# Biab Process Inconsistency



## GuyQLD (20/8/12)

Morning all,

About 5 batches in so far and I can't begin to describe how frustrating it's been trying to get my gear dialled in. I've been crunching some numbers in excel as well as googling a fair bit but with so much of BIAB information being based on the individual and their gear, consistent answers are hard to come by and most responses come with a "YMMV".

I've missed my strike temp on all 5 batches, either ending up too low or too high (mostly too high). I'm using the calculator in Brewmate (And I have an excel version I made up as well to check my figures) but somehow I keep missing.

I've been keeping a digital thermometer on hand as it approaches strike temp, gas off then in with the grain but I think I might be rushing it here; example my last brew I had a strike temp of 69 degrees, gas off, mashed in and looking good. Lid on, sleeping bag over the lot and walked away. Checked it at about 45 mins for temp loss and I got a reading of 71 degrees. 

I can only think that because I'm monitoring it as it approaches temp I may not be getting a consistent temp through all the liquid, only solution I can think of is when I get close stir the buggery out of it to ensure that it's the same temp throughout and maybe flame out for 5 minutes or so while stirring. Might have to go a bit higher this way, but I can always let it drop to strike temp before I mash in. 

Sound good?

Right, onto the hard stuff.

I've probably shot myself in the foot a bit here because I've been changing my process a little each time and so haven't been able to establish a baseline but this next part relates to mashout/sparging.

I'm using a 37L crab cooker from BCF and I've made the following assumptions based on the last few attempts

Trub loss: 1-2L (Apparently whirl pooling is something I can do)
Boil off: Depending on the boil - between 4-6L per hour
Water loss to grain absorption: I'm using 0.7L as a start because I haven't yet measured it. I probably really need to.

Now there's many ways to skin a cat and it all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. 

The first thing I need to establish is mash out; How important is it? And is it's importance mainly around liquifying the mash for better drainage? (since locking enzymatic conversion isn't really a factor with BIAB from what I understand)

I've pretty much narrowed down to three possible scenarios with my gear.

1- The full volume no sparge; It's going to be a tight fit though based on the above assumptions, we're talking about a litre of headspace during mash. Once the grain comes out though it drops to a manageable level. If a mashout is needed, I'm assuming turning the gas back on is the only option with this method. With my 3 ring burner that's about a 12-15 minute job and I'd be worried that's too slow.

2- Dunk Sparging; I've done this on most of my brews and I'll be honest it's a PITA with my gear. I'm probably the most ghetto brewer out there (My brew stand is two bricks and the only "bucket" I have for dunk sparging is a spare 23L esky). But it suits my sizes as I can mash with about 24/25 litres and then dunk sparge into another 8/9 litres bring me up to a pretty hefty starting volume. As for being worth it, well I just don't know.

3- Adding sparge water; Mash with 24/25 litres then dump in 8 litres of boiling water brings me back up to the brim at 78'C or there abouts.

Perhaps I'm trying too hard and I need to put the brakes on, go back to no sparge full voume with no mashout and work on my consistency first. It's not like I haven't been getting at least 70% efficiency (most cases 75-78%.... only the one beer I did with pilsner malt dropped to 70%)

Any tips out there? Or anyone have a rough idea of just how much difference any of this makes? If it's only going to be 3-5%, then maybe I should go back to basics until I can start getting consistent results.


----------



## beerdrinkingbob (20/8/12)

Hi mate,

Sounds to me like there is residual heat in the pot etc, just stir it round and check in a couple of minutes, if it's still ok then mash in.. When you mash in give it a good stir for about three minutes and measure the mash temp again before you put the sleeping bag on, if it's still too high then keep stirring and it will come down over a couple of minutes.

I loss about 4 litres to trub but I use around 8.5 kg for a double BIAB keggle batch. I also do a single dunk sparge to grab an extra point or two, but mostly to create the space in the vessel so I don't have to push the limits like yourself.

Mash out is important in BIAB for efficiency reasons, thins the liquor and helps the sugar escape, but it also has the other benefits as you have pointed out.

Hope that makes sense, i have the man flu so the head isn't as on the ball.

Cheers 

BDB


----------



## Phoney (20/8/12)

G'day Guy,

beerdrinkingbob is on the money with the mash in. After you've dumped your grain, keep stirring for a good 5 minutes. This will not only ensure that you have smashed up all of the little dough balls, but you'll also be sure that your temperature is spot on before you doonah up your pot.

I havent used brewmate, but beersmith 2 has functions where you enter in your equipment and it will calculate your start volumes and strike temperature for you. I find this to be accurate enough 95% of the time.

Mash out: Important enough for you to bother with it. It serves two functions; It locks in the enzymes to stop prevent further changes to your starch conversions (Thirsty Boy has written a two page essay going into to the technicalities of this before, but this is basically what I got out of it and it's good enough for me) and secondly like heating up honey it makes the sweet stuff runnier so that your sugars will drain easier. You say it takes 12 - 15 mins to reach mashout temperature from the end of your mash? No problem. With an electric element it takes even longer than that. Just keep gently stirring the entire time so that the grains at the bottom of the pot dont reach boiling temperature and you'll be fine.

It doesnt sound like you're having any problems with efficiency so you're 90% there.


----------



## Bribie G (20/8/12)

Are you measuring the grain temperature as well as the strike water temperature? I find that this makes a fair difference - up to a degree and a half - depending on the time of year.


----------



## Crusty (20/8/12)

I don't use gas anymore & some important points you made in your post are the reasons why I now use an electric urn. Heating strike water to mash in temp, mash out temp & sparge if you do one, will most certainly yield inconsistent results with the gas burner. In my opinion, It's simply too hard to nail your temps that closely no matter how hard you try. I use BrewMate & heat my strike water up to 0.5deg over what BrewMate tells me. If it states a 69deg strike in temp, I turn off the urn at 69.5deg, pumping the water with my paint stirrer constantly when approaching temp. I add my crushed grain & for a 66deg sacc rest, I always hit 66.0-66.2deg, every time. I have found with efficiency, a 90min sacc rest followed by a ramp to 78deg for a mash out, pumping with the paint stirrer yields excellent results for efficiency. I get 86% with my system.
I lose 2.5l to trub, 10% boil off & I do squeeze the bag. I also no chill which is awesome.
If you are happy with standard strength beers from 3-6%, brewing in an electric urn with a roasting rack to cover the exposed element is fantastic. If you can get yourself an exposed element Crown urn, you will be amazed how simple BIAB is & you will be bowled over by the incredible beers that come from it. This is my third brewing rig & by far, the best & easiest to use hands down.


