What's The Best Way To Post Efficiency On Ahb?

[PistolPatch]

EDIT: AN ANSWER TO THE THREAD QUESTION (Based on the First Eighty Posts to this Thread)

The poll shows clearly that currently there is no standard way in which people post their, 'AHB Efficiency.'*

I began this thread because my efficiency into boiler figure is always about 10% higher than my, 'final efficiency.'* I never put much thought into this until now as I when I do measure I am fanatical. I thought at the time of posting, that everyone's 'efficiency,' dropped during the boil. Theoretically though, this shouldn't happen. But, a few people are getting similiar figures to myself including one professional brewer. Other people are finding that their efficiency into boiler and final efficiency do match. Other people don't know as they only take one efficiency measurement per brew.

So, at this stage, the answer as to the best way to post your efficiency on AHB depends on your figures.

*Final Efficiency or AHB Efficiency

One thing that the overwhelming majority of posters here agree on is that when measuring, 'Efficiency Into Fermenter,' losses to trub should be included in your calcs. So, in other words, if you end up with 23 litres in the fermenter and 2.6 litres in the kettle or in pipes etc, then you should regard your final volume as 25.6 litres. This figure does not have a name so let's call it our, 'Final Efficiency.' We could also call it our, 'AHB Efficiency.'

So...

If Your Efficiency Into Boiler Figure Equals Your Final Efficiency Figure

Obviously, if with your measurement regime, these two figures match, then you can post either figure as it will equal your 'AHB Efficiency.' Things are easy for you guys!

If Your Efficiency Into Boiler Figure is Higher than Your Final Efficiency Figure

Those of us who are finding their Efficiency Into Boiler figure is considerably higher than their Final Efficiency figure should, when posting publicly, use their final efficiency figure. If we do this then everyone's figures will be in agreement.

Why Isn't Everyone Getting the Same Figures?

At this stage we don't know. We have only a few figures to work from so far and so are currently trying to get more brewer's figures. If you are interested in this question or in contributing your efficiency figures then you should read this thread from Post #59 onwards. Post #59 contains a very pedantic template of how to measure your efficiencies written by you know who Unless you're adding something like 250g of hops, then you can forget the hop adjustments contained in that post. The figures you come up with will certainly be close enough.

Please also vote in the new poll we have going here

END OF EDIT. The original post is as follows...

First poll I have ever done so God knows if I have done it correctly. Would have liked to add two more questions though, 'To mash, do you BIAB, batch or fly-sparge?' and, 'Do you use BeerSmith or Promash,' to derive your figures?

Look, you all know I read a lot but, still, after all my reading I can't see anyone defining what, 'actual' efficiency figure they post.

Wouldn't it be a good idea if we established some standard 'AHB' measure of Efficiency? And, if there is one, wouldn't it be a good idea if, someone like myself who does read a lot, actually knew about it - lol!

Personally I think improving efficiency (unless you are way out of the ballpark) is a silly goal. Adding a half kilo of grain to the bill to hit your target is probably a more sensible way of achieving an efficiency to match a recipe. Plenty of more important brewing stuff to focus on for sure.

But, when a recipe says 75% efficiency, it's nice to know what that actually means. What does it mean? I certainly have no idea. Are they talking about Brewhouse Efficiency and if so, then how is that relevant to the person who doesn't have the same lauter tun or trub losses as the recipe formulator?

I'm probably missing something really obvious here but, certainly when trying to compare ways of mashing I'm not. (Thanks AndrewQLD for that totally informative post of about 6 months ago )

Anyway, I'm going to whack in a post below of what I brewed today and all the relevant measurements. I'll try and write it in a form that other people can easily copy and just change the figures. I'd certainly love it if a few people could do this as the detail will certainly educate us bewildered brewers :huh:

I'm hoping that this is either a really interesting topic to all or that I have missed something very basic. Either way, I'd be wrapped to be well-informed.

