92 % Efficiency

[Nick JD]

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

Dude picks bum with stinky finger. Silver.

 

[Brauhaus007]

For what its worth the only problem I can see from a fine mash is the possibility of a stuck mash due to the compaction of the grist. The tanin issue is not about the size of the grist. :beerbang:

 

[bum]

Dude picks bum with stinky finger. Silver.

Dude talks about something with no clue. Iron (the most common metal I could think of).

 

[speedie]

My reference to the shirt stuff was similar to yours re salts ph etc mash for mash so to speak

We dont mash and sparge with congress application (distilled water coffee filters etc) so it is as you stated only a data point to base what is happening in the process





I am not trying to bring variables into equation like scarification temp time ph I know that these present different constants

Just use a given regime of preparation for mashing which most have adapted and present what extract is possible with basic tools



If one hundred percent was achievable from said mash with amateur equipment using only grain as base for conversion where do the extra points come from

As much as to say possible 80% from grain yields 100% extract how do we arrive at anything beyond 100%



Is this a reasonable question mhb

 

[speedie]

bum take the middle finger and stop babbling why dont you present some discussion!

 

[felten]

As much as to say possible 80% from grain yields 100% extract how do we arrive at anything beyond 100%

Your whole post is impossibly confusing (and bold font hurts my eyes), so I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, but I'll take a guess. If you get the same extract as the congress mash that's 100% efficiency. If you extract more than the congress mash that's over 100%.

 

[manticle]

My reference to the shirt stuff was similar to yours re salts ph etc mash for mash so to speak

We don't mash and sparge with congress application (distilled water coffee filters etc) so it is as you stated only a data point to base what is happening in the process





I am not trying to bring variables' into equation like scarification temp time ph I know that these present different constants

Just use a given regime of preparation for mashing which most have adapted and present what extract is possible with basic tools



If one hundred percent was achievable from said mash with amateur equipment using only grain as base for conversion where do the extra points come from

As much as to say possible 80% from grain yields 100% extract how do we arrive at anything beyond 100%



Is this a reasonable question mhb

But if you know what parameters you are mashing within, the actual numbers don't matter so much - as long as you understand what they give you and how to get consistency with you process.

What I understand extraction efficiency to be as far as the above explanations go is in your extractionrelation to a constant. That constant is set by the maufacturer under certain conditions. You may extract more than that specification because your conditions will be different (hence the salts - I doubt the shirt will change a lot). You may also extract less.

100% isn't actually 100% of total ever in the world possible - just what has been set by the manufacturer. One thing in relation to another.

Just use a given regime of preparation for mashing which most have adapted and present what extract is possible with basic tools is exactly what people are doing. Basic tools at people's disposal, coupled with a regime that a lot of people use gives a certain number. Getting 101% doesn't make you win any special prize- it just gives you a number from which you can work, streamline your process and make consistent beer on your system.

 

[bum]

bum take the middle finger and stop babbling why dont you present some discussion!

As far as I can tell, speedie, you're getting the "middle finger" here, not me. It also appears to be you doing the babbling (as per), not me. I think most might like it if you'd hold off on presenting more "discussion" until you did a bit more reading.

For everyone else: speedie thinks efficiency is something that is worked out on paper with a pencil and not something that happens on brew day. Avoid this topic like the plague.

[EDIT: By "avoid this topic like the plague" I mean avoid discussing it with him - this thread/topic itself has lots of good info and most certainly should not be ignored.]

 

[MHB]

Snip
If one hundred percent was achievable from said mash with amateur equipment using only grain as base for conversion where do the extra points come from
As much as to say possible 80% from grain yields 100% extract how do we arrive at anything beyond 100%
Is this a reasonable question mhb

No it isn't, because your starting premise is fundamentally flawed. The congress mash isn't the best way to get extract from malt it's just a test!
Making one last attempt to penetrate you wilful ignorance with an example
Go and look at new cars, they have two fuel consumption figures, a city and highway cycle. Now no one gets in the car and drives it for a couple of hundred Km then swings by the garage and tops it up, to work out the fuel consumption.
The car goes to a lab where it sits on dyno and a computer manages the engine, all cars get the same test, the results let you compare "apples with apples".
No one really thinks you will get the exact same result when you drive the car, if you lead-foot it you will use more, if you drive like your-mum you can easily burn less fuel.
Likewise the congress mash, it isn't anything other than a test designed to give a comparison figure. It isn't the "ultimate obtainable yield", or anything like that, it's just a test that is used as a comparison.
Now back up and have a think, sadly every time you post your making yourself look like a complete retard, if in future you ever have anything to say that is worth reading it's likely that no one will take any notice.
I for one give up.

MHB

 

[argon]

I for one have learnt heaps from this thread I now understand the principle of efficiency and how the test figure is generated.

