# Falling short of target OG



## DigitalGiraffe (11/7/16)

Hi guys,

No matter what tweaks I make I seem to be continually falling short of my target gravity. It always seems to be by approx 10points. I checked that my hydrometer was calibrated and even purchased a ATC Refractometer (It was off ebay but calibrated with distilled water).

Currently running the following setup:

50L keggle (insulated and lose approx 1.5degree over 60min mash)
2200w KK element


I've had my LHBS mill my rain twice. No improvement.
Added rice husks to help open up the mash a little (suggested by LHBS).
All my volumes are coonsistent and work out.
Boil off rate 5lph, measured the leftover at the bottom of the keggle.
Tried stirring and leaving mash.

I do use beersmith and I noticed that the default temps for grain/mash tun are 22degrees. I took a reading of my grain on Saturday and it was sitting at 14.8 (I live in Hobart), the mash tun was similar. I changed these temps and the mash temp increased by 0.2 of a degree.

I brewed an English Brown Ale on Saturday just gone, Ended up with 1042 instead of 1053, not huge but I would love to be able to hit my target as its the only part of my brewing that is letting me down. The wort smelt and looked amazing but I just know it will lack the body that I am after. I mashed 4.8kg of grain in 33.67L of water at 67.9 (heated to 72.2 as suggested by beersmith) for 60mins. I resisted temptation to stir the mash as I usually do ever half hour.

Boiled as I normally do. It's by no means a vigorous boil but a substantial rolling boil and will have to suffice till I can afford a 15A circuit installed.

Does anyone have any suggestions? Or notice where I may be going wrong?

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## chaositic (11/7/16)

What % efficiency have you set in beersmith?


----------



## DigitalGiraffe (11/7/16)

MIK-E said:


> What % efficiency have you set in beersmith?


Tot Efficiency: 72% Est Mash Eff: 85.5%


----------



## chaositic (11/7/16)

Are you doing BIAB? Your grain weight and water volume look very BIABish so I'll roll with that. I'd drop your Total efficiency in BS to 65% and do a little sparge on your grain bag. Just hold back a few L before your mash and pour it over or into the grain bag when its lifted. If you have the facility to heat the sparge water then that's a bonus. Then once you start hitting your targets you can look at mash ph, different crush sizes etc and try and up that efficiency a few points at a time. Just my 2c.


----------



## DigitalGiraffe (11/7/16)

MIK-E said:


> Are you doing BIAB? Your grain weight and water volume look very BIABish so I'll roll with that. I'd drop your Total efficiency in BS to 65% and do a little sparge on your grain bag. Just hold back a few L before your mash and pour it over or into the grain bag when its lifted. If you have the facility to heat the sparge water then that's a bonus. Then once you start hitting your targets you can look at mash ph, different crush sizes etc and try and up that efficiency a few points at a time. Just my 2c.


Yep BIAB, how did I forget to mention that?! Thanks for the tips MIK-E. I'm hoping to put down another brew this weekend so I'll give that a go. Cheers!


----------



## sp0rk (11/7/16)

Have you checked your water pH?


----------



## DigitalGiraffe (11/7/16)

sp0rk said:


> Have you checked your water pH?


It's the only thing I haven't checked and had totally forgotten about until you mentioned it. We have really soft water here in Hobart and I know someone who works for TasWater and they said it would likely be around 7.2. Is it worth investing in a pH meter or just grab a container of 5.2 Mash Stabiliser?


----------



## Ben1 (11/7/16)

Might be a silly question but how did you come to 72% as your target efficiency? If you are consistently under 10 points, then your efficiency is whatever number that comes too. (Beer smith can calculate that). My efficiency for example is 62%. It's not overly efficient but consistent. On a homebrew scale a few extra points makes little difference.


----------



## DigitalGiraffe (11/7/16)

Ben1 said:


> Might be a silly question but how did you come to 72% as your target efficiency? If you are consistently under 10 points, then your efficiency is whatever number that comes too. (Beer smith can calculate that). My efficiency for example is 62%. It's not overly efficient but consistent. On a homebrew scale a few extra points makes little difference.


I spent a bit of time earlier in the year reading up on what to put there when setting up profiles but for the life of me can't remember why I settled on that figure. Maybe it was an average.


----------



## Spiesy (11/7/16)

DigitalGiraffe said:


> I spent a bit of time earlier in the year reading up on what to put there when setting up profiles but for the life of me can't remember why I settled on that figure. Maybe it was an average.


Every system is different, and even then, different batch sizes within a system and different mash profiles and different grain bills can yield different results.

As Ben1 said, set your estimated efficiency a couple of points below what you're currently getting and go from there.


----------



## mstrelan (11/7/16)

+1 for lowering your efficiency when building a recipe. Once you hit the your target every time then you can look at improving your efficiency.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (11/7/16)

Or you could set up an esky mash tun and do batch sparge. That'll get your efficiencies up.


----------



## SBOB (11/7/16)

Danscraftbeer said:


> Or you could set up an esky mash tun and do batch sparge. That'll get your efficiencies up.


I think spending an extra $1 in grain is probably a simpler solution


----------



## Beamer (11/7/16)

Gday Digital Giraffe,

When I started BIAB I had the exact same problem running between 63-65%. I found the biggest change besides buying my own mill was my thermometer, I did have a kk analog one then I bought a digital one and found the analog one was about 4 degrees out.

I have now scored my self an esky as a mash tun as Dan has suggested, started doing overnight mashes with batch sparging, and my efficiency has now jumped to 75-77.


