Indeed, stirring and consistency are likely the biggest factors and more important.
Dunk Sparge...
- Thread starter Mike at Bay
- Start date
That's the opposite no? Yes, it hits the target, but that's compensating for low efficiency, not solving it. (of course, not everyone will hit the same % because not everyone is using the same exact system) Learning your system and what it can do, to me, is more important.
if your leaving water your leaving sugars.....This weeks brew bag was left in the bucket after a VERY tough squeeze and an hour later I might have had 2 oz of liquid in the bucket. I think for now I will continue the squeeze and not go the sparge route........I have a 15 gal kettle so I am at full volume.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2012
- Messages
- 9,068
- Reaction score
- 7,459
- Points
- 113
many years ago when i had a bib set up, i would calculate how much water i needed to reach my fermentor level, just mash with what was needed then in another bucket was my dunk sparge amount, I would dunk it up and down then leave it in while cleaning up and the boil was raising, after a while add the bucket water to the boil, not sure if it helped or not but that was my process
Do exactly that, but then, after all the squeezin’s done, Rinse the grain with some hot water (about a quart, maybe two). Treat the hot rinse water with salts and acid same as the mash water (if you do that) and ‘hot’ can be from hot tap water to 170 F.
You may be surprised.
How does a thick mash increase efficiency? I've been brewing for about 25 years and never heard that before. That would be very interesting, since I've started doing full volume mashes in the last few years. I used to brew 11 gallons or more on brewdays, so always sparged but now go with 5 gallon batches always, so do a full volume mash.
It does not, allegedly.
Empirically disproven here:
https://web.archive.org/web/2013072...ncy_in_single_infusion_mashing#Mash_thickness
That's the 'OG' of the concept behind Brülosophy. Kai did multiple real world batches and tracked results, then reported them on his blog. Which is a small scale version of how 'Science'™ is done.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,983
- Reaction score
- 2,112
- Points
- 113
1.5 ratio is not exactly thick but thicker than 3 quarts per or whatever your ratio is
Most recipes I read call for 1.25 -1.5
Probably with the sparge it increases the amount extracted
I'm hearing people on here doing full volume saying there only pulling 65% so it's more than mash thickness involved
One problem people have doing full volume is the grain settles and compacts so there goes the ratio down the drain
So long story short if you mash thicker and step infuse at 30 and sparge or mash out your going to get better conversion then a full volume mash unless you're recirculating
@Yooper your probably recirculating not everyone does
Most recipes I read call for 1.25 -1.5
Probably with the sparge it increases the amount extracted
I'm hearing people on here doing full volume saying there only pulling 65% so it's more than mash thickness involved
One problem people have doing full volume is the grain settles and compacts so there goes the ratio down the drain
So long story short if you mash thicker and step infuse at 30 and sparge or mash out your going to get better conversion then a full volume mash unless you're recirculating
@Yooper your probably recirculating not everyone does
Actual process is the key. There are entirely too many variables. That Braukaiser link demonstrates several variables, but of course not all, and not in all possible permutations.
Everyone has to both design the system they want, and also brew to the system they have. And of course, dial-in what they have, while they use it. That part is almost always left out and either ignored or not given proper emphasis. Understanding, at any and every stage of the process, your personal degree of 'estimation' vs. actual measurement is indeed the difference between chasing a ghost, and hitting your numbers. You don't *have* to dial-in, but if you don't, just know that you will most likely never nail estimates from a recipe. That isn't a fault of the recipe. It is your 'fudge factor' that you didn't feel the need, want or desire, to measure and document.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,983
- Reaction score
- 2,112
- Points
- 113
Well Tests are run in very optimal circumstances and as the data shows is you mash thin and recirculate you will get good conversion
Now if we remove ourselves from that vacuum where most of us brew without the extra complications of a pump I will continue to recommend doing a step mash and stir when you step to get good efficiency. If you're recirculating by all means do full volume
Or stand over your mash and stir every 15 minutes or so but then you will be loosing heat so will need to adjust with hot water anyway so we circle around
I was on the BYO chat with John Palmer and he said homebrewers have the potential to make the best beer because we can take incremental steps to improve our wort and beer
I'm sure I've read thicker mash has benefits to the wort besides conversion
This is a good argument
I know I won't convince anybody who has a pump system because a thicker mash is not an option with a pump system
Now if we remove ourselves from that vacuum where most of us brew without the extra complications of a pump I will continue to recommend doing a step mash and stir when you step to get good efficiency. If you're recirculating by all means do full volume
Or stand over your mash and stir every 15 minutes or so but then you will be loosing heat so will need to adjust with hot water anyway so we circle around
I was on the BYO chat with John Palmer and he said homebrewers have the potential to make the best beer because we can take incremental steps to improve our wort and beer
I'm sure I've read thicker mash has benefits to the wort besides conversion
This is a good argument
I know I won't convince anybody who has a pump system because a thicker mash is not an option with a pump system
What? Full volume pulling 65%? I get far more than that, and about 1% less than doing it on my three vessel HERMS which recirculated.
