• Welcome to the new forum! We upgraded our forum software with a host of new boards, capabilities and features. It is also more secure.
    Jump in and join the conversation! You can learn more about the upgrade and new features here.

Switch focus from BH Efficiency to Mash Efficiency

pretzelb

Brewer
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
In this hobby, as soon as someone starts asking questions about their brewing process the first thing they realize is how important the mash process is. Forums are flooded with questions on the mash process. And before anyone can help with that process they need to know all the numbers associated with your mash process.

Because BS lets the user control the BH Efficiency they lose control over the critical mash efficiency. The predicted results shouldn't be from the generic BH efficiency but instead driven from the mash efficiency which sets the tone for the rest of the process. Mash efficiency is such a key component it deserves to be the value you enter yourself and not something that is backed into.

If mash efficiency were entered by the user I think it would also make sense to bring the other variables related to the mash forward so the user can see them. This includes all the factors that go into the mash efficiency calculation. The points for each recipe can easily be calculated by they are hidden. A user should be able to see the max points for each recipe. Estimated volumes and gravity values should also include the efficiency numbers along side. This can show the user how inaccurate volume calculations will offset the gravity estimates.

The only argument I can see in using BH efficiency is making it easier for the new user. I would disagree with this argument. The software is confusing enough and to be honest, it is much easier to understand how the numbers work when you limit their impact to the formula. Explaining what a typical mash efficiency value might be is easier to understand than explaining the sweeping effect that BH efficiency will have. Plus, if the user keeps brewing, it makes it easier to get help and figure things out if they start with mash efficiency.

If you can't tell I'm very frustrated today because I'm trying to fix issues I'm having with mash efficiency with my new system and not being able to get a clear handle on the mash efficiency variable are is driving me crazy. I even went so far as to calculate the max potential of my latest recipe and tried to use the measured gravity and volume amounts to match what BS told me and it didn't work. The difference was 3% but it should have been exact. The only thing i can figure is the BH efficiency was messing things up.
 
I'm sorry for your frustration and can understand where it comes from. Brewing is full of variables that many try to ignore or standardize. From experience, I can tell you it's possiblr to both understand the sometimes confusing math and still have rules of thumb to go by.

Your issue is easily resolved by setting "loss to trub and chiller"  to zero in your equipment profile. Mash efficiency is measured in the kettle, so this setting makes mash and brewhouse efficiency the same.

pretzelb said:
The predicted results shouldn't be from the generic BH efficiency but instead driven from the mash efficiency which sets the tone for the rest of the process. Mash efficiency is such a key component it deserves to be the value you enter yourself and not something that is backed into.

Mash efficiency is made up of both conversion efficiency and sparge efficiency. However, BHE is hardly generic. It's the rating of how well you deliver sugar from the grain to the fermenter, not just the kettle. You may have 95% total mash efficiency to your 5 gallon kettle, but if you cant get one of your gallons to the fermenter, you really only have 76% of your sugars to ferment. BHE accounts for all losses going to the fermenter.

If you care about batch volume yield and starting gravity, BHE gets you there. If you don't care about volume yield, then mash efficiency is sufficient.

If mash efficiency were entered by the user I think it would also make sense to bring the other variables related to the mash forward so the user can see them. This includes all the factors that go into the mash efficiency calculation. The points for each recipe can easily be calculated by they are hidden. A user should be able to see the max points for each recipe. Estimated volumes and gravity values should also include the efficiency numbers along side. This can show the user how inaccurate volume calculations will offset the gravity estimates.

Hmmmm. That sounds totally the opposite of your starting premise of simplicity. I may be wrong, but it sounds like you want to see a lot of data points and you want BeerSmith to calculate them.

If you enter all of your measured values into BeerSmith, it will show you both your actual brewhouse and mash efficiency. The more accurate info about your system you feed BeerSmith, the more accurate its' predictions become.

 
brewfun said:
Your issue is easily resolved by setting "loss to trub and chiller"  to zero in your equipment profile. Mash efficiency is measured in the kettle, so this setting makes mash and brewhouse efficiency the same.

While you may be correct, to me this supports my point. Values like loss to trub and chiller (or mash tun deadspace) are values that are easy to comprehend if not accurately measure before you brew. IMHO it doesn't make sense to plug in fictional values for these easy to determine variables just so BS can give you the mash efficiency. Again, if you consider the home brewer who is trying to improve numbers or pinpoint an issue, one of the key starting points in the debug process is the mash efficiency.