----------



## Mr B (11/7/16)

Good advice above. Checking temp prob most important right now, and dropping your efficiency a little in recipe.

A little (think 1 -1.5% or so) Acidulated malt might be interesting, likewise using a bit of water adjustment (maybe Calc chloride, Calc sulphate and Mag sulphate). These things gave me 5% or so efficiency boost when I was happy with temp, using rainwater (noting your soft water comment).


----------



## MHB (11/7/16)

Just doing a quick rough as calculation I thing you could be getting close to 1.050-1.052 with what is in the post, just making standard assumptions about the grist and type of beer.
For the water to be so bad that it is what is knocking the best part of 20% out of your efficiency is improbable (nearly impossible for anything that comes out of a tap in Australia.
Get a decent thermometer and check your temperatures, I'm quietly confidant that you will be a fair way out!.
For about the 100th time - get a decent glass laboratory thermometer you can trust, use it to calibrate everything else, don't trust anything with batteries or that runs on springs.
Mark


----------



## Rocker1986 (11/7/16)

Try a coarser crush for your grains too, I BIAB as well and I noticed my efficiency jump up when I started doing this instead of the finer crush.


----------



## DigitalGiraffe (11/7/16)

Woah so many responses! You guys are great. Currently I'm running a couple of cheap eBay digital thermometers. One with a spike probe and the other has a long wire with a probe attached that I leave in my mash. 

Should I even bother monitoring the temp in my mash? I can't really do anything about can I? I'm probably best to make sure it's accurate prior and post mash. I'll swing by my LHBS and see what they have in the way of thermometers. 

I should have full water report tomorrow but if it looks like my pH is sitting around the 7.2 mark should I be using something like 5.2 Mash Stabiliser?

Efficiency dropped to 65 to see how I go.

Thanks again for all your help.


----------



## Jens-Kristian (12/7/16)

DigitalGiraffe,

Sorry, I don't want to come across as the 'did you check' guy, but I can't help noting that with 4.8kg of grain and at 72% efficiency, 1044OG is what you'd get out of a 25 litre batch. How large is the batch you're brewing? 

You say you mashed the 4.8kg in 33.67l of water. With the boil-off rate of 5l per hour, give and take, that would take you down towards the 25 litre mark and then somehow sounds pretty right to me. 

I don't use BeerSmith, but are you sure you've added the right volume of wort in there? Does BeerSmith have separate fields for mash volume and boil volume? I've sometimes made the mistake of putting the final 25l volume into the field in my software that's for mash volume and then not noticed to begin with that my boil volume is set to 20l. As it's the boil volume that is linked to the OG, that obviously inflates the OG beyond what my grain bill allows. 

Just a thought, and I may be missing something here, but in my setup I wouldn't expect 4.8kg of grain to get me to 1053 on a 25l batch as that would require that I get 87% efficiency, and in my current setup, I've never gone anywhere north of 80% - usually more in the 70-75% range. Admittedly, my setup is ridiculously basic.


----------



## Rocker1986 (12/7/16)

It's not so much the water pH that you need to worry about, it's the mash pH. By the time you throw the grains into it, they will drop the pH down anyway. Darker grains drop it further than lighter grains too. I haven't heard a lot of good things about that 5.2 pH stabiliser either.

Beersmith does have separate fields for mash and boil volume.. or rather, it's actually the pre-boil (post-mash) volume and then the batch size itself (volume in the FV). Grain absorption and trub loss need to be taken into account as well; I'd be very surprised if someone was getting 25 litre batches out of a mash in of 33.6 litres with a 5L per hour boil off unless they dumped the entire kettle contents into the cube/FV after the boil. But yes, what batch size are you brewing? And what volume do you have in the keggle before you begin bringing it up to the boil?

My set up is the Crown urn. I normally hit between 75% and 80% overall efficiency with it. I get about 3L per hour boil off, and in order to get 25 litres of trub free wort into the fermenter I need to use a strike volume of about 36 litres water to mash in with.


----------



## Jens-Kristian (12/7/16)

Rocker1986 said:


> I'd be very surprised if someone was getting 25 litre batches out of a mash in of 33.6 litres with a 5L per hour boil off


I entirely agree, but I'm open to whatever may be happening.


----------



## DigitalGiraffe (12/7/16)

Jens-Kristian said:


> DigitalGiraffe,
> 
> Sorry, I don't want to come across as the 'did you check' guy, but I can't help noting that with 4.8kg of grain and at 72% efficiency, 1044OG is what you'd get out of a 25 litre batch. How large is the batch you're brewing?
> 
> ...


Don't be sorry, I'd be more than happy for someone to point out I was doing some stupid so it could be easily resolved.

Generally I aim for a 21L batch (Usually lose a couple of litres at the bottom with trub) which gives me 19L to bottle. I also lose about 3-4L in the bottom of the keggle.

Beersmith autocalculates the boil volume and it's listing 29.96L if I have 5LPH boil off, Lose 3L too keggle, 2L loss in Fermenter and want a batch of 21L.

So perhaps my grain bill isn't large enough? Whats the average absorption rate?


----------



## DigitalGiraffe (12/7/16)

I've just had confirmation that my water pH is generally 7.2 but can vary between 6.9-7.2.

I also re-entered the recipe for my last brew into beersmith with Tot Efficiency now set to 65%. I did also notice that the recipe was for 20L and my default was 21L so that extra water may explain why I missed my target on this brew but not my others. The total volume of water required has dropped from 33.65 down to 31.85 for my 4.8kg grain bill.