Ive always had a general understanding of the relationship of theoretical maximum and the actual yield, but now that it has been explained over and over and over again its crystal clear.

I think if you dont get it after reading MHB and TB youre either not willing or not able.

Thanks guys

 

[rotten]

More popcorn please?

 

[Lecterfan]

More popcorn please?

hee hee...saves having to swap between sites to keep up with the story. :blink:

 

[Ronin]

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.

Thank you Thirsty boy, I've been reading a brewing textbook by Wolfgang Kunze and haven't been able to figure out why their efficiency calculations don't mesh with other texts. It's simply because they compare it to grain weight whereas others compare it to a congress mash. Makes much mores sense to me now.

Regarding the fine grind, I'm pretty sure those breweries that use mash filters and hammer mills (they grind the malt very fine) don't have a tannin extraction problem. I think Coopers use a high pressure mash filter and I've never noticed tannin problems in their beers. As MHB said, there are other reasons.

Thanks TB,

James

 

[Silo Ted]

Despite the tone of new member's posts, for me the responses are really valuable info wise. I often wondered if the brew software was measuring % of total weight, husk, unusable bits etc. So for everyone except the germans measure % against a congress mash, Im interested as to why and how the 100% can be exceeded, which has been nicely covered already. As was suggested, the congress mash is the (almost, unless your a kraut) universal standard against which efficiencies are measured. At those temps, with the step mashing etc, its not really emulating a brewday, so its not a stretch to at least consider that other peoples brewday experiences match or exceed the efficiencies.

A question for speedie, why do you insist on doubting other people's actual experiences in this matter ? There's some knowledgeable members responding to you in a way that's very clear, even to a non-scientific bloke like myself, so I cant understand why you continue with your challenges. MHB even went to the trouble of thinking up an analogy, so that might satisfy your doubts in another way. If you cant get amazing efficiencies, so be it. Its a limitation of your equipment and technique. Neither can I, but happy to exist around the 75% mark.

In the end, many of us don't know everything about the brewing science (including you, clearly) so just be open minded about what you read that may challenge your existing ideas. There's a lot to be gained, and in the end it will make us better beer-makers if we stop to reconsider things every now and again :icon_cheers:

 

[drew9242]

So i am assuming from reading all this that beersmith works on a congress mash. And my 75% efficency isn't that good. Oh well there is always room for improvement.

Good thread though it has helped me understand a lot.

Thanks Drew

 

[manticle]

And my 75% efficency isn't that good.

Why? Do you make beer with it? Can you hit that figure consistently? Is your beer tasty? Do you think you can make a huge saving by getting up to 80 or 85?

Nothing wrong with improving your processes especially if the results follow suit but don't get too bogged down in numbers. For a commercial brewery where extraction deficits = lost dollars on a large scale it's important, for hb probably much less so.

 

[drew9242]

Why? Do you make beer with it? Can you hit that figure consistently? Is your beer tasty? Do you think you can make a huge saving by getting up to 80 or 85?

Nothing wrong with improving your processes especially if the results follow suit but don't get too bogged down in numbers. For a commercial brewery where extraction deficits = lost dollars on a large scale it's important, for hb probably much less so.

I'm not stressed about it at all. And i am getting very confident in my process at the moment, so i won't be changing anything any time soon. I was just wondering what other people get. Might do a search for a poll which i am sure has been done.

 

[manticle]

It was the phrase 'isn't very good' I was responding to really. If you like your beers then that indicates your processes are good for you and your system.

I hit around 70 and am pretty fine with that. Have been on that give or take a few points since I first started AG. Means I can confidently plan recipes.

 

[MHB]

Ben (my staff guy) recently went through an exercise of trying to improve his brewhouse efficiency (he is sitting his IGBD Brewing Certificate on Friday) using a combination of the shop's resources and what he was studying managed to get his BhY up into the mid 90's. Then promptly went back to aiming for 80% - because the beer tasted better.
That's what it is all about; a 75% yield is very good if you are happy with the beer you are making.
Personally I sit on about 80%, I can get more if I want to but couldn't be bothered.
Understanding the basics of how the calculations are done can be a valuable tool in improving your brewing and you processes. If you look at what your efficiency is into kettle, at end of boil and into fermenter, you will pretty quickly identify where you could maybe make some improvements.

I would never chase efficiency at the cost of quality.

MHB

 

[mckenry]

Can you hit that figure consistently?
Do you think you can make a huge saving by getting up to 80 or 85?

....... but don't get too bogged down in numbers.

These are the important things.
Raising eff from 65 to 85 isnt going to save much $$$ on a 5% beer.
All you want to know is what your system does and design your recipes around that.
DO NOT get bogged down with numbers - even if they are 105% eff <_<