I don't recirculate most times, as I found that I don't like the Brewzilla, and use it more as an HLT and boil kettle. I went back to BIAB in my old igloo cooler and do full volume mashes. I don't have an issue with grain settling as the grain is loose in the bag, and I stir well. by the time the mash is over, the wort is clear. And then I squeeze (well smoosh is more like it) the bag. If you read John Palmer or talk to him in person, he'll claim you get "higher quality wort" from a full volume mash. I didn't ask him the why of that- I didn't care that much- but I know he believed that and told me that in person. So that might contradict what you heard him say- but I KNOW he didn't say thicker mashes were an improvement.
I don't understand why mashing thicker (which just means less water there) than mashing thinner would at all make a difference if the ending volume is the same. I'd love to know the science behind that claim. If I get 71% with a full volume vs 72% in a batch sparge and 71.5% in a continuous sparge, maybe that's just anecdotal because I had a quart less water in one of them.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,983
- Reaction score
- 2,112
- Points
- 113
Hey I'm not arguing with you and not saying you're wrong
The point I got from Palmers talk was doing it differently and push the parameters for different beers homebrewers have an advantage. I didn't say that he said anything about mash thickness one way or the other
I learned
Light beer thin mash,dark or big beer thicker
1.2 - 2 qt/lb optimal for most beer
Thinner when I do a decoction but even then I hold out some water for adjusting and during the decoction I do a temperature rest before the boil and that's pretty thick
That's how I learned
I'm often getting 80 - 85%
Let's just agree to disagree
The point I got from Palmers talk was doing it differently and push the parameters for different beers homebrewers have an advantage. I didn't say that he said anything about mash thickness one way or the other
I learned
Light beer thin mash,dark or big beer thicker
1.2 - 2 qt/lb optimal for most beer
Thinner when I do a decoction but even then I hold out some water for adjusting and during the decoction I do a temperature rest before the boil and that's pretty thick
That's how I learned
I'm often getting 80 - 85%
Let's just agree to disagree
Last edited:
Indeed, 'efficiency math' isn't about process as much as it is about equipment, with one caveat: the mash.
First, you need to fully convert the mash, that is at that point 100% efficient.
I think many folks are mashing by time, not gravity or % conversion, hence their lower numbers. Out of the mash-gate they are already taking losses.
Once you focus on 100% conversion in the mash, you start focusing on other effective factors, like temp and pH. You might increase your time initially trying to convert, but you could be at it for days if the pH and temp are not right. Understanding the temp and pH ranges of the various enzymes will help nail conversion consistently and without excessive time involved per brew day.
After the mash though, and assuming 100% conversion, losses in efficiency are all down to losses of volume. Anything left behind is not going into the fermenter and thus has no chance of making it into the packaged beer.
This is why I pump 100% of my kettle to the fermenter, trub and all. Brülosophy has repeatedly disproved the "clear beer in fermenter = clear beer in glass" myth. It is quite the opposite. That practice alone is costing folks efficiency and they are just throwing away both sugars to be eaten by yeasts, and important nutrients and other goodies for the yeast to properly flocculate and eventually drop clear. (not the least of which might be whatever kettle fining agent used, if any, that will still do its job in the fermenter, but not if you hold it back and trash it!)
I've seen folks use both kettle finings and yeast nutrients at the end of their boils, then whirlpool to pile up trub and keep it out of the fermenter. Do they know how much of those finings did the job if at all by that point? Do they know how much nutrient made it into the fermenter and didn't get attached and dragged down into the trub pile? And yes, then they wonder why they still had fermentation issues as if nutrients were too low, and their beer takes forever to clear, but I digress...
I am new at the science of brewing. Been blindly hobby brewing off and on for years. I do not get close to 100% "efficiency"...but if I understand your comment, you are focused on 100% conversion which seems to be the measure of when conversion is complete, all starches are now sugars (maybe determined via iodine test or hitting?). Up to this point I have been a "60 min timer masher" with my full volume BIAB set up. Conversion could be "complete" at 30, 60, 90mins based on iodine test, still though you could be less "efficient" if other variables are off. Am I thinking about this correctly?