Happy Easter to you,
Pat

 

[PistolPatch]

Efficiency Figures for NRB's All Amarillo Ale

Grain Bill
4250g Pale Malt (I assume Joe White Traditional Ale but don't know for sure)
0850g Munich 1 (I assume Weyermann but have no idea about grains)
0500g Caraamber (I asume Weyermann)

This beer was BIABed, batched , fly-sparged

then boiled in a Robinox 70lt Kettle (45cm high x 45cm diameter)

The following figures have been inputted to or derived from Beersmith ProMash

Mash plus Sparge Water = 37lts
Mash Tun Volume = 70lts
Mash Tun Weight = 7.0kg
Lauter Tun Deadspace = Zero
Top Up Water for Kettle = Zero
Boil Time = 60min
Evaporation Rate = 28.3%
Loss to Boil Trub and Chiller = 2.60lts
Final Volume (Actual) = 23lts
Final Volume Into Fermenter = 23lts

Efficiency Into Boiler = 83.6% (33.49lts at 1.044)
Efficiency Into Fermenter = 67.8% (23lts@ 1.052)
Actual Efficiency with Above Settings = 67.8%

A few of the above figures are irrelevant to efficiency but I thought it safest and most informative to post them all. Why not!

Oh! And one final thing, that 23 litres above is of clear wort. So, finally, how do we distinguish between that and someone who will suck a kettle dry? (Ah! Just thought... Maybe by them posting the diameter of their kettle etc!)

Spot ya,
Pat

 

[Stuster]

Are they talking about Actual Efficiency and if so, then how is that relevant to the person who doesn't have the same lauter tun or trub losses as the recipe formulator?

Efficiency Into Boiler = 87.9% (35.25lts at 1.044)
Efficiency Into Fermenter = 67.8% (23lts@ 1.052)
Actual Efficiency with Above Settings = 67.8%

Oh! And one final thing, that 23 litres above is of clear wort. So, finally, how do we distinguish between that and someone who will suck a kettle dry? (Ah! Just thought... Maybe by them posting the diameter of their kettle etc!)

As you are suggesting, this is why it's best to quote your efficiency into boiler (also called mash efficiency). I think the efficiency into the fermenter is only relevant to your system and is no very useful to anybody else using a recipe of yours. If I want to use the recipe above on my system and you post your efficiency into the fermenter, I'd need to know how much you lose in your kettle as well. It would be good if we can all use that figure as you say and standardise things.

AFAIK, efficiency in Promash is efficiency into the boiler. Another reason to stick to that figure.

 

[bayWeiss]

I think most efficiency numbers are pre-boil (i.e extraction of sugars from mash). This is really all anybody would care about because all of the other gravities can be calculated from boil-off, etc. For example, Beertools uses only preboil efficiency.

I do not really agree that increasing efficiency is not important. It is true, that we are homebrewers, but I think it is important to know how/why the efficiency numbers go up (increasing) and down (decreasing). Ultimately this allows for repeatability, which is key.

For example, I was positive I had my efficiency pegged, and all of the grains that I used were milled on the same device. But, somehow the efficiency on my last batch dropped 10%, which threw my OG off significantly. It basically changed my beerstyle from weizenbock, to some kind of dunkelweizen/halfbock. :lol:

cheers!

 

[Ross]

Hi pat,

For starters - Set your "loss to boil trub & chiller" to zero & just up your final volume to compensate.
This has been discused many time before. Beersmith & i believe Promash both have the same problem if you fill in a loss figure - It throws out your efficiency & your bittering. Leaving wort behind in your kettle, should make no difference to the bitterness of the wort, but if you play around with that loss figure, you'll see it change dramatically. ALWAYS SET TO ZERO.

cheers Ross

 

[browndog]

What Ross said Pat.... Also, I note you are only loosing 1.75L to the mash, is that one of the features of BIAB? the normal figure is about 1L/kg of grain.

cheers

Browndog

 

[NRB]

Hi pat,

For starters - Set your "loss to boil trub & chiller" to zero & just up your final volume to compensate.
This has been discused many time before. Beersmith & i believe Promash both have the same problem if you fill in a loss figure - It throws out your efficiency & your bittering. Leaving wort behind in your kettle, should make no difference to the bitterness of the wort, but if you play around with that loss figure, you'll see it change dramatically. ALWAYS SET TO ZERO.

Interesting, I never knew that. I've just played around with my water needed calculator, is that where I change it all? I've attached a screen grab of my new settings... let me know.

I always took brewhouse efficiency to mean how much sugar I extracted from the grain that made it to fermenter; into the boil would be a better standardised figure to go by.

