No announcement yet.

Brewhouse Efficiency....again

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Came here to say that I would never sparge below 2 plato (I actually find the beer tastes better when I stop at 3). The "sugars" you're pulling off at that point are going to be bound to all sorts of harsh tannins that aren't going to do you any favors in the long run. If your sparge water isn't acidified, then the problem would be even worse. Adding a bag of grain to make a good beer a great beer is always worth it to me.
    Peter Landman | Brewmaster | Seabright Brewery | Santa Cruz, CA


    • #17

      Thank you for the interesting insights.

      Originally posted by Todd Hicks View Post
      Forget about efficiency calculation. These really only make sense in the laboratory when calculating the potential yield of the grain itself. It is not much of an indicator of brewhouse and brewer performance. This leaves the brewer chasing a number that probably doesn't exist. Switch for a calculation that tells you % Utilization of Extract by weight. It is an easier number to work with. This is basically degrees plato of wort per volume by dry weight of grist. A good target to start with will be about 65% and an efficient brewhouse can yield up to maybe 70%. I will look up the formula that I use and post here sometime. Improving %U is the efficiency gains that you should be the goal.
      I am actually very much interested in this formula. Would you, nearly a year later, still be willing to post that formula for me? Nobody at my brewery seems to have had any official brewing education and I can make head nor tails out of the different calculations for what people interchangeably call brewhouse efficiency or lautering efficiency. Overall there seems much confusion as to which means what. Maybe your formula will make more sense to me.



      • #18
        Sent you an example calculation in a PM.

        Let me know if this isn't what you are after


        • #19
          Thank you Dick, I can work with that!


          • #20
            I hope you’ve solved the problem to your satisfaction by now but have you considered changing the length of the alpa-amylase rest? You presently only give it 15 minutes but you might get a higher extract by lengthening it. In Victorian times brewers found that the first half hour was decisive for determining wort fermentability, but extract increased with additional time up to two hours. Brewers would mash in thick eg 2.2:1 l/kg and then after half an hour underlet and sparge with enough water to bring the rest temperature up to alpha amylase temperatures and leave for 1-2 hours. Traditional continental mashes are longer than your current practice too I think. Your missing extract could be there.

            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


            • #21
              I don't disagree with your point that the Victorians found they were often able to improve extracts by lengthening the mash duration - similar in some respects to the use of decoction or rising temperature infusion mashes. However, I assume that since Mathias is in London, he is using UK or other European malts - which tend to be very well modified. At one large brewery I worked at, brewing lagers, the conversion was basically complete after about 35 minutes (fine grind for MCV and lauter tun), though as it was brewed under licence, it had to go through a rising temperature infusion mash - about 75 minutes in total. The exact same malt was used for another lager using a 60 minute total stand including final ten minute or so rise to 78 C.

              So his success in improving extracts was largely down to slowing down the lautering time. slightly finer grind may have also helped if he had the lautering control. I would have been tempted to thicken up the mash, but assume it had to be pumped from MCV to LT, so needed to be thin to be handled. The low initial runoff gravity is largely due to the thin mash

              But certainly a point worth considering if anyone has not been able to sort out with a longer runoff - but beware over attenuation - longer mash time may require higher temperatures.


              • #22
                Originally posted by dick murton View Post
                Sent you an example calculation in a PM.

                Let me know if this isn't what you are after
                Hello Dick, could you share with me those example calculations?


                • #23
                  I'd like them as well, Dick. Thanks!



                  • #24
                    Originally posted by MatthiasS View Post
                    triple double spelt rye wheat chocolate vanilla milk stout cinnamon IPA.
                    You would be far better off posting on the Brewers Association site than here to get opinions on technical issues.

                    And- I think I might make a Double Rye & wheat Chocolate vanilla milk stout. That actually sounds good.
                    Brewmaster, Minocqua Brewing Company
                    "Your results may vary"