----------



## GuyQLD (20/8/12)

Hey Bribie, 

I buy my grain from Ross in single batches at this stage, so it's vac sealed and at ambient temps usually as I usually brew same day or day after and don't bother cold storage or anything. I just use ambient temp for my calc.

Thanks BDB, Phoney. 

Sounds like I shouldn't be skipping mash out so I might put dunk sparging on the back burner for a bit as overly complicating things and just focus on option 1 or 3. 

Option three appeals the most to me as far as ease goes because I have a 10L stockpot I can put on the stove at the same time I mash in, and it's usually at the right temp right when the mash is done, so pouring it straight in is easy and gets me to mash out temps instantly.

Although I might try full volume just to take the guess work out for a couple if 15 minutes heating time isn't going to upset it at all. I was just worried that this phase might be problematic as far as adding too much body (heating between 68-78 taking too long).

Thanks.

Edit: And yeah, I did my first no chill last brew. Wish I'd done it earlier since I was relying on ice baths before that. No chill is just so good when you're starting out (And I found a camping shop that does $10 cubes)


----------



## Charst (20/8/12)

Bribie G said:


> Are you measuring the grain temperature as well as the strike water temperature? I find that this makes a fair difference - up to a degree and a half - depending on the time of year.



Over thinking the post bribie, he's mashing in at 69 and it's 71 after 45 minutes? Must be measuring the top of the liquid and not stirring prior to doughing in. Grain temp isn't causing an increase. 
@guy. Stir your water thoroughly prior to doughing in, aim for 2 degrees above the temp you want to hit and you'll be bloody close. If you can't get all the calculated water required in your pot I'd do a dunk sparge. A 20L food grade bucket should only set you back $20 odd. I'd reserve no more than 5 litres for the sparge but there is plenty of more knowledgable people here to help you with liquor to grist ratios, I just think you should use the max you can in the mash as the method suggests. Will also help with the temp issues to use the most water you can(not more than calculated requirements), more water, less effect the temp of the grain will have. 
You sound like a nervous brewer as I was when I started, my advice is to chill a bit, yoru getting the similar efficiency to other biab'ers. Not every number will be hit every time on a brew day, we're not CUB, even they blend batches for consistency. Crack a can and enjoy the day. Cheers.


----------



## Maheel (20/8/12)

whats the beer taste like ?


----------



## Lord Raja Goomba I (20/8/12)

Maheel said:


> whats the beer taste like ?



+1

Look in my signature for the link to what I do. It's sort of where I went after BIAB. I'm finding that I can consistently get not only good efficiency, but a fairly replicable process that produces the mostly the same result each time. I can just about not bother dialling in a recipe, and so long as I stick to my (memorised) numbers, I know what the result will be.

When I was having the same issues as you - I just went back to what Maheel said - I still made good beer, cheap. That's gotta count for something.

Goomba


----------



## stux (20/8/12)

I use this simple strike temp calculator. Freakishly accurate.

I heat up with gas (for 20-60L batches), and I turn down the gas when i'm about 0.3C away from my target

While I'm cruising up to the target temp I'm mashing the water with my potato masher, which helps get a uniform reading.

I tend to end up with my strike water temp being with 0.2C of the target temp from this calculator, and then dough in... and end up within 0.2C or so of my target temperature

View attachment Strike_Temp.xls


I use a probe style thermometer in my grainbill, which tells me the grain temp

after doughing in I agitate the grain and mix it around for a few minutes and get a nice consistant reading.

these days I do 60L batches and end up with about 8L of trub, so 2-3L sounds about right, and yes, whirlpooling will help. You can rescue about 50% starter wort from the trub if you want.

PS: my last BIAB with Dunk Sparge triple batch I had 90% End of Boil efficiency


----------



## felten (20/8/12)

Keep it simple, a full volume no sparge WITH a mash out is what I would recommend, but whatever you pick just stick with it for a while. 

If you're having pot size issues there is no reason you can't reduce your batch size by a few litres, other than you end up with a few less bottles.

and lots of stirring


----------



## Thirsty Boy (21/8/12)

throw the damn calculator for strike temp away - or at least put it in the drawer for a while.

heat your water to 2c above oyur desired grain temperature... and dont rush it so damn much. heat it for a while, stir it up, stick the thermometer in, see where the temp is. STIR is the important part. Get to your desired temp, stir it up, check temp, wait a few minutes, stir it up, check again..... no need to rush about tipping in the grain, if it cools down, just add a little more heat.

In most instances - getting the water 2 above your desired mash in temp will get you either to your temp, or a little below. If you are going to make a mistake, aim low - its BIAB, adding heat is easy. Turn on heat, stir constantly, turn off heat when you reach a touch below target.

Mash out - helps, helps with consistancy, helps with efficiency. Should you do one?? Nope! you're having some trouble, so keep it as simple as possible. Full volume, No Sparge, No Mash-out. Thats it, nothing else. Get it right, make yourself comfortable with the process - then think about other things.

Once you are getting that right, then the first thing I'd add bach into the process is the mash out - and thats the only thing I'd add in. IMO Sparging of any description is far far more trouble than its worth.

The other stuff - boil off, absorption, trub loss.... well, you admit you are working off assumptions. Stop it. Measure whats actually happening and use those figures instead. All the "assumptions" people tell you to use, are just so your first brew or two end up vaguely in the same suburb you were aiming for. You're supposed to then feedback in the actual results of your brews and stop using assumptions.

plus you are impatient - 5 brews in... jeez. I dont think i had any of this shit even close to consistent before I'd done 20 brews. Relax, use you actual experience to inform your process, keep it as simple as its possible to do and it'll all magically sort itself out in 5 or 10 brews time. Trust me.

TB


----------



## JDW81 (21/8/12)

Thirsty Boy said:


> throw the damn calculator for strike temp away - or at least put it in the drawer for a while.
> 
> heat your water to 2c above oyur desired grain temperature... and dont rush it so damn much. heat it for a while, stir it up, stick the thermometer in, see where the temp is. STIR is the important part. Get to your desired temp, stir it up, check temp, wait a few minutes, stir it up, check again..... no need to rush about tipping in the grain, if it cools down, just add a little more heat.
> 
> ...



I have to agree with TB on this one. It took me 10+ brews to even get some measure of consistancy. My first three beers were the same recipe with vastly different results. 

I've done quite a few brews now and I still don't do a mash out. I choose to keep it simple as I'm happy with my results. I'm not obsessed with efficiency, and working at about 75% I hit all my targets, even still it took time to become consistant.

The more you brew the more you will learn what works and what doesn't. You're the best person the work this out, as it is your gear and your processes. Aim for consistency of strike/mash temperatures and then move on from there.