 

[domonsura]

Again, what Ross said, set all the loss to zero. I was very confused by the whole efficiency thing for quite a while, as I didn't seem to be able to achieve a consistent efficiency, and it seemed to me that all the little bits in Promash opened the way for far to many 'estimates' of what losses were. So I ended up just ignoring all that and setting it to zero (which these days is accurate for my mashtun anyway with the outlet in the floor)
I would think that the best place to peg efficiency is into the boiler, because that's the first stage after what you are trying to measure - which is how much sugar you have managed to wash out of the grain after all. (IMHO anyway, I'm no expert...)
Now I just try and iron things out by gradually trying to get everything else consistent which is why I scored a new mill which will get my crush consistent instead of the all over the place crush I was getting with my marga.
Overall, I my opinion is that unless you can nail your grain weights, your crush, water composition and your mash temp/sparge process etc down to exactly the same every time, (while it is important to achieve enough efficiency to get the beer you wanted), the exact[/] consistency % is a fairly arbitrary figure anyway in the sense that it is subject to so many variables. Having said that though, the refining of the techniques that this site and all the communication induces and the technology that is now available to us for our processes, we should be able to achieve pretty consistent results.....have I managed to stretch myself to both sides of the fence? Not sure,....

The water needed one still throws me out sometimes, but I'm still playing with/learning about that one.

 

[PistolPatch]

Thanks for all the info so far guys. Only a small part of the above has been discussed before (such as software settings) that I am aware of. I am certainly not aware of an accepted efficiency figure to post on AHB and the poll results reflect this uncertainty. Agreeing on a figure should be of value.

On my way out Browndog but I have last nights mash remains in a plastic bag and I'll weigh it later to see exactly what the mash loss is as a matter of interest.

One other thing...

Is everyone reducing their volume into boiler by 5% to allow for wort expansion?

Spot ya,
Pat

 

[Trent]

Pat
I usually just base my efficiency on what I have in the kettle postboil. I have 2.5L deadspace in the bottom of my kettle, so if I get 23L into my fermenter, I base my efficiency on 25.5L at whatever my postboil gravity happens to be. I only lose about 4L an hour during the boil, and it seems that I only lose about 800mL water per kilo of grain (I am one of them people that measures every mL that goes in, so I know what I am gonna get out!). I dont use any computer programs, I just do all my workings out on paper.

BayWiess
I, too, fairly well have my system pegged, I base the majority of my recipes at 75% efficiency, but notice that when I am making a bigger beer (which I am pretty sure a weizenbock is) I need to calculate my grain on a 65% efficiency and usually hit my target bang on. If I am heading north of 1.100 I will probably calculate on a 60% efficiency. It almost ALWAYS drops in efficiency when you are doing a big beer. Not sure if it is due to less water per kilo of grain used to rinse, or the higher gravity makes it thicker, and hence less easy to rinse the sugars, or some other strange chemical reaction. I would say that next time you plan on doing a beer over 1070 or so, drop your efficiency calculations by 5-10%, and you will find you will be alot closer to your intended target than if you just assume you will always get the same efficiency no matter what. BTW, my efficiency goes up into the mid-high 80's when I do a double batch of beer, which could be due to double the amount of water (and grain) for the same amount of mashtun deadspace. IMO, efficiency isnt always a fixed thing, depending on the kind of beer you are brewing, but should be relatively constant if you are brewing the same (or similar) beer alot.
All the best
Trent

 

[lucas]

are pre-boil and post-boil efficiencies actually different? I thought efficiency was the measure of sugars extracted compared to total possible sugars from the grain, which would be the same both before and after the boil. evaporation would have no effect on that extraction figure, only the concentration of the wort.

on the topic of whether we should bother trying to improve our efficiency, I'd say no as long as you can consistently get the same %.

 

[Stuster]

are pre-boil and post-boil efficiencies actually different? I thought efficiency was the measure of sugars extracted compared to total possible sugars from the grain, which would be the same both before and after the boil. evaporation would have no effect on that extraction figure, only the concentration of the wort.

on the topic of whether we should bother trying to improve our efficiency, I'd say no as long as you can consistently get the same %.

Agreed. There is no way that the efficiency can change pre- to post-boil (other than measurement error).

Increasing efficiency can be a good thing. If you are getting only 50%, there may be something about your temperature control or water chemistry that is not giving you good conversion or perhaps you have too much dead space in your mash tun. And while it's not the most important thing to focus on, saving a few dollars by getting your system set up well is not a bad thing, is it?