I'll check the batch sizes against the original recipes tonight.


----------



## Rocker1986 (12/7/16)

One litre extra won't throw your OG out by 11 points or whatever it was. The total water sounds about right, with my urn for 21 litre batches I use about 32 litres at the beginning. You don't have to have Beersmith automatically calculate the boil volume either. I edited it to suit my own system once I got a few batches done and worked out what it actually was. I brew two different batch sizes as well, 21 and 25 litres, depending on whether I want some surplus bottles or not. I have two separate profiles set up in Beersmith for these.

My last batch that I kegged was also a 21 litre size batch; it used a 3.73kg grain bill and I ended up with an OG of 1.0425; giving me 76.2% overall efficiency (I actually got 22L into the FV making the efficiency 80%, but intended size was 21L so I went with that). Basically exactly what you got from a kg less of grain. I think your volumes in Beersmith sound ok, but there's something happening in the actual brewing process somewhere that is causing issues with extracting the sugars from the grains.

I think having the grain milled too fine is detrimental in BIAB and that double milling is unnecessary, however, that is purely based on my own personal experiences. I don't have any proper research/data to confirm it - that's just what happened in my situation. As soon as I went to a coarse crush with very little grain flour, my efficiency improved. There were other things I did, such as stirring the mash a bit every so often, and discovering that my hydrometer was reading 2 points low as well. I've experimented on the last 2 or 3 batches with not stirring the mash at all except at dough in and during temperature ramp ups, and it hasn't really made any difference. So maybe the stirring isn't really necessary.

I haven't done much at all in regard to mash pH, mainly because I have no problems with the brewing process or how the beers turn out in the glass, so I figure it must be sitting pretty much where it should be. Would be interesting to find out what it really is though, might have to look into a decent pH meter at some point.


----------



## TheWiggman (12/7/16)

You're missing one critical measure here - volume. Starting volume is fairly relevent, but when you're calculating brewhouse efficiency you're talking about how much ends up in the fermenter at a given gravity. That is to say that by increasing the amount of liquid you extract from the kettle you'll immediately increase the efficiency.
What was your volume in the fermenter? How much were you leaving behind in the kettle? What was your pre-boil gravity?


----------



## MHB (12/7/16)

Apology time


MHB said:


> Just doing a quick rough as calculation I thing you could be getting close to 1.050-1.052 with what is in the post, just making standard assumptions about the grist and type of beer.
> For the water to be so bad that it is what is knocking the best part of 20% out of your efficiency is improbable (nearly impossible for anything that comes out of a tap in Australia.
> Get a decent thermometer and check your temperatures, I'm quietly confidant that you will be a fair way out!.
> For about the 100th time - get a decent glass laboratory thermometer you can trust, use it to calibrate everything else, don't trust anything with batteries or that runs on springs.
> Mark


I didn't take out Brewery efficiency, that's about the theoretical yield, so with your grain bill, in the amount of water you mashed into - without a sparge, what you got is pretty much on the money.
So in short you aren't doing anything too wrong, you just need more malt to get a higher gravity.

I'm not apologising for suggesting you get a good glass lab thermometer, that's still a very good idea.
As mentioned above it is a good idea to do a work back from "How much beer you want" adding on all the losses, Left in the fermenter (maybe 1L), Left in the kettle 5-10% (measure it), Evaporation during the boil (you said 5L/h), Absorbed by the malt (about 0.9L/kg so 4.8kg*0.9=4.32L), splashing, samples, evaporation during mashing... (about 2% of mash water).
Should give you a very good idea of how much water you need to start with.
Mark


----------



## DigitalGiraffe (12/7/16)

MHB said:


> Apology time
> I didn't take out Brewery efficiency, that's about the theoretical yield, so with your grain bill, in the amount of water you mashed into - without a sparge, what you got is pretty much on the money.
> So in short you aren't doing anything too wrong, you just need more malt to get a higher gravity.
> 
> ...


No need for apologies. I'm stoked and thankful that everyone has offered so much help. Bunch of legends!

I will be sourcing myself a decent thermometer. You can never have too much brew gear right?


----------



## Ben1 (14/7/16)

Keep at it with beer smith. It's terribly confusing and counter intuitive to set up but once you get your head around it, it makes recipe formulation a breeze.

The key with efficiency is to not 'aim' for a certain efficiency but instead measure everything, plug it into beer smith and it will tell you your efficiency. If you then use that number going forward your beers should be spot on.

There have been some great suggestions to improve your efficiency but at this stage you want consistency rather than a really high number.

Efficiency just means how much grain you require to get a certain OG. If you have a low but consistent efficiency, you can just buy a little more grain (which beer smith will tell you the amounts)


----------



## DigitalGiraffe (18/7/16)

I'm planning a brew for this weekend and have lowered the efficiency in beersmith as suggested. Hoping to grab a decent thermometer by the weekend also.

This is the brew I'll be putting down and have scaled it to 21L using beer smith.

https://www.brewtoad.com/recipes/mountain-goat-fancy-pants-clone-1

Here are the numbers that beer smith has given me. Do they sound about right?