Mash efficiency is made up of both conversion efficiency and sparge efficiency. However, BHE is hardly generic. It's the rating of how well you deliver sugar from the grain to the fermenter, not just the kettle. You may have 95% total mash efficiency to your 5 gallon kettle, but if you cant get one of your gallons to the fermenter, you really only have 76% of your sugars to ferment. BHE accounts for all losses going to the fermenter.
I think this actually illustrates why BHE is too generic or broad to be a main driver input variable and instead should be a read only final calculation. If you can't get an entire gallon into the fermenter then that will become obvious with all the other easy to understand and easy to determine data points you enter along the way. I keep falling back to the premise that the brewer is trying to debug the process or improve their steps. If the brewer ends up losing an entire gallon (or even 1/4 gallon) along the way, BS will be there to quickly and easily let them know. Then the brewer can post these estimates and actuals to get quick help where the loss happened and what input variable needs to be updated (ex boil off rate) and how to fix it.

If you care about batch volume yield and starting gravity, BHE gets you there. If you don't care about volume yield, then mash efficiency is sufficient.
I don't see why anyone would only care about one but I also don't see why mash efficiency precludes you from getting the data from volume yield. I'm not sure why BHE needs to be included to cover volume yield. All the other variables to help with volume yield are already in there AFAIK. Why do I want to enter estimates for my boil off rate and my mash tun deadspace only to also have to enter an estimate to BHE to cover that data again?

The variables entered into BS to cover volume yield allows BS to estimate the expected volumes along the way. For example, grain absorption and mash tun deadspace (and mash thickness) should allow BS to determine what you should use for water volumes and what you can expect in your boil kettle for those water volumes. If the brewer finds the volume in the boil kettle are off, why go back and adjust BHE? Why not look at the values you enter that directly affect the calculation and adjust them?

Hmmmm. That sounds totally the opposite of your starting premise of simplicity. I may be wrong, but it sounds like you want to see a lot of data points and you want BeerSmith to calculate them.
Not really. Right now the user enters BHE. My proposal is change that to mash efficiency. The forums and books are filled with suggestions on what a home brewer can expect for mash efficiency. From a simplicity point of view it is the same.

My key point is what happens when the brewer is drawn into the hobby and wants to figure things out. As I said before, most of the posts I read about brewers wanting to figure things out or improve begin with people asking for the mash efficiency. It drives the entire brewing process. Sure other things can happen after it but it really is the beginning. In order to decode that step you will need the factors that go into it. As it stands now I find it cumbersome to get this from BS.

I'm not saying the screens should be littered with all possible data points. They should be optional like they are now. But all the key factors that going into mash efficiency should be available including max PPG.

If you enter all of your measured values into BeerSmith, it will show you both your actual brewhouse and mash efficiency. The more accurate info about your system you feed BeerSmith, the more accurate its' predictions become.

True but it irks me that BHE is applying a factor to the entire process and not letting me focus on the details. I just started playing with a recipe where my BHE was 65% and decided to log the exact same values that BS said I should expect for gravity and volumes. The result was an estimated mash efficiency of 71.2% and an actual of 71.6%. At the end of the day .4% is no big deal but it still irks me.
 
I think this might be a better argument for why BHE frustrates me. From the BS blog (http://beersmith.com/blog/2014/11/05/brewhouse-efficiency-vs-mash-efficiency-in-all-grain-beer-brewing/) :

Since brewhouse efficiency includes mash, boil, transfer and trub losses, it can be applied directly to the “ideal” number we discussed earlier. So again using the example from above, our 10 lbs of malt gives us 74 points under “ideal” conditions. Using a system with 72% brewhouse efficiency we come up with a potential of (74* 72%) = 53.2 points which is an original gravity of 1.053.

So brewhouse efficiency is simply a measure of the overall efficiency of the brewing system encompassing both the efficiency of the mash and lauter process as well as losses in the system during boil, transfer and volume lost to trub.

So we take a estimated value that represents the entire process (mash, boil, transfer) and we apply it to each and every step in that process. This includes things like volume losses in steps such as boil and transfer. Yet losses from the boil and transfer steps have nothing to do with mash.

And I think that is the key on why it irks me. If you divide the process into the 3 steps of mash, boil, and transfer then with BHE you give up the ability to fine tune each step. Transfer could end up being different depending on the cooling solution and kettle design not to mention your attitude towards trub in the fermenter. But a brewer with a highly efficient transfer process and setup can't separate the estimates from his other steps because BHE reigns over all steps.

Ultimately I think it bothers me most is that I consider BHE a read only calculation. I'm already asked by BS for most of the estimated variables that go into BHE. Instead of asking me what I think it will be at the end, I would be more interested in BS telling me how it turned out after the brew is done. It seems more important to adjust all the other variables like trub loss and evaporation rate than it does BHE.

Sorry for the rant.  :-X
 
Back
Top