92 % Efficiency

[Nick JD]

http://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/the-bn-...ong/id288838352

podcast 18, stop flapping your gums long enough to listen and learn.

You still haven't even told me what you want me to learn - sorry, but I don't listen to **** just because someone tells me to unless they tell me what kind of **** it is.

Anyway, here's a youtube video I think you need to see about fine crushing in brewing and tannins.

 

[MHB]

If you are refering to the tannins myth - try it. It's a myth.

For starters get a bunch of halved grain husks and steep them in 70C for an hour water and taste it. Now finely mill those husks and taste it again.

What? The tannins leach out through undamaged cells as quickly as damaged ones? Well I never - here was I thinking that I'd get no tannins in my tea (or my wine) unless I pulverised.

MYTH. BUSTED. Still perpetuated by those who simply can't mill finely because of their gear.

First mention of tannin in this thread is by YOU, no one else seems to be confused about the subject. It's been clearly said by several posters that fine grinding isn't the issue, the main causes are over sparging and sparging too hot (other factors contribute).
Please try reading first, try to understand the discussion then post if you don't understand (often the case apparently) or have something useful to contribute (vanishingly small chance).

Once more for the slow ones Tannin isn't a myth, milling fine isn't the issue, I'm dam sure I have a better mill than any you've ever used, just because I can doesn't mean I want or need to reduce my malt to dust, different systems need different crushes.

MHB

 

[yardy]

You still haven't even told me what you want me to learn - sorry, but I don't listen to **** just because someone tells me to unless they tell me what kind of **** it is.

http://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/the-bn-...ong/id288838352


podcast 18, somewhere in there is a little rant about congress mashing and the drawbacks of fine milling etc, go to your phone-booth, change back into your street clothes (undies on the inside) and have a listen, and then listen to the Efficiency podcast also, # 26 i believe.

 

[Thirsty Boy]

All this stuff comes with unstated "conditions" and people forget about them when they quote stuff.

1st - this is applicable almost exclusively to continuous/fly sparge systems. If you batch sparge, no sparge, BIAB and you aren't doing anything truly outlandish, this discussion simply is not about you or your brewing.

2nd - the underlying assumption in saying something to the effect of "high efficiency will cause tannin extraction or beers of less quality" is that your brewery is crappy.

The truth is, that (and MHB said this earlier) if you have a continuous sparge system, you get your mash right, you get your sparge right and you have a good mash tun with good fluid dynamics then you should be getting efficiencies into your kettle, on the order of 90%+ Your efficiency is high because you are doing everything right.

You should get your pre-boil volume, your final runnings pH should be less than 6ish, your final runnings gravity should be on or about 1.005-1.010. And without getting to the point in your sparge where you over extract the grain and start getting unacceptable levels of tannin or anything else - you should get an extraction efficiency the order of 90%.

If you have on the other hand, a less than great lauter tun - then you will probably be getting channeling, some parts of your grain bed will be being under sparged, others over sparged... The under sparged areas mean your efficiency will be poor, the oversparged areas mean that in those areas.. you probably are over extracting the grain and pulling tannins.

So if you build a system, you stick within the brewing norms, you make sure you don't sparge past a runnings pH of about 6 and the efficiency that pops out is in the 90s... Well done, you've built a great system and you know how to brew. There will simply not be quality issues attached to your high efficiency. Trying to lower your efficiency (and i'm not even sure how you would go about doing that??) will achieve nothing more than willfully wasting good fermentables.

If your system gets 75% - there's are signal for you that it isn't working properly. You aren't magically sticking to the limits suggested by the brewing gurus from afar... You've just built a crappy mash tun, that's all. If you then try to flog that mash tun into a high efficiency by an intensive sparge...then what's going to happen is that you will very likely make crappy beer with your crappy mash tun.

Your system efficiency is what it is... As long as you are actually bothering to make sure you aren't oversparging.... Then, well, you aren't and you wont have any of the quality issues associated with it. I find the assumption that high efficiency means you must be oversparging to be a little bit rude as well as a little bit ********.