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,983
- Reaction score
- 2,112
- Points
- 113
Well yes temperature is the most important factor IMO then ph then then time then thickness in my mind anyway
I only used to strain my wort when making something with a lot of hop material but even that hasn't really affected my clarity
I make crystal clear beer even when I forget the moss
I don't know science just my experience
Interesting but not surprised that the trub has all those nutrients
I only used to strain my wort when making something with a lot of hop material but even that hasn't really affected my clarity
I make crystal clear beer even when I forget the moss
I don't know science just my experience
Interesting but not surprised that the trub has all those nutrients
Yes.
Efficiency is a measure of the total possible sugars that make it into some final state. There are 4 places were it is traditionally measured. You won't get 100% because there are always losses. (at the very least, some stays trapped with the grain when you pull the bag or lauter off)
See for reference:
https://www.brewersfriend.com/brewing-efficiency-chart/
But you *can* get 100% conversion, determined yes, by an iodine test. (simply mashing to expected gravity doesn't mean 100% conversion. Expected is an estimate, it could be short.)
See for reference:
http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Efficiency
I have never personally seen 100% conversion in less than 90 minutes and I've used various mashing techniques, adjusting various parameters. (within my BIAB framework, though I've also never seen it with friends who use other methods.)
For the most consistency, aim for 100% conversion or as close as you can reasonably get. (more likely 98% or so due to estimations)
Then aim to very accurately record losses along the way. Once you have those consistently measured from batch to batch, adjust your brewing and equipment profiles to include them. That will allow the Water Requirements Calculator to accurately advise how much strike water you need, as well as for the Recipe Builder to correctly report your expected gravities.
Use the Brew Session and Brew Logs feature of those sessions to record your gravities and accurate volumes. Keep a running average. Once you've got stable readings on losses, you'll start seeing stable readings on volumes from batch to batch, and you'll notice your reported efficiency in the Brew Sessions will also become stable. (note, this is *per recipe*, there will be some variance between different recipes) Enter this running average in your equipment profiles. (different for each equipment setup or process if you have more than one) The Recipe Editor will then use this to accurately estimate expected gravities, volumes, and water requirements in future new recipes.
Kettle finings are not required, but of course helpful. You can certainly get clear beer without them.
The first key to clear beer without finings is to get a sufficient amount of Calcium into the source water. (I aim for 100ppm because I use Phosphoric Acid, you might get by with 80ppm, a friend manages 60pmm and produces brilliantly clear brews.) This could be to start the mash, or at pre-boil. Calcium is needed for proper Hot Break which coagulates proteins and other haze-inducing particles out of suspension. This ties in with sufficient boil vigor. Too soft and you won't get that coagulation or at least not enough of it. A proper Cold Break during the chill is also important to finish off that process. If either during the boil or during chilling you see 'Egg Drop Soup', you will have clear beer. (baring other factors in fermentation) I don't know how I did it, but I've had 2 or 3 batches now 'Double-Hot-Break' on me. Maybe the first one wasn't quite done. But those were brilliantly clear beers. (I usually aim for nearly explosive boil to achieve a Hot Break, then turn down slightly to vigorous once it drops on its own, *then* I start my boil timer. I never force the break down, but I might have to stir a bit or hit it with water to prevent boil overs.)
The second key is to slowly cold crash (slower provides better head retention - no contest, also demonstrated by Brülosophy on their YouTube channel) as cold as possible, ideally about 30℉. (no, the beer won't freeze until about 27℉) I hold there for 2–3 days or as long as I can stand it. That slow and very low process will drop just about any yeast out of suspension into a tightly packed cake from which you can rack off and package very clear beer. (yes, there are still enough left for bottle conditioning.)
Slow cold crash meaning....lower the temp by maybe 10-15 degrees F each day till you are around 30? This information is so helpful. I started brewing from kits and then carrying those techniques over to my all grain recipes. Those techniques are clearly helpful but only a start. Thanks all.
Yes, when the iodine doesn’t indicate any starches (doesn’t turn black) conversion is complete.
Rinsing the grain a bit washes sugars from the grain, resulting in more sugars in the fermenter, aka higher efficiency.
Yep. I've read the maximum rate is 8℉/12hrs.
This video discusses a recommendation of 3℃/12hrs. (≈5.4℉)
That can be a bit cumbersome depending on what you have going on and when you start the crashing. I have a Wifi Inkbird that can be programmed to drop at a set rate which is nice.
