Calculating Extract Efficiency

[Zwickel]

Or how about just getting the trial version of Promash and Beersmith and let the machine do the work.

howdy folks,

I see there are many ways to calculate efficiency. Basically it wouldnt matter how to calculate it, as far as you (or everyone) always do it the same way.
To be comparable with other brewers or breweries, we should use the same calculation, otherwise were talking a different language about different things.

Ive read in an American forum that teire way to calculate efficiency is, to determine the content of starch first and then say thats 100%. So depends on your ability to get out a certain amount of starch to be converted into sugar, you possibly can reach the 100%.
But thatfore youll need a labor analysis for each kind of grain. Thats not practical for us.

I got learned the way I discribed in my posts and all the german brewers do so. We say, just calculate the amount of sugar you get in relation to the weigt of material you have used. This way it doesnt matter what kind of material is used and no matter its wet or humid, that even can be potatoes.

So I dont want to push the way were calculating efficiency, Id just like to be comparable to others.

I often was wondering how you guys can get an efficiency far more than 80%, Ive never reached, now I know, its the way you calculate it.

Once again, I dont insist in using the formula Ive posted, but if were talking about efficiency, were talking about different things, were not comparable.
But this seems to be my own problem, Im the alien here :lol:

Cheers mates :icon_cheers:


btw. for those who are interested, here is a website you can see the same formula Ive posted. Go to the section/column "Sudhausausbeute". Sorry its only in German language, but you may be able to understand, its only a few words, just type in your datas:
http://fabier.de/biercalcs.html

 

[Stuster]

Ah, your numbers weren't big enough hey, Zwickel. :lol:

As you say, just different ways to do the same thing. Your way does lead to lower efficiency numbers, but the main thing is to know the standard number for your system so you can base your future recipes on that level of efficiency. There's no need for an analysis of the grains when using software instead of brains as the standard figures for those grains are in the program data or can be downloaded. There may some variation, but it's probably minor compared to the variation between batches in the standard homebrew setup (not necessarily your one though).

 

[Hopfenkopf]

Doesn't matter whether you use gravity or density as your measure, as long as you calculate the result in the same way each time.

 

[Zwickel]

Ah, your numbers weren't big enough hey, Zwickel. :lol:

yeah, I was always ashamed when Ive read your big numbers in efficiency, didnt want to post the number of my poor yield

I always have been thinking: must improve my brewing methode, must improve my brewing methode, must improve my brewing methode.....

Now Im relaxed, just have to take a course in brewing mathematics :lol:

Cheers mates :beer:

 

[MHB]

Ultimately the method you use isnt that important, so long as you are consistent.
Extract efficiency is not the be all and end all - that place is reserved for "Brewhouse Efficiency" - but is rather one of the pieces of information you need to refine your recipes and processes.

I for one have always been bemused by AHB'ers proclivity for posting efficiency numbers, without qualifying what they mean; like Zwickel said most breweries report 75-78% efficiency; that is brewhouse efficiency - how much goes into the fermenter / what could go in - in a perfect world.

Here is another link to Malt Specifications and what they mean and how to use them.

It would be nice if we (us AHB'ers) could develop a "Convention" or standardised way of reporting, or at least defining what we are referring to.
When someone says I got 73% efficiency - one is left to speculate on wether they had a moderately good Extract Efficiency or a stunningly good Brewhouse Efficiency.

Just posting "I got 72% EE would help; or 65% BE rather than the naked numbers.

Not much chance, too many bloody-minded individuals.
But we can hope - then we can work on getting rid of Pounds, Ounces, Gallons, SRM and the use of the words Color and Larger.

MHB

 

[Thirsty Boy]

A while ago there was a rather extensive post about trying to get people to standardise the way they talk about efficiency. For exactly the same reasons that you are talking about MHB.

There was a bit of to and fro about the fact that people like to use Brewhouse efficiency vs those who like to use Extract efficiency, each thought the others method was too hard/not relevant to them/only for use by fools.... The outcome was that we should probably just at least post what sort of efficiency we are talking about - exactly as you suggest. I believe that after the argument was over.... everyone forgot about it and just went back to exactly what they were doing before

There was though, a bit of confusion with the terms brewhouse / extract efficiency as well.. people using the same term to describe different things, which has happend in this thread already. I I took the whole thing to heart and and now when I refer to efficiency, I always explain what I mean, but try to avoid the terms extract and brewhouse, because not everyone is thinking the same thing when you say those words.

So I may refer to a recipe as being based on "75% into the boiler" which is wghat I would think of as extract efficiency. Whereas if I said "75% into the fermentor" that would be brewhouse efficiency. Really its just a bit of a clue so that other people can work out what the hell I am talking about.

Strangely enough, while Zwickel seems to be the only one in this discussion who is using the efficiency based on weight of grain thing... thats how I suspect a lot of people who "dont worry about efficiency" actually do worry about efficiency. They know that X kg of grain gives them Y points of gravity and how to calculate for increases or decreases... they just never converted the numbers into an efficiency figure.

I'm with you, I think that including an explanation would make everyones life a little easier... now all we have to do is convince the other 5000 posters to agree with us

Thirsty

 

[Sammus]

I agree. I don't care what kind of efficiency you talk about just so long as you say what it is! (even then its only to compare to my own haha)

The only one I dont like is the sugar/weight of grain efficiency - it doesnt make sense to me to label it an efficiency, since 100% can't possibly be attained - it should be theoretically plausible (but still not usually possible) to be 100% efficient.