I think many home brewers become obsessed with numbers and forget it is about making great beer (i'm not suggesting numbers aren't important, i just think you can focus on them to a point where you can't see the forrest for the trees).

Get brewing, keep it simple and enjoy the fruits of your labour.

JD.


----------



## bruce86 (21/8/12)

hey guys just to jump on board with OP i biab as well and dont technically mash out. should i just chuck the gas on again while i am draining the bag? wil that essentially cause a mash out. or will waiting untill i drain not make too big of a difference. also is there a link to TB's essay cheers.


----------



## GuyQLD (21/8/12)

Thirsty Boy said:


> plus you are impatient - 5 brews in... jeez. I dont think i had any of this shit even close to consistent before I'd done 20 brews. Relax, use you actual experience to inform your process, keep it as simple as its possible to do and it'll all magically sort itself out in 5 or 10 brews time. Trust me.



Call it a character flaw if you like, but I do tend to get obsessive about these things. Sure I've made beer (and some of it has been pretty bloody good) but for some people that's not good enough.

I don't want to make good beer, I want to make great beer. While there's no substitute for experience I also don't want to be flailing around blindly for 100 brews until it magically clicks. To that end I read, a lot; and that's probably where I went wrong because I was looking to much at the numbers at the end and over complicating things. I'll slow it down for the next couple and see what sort of numbers I end up with.

Thanks all.


----------



## glenwal (21/8/12)

GuyQLD said:


> Call it a character flaw if you like, but I do tend to get obsessive about these things. Sure I've made beer (and some of it has been pretty bloody good) but for some people that's not good enough.
> 
> I don't want to make good beer, I want to make great beer. While there's no substitute for experience I also don't want to be flailing around blindly for 100 brews until it magically clicks. To that end I read, a lot; and that's probably where I went wrong because I was looking to much at the numbers at the end and over complicating things. I'll slow it down for the next couple and see what sort of numbers I end up with.
> 
> Thanks all.



A simple beer (process and/or recipie) done will (often) be far superior to a complex beer (again process and/or recipie) thats done poorly. Start simple, and be obsessive about getting your simple process perfect.


----------



## Nick JD (21/8/12)

GuyQLD said:


> Call it a character flaw if you like, but I do tend to get obsessive about these things.



Get obsessive about not worrying.


----------



## JDW81 (21/8/12)

GuyQLD said:


> Call it a character flaw if you like, but I do tend to get obsessive about these things. Sure I've made beer (and some of it has been pretty bloody good) but for some people that's not good enough.
> 
> I don't want to make good beer, I want to make great beer. While there's no substitute for experience I also don't want to be flailing around blindly for 100 brews until it magically clicks. To that end I read, a lot; and that's probably where I went wrong because I was looking to much at the numbers at the end and over complicating things. I'll slow it down for the next couple and see what sort of numbers I end up with.
> 
> Thanks all.



You won't be flailing around for 100 brews before you start to get consistency. Keep it simple and you can't go wrong. My favourite brews are single infusion, single hop addition and they are great beers. I don't always hit the perfect mash temp, but I do control my fermentation obsessively, which I think is the most critically important aspect of brewing (closely followed by thorough sanitisation). Nail the basics, and you'll have a lifetime of great beer.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (22/8/12)

bruce86 said:


> hey guys just to jump on board with OP i biab as well and dont technically mash out. should i just chuck the gas on again while i am draining the bag? wil that essentially cause a mash out. or will waiting untill i drain not make too big of a difference. also is there a link to TB's essay cheers.



no, its not the same. Search out one of the essays, there are a few on the same topic so it shouldn't be hard to find. But the crux is that for BIAB, mash outs are for different reasons to mashouts in normal mashtun/falsebottom brewing. INTEGRAL to what you achieve by taking a BIAB to M/O temps is how you get there, in fact how you get there is the point.

You want to get there over a period of time, at least 5 minutes, preferably 10-15 & and you want to do it while constantly stirring the mash. Its the stirring and the gradual rise in temp that does thejob, not the final temperature.

Timer goes off to tell you mash is finished - take lid off pot, turn flame on, thermometer in one hand and mash paddle in the other - stir constantly till it gets to 76-78 and then just pull the bag out as per normal.

TB


----------



## bruce86 (27/8/12)

Thanks tb will do that next brew for sure.


----------



## GuyQLD (16/9/12)

Got to brew the other day, but haven't had time to get back to this discussion till now. 

Went with the advice above, single infusion @ 67'C with a ramp up to 78'C then pulled the bag out. I use one of those BCF crab cooker combos (37.5L) and I've attached 4 SS bolts to the insert to
form a colander which sits on top of my pot. When mashout temp is reached, I pull the bag out, put the insert on top and put the bag in it, and it drains over the next 15 minutes or so while I bring it up to the boil.

The good news is I hit my temps spot on this time and with the higher volume maintaining them wasn't a problem. I think I started my mash at 66.8'C and finished 60 minutes on 66.5'C so pretty good. Took about 12 minutes to ramp it up to 78'C and then we grabbed that sucker out. 

I took some volume measurements and with my giant colander I ended up only losing .5L/kg to grain absorption, not too shabby at all. 

It was a pretty tight fit though, with 4.7KG of grain and 32L of water pretty much left me with no space left in my kettle so I'm thinking I'm pretty much at my limit for full volume.

Boil off is still a bit of an unknown, as my 3 ring is a bit temperamental but I ended up with about 24L post boil. This is where things went a bit off. I seemed to have a lot more trub than usual, losing almost 3L to it, not sure if it was a result of the mashout or just poor whirl-pooling. Trub seemed a bit fluffier than usual and I couldn't get it to compact (only used half a whilfloc). 

By the time I topped it up to 23L in the fermenter I ended up with 68% efficiency in the fermenter. Overall not terrible as my recipe was designed on 70%, but compared to the 73-75% I was getting with my dunk sparge it was a little disappointing . Was a hell of a lot easier though. 

I'll stick with it for a couple more and see if I can ensure consistent results before I play with it again (Although the temptation to pour 2-3L of water into the grain bag while it's sitting there itches like crazy!!)

Thanks all.


----------



## Crusty (16/9/12)

Your efficiency is still way to low for some reason. How are you working out your efficiency? 
Points to look at if you are not already doing so.

