Interesting re: measuring via weight. I’m thinking that’s probably my best bet, although I guess then I’d have to check the accuracy of my scale…anyone know how reliable weight lifting weights are?
Also, how do you mark your dip stick? Probably seems like an odd question, but I tried to do that this weekend, and because I can’t view it horizontally it was hard to know exactly where the top of the water was in relation to the stick.
You can buy calibration weights
http://www.americanweigh.com/product_info.php?cPath=113&products_id=157
for scales, I wouldn’t rely on the plates used for weightlifting unless they provide a tolerance. They can also be checked against a graduated cylinder. Heck, even if you check it against your measuring cup, you’ll still be more consistent with the digital readout. I’ve got 3 scales and they all measured to within 1g on my 500g calibration weight, so I think they are in general pretty good when new.
For marking the dip stick, I used a copper tube, placed it in the water, then withdrew and marked with a sharpie to the waterline. The tube was then dried and the process repeated. You can also put a rubber band around the tube and pull it down to the water, withdrawing to mark it. I went back later and make a scratch or dremel cut for a more permanent mark.
EDIT: I just read the first page and then posted this. I haven’t read the 6 pages. If someone else said this stuff (likely) disregard.
More cheers! :cheers:
With all your fussing on ph and brewing salts you should not be in the mid 60s on efficiency. Have you had your water tested? Why are you adding gypsum and CaCl?
I hate to ask these questions but here goes:
When you take your pre-boil reading, do you stir up the wort (stratification)? Your efficiency is based on pre-boil reading?
You are adjusting the gravity reading for temperature?
Are you boiling longer to deal with this problem? Or adjusting your recipes with more grain?
It seems like you should be getting better efficiency, that is why I ask these things.
:cheers:
Edawg
…continued investigations…
Brew Day Log:
Northern Brewer’s Chinook IPA AG recipe, except using the following grains & amounts:
11.0 lb breiss 2-row, 3.5L
1.0 lb briess carapils, 1.5L
0.5 lb briess crystal 120, 120L
Mixed water: 6 gal RO water + 2.55 gal house water.
House water (unaltered): Ca 71ppm, Mg 30ppm, Na 10ppm, Cl 18ppm, Bicarb 329ppm
Added ~1/3 of a campden tab the evening prior, to only the 2.55 gal of house water, for possible chloramines
NO OTHER CHEMICALS (E.G. GYPSUM, ETC.) ADDED
Mash-in @ 152F Target ==> added 4.7 gal of 173F mixed water to cold tun, added grains & stirred in 3 additions to ensure good mixing. Stirred vigorously for another 1-2 minutes. Temperature (via thermapen) was 152F. Used a thief to sample from the (approximate) middle of the mash for a pH sample. pH meter was calibrated via 2-point method this morning.
pH ==> 5.63 (ATC, 77.4F sample temp).
Sampled after 50 minutes elapsed in mash:
(Stirred for about 1 minute, to mix & re-suspend, prior to sampling)
Temp ==> 148.3F, after stirring (151 before).
pH ==> 5.47 (ATC, 60.4F sample temp)
Sampled @ 90 minutes (end of mash):
(Stirred for ~1min prior to sampling)
Temp ==> 144F
pH ==> 5.45 (ATC, 62.5F sample temp)
gravity ==> 17.2 brix (1.069 sg) @ 62.5F sample temp
Added ~0.3 gal 205F sparge water, stirred, vorlaufed, drained:
collected volume ==> ~3.5 gal @ 140F
gravity ==> 16.0 brix (1.064 sg) @ 57F sample temp
Added ~3.3 gal 200F sparge water, stirred, waited 10 minutes (total temp raised to ~170F)
Sampled for gravity ==> 6.0 brix (1.023 sg) @ 61.5F sample temp
…and then drained:
collected volume ==> 7.0 gal @ 144F
gravity ==> 11.7 brix (1.046 sg) @ 66F sample temp
Post 60-minute boil:
volume ==> 6.1 gal in kettle @ 68F; siphoned ~5.6 gal into fermenter
gravity ==> 13.3 brix (1.053 sg)
Extra data:
Added ~2 gal to spent grains (hot tap water temp), stirred.
volume ==> ~1.7 gal drained
gravity ==> 4.8 brix (1.018 sg)
From what I can see, I’m still getting a damned consistent 69% efficiency. I’d appreciate any insights anyone can provide.
