Efficiency Post 2679

[Maxt]

Hi all, I have recently moved to the country and am having some brewing hassles.
I am using the same gear as before, (having done years of AG, getting very predictable results over many many beers), but my efficiency has dropped from 70-75% down to 55-60%.

Same crush (if anything on the fine side). Fresh grain from Craftbrewer
Same mash tun.
Same Beerbelly false bottom
Sparge..fly sparge, run off at 30L/30mins
Same thermometer (checked against 2 others, and within 1 degree)
and hydrometer (checked against another hydrometer)

Only difference is now I use tank water, which is obviously very soft.

I have been adding cal sulphate to mashes.

Checked mash ph......5.3

Today's beer I tried to eliminate one variable, so instead of fly sparging, I batch sparged (to see if channeling was a factor). No change. Still ver low eff.

Here are the stats for last 4 beers
Pre boil:
APA Predicted O.G 1.050 got 1.033 56% eff
Robust porter O.G 1.053 1.043 60%
APA O.G 1.050 1.028 50%
APA O.G 1.042 1.045 73%
WHEAT O.G 1.050 1.040 56%

Some of the beers the volume into kettle varied, and that's why for example the wheat and first APA are both 56%

So...I think I can eliminate:

Crush...very fine, fresh grain, and used a variety of types
mash ph
mash tun and false bottom
Sparge techniques
Thermometer
Hydrometer

This only leaves the water. What do you think?

 

[Barry]

I know this is obvious but have you checked your scales, this caused me some problems a few years back.

 

[reviled]

I know this is obvious but have you checked your scales, this caused me some problems a few years back.

+1, I thought once I got 93% efficiency untill I realised my scales were shot..

 

[Screwtop]

Hi all, I have recently moved to the country and am having some brewing hassles.
I am using the same gear as before, (having done years of AG, getting very predictable results over many many beers), but my efficiency has dropped from 70-75% down to 55-60%.

Same crush (if anything on the fine side). Fresh grain from Craftbrewer
Same mash tun.
Same Beerbelly false bottom
Sparge..fly sparge, run off at 30L/30mins
Same thermometer (checked against 2 others, and within 1 degree)
and hydrometer (checked against another hydrometer)

Only difference is now I use tank water, which is obviously very soft.

I have been adding cal sulphate to mashes.

Checked mash ph......5.3

Today's beer I tried to eliminate one variable, so instead of fly sparging, I batch sparged (to see if channeling was a factor). No change. Still ver low eff.

Here are the stats for last 4 beers
Pre boil:
APA Predicted O.G 1.050 got 1.033 56% eff
Robust porter O.G 1.053 1.043 60%
APA O.G 1.050 1.028 50%
APA O.G 1.042 1.045 73%
WHEAT O.G 1.050 1.040 56%

Some of the beers the volume into kettle varied, and that's why for example the wheat and first APA are both 56%

So...I think I can eliminate:

Crush...very fine, fresh grain, and used a variety of types
mash ph
mash tun and false bottom
Sparge techniques
Thermometer
Hydrometer

This only leaves the water. What do you think?

Maxt

Sorry for asking OT, but which Federal (your location)? 2480 or 4568

Screwy

 

[Adamt]

Apart from ensuring you dough in whilst facing Jupiter and drain your sparge in the direction of Uranus, there are a couple things I can think of:

- Check your plumbing where your false bottom connects to your valve, and how the FB sits on the floor of your mash tun.
- Be careful not to knock the FB in the mash to let grain underneath.
- Are you mashing out?
- What is the gravity of your final runnings?

That's all I can think of at the moment on a morning after a Friday night out.

 

[Maxt]

"I know this is obvious but have you checked your scales,"

No, good point, but from years of doing this, I know how much 5kg looks like in my grain hopper, so I dont think it's that, but I will check.

"Sorry for asking OT, but which Federal (your location)? 2480 or 4568"
Ex Canberra, now 2480, Byron hinterland

" Check your plumbing where your false bottom connects to your valve, and how the FB sits on the floor of your mash tun.
- Be careful not to knock the FB in the mash to let grain underneath.
My esky does have a slight concave-ness to it, and I had a few stuck sparges lately (first time), after using this FB for nearly 2 years. but I have put a plastic breadboard under it and it is sealing better.
Could you explain more how the valve connection and grain underneath could affect efficiency by so much?

