Mash Efficiency

[cam89brewer]

The efficiency of my last brew ( Pale Ale) was only 70% and when I used beercalculus all the figures seem to add up but i thought 70% just seemed a little low....
It was a double decoction using
4.5kg pale malt
.5kg cara
.5 wheat

so am I worrying/fretting about nothing or can it be improved on a fair bit?

 

[argon]

FWIW 70% is reasonable efficiency. I wouldn't bust a nut trying to chase a few points which may or may not improve the quality of your beer.

Anyway, have a read here for a deep understanding of Mash Efficiency, with some strategies for improvement if so desired.

Braukaiser.com - Understanding Efficiency

 

[mckenry]

The efficiency of my last brew ( Pale Ale) was only 70% and when I used beercalculus all the figures seem to add up but i thought 70% just seemed a little low....
It was a double decoction using
4.5kg pale malt
.5kg cara
.5 wheat

so am I worrying/fretting about nothing or can it be improved on a fair bit?

Its not how big your number is, its how you use it!

70 is fine, as long as you consistently get 70. Really, to get to 80 or above is too much effort compared to adding a few hundred more grams of grain each brew , which is all it boils down to (pun intended)

 

[seemax]

can you afford the grain? if so, let it go
can it be improved? quite possibly

explore pH of your mash, water profiles, etc etc .. it's all been done before in many threads... google is your friend

 

[malt_shovel]

The efficiency of my last brew ( Pale Ale) was only 70% and when I used beercalculus all the figures seem to add up but i thought 70% just seemed a little low....
It was a double decoction using
4.5kg pale malt
.5kg cara
.5 wheat

so am I worrying/fretting about nothing or can it be improved on a fair bit?

I use 70% as my default effeciency. Not too worried about further improvement.

If i was to work our an improvement I would break the whole brewhouse efficiency into it's individual components. This includes starch conversion efficiency, lautering efficiency, system volumes etc.

There is a really good discussion on a brewers website which talks about it (kaiserbrau or something similar), but I need to search and find it for you.

To summarise, you should be getting almost 100% starch conversion (compared to the lab based numbers for extract potential) using modern highly modified malts. This is where the iodine test comes in. Also a SG measurment of your first runnings will also reveal how close you are to the lab extract potential. This is an easy check and no matter how good the proceeding steps are, if you aren't even converting the starch you will not be able to recover those points. The next easiest is to measure the SG of subsequent runnings (if you are sparging / rinsing). This will give you an idea of how well the extract is being recovered (call this the lauter efficiency), if you are recovering siginficant potential in 3rd and 4th sparges (if batch sparging), it suggests you could improve on your lautering process (may be causing channels etc). Keep a close track on your volumes and the system efficiency will give you areas to imrpove your dead volumes (ie leaving lots of extract behind during the first runnings of a single batch sparge in dead voume of your lauter vessel will give a fair hit to your overall efficiency).

Try to break it down into it's steps, work out where you are loosing points and make the necessary changes. Making wholesale changes without knowing where the extra points lie is a waste of time. May aswell take 70% and move on to the next brew.

Cheers
:beer:

 

[cam89brewer]

Yeh i suppose consistency is the key... the other reason i was asking and i forgot to mention this brew i used filtered water rather than straight tap water. is filtering necessary?

 

[mckenry]

Yeh i suppose consistency is the key... the other reason i was asking and i forgot to mention this brew i used filtered water rather than straight tap water. is filtering necessary?

Water chemistry - a whole new world.
In my system (yours will be different unless you live at my house) I use filtered water and put 5g CaCl2 in the mash and 10g gypsum in the boil (brew style dependant). Final volume 50L
So, I know this wont help much coz its way more complicated than that. Its just an example, because filtered water doesnt have some essential minerals that are good for yeast.
Your beer will still be good. Dont stress.

 

[going down a hill]

Water chemistry - a whole new world.
In my system (yours will be different unless you live at my house) I use filtered water and put 5g CaCl2 in the mash and 10g gypsum in the boil (brew style dependant). Final volume 50L
So, I know this wont help much coz its way more complicated than that. Its just an example, because filtered water doesnt have some essential minerals that are good for yeast.
Your beer will still be good. Dont stress.

I have been thinking about looking into water chemistry. Does it make a huge difference to the taste of the final product? Or does it just help the yeast eat the wort?

 

[cam89brewer]

I have been thinking about looking into water chemistry. Does it make a huge difference to the taste of the final product? Or does it just help the yeast eat the wort?