Recipe: Mountain Goat Fancy Pants 40L scaled - 18/7/16
Brewer: Sparrows Talon
Asst Brewer:
Style: American Amber Ale
TYPE: All Grain
Taste: (30.0)

Recipe Specifications
--------------------------
Boil Size: 29.96 l
Post Boil Volume: 24.96 l
Batch Size (fermenter): 21.00 l
Bottling Volume: 19.00 l
Estimated OG: 1.060 SG
Estimated Color: 17.5 SRM
Estimated IBU: 33.7 IBUs
Brewhouse Efficiency: 62.00 %
Est Mash Efficiency: 70.9 %
Boil Time: 60 Minutes

Ingredients:
------------
Amt Name Type # %/IBU
4.94 kg Pale Malt, Traditional Ale (Joe White) 75.2 %
0.43 kg Caramel/Crystal Malt - 60L (60.0 SRM) 6.5 %
0.39 kg Munich, Light (Joe White) (9.0 SRM) 5.9 %
0.39 kg Cara-Pils/Dextrine (2.0 SRM) 5.9 %
0.28 kg Carared (20.0 SRM) 4.3 %
0.14 kg Chocolate Malt (Joe White) (381.0 SRM) 2.2 %
10.79 g Cascade [5.50 %] - Boil 60.0 min 6.4 IBUs
10.79 g Galaxy [14.00 %] - Boil 60.0 min 16.2 IBUs
10.79 g Cascade [5.50 %] - Boil 15.0 min 3.2 IBUs
10.79 g Galaxy [14.00 %] - Boil 15.0 min 8.0 IBUs
1.0 pkg White Labs California Ale 
11.00 g Cascade [5.50 %] - Dry Hop 7.0 Days 0.0 IBUs
11.00 g Galaxy [14.00 %] - Dry Hop 7.0 Days 0.0 IBUs


Mash Schedule: 001 BIAB Mash
Total Grain Weight: 6.57 kg
----------------------------
Name Description Step Temperature Step Time
Mash Step Add 33.98 l of water at 73.1 C 67.8 C 60 min

Sparge: If steeping, remove grains, and prepare to boil wort


----------



## Rocker1986 (18/7/16)

I remember reading on here recently that someone had been having issues with Joe White malts and lower efficiency than with other brands of base malt. I wonder if that might be something to do with it? :unsure: I haven't used JW for a long time so I don't know what it's like now. Back then it was fine though.


----------



## DigitalGiraffe (18/7/16)

Rocker1986 said:


> I remember reading on here recently that someone had been having issues with Joe White malts and lower efficiency than with other brands of base malt. I wonder if that might be something to do with it? :unsure: I haven't used JW for a long time so I don't know what it's like now. Back then it was fine though.


My lhbs sometimes has Gladfields so I'll give that a run if they have any in stock. I remember reading that somewhere also.


----------



## dr K (18/7/16)

I would be very surprised if Joe White (or any other major malster) had a lower than optimum efficiency.

K


----------



## Beamer (20/7/16)

I was using Joe White and had low efficiency 58-62 %. Read that JW was causing the problems. I bought a better thermometer a grain mill and did some ghetto sparging. Efficiency improved to 67-69%. Then I went to an overnight mash and double batch sparging. Efficiency has improved 75-77% and still using Joe White. Happy with this consistency and now this is the method I will continue to use. 

Oh and the overnight mash saves me about 2 hours on brew day. Win win situation for me.


----------



## GalBrew (20/7/16)

I have heard certain pro brewers first hand who hate JW due to low efficiency and consistency issues.


----------



## Rocker1986 (20/7/16)

I haven't used JW for about 3 or 4 years, it was fine back then but I don't know what it's like now. My main two base malts are Fawcett's floor malted Maris Otter, and Weyermann Bohemian Pilsner. I consistently get around the 75-78% (overall) efficiency with 'normal' mashing procedures. Sometimes it jumps up to 80%. I'm just doing BIAB no sparge, have not tried an overnight mash yet as I've seen no need to bother. Pretty happy with it!


----------



## DigitalGiraffe (20/7/16)

LHBS was all out of Gladfields so I had no choice but to go with JW. It'll still taste fine so it's not the end of the world.

Do you think my quantities in the above recipe look like I can achieve the OG of 1060?


----------



## Rocker1986 (20/7/16)

In my system, the pale malt alone nearly hits 1.060 in a 21L size batch. :lol:

The whole grain bill gets to 1.073 OG in 21 litres. Dropping the efficiency back to a more expected 70% gets around 1.068 OG. I think you should be fine to hit the 1.060 target OG. Seems like an awful lot of cara/crystal malts in it though :unsure:


----------



## DigitalGiraffe (20/7/16)

This will be the 3rd time I've done this recipe. I thought it had a lot of cara/crystals initially but maybe my poor efficiency has caused it to have little impact? I'm a big fan of the MG Fancy Pants and I think this recipe actually tastes better.

Thanks for giving it the once over!


----------



## Rocker1986 (20/7/16)

That's a possibility I suppose, yeah. I enjoy that beer too, haven't seen it around in the bottle shop lately though, which is annoying because I'd like to have it again.


----------



## DigitalGiraffe (20/7/16)

They mentioned on Instagram that they'll be rolling it out in 6packs in the coming months to replace the 4pack. Win win!


----------



## mosto (20/7/16)

I use JW malt as a base for most brews and get a low efficiency of around 60%. I'd read on here claims that JW can cause low efficiencies, however my last brew was a Smoked Scottish Ale using Golden Promise as the base. Still came out around 60%. I'm looking at changing my system soon, so not worried about improving efficiency until I've got my head and processes around the new system and see what figures it throws out, but I don't think the brand of malt will be biggest issue. In saying that, I'm thinking of changing my base to Marris Otter for most styles, but that's more to do with flavour profile than efficiency concerns.