 

[PistolPatch]

On the improving efficiency bit I should have said that I meant if you are within 5% or so of the norm, I don't think it's worth a beginner worrying about it a hell of a lot.

Also, I have edited Post #2 as I forgot to allow for wort shrinkage last night. So Efficiency into Boiler is 83.6%.

Now I'm Totally Confused!

I would have thought, like you guys that pre and post-boil efficiency would be identical but it's not coming up that way.

If I change my Volume Into Fermenter to 25.6 lts (23 lts + 2.6lts loss to trub and chiller), my Efficiency Into Fermenter shows as 75.5% whereas it should match the 83.6% above. Why doesn't it????

I'm not even going to go into what the Actual Efficiency Based on Target Volume figure does.

Grrrrrrr.

It is also making no difference to my 'Efficiency Into Fermenter' figure when I change 'Losses to Trub and Chiller to Zero' so this must only affect the sparge water calculations. Right?

So, What's the Best Answer to the Thread Title?

I sort of thought this question had been answered above but now I'm not confident.

Besides the new questions I have just asked, if you look at this poll, half do it one way and the other half do it another This shows that further discussion resulting in a brief and clear description of how to post your efficiency on AHB should be of real value to many.

I'm going to lunch while you guys come up with this definitive answer. Hurry up!


Pat

 

[razz]

I'm not trying to be a smart arse Pat, but couldn't those who are interested simply mash a given volume of grain, sparged and cooled to give a "benchmark" for their systems/mills ? :blink:

 

[Stuster]

How are you measuring the volume into the kettle? Are you correcting for temperature? (I am very impressed that you can measure the pre-boil volume down to 2 decimal places. :lol: ) How do you measure your losses to trub so exactly as well?

 

[MHB]

Now I get it, I have often wondered (well, been incredulous) about some of the "reported" efficiency figures.

To my mind the only number that matters is cast wort (brewhouse) efficiency, not saying you dont need the other figures on the way.

But ultimately - how much wort you get is what counts.
For a home brewer a brewhouse efficiency of 70% is pretty good. Using the brewhouse yield you can work backward to tell you what you need to put in to get a given amount of wort.

MHB

 

[oldbugman]

yeah, really all you care about it you a X amount(litres) of Y Gravity from Z grains.

 

[PistolPatch]

How are you measuring the volume into the kettle? Are you correcting for temperature? (I am very impressed that you can measure the pre-boil volume down to 2 decimal places. :lol: ) How do you measure your losses to trub so exactly as well?

Ha! Of course the decimal places do not reflect the accuracy of measurement - they just multiply out that way. Here's what I do...

Measure depth of wort in centimetres at beginning of boil and divide this by 0.61 (as every 0.61cm = 1 litre). I then multiply this by 0.95 to allow for wort expansion. (I also momentarily turn the flame off to try and get a more accurate ruler reading.)

My losses to trub are measured by emptying whatever remains in the kettle into a 3 litre brewing jug. That's where the 2.6 lts comes from. (The 2.6lts does not include the hop debris removed with the hop sock.)

Thanks for all your answers above too mate

Razz: Not sure if your idea is good or not. I'm confused enough as it is - lol

MHB: Glad to see I'm not the only one!

Bugwan: The reason for trying to find a standard here is so that when people post a recipe, it can be translated correctly to your own system. If you make your own recipes up then it doesn't really matter which efficiency figure you prefer. In this case, it's just as MHB says, what counts is how much wort you get in the end and at what gravity.

Browndog: Just weighed the mash from last night on some bathroom scales and got 3 different readings varying from 5 to 7.1 kgs depending on how I placed it on the scales. But, in answer to your query, from this and past brews, it does seem that BIAB retains less water. I never realised until now that this is the reason why BIAB gives a higher efficiency than the batching I used to do. For example, if it retained another 3 litres, this would drop the efficiency into boiler by 10%. Thanks mate - a long-time question answered!

 

[TidalPete]

Browndog: Just weighed the mash from last night on some bathroom scales and got 3 different readings varying from 5 to 7.1 kgs depending on how I placed it on the scales.

Pat,

I have read this thread with much interest & recommend to you to ditch the bathroom scales for something more accurate.
Screwtop & myself got our hanging fish scales (To 50kg) on eBay for around $30. Do it mate as it will help you iron out your efficiency problems.

:beer:

 

[poppa joe]

WOW.....
NOW i am confused///
PJ