Biab Process Inconsistency

[wombil]

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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?)

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]

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]

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)?

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]

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]

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)?




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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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: