/17)

I'm only a novice, but i used to get the supplier of my grains to crush them and never really had good conversion and thought it was just how BIAB worked with the amount of grains I was using. I then got into a group that does group buys of whole grains so I had to buy a mill. I set it to the recommended size and noticed the grains came out more crushed with alot more powdery substance. I have done at least 5 brews with the same grain bills as before and now am producing alot heavier beers. I put it down to the previous supplier not having the grains crushed enough for me, I methodically done each brew with the same of everything. Just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## Chris79 (2/11/17)

thanks Dean. I'm of the opinion too in this situation, if you saw the pic, that the grains were way too course and should have had better efficiency. Going to try one of the site sponsors, who has the size of crush desired as part of his ordering system, on his site. That way I'll feel clear on this part of the process.

But, as mentioned in a previous post, got some aspects of technique to improve.

All I can saw is at least I added some zinc to the end of the boil for the yeast (WLP838) and had some good yeast attenuation of about 74%.


----------



## Jack of all biers (4/11/17)

Yes upon "discovering" zinc for mash and boil additions, I too noticed mash efficiency (slight) and attenuation increases. Thanks MHB for pointing me in the right direction on that.


----------



## Bribie G (4/11/17)

So do you just crush up one of those Blackmores Zinc boost tablets that you take to increase your sperm count or give you more shiny hair or whatever they are intended for?


----------



## MHB (4/11/17)

Like lots of things Zinc is important, but be careful not to over do it, you really only want about 0.1ppm in the mash and ferment. Adding more can be used post fermentation to improve head retention, but again not too much or you can get a metallic off flavour.

I have been talking to Brewman about making up a Zn solution for adding to a chamber bottle (like the ones used for StarSan/Acid Sanitiser) so you can get the right dose for most any size batch. We will see if I can twist his arm; the Chamber Bottle is the dearest part; so making a refill available would have to be on the books to.
Mark


----------



## Jack of all biers (4/11/17)

Bribie G said:


> So do you just crush up one of those Blackmores Zinc boost tablets that you take to increase your sperm count or give you more shiny hair or whatever they are intended for?


I got some zinc sulphate and made up a solution (see below) adding X mls depending on batch size. I add to the mash at 0.4ppm as some gets used up in the mash then there are some losses in the boil, so I hope that I get 0.1-0.15ppm into the fermentor.

A little OT, but zinc was raised by the original poster, so I feel ok by posting the below here. For more, troll through this thread beginning somewhere at MHB's post or better yet this thread

ZnSO4.7H20
Make a solution of 35 grams of ZnSO4 per litre of deionised or distilled water.
This solution contains 8 mg of zinc per mL.
So for 20L wort you add 1ml to get 0.4 ppm Zn in the wort/mash/liquor

EDIT - Hey Bribie, I see you posted in the Zinc thread linked above? Forgotten?


----------



## Bribie G (4/11/17)

Hey I've just hit 20,000 posts! Now tell me what you had for breakfast on 21/11/2012 

Actually the brown yeasty nutrient is something I've been meaning to order for a while now.


----------



## Jack of all biers (4/11/17)

Bribie G said:


> Hey I've just hit 20,000 posts! Now tell me what you had for breakfast on 21/11/2012


Toast with jam.

Congrats on the 20,000th post. Was it memorable?


----------



## Bribie G (4/11/17)

The Earth moved.


----------



## Chris79 (15/11/17)

So I have a new hydro and I’ve tested it’s calibrated properly.

Also got my last grain crushed by Brewman (with a finer crush). Used Brewbuilder, it did help me especially dialing a more accurate OG of each grain.

As brewbuilder anticipated, I hit my numbers of brew house efficiency of 65% and a mash efficiency of about 69-70%! Yay.

Looking forward to drinking this Belgian pale ale in a bit.

Cheers especially to @MHB @manticle @Bribie G and @JOB for the help in improving my processes & the importance of checking equipment is calibrated.


----------