Well, if its consistent then you could do a lot worse. I think I would just assume 69% efficiency and brew on.
:cheers:
[quote=“edawgwv”]Well, if its consistent then you could do a lot worse. I think I would just assume 69% efficiency and brew on.
:cheers: [/quote]
I take it that you had no other thoughts? I’d still like to find out how to get better efficiency–I think always striving to improve your brewing “game” is a laudable goal–but I’m sadly approaching resignation with my poor efficiency (hence the extra grain built into this recipe).
I don’t see anything that really stands out as a problem with your process - seems to me that only possibility is the crush. If it’s any consolation, when I run your recipe through my spreadsheet, assuming 36 points for the 2-row and 33 for the crystal, I get 71% efficiency.
Thanks for all your help, Shadetree. I’m going to crank it down to 0.025" for my next beer and see what happens…
You’re losing a lot of heat, which isn’t helping any. If your 152°F mash is measuring 148°F at 50’, then it probably wasn’t at 152°F for long. 148-150°F is a good choice for fermentability, but it is not ideal for starch gelatinization.
Instead of essentially mashing at 148°F for 90 minutes and adding a token volume balancing addition at 90’, you would be better off mashing thicker for 40’, then infusing enough to get the temperature up over 158°F for 20’.
Also, you might benefit from not worrying so much about balancing the volumes of the 2 runnings and just mashing thinner to improve conversion, up near 2 qt/#, and sparging with what is left. After all, you could probably hit your current efficiency without sparging at all, if you had 100% conversion.
I agree with Shadetree (seems like I’ve been doing a lot of that recently), the process seems fine and all the numbers are consistent. The only things I can think of is the crush is too coarse or one of your measuring devices is off.
I know this has been asked before, but double check the accuracy of your refractometer (very easy to do by comparing the gravity post-boil using it and a hydrometer. You should also check to see if your volume measurements are accurate by using a graduated cylinder to create a larger reference volume, then see if your dip stick or whatever it is you use to measure kettle volume is marked correctly.
[quote=“rebuiltcellars”]I agree with Shadetree (seems like I’ve been doing a lot of that recently), the process seems fine and all the numbers are consistent. The only things I can think of is the crush is too coarse or one of your measuring devices is off.
I know this has been asked before, but double check the accuracy of your refractometer (very easy to do by comparing the gravity post-boil using it and a hydrometer. You should also check to see if your volume measurements are accurate by using a graduated cylinder to create a larger reference volume, then see if your dip stick or whatever it is you use to measure kettle volume is marked correctly.[/quote]
I just checked my refractometer ==> 20g table sugar in a total 100g solution of water: 19.8 brix, which considering the accuracy of my scale, is probably enough to suggest that my refractometer is about as accurate as it will be. I already calibrated it to 0.000 on RO water.
My measurements are also fairly accurate for my volume, but I suppose I could laboriously check them (not tonight, though). The Blichmann kettle’s sightglass has been accurate given the gallon jugs I fill with RO. It seems to be close enough.
I’m also wondering what affect the geometry of my manifold may have on mash conversion (or the presence of copper?) and/or lautering efficiencies. I can supply a picture (see attached).
[attachment=0]20120212_130049.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=1]20120212_130019.jpg[/attachment]
With batch-sparging, the manifold doesn’t matter - as long as it holds the grain back and allows the wort through, it’s doing its job.
[quote=“Silentknyght”]
gravity ==> 16.0 brix (1.064 sg) @ 57F sample temp[/b][/quote]
At 1.6 qt/# (5 gallons into 12.5#), the first runnings should be ~1.075 (see Kai
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Troubleshooting_Brewhouse_Efficiency#Determining_Conversion_Efficiency
). That means you are getting 100 x 64/75= 85% conversion.
Since a good batch sparge system should get you just over 85% lauter efficiency from 12.5# of grain, the best you will get is 0.85 x 85% = 72% mash efficiency. Pretty close to your 69%.