----------



## dr K (20/7/16)

I actually do not use JW (in fact never have), but my comment still holds. My personal LHBS only stocks Weyermann, Bairds, Dingemans, Fawcetts and Barrett Burston. At about 10 tonne a year the malts will be quite fresh, if expensive.

K


----------



## paulyman (20/7/16)

This was the issue I believe, was a few years ago so surely fixed up by now.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/substandard-malt-by-joe-white-leaves-brewers-bitter/news-story/d872f5ec946a0511744cd61dbd47b2a5


----------



## paulyman (20/7/16)

I know that link may or may not work thanks to the dinosaurs in the media and their stupid paywalls.


----------



## SBOB (20/7/16)

paulyman said:


> I know that link may or may not work thanks to the dinosaurs in the media and their stupid paywalls.


an incognito window and a google search link will get you the article though


----------



## DigitalGiraffe (2/8/16)

A follow up on my last brew for those who are interested...

Pre-boil gravity was 1045 and post boil was 1060 on my refractometer and 1055 on the hydrometer (a few hours later once wort had chilled). A vast improvement on my previous brews. Efficiency worked out to be about 69%. Pretty happy with that.

What did I change? I stirred and stirred and stirred my mash before covering it up. Used 3 thermometers and discovered the cheap one I was referencing the most was out by 1.3 degrees. Still have to order a decent glass thermometer and will have it calibrated.

Thanks for all the the help and advice from everyone. Fingers crossed I can continue to improve.


----------



## claypot (2/8/16)

"I do use beersmith and I noticed that the default temps for grain/mash tun are 22degrees. I took a reading of my grain on Saturday and it was sitting at 14.8 (I live in Hobart), the mash tun was similar. I changed these temps and the mash temp increased by 0.2 of a degrees"

Hey Mate,
Just to be sure, your not mashing at 22 degrees are you?
That would certainly explain the low efficiency and low OG.


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (2/8/16)

A comment on the Joe White thing:

There is no way in hell that a major maltster could deliver malt with extract that was significantly lower than the analysis certificate level to a major brewer and get away with it. Having worked on both sides of this transaction: every brewery tracks the actual extract achieved from every malt batch, a 1% variation from what was expected would result in complaints to the maltings and an instruction to fix the problem. The maltings would take this very seriously, it's a small industry and everyone knows every one else.

If you are losing 5% on expected extract levels on a particular malt it's exceedingly unlikely to be the maltster, much more likely to be because it's stale or has been stored badly or both. Malt is very hygroscopic, grist even more so and 5% moisture gain is not difficult.

While I'm on the subject of extract: anyone who claims 80% extract on a home brew set up is mismeasuring it: that is simply impossible to achieve. A typical extract FGDB figure for modern malt is about 80 - 81% but that is on dry basis (that's what DB means). You'll lose 3-4% on malt as shipped due to moisture content. You'll lose another percentage due to mill performance: maybe 1-2% on a good 6 roller mill, more like 3-4% on a 2 roller unless you are prepared to accept very long lauter runs. See those whole grains in your spent grain? that's lost extract.

If you've ever seen what comes out of a Buhler Disc mill on the FG (0.2mm) setting you'd know that you could not get it through a lauter tun in a month of Sundays, it mashes to sludge. In the lab the congress mash is filtered through paper, we used to have lunch during the filtration stage because it takes a while..

/rant


----------



## GalBrew (2/8/16)

As a home Brewer I have never been privy to a malt analysis certificate so who knows how far off I am? Has anyone here seen a JW analysis? How does it compare to say Gladfield? Maybe JW lets you know that they are a little bit crap on their certificate so you know what you at getting into? I use JW quite a bit and haven't had any efficiency issues (I still get around 75%) on the GF, but have heard firsthand about JW efficiency and consistently issues from pro brewers that are not offset by the fact JW is cheaper. 

Can any industry people comment on this?


----------



## MHB (2/8/16)

Lyrebird_Cycles said:


> While I'm on the subject of extract: anyone who claims 80% extract on a home brew set up is mismeasuring it: that is simply impossible to achieve. A typical extract FGDB figure for modern malt is about 80 - 81% but that is on dry basis (that's what DB means). You'll lose 3-4% on malt as shipped due to moisture content. You'll lose another percentage due to mill performance: maybe 1-2% on a good 6 roller mill, more like 3-4% on a 2 roller unless you are prepared to accept very long lauter runs. See those whole grains in your spent grain? that's lost extract.
> Snip


I think we might be talking at cross purposes, clearly we can never get 80% of the malt weight into solution.
Following is an old COA for Weyermann Pilsner, just so we are all on the same page.View attachment WM435MEL_Pilsner.pdf

The Fine Dry potential is 81.9%, Moisture is 4.5%, knock off another 1-1.5% for coarse/fine Leaving 75.9-76.4% Lets call it 76%
If we took a sample of the malt and mashed it so well we got 760g/kg into solution we would be doing 100% as well as the congress mash test.
Getting 80% of the test value isn't all that hard, if we got 608g of extract from each kg of malt that would be an 80% brewhouse yield, but just a touch over 60% of the malt.

Same same just where you start measuring from.
Mark


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (2/8/16)

> Has anyone here seen a JW analysis? How does it compare to say Gladfield?



They'll both be around 80 - 81 % extract FGDB for pale.

Figure 11-12% for protein, 2% for lipids and about 5% for bran and other insoluble fibre and there's not much room to move.


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (2/8/16)

MHB said:


> I think we might be talking at cross purposes, clearly we can never get 80% of the malt weight into solution.


