Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brewhouse Efficiency....again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ted Briggs
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • idylldon
    replied
    I'd like them as well, Dick. Thanks!

    Cheers,
    --
    Don

    Leave a comment:


  • Eduardopage
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • dick murton
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • UpsidedownA
    replied
    Matthias,
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Allard
    replied
    Thank you Dick, I can work with that!

    Leave a comment:


  • dick murton
    replied
    Sent you an example calculation in a PM.

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Allard
    replied
    Hi,

    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.

    Thanks,
    Allard

    Leave a comment:


  • xFutballFanx
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MatthiasS
    replied
    Hi,

    I do not want to let this thread fall asleep so I make some further comments.

    Today we reached with an improved lautering process 94.7% with a coarse mash tun crush. This means that with our own mill and a finer optimised lautertun crush we should reach at least 96% if not more. Washable extract was 0.6brix and all without a mash press...just with a process that whole middle Europe uses and Krones advertises with. But they clearly don't know what they are talking about.

    We get so good firswort to second runnings separation that we drop from first wort concentration to 2-3P in about 10 - 15min. This means we would have to top up with about 40% of our kettle full volume with water. I might waste these 18kg of undesirable extract in my next brewer life when my aim is to make really good beer and not focus on efficiency and money so much. Because this is not really craft and everything below 2.0P is not allowed in my tripple double spelt rye wheat chocolate vanilla milk stout cinnamon ipa.Or I just buy a mash filter and get even lower washable extract values.....so many options.

    Leave a comment:


  • Todd Hicks
    replied
    Originally posted by MatthiasS View Post
    I used first wort beer as the extreme end of the "stop collecting below 2P" spectrum because in this case you would not sparge at all so you'd get the highest quality wort. Stopping collection at 2P is uneconomic and if you want to improve efficiency not reasonable. The grain potential determined in the lab (e.g. 79.8% extract as is) can not only be reached with a highly.modern lautertun but even exceeded with a mash filter, simply because they don't extract the maximum possible in the lab. The efficiency numbers you posted are very low and a brewhouse getting 70% efficiency is definitely not efficient. With a potential of79.8% this would only be 87% yield. Brewhouses with lauter tuns that are designed properly and have good mechanics and engineering behind it can easily get 78% but they definitely don't stop at 2P.
    % Utilization is not the same scale as % Efficiency. It is a measurement of the equipment and practices of the brewer versus the measurement of the grist.

    I'm out.

    If you want that extra 2P of husk solids and tannin, just go out and buy a mash press and a centrifuge to spin out every drop of wort.

    Leave a comment:


  • MatthiasS
    replied
    I used first wort beer as the extreme end of the "stop collecting below 2P" spectrum because in this case you would not sparge at all so you'd get the highest quality wort. Stopping collection at 2P is uneconomic and if you want to improve efficiency not reasonable. The grain potential determined in the lab (e.g. 79.8% extract as is) can not only be reached with a highly.modern lautertun but even exceeded with a mash filter, simply because they don't extract the maximum possible in the lab. The efficiency numbers you posted are very low and a brewhouse getting 70% efficiency is definitely not efficient. With a potential of79.8% this would only be 87% yield. Brewhouses with lauter tuns that are designed properly and have good mechanics and engineering behind it can easily get 78% but they definitely don't stop at 2P.

    Leave a comment:


  • Todd Hicks
    replied
    I am not sure where the conversation switched to "first wort beer" without sparging. That is another topic best saved for discussion about historic brewing techniques and old beer styles.

    I consider "oversparging" to mean - running sparge water past the point of necessity. Depending on the volume of the mash, the brewer should be able to cut off the sparge water during the lauter at the final stage of wort collection. Wort collected below 2P does not contain much fermentable sugar and those 2P of solids are mostly made up of tannins and husk material that you do not need in your wort. It would be better to stop collecting when wort drops below 2P and just top off the brew kettle with sparge water to reach your pre-boil kettle volume. By the end of boil, if your grain bill formula is correct, you will have reached your expected 10P or whatever and a post boil kettle volume to achieve a fermenter full of wort that will eventually yield your expected batch size or slightly higher.

    With that long run on sentence, I offer a few extra suggestions.

    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.

    For improving gravity yield, stop the sparge before all of the wort if collected but where there is enough sparge water saturated in the mash to still run off your intended kettle volume without drawing heavy grain particles. I find that this will yield a slightly higher final wort gravity, maybe 2.0P or slightly above.

    Raising the mash temp at the end of sac rest to a mash out temp will help with lautering. Start the vorlauf slowly and run until clarity is acceptable. Start lauter slowly and only begin sparging when the liquid wort level on top of the mash has dropped till you see the grain bed. Maintain about an inch of sparge water on top of the grain bed, avoid fluctuations in sparge temp or volume. You can increase the rate of wort collection slightly when you are about 2/3 full in the kettle - adjust sparge rate as needed. Stop the sparge at the point where there is enough water in the mash to collect your full wort boil volume if possible. Discard wort that drops much below 2.0P and top off the kettle with sparge water if needed to reach kettle volume - if you will be short of your 10P original gravity at the fermenter, you probably need to adjust the grist.

    Check your water chemistry. Make sure you are getting an acceptable mash ph. Check sparge water ph. Check temperature gauge calibration. Make sure your kettle volume marks are correct. Check the mill; maybe the roller gap is out of calibration or it is letting whole kernals through. Maybe grist is getting stuck in the hopper or auger somewhere and isn't making it into the mash. Maybe collection pipes in lauter tun have a clog.

    Hope this helps. At the end of the day, you should be hitting your target OG and yielding to bright slightly above the rated volume of your brewing system.

    Leave a comment:


  • MatthiasS
    replied
    Originally posted by Todd Hicks View Post
    As always, your mileage may vary. Also to say, the proof is in the pudding. If oversparging versus top off water gets you a clean beer without tannin astringency, then that procedure is working for you. In the end, how does it taste? Are you getting astringent flavors, grainy bitterness, or added polyphenol characteristics? If possible, brew two batches with both procedures and compare them.
    Of course a "first wort beer" (without any sparging) would be of highest equality but it also would be completely uneconomical for a commercial brewery. The more you sparge the more economical your brew gets and at the same time your quality suffers (up to an extent). My point is that if you try to increase your efficiency up to 4% to save £50k and more a year it does not make sense to stop the sparge at 2P. If I am not a commercial brewer I would not care about efficiency, but I am so my goal is to find the sweet spot between quality and efficiency. Every sophisticated german mcv, lt, kettle, wp system achieves 97-99% efficiency. I will not chase the last 2% efficiency points but from such a system I think 95% should be easily achievable even if it does not have the most recent engineering behind it like the German systems do.

    I think my beers taste good but a triangle test would be probably worth carrying out

    Leave a comment:


  • Todd Hicks
    replied
    Originally posted by MatthiasS View Post
    Hi,

    For a 10P beer I would have to stop the sparge 400-500l before kettle full if I'd stop at 2.0 plato which would be quite uneconomic. I know kunze says 2-3 but this is for Vollbier which is usually 5.2abv. Narziss has a different opinion and tbh I rate him higher than kunze. For industrial lauter process numbers for soluble extract are about 0.5% and soluble extract 0.8% I think and this is also for Vollbier. So I dont share your opinion here.
    As always, your mileage may vary. Also to say, the proof is in the pudding. If oversparging versus top off water gets you a clean beer without tannin astringency, then that procedure is working for you. In the end, how does it taste? Are you getting astringent flavors, grainy bitterness, or added polyphenol characteristics? If possible, brew two batches with both procedures and compare them.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X