1. How fine is your grain crush. You can go a little finer with BIAB, don't over do it as you will yield more trub loss. My mill is set at 0.9mm on the MiniMill & last brew I got 82% efficiency. My recipes are based on 80% efficiency.
2. A 90min sacc rest is better than a 60min rest with BIAB. I would strongly recommend 90mins.
3. After the 90min sacc rest, heat to 78deg mash out whilst continually pumping the mash up & down with a paint stirrer. This really helps with efficiency.
Before you topped the wort up in your fermenter, what was the actual amount of wort that went into the fermenter? What was the temp corrected gravity of that wort + your trub loss amount? These figures added together will tell you your efficiency.

I get 20.5lt into my no chill cube + 2.5lt trub loss =23lt batch @1.049


----------



## GuyQLD (16/9/12)

Hmm, trying to remember Crusty. I know I had to top it up a fair bit. Usually I end up with about 21.5-22L into the cube but I think this time we struggled to make 20L. So diluting it all the way up to 23L definitely hurt the numbers a bit. I'm pretty sure when all was said and done I ended up with 23L at 1.042. If I backtrack a bit using a dilution calc I would have started on about 1.048 since I remember we had to add 3L to this one. 

Lets say 20L @ 1.048, that's about as good as I can recall.

I think the trub loss really killed me. My last couple of brews before that I'd gotten really low levels of trub and pretty decent whirl pool cones so I'd been getting really good recovery and I'd put those figures into brewmate for my recipes. Didn't go so well this time and I think this hurt me more than anything else. 

I'll stick with it for now but I'll probably start doing 90min rests (My highest efficiency ever was an accidental 90min rest) and keep everything else equal and just keep taking notes until I've got a baseline. Once that's done I'll worry about improving things.

Edit: As to crush size - No idea. I order it from Craftbrewer and it just comes as is. I suppose I could tell them I BIAB and ask for a finer crush perhaps? I assume their default is for 3v.


----------



## Crusty (16/9/12)

Just give Ross a buzz & tell him you BIAB & they will probably run it through the mill twice.
A 90min sacc rest is far better for BIAB so look at that next time.
In BrewMate, what % evaporation rate have you got it set at for your equipment? 10% for my gear.
Is your boil 60mins?
I end up with 20.5lt into my cube & get around 2.5lt of trub for my 23lt batch.
Your low efficiency might improve with a finer crush, a 90min sacc rest & a continual rousing of the mash when ramping from sacc rest to mash out.
For your hop additions, one of these are good. Peg it around the pot after you get to the boil & toss your hops in there. It will save you a bit of trub loss as well.


----------



## GuyQLD (16/9/12)

Crusty said:


> Just give Ross a buzz & tell him you BIAB & they will probably run it through the mill twice.
> A 90min sacc rest is far better for BIAB so look at that next time.
> In BrewMate, what % evaporation rate have you got it set at for your equipment? 10% for my gear.
> Is your boil 60mins?
> ...



I'll give the 90mins sacc rest a go. 

1. Using 10% evap in brewmate
2. I'm stirring the buggery out of it while ramping to mash out - This was the only way I got consistent temp readings for both mash in and mash out.
3. I'm using some home made hops bags (made from Voile, same stuff I use for my grain bag)

One thing that's bugging me about your description - Does the "23L batch" in brewmate include trub or is it post trub loss? I've always assumed it was into fermenter but I might be wrong?


----------



## Crusty (16/9/12)

GuyQLD said:


> I'll give the 90mins sacc rest a go.
> 
> 1. Using 10% evap in brewmate
> 2. I'm stirring the buggery out of it while ramping to mash out - This was the only way I got consistent temp readings for both mash in and mash out.
> ...



A 23lt batch for me is 20.5lt into my no chill cube + 2.5lt of trub loss = 23lt batch. This may vary slightly from batch to batch but should be fairly consistent.
So if you add your actual trub loss to the losses to trub & chiller box & measure the amount of wort that goes into your fermenter ( temp corrected gravity reading ) + that trub loss, it should add up to the 23lt. Working out the efficiency, you add your actual wort volume into the Actual volume in kettle column, add your temp corrected gravity reading into the Actual original gravity column & Actual brewhouse efficiency column will be what you ended up getting.


----------



## breakbeer (16/9/12)

Crusty said:


> A 23lt batch for me is 20.5lt into my no chill cube + 2.5lt of trub loss = 23lt batch.




I was thinking the same as Guy, to me a 23L batch means I should get 23L of fermentable wort. If the software factors in other losses such as evaporation & grain absorption then why not trub loss?


----------



## [email protected] (16/9/12)

breakbeer said:


> I was thinking the same as Guy, to me a 23L batch means I should get 23L of fermentable wort. If the software factors in other losses such as evaporation & grain absorption then why not trub loss?



It just depends how you look at it mate. Half full/ half empty.

Most people / software when calculating your into fermenter efficiency or brew house efficiency do not count trub.

Do what ever works for you as long as you can consistently calculate things for your system efficiency means absolutely stuff all.
IMO anything over 75% mash efficiency is not beneficial for the beer / end result. I stopped full on sparging altogether and regularly get 70 - 75% mash efficiency and my beers have never been better.


Off topic but concentrate on your yeast management and packaging that is where great beers are made.

Edit: Drunken slight rant i know...i dont care


----------



## Crusty (16/9/12)

breakbeer said:


> I was thinking the same as Guy, to me a 23L batch means I should get 23L of fermentable wort. If the software factors in other losses such as evaporation & grain absorption then why not trub loss?



You do get 23lt of fermentable wort. Trub loss is still wort & this should be included as it's part of the total volume of liquid we produced. We don't use it for obvious reasons but in theory, you can dump the whole 23lt into your fermenter, trub & all so it's 23lt into the fermenter. It's still factored into the 23lt batch & it's a guide for other factors in the software.
The losses to trub & chiller help us determine our strike water volume, liquor to grain ratio & overall total mash volume. I do 23lt batches & get 23lt of fermentable wort. I dump the 2.5lt of trub & get 20.5lt into my no chill cube. This is not a 20.5lt batch, it's 23lt that I have produced.

Check out SJW's Braumeister video on youtube. Efficiency is worked out exactly the same as I do it.



Look at the measured batch size of 27lt. 27lt doesn't go into the fermenter as 5lt is lost to trub.


----------



## GuyQLD (16/9/12)

The reason for my question is my reading of this display in brewmate, apologies for the half arsed red arrows all over it but my interpretation of that display is as I dial my system in, it should be including trub in it's calculation yes; but fermentable wort into the FV MINUS trub is 23L. So when I set "23L Batch" in a recipe, i'm expecting brewmate to work that out as a post boil volume of around 25.5/26.5 odd litres to account for the trub.

