Do You Scale Spec Malts Based On Efficiency?

[MarkBastard]

Hypothetical, say you were given a recipe for a beer and the recipe was based on an 80% brewhouse efficiency, but you only had a 65% brewhouse efficiency, would you only increase the amount of base malt or would you increase 'steeping' malts as well? ie crystals / chocs etc.

Would you increase them at the same ratio?

 

[zebba]

Assumming you get full conversion, then surely the spec malts should scale at the same rate as the base malts. If you don't get full conversion, then they would scale differently - but we all get full conversion, right h34r:

 

[MarkBastard]

Assumming you get full conversion, then surely the spec malts should scale at the same rate as the base malts. If you don't get full conversion, then they would scale differently - but we all get full conversion, right h34r:

Yeah I was thinking the spec malts should extract at a higher efficiency than the base malt because the mash is like a big efficient way to steep.

But that said, if the lack of brew house efficiency was due to grain absorption, not sparging, or kettle dead space etc then who is to say the spec malts and base malts didn't extract at the same rate?

 

[Aus_Rider_22]

Hypothetical, say you were given a recipe for a beer and the recipe was based on an 80% brewhouse efficiency, but you only had a 65% brewhouse efficiency, would you only increase the amount of base malt or would you increase 'steeping' malts as well? ie crystals / chocs etc.

Would you increase them at the same ratio?

If it were me I would scale both the base and spec malts.

Wouldn't the flavour profile change if you deviated from the original percentages? Not saying this is a bad thing but if you aiming to follow a recipe and achieve original profile then you are best to scale the recipe up or down for both types of grains.

I hope I understand your question correctly and am not waffling on in the wrong direction!

 

[Nick JD]

My guess would be to leave the spec malts the same because they are already converted and you'll get all the sugaz out of them regardless of your base malt's conversion.

But the answer probably lies in why you aren't getting as high an efficiency ... leaving sugaz behind in the sparge or leaving them behind in the grain unconverted.

 

[argon]

But that said, if the lack of brew house efficiency was due to grain absorption, not sparging, or kettle dead space etc then who is to say the spec malts and base malts didn't extract at the same rate?

I always just use the scale button in Beersmith based on equipment profile and it changes everything... but you're right... and i had never thought about it in any other way other than extraction efficiency... There are a number of other factors that would effect efficiency as you've outlined above... i'll be keeping track of this topic as you've now got me thinking.

 

[[email protected]]

To put it in practical terms, when the grain bill is given by a brewer it is usually given as a percentage of the grist. They generally have a much higher efficiency than the homebrewer.
So when you adjust for your own efficiencies you will tend scale all the malt bill to give you the right final gravity maintaining the same percentages.

A good example is the Can You Brew it episodes where they are compared as clones with an efficiency of 70% to the commercial example (probably in the high 80s).

Generally, the base malt is only scaled for a bigger beer or imperial version.

 

[MarkBastard]

The reason I'm even thinking about this is because it was something I always wondered when going from extracts to full grain.

When you actually steep grains you get a fairly set efficiency right? I mean they're already converted and you're only really extracting the sugars, not creating them.

So I had a recipe I used a fair bit in my extract days (Tony's JSAA clone) that called for 300g crystal and 30g chocolate steeped.

So naturally if you went full mash and bothered to steep your spec malts separately from your mash it goes without saying that you would use the exact same amount of spec malts, and would adjust the base malt to give you your desired SG or ABV taking into account your full mash brew house efficiency. You add back in your steeped wort into the boil and in theory things should be quite similar to the extract version.

But if you were to just add the spec malts to the mash itself, I guess you need to know your mash efficiency. But even then you have to wonder will your spec malts and base malts extract at a different efficiency in the same actual mash? As two different things are going on. So if you have an all base malt brew will you tend to get a lower efficiency than a brew high in spec malts?

I wouldn't have a clue to be honest, hence the thread. I realise it won't make a significant difference and it's fine tuning only, hence I held off making the thread for so long.

FWIW I did scale the ingredients, I now use 40g choc and 350g crystal, though I'm considering reducing that for the next batch.

 

[[email protected]]

As the speciality malts don't need conversion you are right in saying they have a set theoretical amount of sugars to extract. The base malts need to undergo conversion which is a function of pH, temperature, water to grist ratio etc.

The other element here is also how well the sparge can rinse the sugars from the grains. This is what will be the determination of your efficiency and will be independant of whether it is a speciality malt or not.