 

[argon]

Couldnt have been better said I reckon What I was getting from listening to the JZ podcasts was that these high efficiencies were leading to higher tannin extraction. This was all a bit perplexing to me, seeing that commercially the aim is to get high efficiencies for the sake of economics.

JZs blanket statement of purposefully aiming for the 70s was based on flavour just never sat right.

I think youre spot on with explaining MT design and lautering... thanks for clearing this up... at least for me anyway. :icon_cheers:

 

[speedie]

this topic has been discussed in other sites thought that this may be good reading for your digestion
given that grain rated @ even 80% yeild could produce 92% seems Mathematically improbable


http://www.hbd.org/uchima/tech/efficiency.html

speedie

 

[MHB]

speedie
This has been discussed to death; but once more for those incapable or unwilling to use the search function.
Yield is compared to the result of a congress mash, that's the universally accepted way to test the extract potential malt. 100% means you are getting the same yield as the test did. It is possible (not even all that hard really) to get over 100%.

MHB
Congress MashView attachment Congress_Mash.PDF

 

[warra48]

Good thread, useful information, particularly the posts by MHB and Thirsty Boy.

MHB's post explains how I got 101% into the kettle for my last brew, a generic Pils.
I regularly get over 90% without trying to do anything out of the ordinary.
My method is to batch sparge, and I can't say I've ever noticed tannins in my brews.
I'm a dedicated tea drinker and a fan of red wines, so I'm well aware of what tannins taste and feel like.

 

[speedie]

If 100% extract is achievable in chemist labs how do you propose too better that with amateur equipment?

 

[warra48]

If 100% extract is achievable in chemist labs how do you propose too better that with amateur equipment?

I don't.

I don't claim to do that.

As MHB said, what we measure is the % of our yield compared to the laboratory test results.
The test results are how the maltster describe the potential of their varying batches for real world conditions.
No one said, nor can they say, the test results must equal 100% of the absolute total sugar extraction from the grains.

Speedie, for goodness sake, stop arguing semantics, and start living in the real world. We've been through this on a different forum, with the same tired old argument. Leave it alone.

 

[MHB]

speedie I would have thought anyone who knew how to brew wouldn't have to ask that question!
For starters the test is done in distilled water, what if you added some Calcium and Zinc (and/or a bunch of other salts or minerals)?
What about a B-Glucan rest at 40^oC instead of mashing in at 50^oC?
How about a mash regime with rests at 40, 50, 63-4, 72-4 and a mash out at 79^oC, rather than just ramping through to 70^oC?
What makes you think mashing in at 4:1 is ideal?
You think changing the pH won't have any impact?

It's a test, just adding a pinch of salts and running the same test on the same equipment would give better extraction. The point is it's a standardised laboratory test that is used to give us all a benchmark to compare to. It isn't how you (well I) brew beer.

MHB

 

[speedie]

MHB

So it seems to me from your point that it is all a assumption that yield is yield so why benchmark congress if we dont use it in practice (stated 70% in that read)



Apple for apple

So what are you expressing with regard to ph etc



What if we wear a different colored shirt on a different day at the brewery then brew the same format do we get different extract figures (only hypothetical)



From what I have accrued it seems that if you achieve mid to low 70s extract efficiency

Your brew rig is doing well

My grist ratio is generally 2.5 to 1

I adjust ph to 5.5 mashed in always (food grade phosphoric acid)

Generally direct fired three step 45-(63_68)-70 mashout77

I know that my depth to height ratio is wrong for my sparge vessel but still manage 74% extract

Cheers speedie

 

[MHB]

So it seems to me from your point that it is all a assumption that yield is yield so why benchmark congress if we don't use it in practice (stated 70% in that read)

The whole point appears to have either escaped you or be beyond you comprehension. The result of the Congress Mash creates the bench mark; the 70% you mention is compared to the Congress Mash.
So in making the above statement you are in fact using it in practice while denying it usefulness.
I suspect (hope) your posting while pissed, that's the kindest possible explanation for your incoherent mishmash of misstatements. It's also just possible that you need to stop what you're doing right now or risk going blind.
When you are ready to ask a sensible question I will do my best to help.