Agreed, but reading the comments on extract above people are talking about extract as wort dissolved solids x volume / mass of malt, also this is the figure that is commonly used in the industry.


----------



## GalBrew (2/8/16)

Lyrebird_Cycles said:


> They'll both be around 80 - 81 % extract FGDB for pale.
> 
> Figure 11-12% for protein, 2% for lipids and about 5% for bran and other insoluble fibre and there's not much room to move.


So where does the problem lie? Are JW malts harder to get a uniform crush due to inconsistent grain size in a brewery rather than lab setting where it is ground to dust?


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (2/8/16)

I don't know, I've never personally had a problem with them as I wasn't using their malt in the period concerned.

With that caveat here's my take on the info in the article above: it sounds like they were cheaping out by salting feed grade barley into the malting grade and using GA to cover it up. They wouldn't be the only maltings to do this, just the only ones caught. That gels with the timing too: the premium for malting grade barley was at an historic high around 2014 due to poor conditions in the east coast barley areas (largely Victoria's Wimmera).

One of the things that happens when you do that is inconsistent germination (there's only so much the GA can do) which leads to high variability within the malt: some of it will be undermodified, some over modified. This in turn causes milling problems: the overmodified malt will be shattered to dust while the undermodified will be difficult to crack.

A decent 4 or 6 roller mill will cope fairly well with this, you just open out the first rollers so they barely crack the overmodified grains and rely on the later rollers to deal with the undermodified ones*. A 2 roller feed mill as used by many smaller breweries and almost all amateurs will cope badly. That's one of the reasons for using proper malt mills, the figure of merit given by dividing extract by lauter time is maximised. There's also an uptick in quality but that is in part a consequence of the above.

* While I'm on a rant, I read recently about a 2 roller mill with tapered gap which the maker claims is equivalent to a 6 roller mill. Biggest load of crap I've read in years: one of the things you watch very carefully on a real malt mill is consistency of gap across the rollers, performance degrades badly when the gap is inconsistent. Factoid: the way to check this is to feed soft wire like unleaded solder through the mill while it's grinding malt then measure the thickness to which the wire is squished. It should be the same across the each set of rollers (but obviously different between the sets).


----------



## Ollieb (28/8/16)

Hey guys,

Came across this thread and hoping I can get some advice.

I am having the exact same issue as the original poster who started this conversation.

Some facts:
I am BIAB.
I use beersmith.
I have read all of the comments and I know need test if my thermometers are calibrated. I am very confident they are because I tested the about 6 months ago but will do it again.
My Kettle is 40L 

I was wondering if my volumes are out? I think they might be? I am really confused!

This is the grain bill I was using today for my brew.
4.25kg of pale malt
0.75kg of pilsner malt
my original volume in the kettle was 38.8L of water.
My target OG was meant to be1.050 according to beer smith
my actual OG was 1.030.

This is the third time in a row I have missed my OG but never by this much. the first two brews were by 10 points but 20 points...

I have been brewing for a few years using BIAB. but last year took a break. I have no idea what I am missing! I hope it is something obvious I just cannot work it out!

Any input from anyone would be awesome.
Thanks very much.
Ollie


----------



## yum beer (28/8/16)

Ollie, there is clearly something very wrong with your numbers. 1030 with those ingredients and water sounds about right. No way you were gonna get 1050.
Check over your Beersmith and double check your settings.
As with many posts above your efficiency setting may be the issue.
When doing BIAB I was getting low 50's, not the 72 the beersmith defaults at.


----------



## Rocker1986 (28/8/16)

Strike water was 38.8 litres, not the batch size. What batch size were you aiming for Ollie?

Efficiency is obviously an issue here, but working out why is the hard part. A total breakdown of the brewing process used would help. 5kg of grain in my BIAB system would get me around 1.048-1.050 OG in a 25 litre batch. Usually I get mid-high 70s total efficiency.


----------



## Ollieb (29/8/16)

yum beer said:


> Ollie, there is clearly something very wrong with your numbers. 1030 with those ingredients and water sounds about right. No way you were gonna get 1050.
> Check over your Beersmith and double check your settings.
> As with many posts above your efficiency setting may be the issue.
> When doing BIAB I was getting low 50's, not the 72 the beersmith defaults at.


Hey Yum Beer... thanks for the reply.
So I checked my BeerSmith setting as stated in the posts above and I changed my Brew House efficiency but I could not see it make an impact anywhere?
Are you suggesting if I change it from 70% down to 50% it will re-calculate the quantities and volumes I need? I thought this is what would happen but when I dropped my efficiency down it did not suggest using more/less grain or water respectively?
Thanks again for the input.


----------



## Ollieb (29/8/16)

Rocker1986 said:


> Strike water was 38.8 litres, not the batch size. What batch size were you aiming for Ollie?
> 
> Efficiency is obviously an issue here, but working out why is the hard part. A total breakdown of the brewing process used would help. 5kg of grain in my BIAB system would get me around 1.048-1.050 OG in a 25 litre batch. Usually I get mid-high 70s total efficiency.


Hi Rocker1986
Correct, strike volume was 38.8L.
Batch size I was aiming for was 22L. However I ended up with more like 24/26L (I put 24L into the fermenter but there was at least another 2L left before I started to get into the dead space under the tap in the kettle)
Breakdown of brew process is as follows:
- Heat 38.8L of water to 72 deg
- Add grain
- Steeped at 68 deg for 60 mins
- Began to raise temp to 75 deg which took me about 15 mins.
- Mash out at 75 deg for 10 mins
- Removed grains began to raise temp to boiling (took 35 mins)
- Began boil and first hop addition...
- Over one hour did my 4 hop additions
- Finished and began to chill my wort down to mid 20's which took me about 40 mins
- Dumped wort into fermenter and sealed
- Left for a few hours to wait for temp to hit about 20-22 degs before pitching yeast.
- Note: I took the OG sample from the kettle when I was transferring the wort from kettle to fermenter. I waited a few hours before testing the reading.