Changing your lauter efficiency can’t get you more than a few points higher efficiency, so you can mostly ignore factors like manifold design. This shows that your problem is with conversion, so you should focus on things that will improve your conversion, like crush and temperature.
Dude, orange cooler, that’s the problem! :mrgreen:
+1 to Slothrob and Shade, everything else about your process looks tip top, it’s crush and/or mashout. I can’t remember what your mill gap is, but I know you can get full conversion with a gap of .025". You may want to try conditioning the malt, or have rice hulls on standby, until you know what that fine of a crush does to your lautering system. Just this change will get you most of the way there, all your other mashing parameters are fine.
Also note that even with a sufficiently tight mill gap, you may find situations where you cannot get full conversion without mashing out. As the mash temp gets below the gelatinization temp of barley starch, it is unavailable for conversion no matter how long you mash. Either pull a decoction or add some hot water as Slothrob suggests to get the mash temp to 158+, and let it sit there at least 10 min, if it’s an issue for you as it was me. Measure the mash gravity before and after mashout to see if it makes a difference. Out of roughly 10 batches where I measured this, 7 or 8 of them saw a higher post-mashout gravity (avg 1-2°P), so I just mashout for everything now.
I’ve never heard of copper being a problem for mashing, and I (again) agree with Shadetree, manifold geometry doesn’t matter for batch sparging. It is very important for fly sparging.
I agree with Nyakavt! 
[quote=“Slothrob”]
Since a good batch sparge system should get you just over 85% lauter efficiency from 12.5# of grain, the best you will get is 0.85 x 85% = 72% mash efficiency. Pretty close to your 69%.[/quote]
I just wanted to clarify that 72% is the best you could get with 85% lauter efficiency of your 85% conversion. At 100% conversion, you could get 85% mash efficiency.
By my calculations, in a batch sparge, I usually get more like 90-92% conversion efficiency. What’s reasonable?
I’ve kept up with this thread. It’s pretty interesting how many different ways there are to approach this method of brewing. I think it’s more about getting used to a process that works for you and work on repeatability. I don’t care about efficiency as long as its predictable. For me, that’s been, more often than not, right at 70%. Every time I have ever changed something, it took a batch or two to get dialed back in. But as long as I know what to expect, things work out well, beer is made, and I don’t worry about a few bucks here and there because my efficiency isn’t through the roof.
Things improved a lot from a consistency standpoint when I just settled on a strike volume and an equal sparge volume and forgot about grist to water ratio.
My Barley Crusher has be set on the standard setting from the get go. Used to use a 72 Qt Coleman Cooler with a Bazooka tube. Recently switched to a 20 gallon kettle with a false bottom. Still getting it dialed in, but if anything, my efficiency jumped a few points, probably from doing a 20 minute recirculation instead of a manual vaurlauf into a pitcher for a few quarts.
Fermentation temperature control and building yeast with a starter seems to always make the biggest difference.
I always shoot for at least 90% conversion, but I have done no work to compare the quality of the beer if there is more or less unconverted starch. By switching to a step mash with an alpha amylase rest above 158°F before taking the first runnings, I now routinely get ~100% conversion.
My only concerns with 70% mash efficiency (from a sparged beer) is that it means that roughly 15% of the starch in the mash tun is unconverted at the end of the mash. I would worry that a hot sparge would risk washing some of that starch into my wort.
I optimized a number of aspects of my process as I approached 100% conversion, so it is hard to credit any one factor, but complete conversion also corresponded to when I started reliably getting crystal clear beer into the glass. I usually credit that to reduced tannin extraction from other changes I made, but I can’t ignore the possibility that I stopped collecting unconverted starch.
Slothrob, that is interesting; I’ve never bothered to calculate conversion efficiency seperate from lauter efficiency. But that certainly would account for the difference I see when I do a step mash (typically I do a decocction when I step) where my typical efficiency goes from 78-82% all the way to 85-92%.
I also totally agree with BCDC: high consistancy is far more important than high efficiency. It allows you to make a plan and you can count on hitting it.