MHB

 

[Thirsty Boy]

I assume that speedie is thinking, where he is thinking at all - like a German. They express efficiency and yield differently than the English or Americans. Basically as a percentage of the whole grist weight. How much sugar do you get vs the weight of grain itself.

Mind you, they also know what % of the grain is extract... so you can either look at it as though the grain is 80% extract and you get 74% extract... so you have 6% between you and a perfect system (and thats pretty much how the Germans think about it) - OR - you can think like an American or English brewer and say that 74% is, if you express it as a percentage of the possible 80% in the grain 92.5% efficiency. So bizarrely enough at 92.5% Speedie's extraction is almost exactly at the level that we have been discussing in this thread.

Of course, the point still remains, that the Germans know that the grain is 80% extract (or whatever figure it is) because they did a congress mash on it (although they'd call it an EBC mash instead) and an EBC mash is far from the most efficient way you can extract sugars from a given amount of grain. Its a convention... not a best practise technique. Whereas a brewer, can try for best practise and get greater than the congress level of extract. Its not even all that hard. Congress/EBC/IBD mashes and their results are tools provided by maltsters to assist brewers in predicting their results.. they are not and are not intended to be interpreted as laws of nature.

IMO - the German way of looking at it is nice and simple; if you are using grists that are primarily all base malt and all at the same level of extract value. Falls down a little if you are using complicated grain bills where you may have highly toasted or roasted malts/grains or adjuncts with considerably lower or higher extract values. The Germans aren't even allowed to use half the stuff that has significantly different extract levels... why would they care? But if you happen to live somewhere in the world where roast barley, or six row, or raw wheat, or corn, or chocolate malt etc etc is more commonly used, it throws your calculations out some, or at least takes away from the simplicity of the model when used for a beer that is fundamentally all base malt.

Edit: spelling and because I just read Warra's second post properly... seems that no matter what reasoning is used, its likely to be a waste of time. No changing the mind of a brewer with a bee in their bonnet. Sorry I bothered now.

 

[bcp]

This thread has everything that makes up AHB - some drivel, some abuse, some annoyance at the drivel and abuse, and then also some really great information.

Just to say thanks for an interesting thread - particularly MHB & thirstyboy.

 

[mje1980]

Who really cares? some people love bling, some people love to keep it simple. One of our IBU members ( maybe more than one! ) measures his grain "by the bucket", makes great beer, and another has a full on bling setup ( pumps, probes and push buttons ), and makes great beer. It all works guys.

I suspect that a lot of people don't really know how to calculate efficiency. Well, maybe they know how to do it on paper, but do the calcs suit every quirk of a particular system? ie, mash tun geometrey?. I have a ss braid, how do i work out what's left in the tun, when the braid moves around?.

BTW i calculate at 68-72% efficiency, never really been sure if im applying the calcs right, but i really couldnt care less what the number is at the end of the day. Im happy with my beers, and isn't that the point?? It is for me.

 

[speedie]

Mhb I wasn't pissed and wont go blind either even after all these years of pulling



Brewhouse efficiency must be the reciprocal of extract efficiency

Should be more regard given to which term is used



Thirsty B I have always used the math of plato x knocked out wort / Kgs of grain for extract results

And yes most of the brews are all base malt

Maybe I am thinking German (prost!)

Cheers speedie

 

[WarmBeer]

Thirsty B I have always used the math of plato x knocked out wort / Kgs of grain for extract results

Therein lies the difference in the calculation.

Beersmith, and most texts, calculate efficiency as:


mass of sugars in the final beer 100
--------------------------------- x ---
mass of potential sugars in grist 1

As the % of extract in the grist is ~ 70-80%, depending on the maltster/malt, your calculation is based on a different denominator.

Without a consistent, known methodology, you are comparing apples with bananas.

 

[rotten]

He won't like that at ll, a computer can work that out for you??? Can't be right.

 

[bum]

Dude picks a technical argument with TB and MHB. Gold.