Also note: I have tested my specific gravity reader and it balances out at an even 1000 in water that is approx 18 deg.

Anything I have missed for you?

This is great guys I really appreciate the help.
I think the issue lies with my BeerSmith Settings I just dont know where or how it should be set up. I have bene following the wizard to set it up and thought I had it bang on but clearly not!
Thanks again!


----------



## Ollieb (29/8/16)

...Also I have just noticed in BeerSmith...

That if I change my efficiency down to 50% and then look at my estimated OG it does state 1.030. But that is not where I am confused

If I then go into the Estimated OG and increase it to match the recipe estimate of 1.050 the grain bill goes up to 6.6KG of pale and 1.2kg of pilsner AND the water volume goes up to 41.86L.

I thought if I wanted the OG to come up it would have left the grain bill as was and reduced the initial water volume down?
Wow I am so confused with BeerSmith right now! :blink: :huh: :unsure:


----------



## Beamer (29/8/16)

I think you have too much pre boil volume for a one hour boil mate, I had a similar problem when I started biab. If your grains soak up 5 litres that gives you around 33 litre pre boil and thats something I would use for a 90 min boil in a crown urn. With loss of 4.7 to trub for a 23 litre batch.
I use brew mate so I cant comment on beer smith.


----------



## dannymars (29/8/16)

The strike volume goes up to accommodate the extra grain adsorption.

How do you crush grain? maybe try a finer crush? you could also reduce your strike volume and try a mini-sparge with some hot water from the stove poured over the grain bag once you remove it from the kettle.


----------



## DigitalGiraffe (29/8/16)

Definitely too much strike volume. I average around 32-34litres for my brews in a keggle.

Try using the scale option in beersmith, it will adjust your quantities for you. If you change batch size and efficiency on the recipe screen it won't adjust anything for you.

A quick follow up on my issues... It looks like my issue was a result of a cheap electric thermometer. I've done two brews since buying a liquid thermometer and have exceeded my OG both times. I'm bumping my efficiency up to 70-75 from the 60-65 that it was on. Yesterdays brew I was aiming for pre-boil gravity of 1038, I hit 1048! Post boil my target gravity was 1052 and I hit 1060 Happy times!


----------



## Rocker1986 (29/8/16)

Your process sounds fine although I'd agree with the others that if you are aiming for 22L then the strike water is too high. My strike water is usually about 10/11 litres more than the intended batch size. You could try mashing for 90 minutes instead of 60. I don't think a finer grain crush would make improvements although you might as well try it and see, but a coarser crush may well do. In my case a finer crush made things worse, but a coarser crush improved my efficiency. Doesn't sound like there's any problem with your hydrometer accuracy, so that's not the issue.



Ollieb said:


> I think the issue lies with my BeerSmith Settings I just dont know where or how it should be set up. I have bene following the wizard to set it up and thought I had it bang on but clearly not!
> Thanks again!


I think your Beersmith settings are off, but they wouldn't be causing shitty extraction during the mash. If the extraction was better, you'd still end up under the OG due to the increased volume, but it would only be a few points, not 20. The wizard is great for setting up equipment profiles, but you need to use real world numbers that you measure in your own brewery. Measure how much volume you have pre-boil, your boil off in litres per hour, measure how much trubby shit you get in the bottom of the kettle etc. Beersmith won't change the batch volume to increase the OG, it will increase the grain bill. You have to change the batch size manually. Take a gravity reading pre boil as well as post boil.

I think low 50s efficiency is way too low even for BIAB; it's not expecting too much to get it up to the mid 70s, and it can be done quite easily. I'd be pretty annoyed if I was using 5kg of grain to end up with a bloody light beer. :blink:


----------



## Ollieb (29/8/16)

Rocker1986 said:


> Your process sounds fine although I'd agree with the others that if you are aiming for 22L then the strike water is too high. My strike water is usually about 10/11 litres more than the intended batch size. You could try mashing for 90 minutes instead of 60. I don't think a finer grain crush would make improvements although you might as well try it and see, but a coarser crush may well do. In my case a finer crush made things worse, but a coarser crush improved my efficiency. Doesn't sound like there's any problem with your hydrometer accuracy, so that's not the issue.
> 
> 
> I think your Beersmith settings are off, but they wouldn't be causing shitty extraction during the mash. If the extraction was better, you'd still end up under the OG due to the increased volume, but it would only be a few points, not 20. The wizard is great for setting up equipment profiles, but you need to use real world numbers that you measure in your own brewery. Measure how much volume you have pre-boil, your boil off in litres per hour, measure how much trubby shit you get in the bottom of the kettle etc. Beersmith won't change the batch volume to increase the OG, it will increase the grain bill. You have to change the batch size manually. Take a gravity reading pre boil as well as post boil.
> ...


Hey Rocker...

So as a rule of thumb do you always just go for 10/11L greater than your intended batch size and ignore BeerSmith? Or are you saying this with qualification because that is what BeerSmith spits out and tells you to do? I assume the latter as you have probably configured it correctly unlike me!