- Are you mashing out?
I don't mash out. Used to, but not since I started fly sparging.

- What is the gravity of your final runnings?"
mmm haven't cheked.

 

[Screwtop]

After sparging is your grainbed covered with mud (fine grist paste)? I fly sparge and find that effeciency drops if I stir too much. This lifts the flour/very fine grist into suspension, this then settles on top of the grainbed and inhibits the flow of sparge water through the grist. Draining occurs mostly at the sides and is evident looking into the tun after draining, as the grainbed is covered with this muck but there is a gap around the outside between the grainbed and wall of the tun where the sparge water has drained. Just a point, as I have found this occurs more with some malts than others, possibly due to the dryness of the grain and the tendency to produce more flour if the malt is very dry.

From experience with my system I've found that very little stirring is the answer, bringing effeciency back to normal.

Screwy

 

[Bribie G]

If it's the water maybe try that 5.2 pH stabilizer, "turbo charge your mash"...

 

[Adamt]

My esky does have a slight concave-ness to it, and I had a few stuck sparges lately (first time), after using this FB for nearly 2 years. but I have put a plastic breadboard under it and it is sealing better.
Could you explain more how the valve connection and grain underneath could affect efficiency by so much?

Basically it's channelling, allowing the wort to bypass all/some of the grain bed.

- What is the gravity of your final runnings?"
mmm haven't cheked.

Your final runnings for a standardish beer should be around 1.008-1.010 or below. Anything much different than that can indicate problems with conversion, channelling or the crush.

 

[Thirsty Boy]

maybe take a bit of your spent grain after you mash - then put it in a flask and boil it decoction style with lots of stirrring.

Do a starch test on the results - it will almost certainly be positive - but if its violently positive, then you are maybe looking at a conversion problem rather than a lautering problem.

For me that would indicate a water chemistry problem, especially if your process hasn't changed, but your water has. Probably lack of calcium.... but you say you are adding calcium sulphate, so I'm out of ideas

 

[newguy]

It has to be a water chemistry issue. When I first started brewing, the city where I lived had horrible water - pH of 8.9 and quite hard. I discovered that a 50/50 mix of tap and RO water dramatically improved the flavour of that batch of beer so for some stupid reason I thought that 100% RO water would really make it taste good. Not. Not only did the batch made with 100% RO water taste really bad, but I had really horrible efficiency for that batch too. Normally I'd get 70% back then but that batch was way worse.

Most HBS around here carry Burton water salts - if you can find something similar, try adding some to your water. Not sure how much you'll need to add - someone else will have to chime in.

 

[Maxt]

I know that channelling is not an issue, as I did the batch sparge test today, with the same results.

The only thing that has changed with my brewing is the water I am using.

I don't think it's lautering, I think it's conversion, and water chemistry. I just wanted to throw it out there in case someone had had a similar experience with tank water.

As the mash ph is fine I think it has to be salts.

I suppose my next experiment will be to do 5 trial mini mashes.
One with normal un-adulterated water.
One with just calc sulphate
One with salts (epsom)
One with salts and calcium.

I'll try and give it a go and report back .

 

[Jye]

"Sorry for asking OT, but which Federal (your location)? 2480 or 4568"
Ex Canberra, now 2480, Byron hinterland

I have in-laws in Federal (well Eureka actually) and there is not a lot to do but drink beer

How much calcium sulphate are you adding and to what volume of water? plus are you adding it to all of your brewing water or just the mash water? Just wanting to know if youre getting up to the minimum 50 ppm for mashing.

 

[jjeffrey]

You've assumed the malt is not the issue because it's bought and used immediately.

Are you sure the grain source the same as your previous grain source? Is it stored the same way? Is it the same age?

Your calculated efficiency is based on the available extract in the grain, which is an assumed figure (unless you are testing it yourself each time). The reality is that the available extract will change with time, mainly because the grain is hygroscopic and will absorb moisture with time. This in turn will drop your efficiency. It can swing your efficiency by up to 20%.