Water chemistry wont only effect yeast activity but i am guessing it would effect how enzymes grow and general starch conversion. but as said before i suppose no matter what your water chemistry is your beer will still taste good it just may taste different depending variables such as what type of water source you use (tap water, rain water , well water) so consistency still seems to be the key to having a reliably good beer IMO.

 

[Crusty]

The efficiency of my last brew ( Pale Ale) was only 70% and when I used beercalculus all the figures seem to add up but i thought 70% just seemed a little low....
It was a double decoction using
4.5kg pale malt
.5kg cara
.5 wheat

so am I worrying/fretting about nothing or can it be improved on a fair bit?

I think for a double decotion, 70% is on the low side. I set up my efficiency @80% in beer tools pro & consistently get higher than that, 84% for my last Pale Ale. As far as improving your process, hitting your temps is paramount & keeping them there is equally important. You also need to look at how precise you are with your grain crush. I take it you batch sparge? If you have the volume, split your sparges up into two equal amounts. I went from low 70% to mid 80% just by double batch sparging. It does make a difference if your are not doing a mash out & collecting your first runnings after your sacc rest. If you do a mash out, I would still look at double batch sparging.

 

[cam89brewer]

I mashed out for 10 mins and then sparged for another 10 mins but used a grain bag and when thinking about it now I may have been a little impatient and not totally drain the bag for very long but didn't think that would make a huge difference but maybe next time patience may be the key..

 

[argon]

Water chemistry wont only effect yeast activity but i am guessing it would effect how enzymes grow and general starch conversion.

erm... Enzymes don't grow.

but as said before i suppose no matter what your water chemistry is your beer will still taste good it just may taste different depending variables such as what type of water source you use (tap water, rain water , well water) so consistency still seems to be the key to having a reliably good beer IMO.

Not true... you can get some very ordinary results by not adjusting your water profile to suit your conditions and/or recipes. Extreme as it may sound, but consider brewing with seawater.... you'll get a horrible result. Less extreme... that is why Dublin water is good for dark beers and Pilzen water for Pale lagers.

Go back and read that article again... and also same site read here, here and also from Palmer.

 

[cam89brewer]

erm... Enzymes don't grow.



Not true... you can get some very ordinary results by not adjusting your water profile to suit your conditions and/or recipes. Extreme as it may sound, but consider brewing with seawater.... you'll get a horrible result. Less extreme... that is why Dublin water is good for dark beers and Pilzen water for Pale lagers.

Go back and read that article again... and also same site read here, here and also from Palmer.

Well my bad, enzymes don't grow but I am pretty certain that water conditions and ph directly effect enzymes when performing a protein rest.
And with the water conditions most tap water in Australia is more than adequate to produce a reasonable beer, i'm sure you could supplement the water for some minerals to increase mash efficiency or to help with fermentation but I am pretty sure it's not completely necessary.

As for sea water it pretty much has every mineral you could think of at some level and if retained in the wort I'm sure drinking a six pack of the stuff could be very bad for your health also the amount of beneficial bacteria in the ocean would surely cause an off taste.

 

[Janelle Kerr]

I have been researching this subject myself for my International Beers. The water profile is different in each country/continent. To replicate for example an English beer, the water over there is high in calcium so it needs calcium added. This is also good for malty beers, as it brings out the malty flavour. Hoppy beers use less calcium and more sulphates (etc), brings out the flavour and bitterness. This is of course a basic explanation.
Most water profile needs are included in the styles in the AABC BJCP Guidelines.

 

[manticle]

They all need some calcium. Sulphates and chloride are often added to affect flavour profile etc and are commonly added as calcium salts.

Personally I think best to use the salts you need to do the job and forget about replicating water profiles from various cities.

Get the pH right, adjust the flavour, make sure calcium levels are in the ballpark for good mashing and yeash health etc.

 

[sama]

They all need some calcium. Sulphates and chloride are often added to affect flavour profile etc and are commonly added as calcium salts.

Personally I think best to use the salts you need to do the job and forget about replicating water profiles from various cities.

Get the pH right, adjust the flavour, make sure calcium levels are in the ballpark for good mashing and yeash health etc.

i agree with this

 

[cam89brewer]

i agree with this

Same. Manticle always comes through with the straight forward and accurate conclusion doesn't he... and he has only made just over 10,000 posts. :lol:

:beerbang:

 

[felten]

This is a good guide to follow if you don't want to get too heavy on the chemistry. http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f128/brewing-w...-primer-198460/

It works well for melb water, or rain water, which is pretty soft in most cases.