• 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.

Efficiency issue

Ps: if you use a hydrometer be sure you cool all samples below 90f.

If you use a refractometer, then I'dsuggest cooling tthose samples for the time being. Just to eliminate some variables. 
 
Pps:  simplify things until you work out the issue. You are confusing things by continuing to change your processes.  Go back to single infusion with a recipe you've made many times.  Take the data and isolate the area of your process that is the problem(s).  It could be multiple parts, but quantify the magnitude of the issues in each area.
 
Ppps:

First runnings table: http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=File:First_wort_gravity.gif

Lautering eff table: http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=File:Table_for_estimating_lauter_loss.gif
 
thanks for those tables, First runnings table, ext. they are vary helpful. never knew they existed. 
 
I have checked my measuring sticks a couple times recently.  They are good.  I am cooling my samples to room temp for measuring gravity and pH.  My meter is calibrated with fresh buffers.  I check with a refract, then 2 hydrometers, they all agree.  My thermometers have all been calibrated at ice & boiling, then at 150F.  The problem is definitely a lack of conversion.  I have been checking it before first runoff and am only about 1/2 the way to my expected points after 1 hour.  And its excruciatingly slow after that.  Thanks for the tables, less work for me.  Will be going back to a simple pils recipe on Saturday. We'll see how it goes. 
 
I think there is more at work than is in evidence. About a year ago, I had to substitute Pilsner brands. The substitute only had 50% potential, compared to the 80+% of my regular.

It may be the grain, I just went back thru my purchases and had switched to a new homebrew shop about the first of this year, which coincides closely with the start of the problem. Seems like too much of a coincidence.    He likes to advertise certain 50 lb sacks of grain and then ship something else then gets indignant when he has to make it right.  The last go-round I got a sack of Rahr 2-row and a sack of Weyermann Pils. The inigma scan wouldn't work on the Weyermann sack.  On the Rahr he felt the need to glue shut the analysis tag before shipping.  Since Rahr ships in a generic sack, its hard to know. 
 
tom_hampton said:
Ok.  No one has suggested taking some data.

Actually, this was addressed in the first two posts. He noted calibrations. I took him at his word. The very next post asks about thermometer calibration.

The rest of the posts are perfect, Tom. Yes, Calibration batches may be in order.

Whenever I consult with a new brewery, I always ask for either a calibration batch to be made or to see the data from one. That never precludes problems, but is isolates variables.

My calibration batches are always the same: a precise amount of 100% pale malt (homebrew scale, 10 lbs, exactly) and 35 IBU boiling only, targeted. The resulting beer isn't much (dry hopping helps a lot), but it can be used to gauge crush, efficiency, fermentability, temperature stability, absorption pH, losses and chill haze reduction. It also reveals a lot of other things like kettle temperature slopes, pump performance and stuff you need to know in a commercial setting.

One important data point for every brewing session is to take first wort gravity readings. Not only is this a better reading to identify full conversion (iodine is a flawed and obsolete method), but it also tells you 50 to 60% of your pre-boil gravity.
 
Tom, thanks for posting the link to www.braukaiser.com

The two reports which reference the charts are a valuable resource for brewing.

-Troubleshooting Brewhouse Efficiency
-Understanding Efficiency

I am slowly learning that the more data you collect, the more you will help yourself farther down the line.
Someday, I might even change one variable at a time.
 
RiverBrewer said:
Tom, thanks for posting the link to www.braukaiser.com

The two reports which reference the charts are a valuable resource for brewing.

-Troubleshooting Brewhouse Efficiency
-Understanding Efficiency

I am slowly learning that the more data you collect, the more you will help yourself farther down the line.
Someday, I might even change one variable at a time.

Both of those tables are embedded in my custom brew sheet.

 
I suspect the problem is conversion in the mash based on my first runnings gravities on the past many batches.  I stepped away from it this weekend, especially since I had run slap out of additional fermentable if I needed them again.  So yesterday I just steeped 1 lb of 6 row in I gallon of 160F water for 1 hour following Palmers 12.4.1 Table of Typical Malt Yields.  http://www.howtobrew.com/section2/chapter12-4-1.html.  I double checked gravity with a refract + hydrometer then calculated my pppg  based on the run-off volume. Am I doing this correct?  If so I nailed a whopping 16.  If I am going about this correctly I am going to try it again tonite using both the 2-row & pils that I used in the last brew with both my normal RO water and again with some pH adjusted city water from work.

I have been using a pH56 meter.  Doubting its reliability recently, I got an MW102 on the weekend and they read within .02 of each other.  I think some thought I was acidifying my water at 5.4, but that's what both meters say I am getting from the hose bib, and it agrees with the specs from my RO membrane (5.5 predicted) and I am bypassing the calcifier.  Water sample sent to Wards today. 
 
I have the same issues with my mash efficiency. However, I never had good mash efficiency, I bought my pico system about 1yr ago and on the avg. I was about 50% efficiency. Since then I have learned to SLOW DOWN my sparging, this has brought me up to about 55-60% efficiency. However, this past weekend with 19lbs base malt and 21lbs total for a (6 gallon batch postboil this way I can afford to leave a 1/2 gallon behind in the boil kettle, and then leave another 1/2 gallon behind in the primary carboy for a total of 5 gallons to keg), anyways, I only got about 48% efficiency????? My preboil gravity was targeted for 1.095 only was at 1.065  :mad: not really sure what to do???? I think I will take the advice of going from 1.25qts water per lb to 1.5qts per lb, and yes one thing at a time.