From what I understand, "efficiency" is a pretty lose term, since it's measured half a dozen different times during the process, you've got pre-boil, post boil (the one everyone loves to rave about because it's always the highest) and then what I think Brewmate calls brewhouse efficiency, which is obviously lower than your post boil because yes; you do lose some fermentables to trub.

But as far as recipe formulation (and ultimately process goes - This is not about hitting high numbers, which is the natural thing that seems to come up whenever efficiency gets discussed. I'm more worried about consistency at this stage) I was just trying to straighten out the process in my head, so that I can get within 1-2% each time I do the same recipe. If I squeeze a couple of extra percent out of that later on, that's allright too, but it wasn't my main goal.

Previously I wasn't doing that and was kinda feeling my way in the dark. I feel like what I did last brew day was a definite improvement; it felt far more organised and under control. As I said the only downside was I ended up a couple of points short in the fermenter.

The only thing left to do now is practice. :lol:


----------



## Crusty (16/9/12)

GuyQLD said:


> The reason for my question is my reading of this display in brewmate, apologies for the half arsed red arrows all over it but my interpretation of that display is as I dial my system in, it should be including trub in it's calculation yes; but fermentable wort into the FV MINUS trub is 23L. So when I set "23L Batch" in a recipe, i'm expecting brewmate to work that out as a post boil volume of around 25.5/26.5 odd litres to account for the trub.
> 
> From what I understand, "efficiency" is a pretty lose term, since it's measured half a dozen different times during the process, you've got pre-boil, post boil (the one everyone loves to rave about because it's always the highest) and then what I think Brewmate calls brewhouse efficiency, which is obviously lower than your post boil because yes; you do lose some fermentables to trub.
> 
> ...



If you are measuring your efficiency at different stages of the brew day, this is where you might be coming unstuck. If for example you only get 28lt before the boil & you should of got 29.4, if you top up here, this will muck you up a bit as well. I measure once only & that is my volume into my no chill cube + gravity + trub loss. This is brewhouse efficiency & it's the only one I do. My grain absorption L/KG is 0.60 & I see yours is 0.50. I hit my numbers on the nose consistently, it's a very accurate programme. When you mention fermentable wort into the FV minus trub, you have made 23lt of wort but you need to take away the trub, you should be getting 20.5lt into your fermenter not 23lt. The 23lt batch is the total amount of wort you made not what's gone into the FV or no chill cube. Is this making any sense?


----------



## MastersBrewery (16/9/12)

ok question, when heating to MO with an over the side element should I just use the element to stir? ( in the midst of changing equipment, was previously stove top, now going with keggle and OTSE, I might eventually install an element but thats a month or 2 off)


----------



## GuyQLD (16/9/12)

Given that Brewmate has a setting for trub loss and includes this in the post boil amount, a 23L batch to Brewmate should mean 23L into the fermenter, 23L into the fermenter with 2.5L trub loss, total post boil amount of 25.5L (Or 26.5L as per that screen shot. Brewmate includes 4% loss to cooling). Your example states a post boil volume of 23L, with 2.5L trub and only 20.5L into the cube. We're talking two different 23L here. You're talking post boil (inc trub) I'm talking into fermenter (ex trub).

Either way; not that important. At the end of the day, you have a finite amount of sugar in your wort, and you're going to lose some of this to trub. This is unavoidable. Actually just thinking about it now, I think I know where it went wrong.

I must have had a more vigorous boil than planned, this is going to give me a higher concentration of sugar per L(Same conversion, less liquid). What I should have done is topped up the boil so that I had the correct post boil volume of 25.5 (or 26.5 blah blah). This would have meant less sugar lost to that 2.5L trub.

Where I went wrong is, I topped up my fermenter at pitching time - at this point it's too late, those lovely sugars were long gone.

This is probably all stuff you already know, but wasn't till I just sat down and put it on paper that it clicked. My efficiency was probably much higher than it looks; I just nubbed it up with the boil off and topping it up at the wrong point.


----------



## Crusty (16/9/12)

MastersBrewery said:


> ok question, when heating to MO with an over the side element should I just use the element to stir? ( in the midst of changing equipment, was previously stove top, now going with keggle and OTSE, I might eventually install an element but thats a month or 2 off)



I'd look at getting a 20lt paint stirrer & rouse the mash with that. 
They cost around $10.00 from the hardware store.




GuyQLD said:


> Given that Brewmate has a setting for trub loss and includes this in the post boil amount, a 23L batch to Brewmate should mean 23L into the fermenter, 23L into the fermenter with 2.5L trub loss, total post boil amount of 25.5L (Or 26.5L as per that screen shot. Brewmate includes 4% loss to cooling). Your example states a post boil volume of 23L, with 2.5L trub and only 20.5L into the cube. We're talking two different 23L here. You're talking post boil (inc trub) I'm talking into fermenter (ex trub).
> 
> Either way; not that important. At the end of the day, you have a finite amount of sugar in your wort, and you're going to lose some of this to trub. This is unavoidable. Actually just thinking about it now, I think I know where it went wrong.
> 
> ...



As you are using BrewMate, if you fail to include the trub loss, you will get a vastly different brewhouse efficiency. If I type into the actual volume into kettle column, 20.5lt, I get 71% efficiency with a 23lt batch recipe. This is incorrect because BrewMate is calculating the total wort that I have made which should include the trub loss.
Before boil - 29.4lt
Evap - 10%
After Boil - 26.5lt
Trub loss - 2.5lt
Final volume - 24lt
After cooling - 23lt

To correctly measure your efficiency with BrewMate, you need to include that trub loss, don't forget, it's still wort, we're just not going to put it into our fermenter. Next brew, try adding the actual amount of wort you get into the FV, test your SG + your trub loss & see what you get with efficiency.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (17/9/12)

I found the "Calculator" spreadsheet on the other forum (biabrewer.info) to be really handy for working out my averave efficiencies, boil off rate, and trub loss.


----------



## GuyQLD (17/9/12)

I think we've sort of moved away from the original point by a fair amount now. The question is not so much is brewmate right, my own manual calculations back it up. We seem to be in disagreement about how brewhouse efficiency should be calculated. I'm not sure why Crusty is including trub loss, because to my mind anything that is a loss shouldn't Be recorded when calculating how effecient a system is, hence brewmates calculations match my findings if I consider trub loss a loss. The matter is mostly academic now anyway, the initial advice in the thread was what mattered.


----------



## Crusty (17/9/12)

GuyQLD said:


> I think we've sort of moved away from the original point by a fair amount now. The question is not so much is brewmate right, my own manual calculations back it up. We seem to be in disagreement about how brewhouse efficiency should be calculated. I'm not sure why Crusty is including trub loss, because to my mind anything that is a loss shouldn't Be recorded when calculating how effecient a system is, hence brewmates calculations match my findings if I consider trub loss a loss. The matter is mostly academic now anyway, the initial advice in the thread was what mattered.