Hence the difference between BIAB, batch and fly sparge technique efficiencies.

This is why commercial breweries use fly sparge to get the highest efficiency and the best economics.

 

[Silo Ted]

Great question. I would look at this in extreme cases of something like chocolate malt.

When compensating for poor efficiency of your base grain mashing I don't know how good an idea it is to increase a much darker malt in the mix by 15% efficiency.

Let's look at it on a target of 1.049

65% Efficiency needs 5kg of base malt
80% Efficiency needs 4kg of base malt

For a 15% efficiency increase, this translates to a 25% increase in base malt. Or am I calculating this incorrectly?

If chocolate malt is increased by 25% in weight, that could be as much as 100g in a single recipe. not to mention other dark malt additions.

 

[MarkBastard]

If chocolate malt is increased by 25% in weight, that could be as much as 100g in a single recipe. not to mention other dark malt additions.

Yeah, and if the choc addition was to add some colour to an amber ale for example it may make it way too dark if you increase it by 25%.

 

[manticle]

If you are increasing the base malt but leaving the water volumes the same, I'd probably keep the spec malts at the same/similar level.

However what I think would be best is to look at the colour specs of the original, keep the proportions of the specs in relation to each other and adjust until the colour was similar. Flavour should hopefully be there too.

Or just brew once and adjust next time if you thought the flavour was too choc etc. Beer recipes are really a guide for anyone else because there are so many factors that differ on different systems and so many factors that differ in fermentation. Beer is not a souffle.

 

[Silo Ted]

Yeah, and if the choc addition was to add some colour to an amber ale for example it may make it way too dark if you increase it by 25%.

Well yea, that's my thoughts on it. The kilned grains, especially those recommended for steeping, are probably not going to suffer from your lower efficiency figures on the whole mash, and the resultant SG.

 

[zebba]

I hadn't considered the colour impact, only the sugar impact. I don't think sugar impact would be that great, unless you are getting poor conversion, as issues with your sparge and kettle losses would (I imagine) be pretty similar between spec malts and base malts. But colour is a whole other beast and I see your point.

 

[beerdrinkingbob]

That would explain the overpowering chocolate I have in my Three shades of Stout.....

Great work Mark, didn't even occur to me :super:

 

[Silo Ted]

I don't think sugar impact would be that great, unless you are getting poor conversion, as issues with your sparge and kettle losses would (I imagine) be pretty similar between spec malts and base malts. But colour is a whole other beast and I see your point.

But inst a lot of the sugar (in exaggerated inverted commas) conversion work already done in a lot of dark specs ? Don't know if an overall poor mash efficiency on the base malt being the bulk of the points, impacting on an already converted spec grain that is only recommended for steeping.

I hope one of the experts can give some feedback on this topic of Mark's . MHB or Thirstyboy? You blokes seem to have the technical know-how.

 

[zebba]

But inst a lot of the sugar (in exaggerated inverted commas) conversion work already done in a lot of dark specs ? Don't know if an overall poor mash efficiency on the base malt being the bulk of the points, impacting on an already converted spec grain that is only recommended for steeping.

That's my point - they're converted so the only thing that will impact them is extraction efficiency. But when we look at the base malts, we need to figure in the conversion efficiency AND the extraction efficiency.

 

[Nick JD]

My technical know-how says that both beers will be awesome; leave the anality to your sphincter's pucker.

Unless you are more interested in what a judge thinks than what you think - then YMMV, and probably will.

 

[manticle]

That's my point - they're converted so the only thing that will impact them is extraction efficiency. But when we look at the base malts, we need to figure in the conversion efficiency AND the extraction efficiency.

Which is a good point - efficiency refers to a number of things and the answer is probably dependednt on which part of your system is giving poor efficiency.

That brings me back to my main point - recipe = guide, you = brewer who knows their own system and expectations. You need to be adjustable like a shifter not tight like a spanner. Not every batch will be perfect but you can understand, tweak and brew again. You need flexibility, not rigidity to brew decent beer.

 

[Silo Ted]

My technical know-how says that both beers will be awesome; leave the anality to your sphincter's pucker.

Unless you are more interested in what a judge thinks than what you think - then YMMV, and probably will.

You have missed the point. a 25% weight addition of certain grains, done in line with your base malt efficiency recalculations, would potentially make a heck of difference.