Also when you suggest obtaining "real world number" would you do this during a brew? I assume you need to actually do a brew because you need to calculate the grain absorption pre boil post mash right?

Given you reckon low 50's is too low for efficiency what would you suggest I set mine too until I start hitting the targets? 60%?

Along with everyone else I really appreciate your input and the time taken to respond. This is slowly starting to make a little more sense.

Thanks very much!


----------



## Rocker1986 (29/8/16)

I do ignore Beersmith for the strike volume but that's because I worked it out myself over a number of batches when I first started. Mind you, Beersmith's calculation is not very far off what I do use, because the equipment profile is set up using real measurements that I've taken from my brew days.

Yes, you will need to measure things during a brew day, or across a few brew days to get an average. You already know your strike volume, but you'll need to measure the pre-boil volume to determine how much is lost to grain absorption, although it appears this figure is default in Beersmith and if it can be changed I haven't worked out how to yet. For some reason I lose very little to grain absorption. Measure your pre-boil SG too, this along with the pre-boil volume is used to calculate mash efficiency - if this is low then your overall efficiency will also be low. Measure how much is boiled off over an hour. I get a 3 litre boil off per hour.

As for your efficiency, you should set it to what you're actually getting. Obviously this is worked out by the volume in the fermenter and its SG, which is OG of course. If it starts to show consistent improvement then you can increase it in line with that. There's not much point setting it to a number higher than you're getting because you'll always end up falling short of what you're aiming for.


----------



## MHB (29/8/16)

Ok Ollieb, Just quick and dirty
You have put in 5kg of base malt, the "Coarse Grind As Is" (CGAI) potential is going to pretty dam close to 75-6%, so the amount of extract available is close to (5*0.75)=3.75kg
When you pull the malt out around 0.8-0.9L/Kg of water/kg of malt will come out with the expended grain so roughly (5*0.85)=4.25L (or kg same, sameish)
So at the end of mashing you should have (38.8L-4.25L)=34.55L left in the kettle (give or take)

Mass Extract = Volume *SG*oP, (34.55*1.030*0.075) = 2.67kg of extract

At 100% mash efficiency you could have obtained 3.75kg, you got 2.67kg, so your efficiency is (2.67/3.75)*100=71%
Call it 70% maybe not exact, but within a couple of percent.
Mark


----------



## MHB (29/8/16)

I'm going to suggest that 70% is on the low side, 80% isn't hard and I know a lot of home brewers getting over 90% mash efficiency.
You need to take a long hard look at your basic parameters. Temperature being the most influential variable, mash mixing (no dough balls), actual masses of grist and water... leave water chemistry alone unless you have extremely hard water, some way to check your pH would be a help. 

Had you in fact got the 1.050 you were anticipating, from the same equation as above, (34.55*1.050*0.125)=4.11kg of extract
Roughly 110% efficiency, so there is something seriously wrong with your settings.
Mark


----------



## Rocker1986 (30/8/16)

I think he's talking about 1.050 as the post boil SG of the 22 litres intended for the fermenter rather than the pre-boil SG. 5kg of grain would get me to that figure or thereabouts on my setup. I normally get mid-high 80s mash efficiency and about 10% less than that for the overall efficiency.


----------



## pcqypcqy (30/8/16)

My experience with beersmith is that you need to be very careful. There seem to be many places to enter the same parameter, and you may not realise you've done this as you go through, and end up changing something somewhere else that effects what you were trying to put in. Double and triple check everything.

Beersmith also has a lot of features that will only apply to commercial settings, measurements and so forth. You need to read through the help files and online to really understand what each one means. I'd steer clear for brewing forums for help with these definitions as each home brewer will assume different things when you talk about different efficiencies, volumes, etc. Check the beersmith documentation.

That said, I only use it as a guide. When I initially started all grain I had a bad manifold in and esky and was only getting 50 to 60%. With a better manifold, stirring and a long/slow fly sparge, I've gotten that up to around the 72% which beersmith will just assume for you. I've found calculating the actual efficiency in beersmith is a bit tedious, there are some spreadsheets floating online that you can google that might be easier to use.

Like the others said, assume a value, brew it, if you were under then run the calculation and adjust accordingly for your next brew. Once you're consistent, then you know you've got a number you can trust and start working from there.


----------



## Ollieb (30/8/16)

Wow guys... all such good advice and I really appreciate the input everyone has contributed! 

I think the next thing for me to do is to have another brew day and try and start obtaining my numbers for accurate calculations.

I think I'm going to try to re-brew my last beer and just try 10L more volume in my pre-boil volume than intended for the fermenter and just see what numbers I get. I'll start with 34L and go rom there as I try to throw in my fermenter 24L.
I also think I'm going to give BeerSmith a wide birth for now and might try using an online calculator and or the spread sheet I have seen on here. 

Falling short of a miracle I do not see a short fix here. It will be a long road of trial and error! 

Also just as a side note:
The SG I am testing and trying to hit is the SG post boil and what I am tipping into my fermenter. So Rocker1986 is correct there.
I definitely did not have any dough balls as I was stirring it occasionally during the mash.

Thanks again to everyone for helping out and commenting! Legends.


----------



## pcqypcqy (31/8/16)

No worries. Just so you don't take me the wrong way, Beersmith is an incredible tool with lots of powerful stuff in there. However, like all tools you need to know how to use it properly. It's user interface could really do with an overhaul.

I'd suggest you do as you propose, but keep plugging numbers into Beersmith and see what it tells you. Don't take it as gospel, but it'll help you understand what's what.


----------