Mate drop Randy Rob ( the creator of BrewMate ) an email & ask him how you work out your systems efficiency. BribieG will also tell you how to do it.
You include trub loss because the total amount of wort you have made is 23lt, total. BrewMate is taking into account that you are not wanting to pour the trub loss into your fermenter but is available.
You mentioned inconsistency & not great efficiency in your original post & I am simply trying to point out that you are measuring your systems efficiency incorrectly.
Good luck...................... :beerbang:


----------



## glenwal (17/9/12)

There is a good description of Mash vs Brewhouse efficency here.

Basically - Mash efficency is pre trub losses, Brew house is after losses.

Generally Mash Efficency is measured into the kettle, however evaporation "losses" will not actually effect the calculation as you are not boiling off sugar, only water, so you will end up with less volume but a higher SG and the same result. (The same applies to diluting wort. You are not changing the amount of sugar in the soltuion, so it will not effect your efficency calcs)


To me, mash efficency is the most important factor to keep consistant, as it will have an actual effect on your beer. Varying mash efficency will result in varying FG's and hop utilisation, and hence result in a different beer. If you have say a 10% swing in your mash efficency, its the same as a brewer with consistant efficency adding a random +/- 10% of the grain bill each time.

If you have a consistant mash efficency, but your trub losses (and hence Brew house efficency) vary greatly, the only thing that will change from batch to batch is the number of bottles you get (or how full your keg is). Whilst you obviously want to get as much beer as you can, it will not change the beer itself. A 10% swing here (if you mash efficency is constant) is the difference between say 50 bottles and 45 bottles of beer.


The other reason to concentrate on mash efficeny first is because brew house efficency is dependant on your mash efficency, so to stabilise your brewhouse efficency, you need a stable mash efficency, and its alot eaiser to do one thing at a time.


----------



## Crusty (17/9/12)

Glen W said:


> There is a good description of Mash vs Brewhouse efficency here.
> 
> Basically - Mash efficency is pre trub losses, Brew house is after losses.
> 
> ...



From Glen W link:
Brewhouse efficiency is defined as the percent of potential grain sugars that are converted into sugar in the wort. _ Typically this includes losses_ for a given brewing setup, and these losses are taken in aggregate rather than accumulated individually. It is therefore a measure of the overall efficiency of your brewing system.


----------



## glenwal (17/9/12)

Crusty said:


> _Typically this includes losses_ for a given brewing setup



Which brings us to another discussion on how people interperate a term. Including losses means to factor losses into the equation. Include (positive) losses (negative) of 5L (positive) = -5L (negative). 

Including losses doesn't mean adding the losses back into the volumes. If you are taking the pre-loss volume, you are ignoring the losses of the system. Ignoring = excluding, not including.


From further down in the article



> The actual brewhouse efficiency is measured for an entire system. Unlike the dry grain yield or potential measured in a lab, real brewers achieve only a percentage of the ideal number due to real considerations such as efficiency of the mashing process, and losses due to boiling, deadspace or trub. This percentage of the potential, as measured across the whole system _into the fermenter_, is the brewhouse efficiency.


----------



## wombil (17/9/12)

Hey Guys,
Maybe you are all looking at "efficiency" from the wrong angle.
I would say that it should express the amount of sugars that are extracted from the grain,not the amount of liquor that is produced.
These sugars are present in the trub and should be included.
The amount of wort at any stage is immaterial as it is only a carrier for the sugars.
Just my 2c worth.


----------



## glenwal (17/9/12)

wombil said:


> Hey Guys,
> Maybe you are all looking at "efficiency" from the wrong angle.
> I would say that it should express the amount of sugars that are extracted from the grain,not the amount of liquor that is produced.
> These sugars are present in the trub and should be included.
> ...



Which is what Mash Efficency is about - the amount of sugars extracted during the mash.

If you are measuring efficency into the fermenter, then you should only include sugars that make it into the fermenter.


----------



## Crusty (17/9/12)

Glen W said:


> Which brings us to another discussion on how people interperate a term. Including losses means to factor losses into the equation. Include (positive) losses (negative) of 5L (positive) = -5L (negative).
> 
> Including losses doesn't mean adding the losses back into the volumes. If you are taking the pre-loss volume, you are ignoring the losses of the system. Ignoring = excluding, not including.
> 
> ...



In BrewMate, it is asking me to give the following figures to work out my over all Brewhouse efficiency = total wort produced & the gravity of that total wort produced.
So for a 23lt batch ( this does not mean 23lt of drinkable beer ) I add:

Actual volume in kettle (L) = 23lt ( total wort produced ) 20.5lt in cube + 2.5lt trub loss. You can't omit the trub loss because it's there. Add the whole lot to the fermenter if you wish, 23lt of wort produced.

Actual Original Gravity (OG) = OG of that 23lt

Actual Brewhouse Efficiency %. Your answer is based on the above two figures.


----------



## glenwal (17/9/12)

This may be a BrewMate termanology thing then (i'm a beersmith person myself), but from the screen shot posted by GuyQLD a few posts ago


Wort Volume after Boil = 26.5L
Losses to Trub and Chiller = 2.5L
Final Volume = 24.0L
After Cooling = 23L
Actual Volume in Kettle = 23L


To me, it seems like the last value should actually be labeled Volume into Fermter - as it is the Volume after Boil (26.5L) - Losses (23L). I don't really see why the volume after boil would be different to the volume in kettle, unless they mean something by the word "Actual" (eg. Usable?)


----------



## Crusty (17/9/12)

Glen W said:


> This may be a BrewMate termanology thing then (i'm a beersmith person myself), but from the screen shot posted by GuyQLD a few posts ago
> 
> 
> Wort Volume after Boil = 26.5L
> ...



It's different because we are not putting our 2.5lt of trub into the FV or no chill cube. The volume after boil has trub included so take that out & cooling loss, including trub, we get 23lt of wort.

SJW uses BeerSmith & he posted a vid on youtube. Have a look at his batch size & breakdown of trub loss to what he actually gets into his FV. He does a 27lt batch, 22lt into the FV, 5lt loss to trub & chiller so the calculations are the same with BrewMate.


----------



## Bribie G (17/9/12)

With any of the systems including BIAB there's another bit of a grey area. For example I collect a Ross type cube of around 21L but also get a couple of Schott bottles of trub which potentially yields usable wort when allowed to settle overnight. I use this wort to do hop tea or just tip it into the fermenter to counteract loss to yeast slurry. This very much depends on the yeast strain as well, some strains breed up to give masses of slurry, others are more civilised. 