There are many pathways for this to happen. For example, if your supplier is getting rid of a back-log of older grain, or your supplier's supplier is using a new mode of transport, or if there's been a few wet or muggy days, or your suppliers grain storage vessels have changed (to name a few). Don't assume, either, that your brew shop is still buying from the same supplier- it may not even be the same malt. Perhaps ask the question- I'd be asking for malt specs.

 

[Maxt]

I add about 6gms of Calcium, to the mash water. (John Palmer suggests that 1g of CaSO4*2H2O / Gypsum adds 61.5ppm of Calcium and 147.4ppm of Sulphate to 1 Gallon of water. 23L =approx 6 gallons.

JJ very good point about the malt. I have changed base malt supplier, but surely I wouldn't be the only one to notice 56% efficiency,.... but well worth investigating.

 

[Maxt]

Experiment one finished.
Mashed at 66l a small amount of grain. l:g ratio was 20gms to 1 cup of water.

Control water: 1.009
Calcium Sulphate 1.011
Calcium Chloride 1.011

So there's improvement using calcium, but we already knew that, and I am using it at Palmers recommended rate when I brew anyway.

So stiull number one candidates are water and possibly malt.

Worse comes to worse I just plug 55% into Beersmith as the target efficiency,and wait until I get a new bag of base grain and see what happens.

 

[newguy]

JJeffrey,

I've switched malt suppliers more times than I can count. I've used fresh stuff (still warm direct from the maltster), not so fresh but still relatively young stuff, and really old stuff (3+ years in my possession, who knows how old it was when I bought it). I've never had efficiency swings of more than a percent or two and I've been AG brewing for almost 13 years now. The only major issue I've ever had after I switched supplier was a problem with stuck fermentations. Not sure what that malt was lacking, but yeast nutrient added to the boil fixed the issue.

If this is a base malt issue, that has to be really screwed up malt. I'm not saying it's not possible, but that malt had to have been treated very poorly for it to be 100% responsible.

Just my $.02.

 

[jjeffrey]

I have changed base malt supplier, but surely I wouldn't be the only one to notice 56% efficiency,.... but well worth investigating.

I know of 4 other people that are currently experiencing similar problems because of big weather (floods in QLD and hot hot weather in the southern states), which has effected their grain quality. Containers from WA and VIC filled with grain can get very sweaty if there's a little bit of water inside.

Graham Sanders has also recently covered this issue- "look up the archives". I think it's either this one Craft Brewer Radio Feb #2 or this one Craft Brewer Radio March #1

Also, just remember, efficiency is relative- it is a calculation done based on the extract available in the malt. If you are using the wrong figure for available extract (say you've switch malt suppliers and their kilning process gives a different available extract), it may be that you are just calculating the efficiency to be lower than it actually is. For example, if the available malt extract yield changes from 85% to 75% (the typical range for pale malt, available from a variety of malting houses), it will look like your efficiency has dropped by 10% for a given grain bill- without even considering changes in malt quality.

I really suggest having a look at some malt specs from the supplier. My view is, efficiency calculations are really irrelevant unless you KNOW what the available extract is.

 

[Maxt]

Just wanted to tidy up this post.

Continued to get 50% effic, did numerous tests and the upshot is that it's the tank water.

Even though the pH is bang on, I added salts and calcium, the water chemistry is still out.
Brought in 40L of town water and back to 73% efficiency.

Lesson: If you move to a place with tank water and experience efficiency problems, look at your water.

 

[altone]

Just wanted to tidy up this post.

Continued to get 50% effic, did numerous tests and the upshot is that it's the tank water.

Even though the pH is bang on, I added salts and calcium, the water chemistry is still out.
Brought in 40L of town water and back to 73% efficiency.

Lesson: If you move to a place with tank water and experience efficiency problems, look at your water.

That's a huge difference, would be interesting to find out what the culprit in the water is.

I was planning to set up a brew system at a mates farm, but he's on tank water.
Better make sure I bring my own water with me.