Chugly

 
KernelCrush- 

Did you look at your grain after the mash? Mush the grain in your fingers. My guess is that you have a lot of dry starch trapped in your hulls.

What were your raw measurements? By raw I mean uncorrected. We can't verify your pppg calculation without the data.

I think your crush sucks. But, you need to look at the spent grain to know. Do you mill your own?  You can try the same thing, but run the grain through the mill twice. If your crush is the issue you will see a jump in first running gravity.
 
chugly said:
I have the same issues with my mash efficiency. However, I never had good mash efficiency, I bought my pico system about 1yr ago and on the avg. I was about 50% efficiency. Since then I have learned to SLOW DOWN my sparging, this has brought me up to about 55-60% efficiency. However, this past weekend with 19lbs base malt and 21lbs total for a (6 gallon batch postboil this way I can afford to leave a 1/2 gallon behind in the boil kettle, and then leave another 1/2 gallon behind in the primary carboy for a total of 5 gallons to keg), anyways, I only got about 48% efficiency????? My preboil gravity was targeted for 1.095 only was at 1.065  :mad: not really sure what to do???? I think I will take the advice of going from 1.25qts water per lb to 1.5qts per lb, and yes one thing at a time.

Chugly

See the links above. You have to break it down into the stages of the mash and sparge.  Mash efficiency is measured by first runnings gravity.  See the table above for gravity vs. Thickness.  This should always be above 90pct. If it's lower than that you have a conversion issue. See all the questions we've asked KernelCrush.  Ph, water chemistry, crush, etc.

 
Well.  I reread my post.  Pretty silly to give you just a result.  I know you are pretty smart but mind reading would have put you on a whole new level.

That was with Pils steeped 1 hour.  I threw out the those results in disgust, but here are the numbers from one I did last nite on the next tighter detent crush setting.  I use a Crankenstein 3D stainless same setup same settings for many years.  Recently tuned up by the Dr himself. 

.3 cups (.19 Gallon) 5.4 pH water at 160F stirred into  .5 lb Rahr 2-row yielded 440 ml (.12 Gal)  wort after pouring thru a mesh.  30 minute steep
Cooled overnite to 72F.  Brix 16.2.  Hydrometer 1.065.  Should have been around 1.1 I think.

.12 Gal x 65 = 7.8 x 2 = 15.6 pppg  42% efficiency.  in line with brewday results from the past several months. 

The 'spent' grain has a consistency of childrens paste when rubbed in your fingers.  I attach a pic only cause I had to scale a fence in the dark this morning to retrieve it.  It looks like there are too many undissolved pieces to me.  But only very slightly sweet taste.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v6ub3oto8etrlcm/20140403_064255.jpg

I dont really look at my crush anymore since there was never a problem.  I almost forget what its supposed to look like. So I ordered milled grain from a homebrew shop for comparison and will do the steep test on it tonite.

Thank you Tom.

 
From your calculations is just looks to me like you have way to much loss in you mash. ( start with .5 gal and retrieve only .12 gal, 75% loss?)
 
From your calculations is just looks to me like you have way to much loss in you mash. ( start with .5 gal and retrieve only .12 gal, 75% loss?)

Thanks for looking at it that way.  That was a typo.  I used .5 Gal on the previous Pils steep.  On this the Rahr steep I used 3 cups or .19 Gal to closer approximate mash thickness.  Corrected the post. 
 
What was your actual mash temp? Did it settle pretty low? Typically, I think the bulk of conversion happens pretty quickly, but if your resting temperature was low, 30 minutes might not have been enough to do a full conversion. I know that's not your typical process for a "real" brew, but just to equalize some of the variables...

I think your crush looks pretty chunky as well. I use a Barley Crusher and my gap is set down to 0.031; the bulk of the crushed malt looks like polenta/coarse corn meal. Yours looks more like steel cut oats!
 
I failed to measure the mash temp.  That did cross my mind but thought I understood how Palmer did it.  I just looked at his steeping table again and see he steeped 'at' 160 not 'with' 160.  Whew. I am getting more wrong lately than I'm getting right.  Time to increase the meds.  Will make the temp adjustment & measurement next go round.  Thank you.
 
Ah, got it. That higher temp would encourage a faster conversion, for sure, and that's what you're trying to gauge--conversion, and not fermentability--I think that will go a long way toward figuring out if it's the crush, or even the malt itself.
 
    Checked out your spent grain pics, your endosperm looks kind of huge and your hulls look good. My 3 roller mill is set @ .052 gap and my grain looks finer broken. You really have to keep your grain stored away from moisture. You want it to crack, not mush away from the rollers. I hope your not dampening your grain prior to milling. When you mill your mash grain, you need to crack the endosperm into half a dozen pieces and get great hulls too. If your mill can't deliver the goods after adjusting you have the option of shopping. Malted grain isn't as hard as un-malted barley which can crack your teeth, so it sucks up moisture easier. I buy 300 lbs. of base malt, 100 pale ale, 100 2-row, and 100 pilsner. And store it in a dry location, and airtight when opened.  I am even fussy about the bag the bulk grain comes in, If it doesn't have a good vapor barrier liner, I buy a brand that does. I avoid one U.S. maltster that uses paper sacks.

    You seem to be having a few errors with the batch. On the brewing days that are easiest, I attribute the ease to prepping the day before. 
 
Back
Top