First bottle is the first runnings which "clears the throat" of the system and allows clear wort into the cube. Second bottle is a litre of what's left in the urn which_ may or may not_ yield wort. It all depends on the recipe, some brews with a smaller grain bill and maybe usage of adjuncts like rice or polenta will give a fair bit of bright wort even after the 21L point has been reached. 

Here's a ripper:







Others look like the river at Ankh-Morpork. 

So, given the many variables of loss to trub and to yeast, as well as loss to cold break which settles down to the bottom of the FV as it seems to get "pickled" to a more solid state when fermented, when I'm looking at efficiency in Brewmate I just go on what it tells me for the _entire _(say 24L ) batch I have set for the brew, and not the amount _actually _into the fermenter (which can vary). 

My only interest in efficiency of any kind is to look for consistency. If I'm getting 84% one brew and 74% next brew with the same recipe I want to know why. Crush? Mash Temp? Grain gone slack? Brewbright gone slack? etc. I was more than consistent on 74% for ages but with my new mill and new crushes I'm back to scrutinising my OGs and volumes and trub losses like never before.

As I will no longer be bottling I will need to adjust my volumes and recipes to get a keg with as little waste as possible, so I'm glad this thread has arisen as it's got me thinking.


----------



## glenwal (17/9/12)

Crusty said:


> It's different because we are not putting our 2.5lt of trub into the FV or no chill cube. The volume after boil has trub included so take that out & cooling loss, including trub, we get 23lt of wort.



Not following you there? We get 23L of wort in the fermenter/cube (because the 23L = 26.5L - 2.5L trub - 1L cooling) , so "Actual Kettle Volume" is the volume into the FV yeah? But you should have 26.5L of wort and trub sitting in the fermenter? 

Or are you saying that the 2.5L is the actual trub, and not the trub + wort that we loose in trying to keep the trub out of the fermenter? (eg. If we had a decent way of filtering out the trub, then we would end up with 2.5L of trub and 23L of wort)?




Crusty said:


> SJW uses BeerSmith & he posted a vid on youtube. Have a look at his batch size & breakdown of trub loss to what he actually gets into his FV. He does a 27lt batch, 22lt into the FV, 5lt loss to trub & chiller so the calculations are the same with BrewMate.




Because he has his trub losses set to 0, which makes his brewhouse efficency = mash efficency. I'm assuming he does this because he only cares about mash efficency and Beersmith seems to concentrate on Brewhouse efficency in terms of the way the fields are layed out.


----------



## GuyQLD (17/9/12)

Glad you jumped in Glen, if anything however this thread has highlighted my need to take better notes and readings. As far as I can make out mash efficiency is going to tell me if I'm getting the right conversion. If not it means I need to focus on mashing. Brewhouse really only tells me how good I am at recovering wort afterwards. In effect they measue how well I make a heap of sugary water, and how well I move it from one vessel to another. Previously my efficiency had been higher so this prompted my ressurecting of the thread. I now know that due to a poor decision its "artifically" lower than it should be and I really should have taken a few more readings and some better notes. But lesson learned, and hopefully someone else gets a chuckle and doesn't make the same mistake.


----------



## Crusty (17/9/12)

Glen W said:


> Not following you there? We get 23L of wort in the fermenter/cube (because the 23L = 26.5L - 2.5L trub - 1L cooling) , so "Actual Kettle Volume" is the volume into the FV yeah? But you should have 26.5L of wort and trub sitting in the fermenter?
> 
> Or are you saying that the 2.5L is the actual trub, and not the trub + wort that we loose in trying to keep the trub out of the fermenter? (eg. If we had a decent way of filtering out the trub, then we would end up with 2.5L of trub and 23L of wort)?
> 
> ...



I just typed some more figures into BrewMate & set my losses to trub & chiller to 0 & all that changes now is the amount of strike water required, the liquor to grain ratio + the strike temp obviously. So I now have 23lt of wort going into the FV including trub. As we don't want that 2.5lt of trub into our FV, it is omitted by adding that amount to the losses to trub & chiller column & we now mash in with that extra amount of water to compensate. The efficiency is exactly the same using either calculations so the 2.5lt of trub is included in the total amount of wort made but does not get to the FV. 
So 20.5lt into my cube + 2.5lt of trub = 23lt batch @80% efficiency (1.049)
Or, 23lt wort made including trub into the FV = 23lt batch @80% efficiency (1.049)


----------



## Crusty (17/9/12)

GuyQLD said:


> Glad you jumped in Glen, if anything however this thread has highlighted my need to take better notes and readings. As far as I can make out mash efficiency is going to tell me if I'm getting the right conversion. If not it means I need to focus on mashing. Brewhouse really only tells me how good I am at recovering wort afterwards. In effect they measue how well I make a heap of sugary water, and how well I move it from one vessel to another. Previously my efficiency had been higher so this prompted my ressurecting of the thread. I now know that due to a poor decision its "artifically" lower than it should be and I really should have taken a few more readings and some better notes. But lesson learned, and hopefully someone else gets a chuckle and doesn't make the same mistake.



Your efficiency may not be as low as you think if you are entering the wrong information.................


----------



## felten (17/9/12)

If you're having trouble with the software I would follow the 2 braukaiser articles (I think they were linked on a previous page) on understanding efficiency and troubleshooting efficiency, and work out your efficiency manually.

Not to ignore the fine advice in the thread already, just to say that I was having trouble calculating/understanding my efficiency as well and found the 2 articles very helpful.


----------



## Crusty (17/9/12)

I sent a PM to Rob who is the developer of BrewMate & I am correct in how I am entering the figures to work out BrewHouse efficiency.

This is what I wrote:
_*
Hi Rob.
Can you possibly enlighten us on how to actually work out Brewhouse efficiency with your programme. I brew 23lt batches & need to confirm I am entering some figures correctly. When it comes time to enter the figures into the Brewhouse efficiency column, I add the total amount of wort I produced = 23lt. This is made up of 20.5lt into my no chill cube + 2.5lt of trub loss. I have entered trub loss further up the page as 2.5lt. Is this correct or should I be only entering Actual volume into kettle as 20.5lt which has the trub loss already taken out.
Regards,
Brian*_

_*Hey Brian,

Yep that's correct, Brewhouse Eff is Total Batch size inc trub loss.

Cheers Rob. *_


----------



## glenwal (17/9/12)

Crusty said:


> I sent a PM to Rob who is the developer of BrewMate & I am correct in how I am entering the figures to work out BrewHouse efficiency.



Definately different to Beersmith then. i just tested it in BS and its calcs Pre-boil volume = Batch Size + Trub Loss + Boil Off + shrinkage, and bottling volume = Batch Size - fermenter losses, so batch size in BS is definately into fermenter (after trub losses).

BS then also has Mash Efficency calcs, which are calc'd pre any loss.

So from the sounds of it, BS mash eff = BM brewhouse eff, which makes for fun <_< 


Though, the OP was using BM, so i will concede that your right Crusty


----------



## GuyQLD (17/9/12)

Although to be fair, if you're measuring gravity post boil whether you include trub or not for your gravity reading is irrelevant, since it's about the ppm of fermentables. If you take 20L of 1.040 wort and split in to 2 buckets, you have 2 lots of 10L of 1.040 wort. 

If Brewmate is taking the easy way out, it's just doing this calc pre trub. 

I was hoping brewmate would calc a 23L batch as 23+trub loss the way it seems beersmith does (Thanks Glen) because that makes sense in my head. Although the more I think about it, it really is irrelevant. 

Mash efficiency is still the number one priority; and working backwards from my results as I tried to do in this thread is not only extremely error prone but it highlights that "brewhouse" efficiency is a bit of a chasing rainbows scenario. Getting good conversion in the mash stage and then recovering as much of that wort as possible should still be my priority at this stage.

Edit: Although it's been fun having a thread that didn't end in "use the search function"


----------



## Crusty (17/9/12)

Glen W said:


> Definately different to Beersmith then. i just tested it in BS and its calcs Pre-boil volume = Batch Size + Trub Loss + Boil Off + shrinkage, and bottling volume = Batch Size - fermenter losses, so batch size in BS is definately into fermenter (after trub losses).
> 
> BS then also has Mash Efficency calcs, which are calc'd pre any loss.
> 
> ...



No worries Glen.
I was starting to doubt myself for a bit there so got some clarification to confirm I was actually entering my figures correctly.

Rob also PM'd me back with this:

_*Hey Brian,*_
_*
No probs at all, From the way you explained it - I can easily see now How that section is easy to misconstrue. 
Glad it's working out for you.

Cheers Rob. 

*_I realize there are lots of different ways to work out efficiency but for me, I am only interested in the total amount of wort produced & at what gravity. For me to get 23lt into my no chill cube, I would be pushing the limits of my urn capacity so base my recipes on 23lt less trub loss into my no chill cube. I am really interested in the actual efficiency that guy is getting if he is entering his figures the other way round. ie, 20.5lt instead of the actual 23lt..................... :beer: _
_


----------



## GuyQLD (17/9/12)

I'm not entering mine backwards mate - This one was inflated (or whatever equivalent word would make sense for a negative) and completely ballsed up because I diluted it badly. I'm planning a brew for this weekend - I'll try and get my pre boil and post boil gravities for you.


----------



## QldKev (17/9/12)

The efficiency subject has been raised a few times before. I think the easiest way is if everyone mentions what efficiency they are measuring. To me "pre-boil" efficiency is the easiest. 

So you are only really looking at the efficiency of how much sugar you extracted from the grain, and not debating over kettle trub losses. 

QldKev


----------



## Bribie G (17/9/12)

Kevin, the scales just fell from my eyes.

Yes the loss to trub etc etc is really more appropriate to commercial brewing and how much they are going to get into the stubby, can or keg and therefore how much they are making for the shareholders. Thanks for that.


----------



## glenwal (17/9/12)

QldKev said:


> The efficiency subject has been raised a few times before. I think the easiest way is if everyone mentions what efficiency they are measuring. To me "pre-boil" efficiency is the easiest.
> 
> So you are only really looking at the efficiency of how much sugar you extracted from the grain, and not debating over kettle trub losses.
> 
> QldKev



That's the thing though, i think we both agreed on what should be measured, but different meanings for the same term got in the way of determining what was actually being measured. It just sucks that the two most popular pieces of software have very different meanings for the same measurement.


----------



## Aydos (17/9/12)

I was always under the impression when people stated their efficiencies then it was their brewhouse, not their mash. When I calculate my brewhouse efficiency then I do not include my trub as I don't use it, the lawn receives it. Hence why its not included in my final volume. :wacko:


----------



## Thirsty Boy (18/9/12)

which is why people should, and there have been multiple attempts on AHB to convince people that they should - actually specify where they are measuring their efficiency. all anyone needs to do to remove half the confusion, is actually say...

I got 89% efficiency - measured at pre-boil, measured post boil, measured to chillers, measured into fermenters, measured into package....

if someone uses the word efficiency, but fails to make it clear where and how they measured it, then any information they provide to you after the word efficiency appears, is fundamentally useless and you can ignore it, and them, and move to a more useful something to read.


----------



## Aydos (18/9/12)

But your efficiency is post boil but it includes your trub amount. This is as equally confusing because I am assuming that you not using it so why would you include it in your 'collected' amount. Its a loss, therefore it should affect your efficiency.


----------



## Crusty (18/9/12)

aydos said:


> But your efficiency is post boil but it includes your trub amount. This is as equally confusing because I am assuming that you not using it so why would you include it in your 'collected' amount. Its a loss, therefore it should affect your efficiency.



You include it in Brewhouse efficiency because you are trying to determine the final volumes of wort you have produced & the gravity of that wort. If you just tip it & ignore it, you are going to fall short of the volume you should have produced & with that goes your efficiency. My recipes are based on 80% Brewhouse efficiency using BrewMate & I make 23lt batches. When I am finished the brew day & am transferring to my no chill cube or fermenter, I should have 23lt of wort, 2.5lt of this i don't use as it's trub but I have produced 23lt of wort.


----------



## Aydos (18/9/12)

It must be the difference in brewing programs as beersmith doesn't include trub in you final volume, thus leading to decreased efficiency due to collecting less wort into the fermenter.


----------



## Aydos (18/9/12)

It must be the difference in brewing programs as beersmith doesn't include trub in you final volume, thus leading to decreased efficiency due to collecting less wort into the fermenter.


----------



## glenwal (18/9/12)

aydos said:


> It must be the difference in brewing programs as beersmith doesn't include trub in you final volume, thus leading to decreased efficiency due to collecting less wort into the fermenter.



Correct - see post 53 in this thread. 

If your using Beersmith, then its "Mash Efficiency" that you want to concern yourself with.


Mash efficiency(in BS) = Pre Boil efficiency= Post Boil efficiency= efficiency into Kettle = Brewhouse efficiency(in BM)

Brewhouse efficiency(in BS) = efficiencyinto Fermenter = (not sure if there is a BM equivelant?)


----------

