Brewing Master

Question:

 Article 4887 (28 more) in rec.crafts.brewing:  Using Darryl Richman’s spreadsheet from the old Miami  archive site, I usually hit a 76% efficiency rate.  Darryl’s  default was 83%.  Using 1.036 as the theoretical maximum (1 lb / 1 gallon), a  76% efficiency puts my result at 1.027 or so.  Not sure what all this means so I left it intact.  I fear I  may have started down the wrong road by the subject line.  I  believe that efficiency is a function of chemestry and  beyond the control of the brewer.  The 75% figure is about  what can be expected in terms of how much starch can be  converted to sugar and thence disolved into the wort.  That  is 75% of what is in the grain.  One needs to know how much starch is in a pound of a  particular grain before one can measure efficiency.  Unless  we are using exatcly the same malt, I would guess that any  differences in extract ratios is more likely a result of  different malts.  I would also like to point out that reading a cheapo    homebrew hydrometer is a pretty gross business.  The  minuscus of the surface, parallax and inaccuracy of cheap  hydrometers and temp correction would lead me to doubt the  significance of any reading to better than plus or minus 2  points.    I would suggest that anywhere near 30 is in the ball park  and someone who is getting 28 is probably doing as well as  someone else claiming 32.  js

Response:

Using Darryl Richman’s spreadsheet from the old Miami archive site, I usually hit a 76% efficiency rate.  Darryl’s default was 83%. Using 1.036 as the theoretical maximum (1 lb / 1 gallon), a 76% efficiency puts my result at 1.027 or so. I use the FAIRLYOKMASH system, which is a grain bag in an Electrim Bin. My grind is done at my grain store in a roller mill. — Amdahl Corp.                               313-358-4440 Southfield, Michigan

Response:

(On to Jack’s favorite topic.)  I have had two set mashes … one resulted from some of this miserably cracked grain.  I think it would have clogged *anything* smaller than a drainpipe, really.  The second resulted from a batch of beer that had 2# of rather thoroughly gloppy rice in it, kind of like wallpaper paste after I was done stewing it in the oven, and a mash-out at an insufficiently high temperature. We here at the Hall Brewery will not do that again!

Short data point: My experience with stuck sparges (2 in 11 years) follows along the lines of your 2nd experience.  2 batches of stout to which I had added 1# of flaked barley.   No other variable changed.  Subsequent batches, to which no flaked barley had been added, have been fine. Temperature of the sparge water probably factors in at some level.  But there’s no doubt in my mind that the d***ed flaked barley did me in. |   |                   Kinney Baughman                         |   |   /                                                             /   |        "Beer is my business and I’m late for work"            |

Response:

)  I computed the extract ratio of my last ten batches and got )  the following numbers: )   )       27, 27, 26, 30, 28, 27, 25, 28, 29, 28 So now we have it.  My extract efficiencies run 30-33 using the GOODMASH system (ordinary food pail Zapap-type).  I brew mostly medium to high gravity beers (1.050+) and I usually give up when my runoff still has a gravity of 1.010-1.020 or so.  Efficiency depends on the types of grain–the most computationally favorable results (not necessarily the best tasting) have occurred with step mashing brews that were 90%+ British 2-row. Brews with 20-30% Munich + 2-3# adjunct, remainder Klages or British 2-row, still wind up at about 30. The last time I had extracts as miserable as Jack’s were when I was using malt that had been cracked in a really horribly misadjusted store mill, such that maybe 10% of the kernels were untouched and 10-20% of them had been reduced to flour.  No one using a normal mashing system on "normal" ingredients should have extract efficiencies this low. (On to Jack’s favorite topic.)  I have had two set mashes … one resulted from some of this miserably cracked grain.  I think it would have clogged *anything* smaller than a drainpipe, really.  The second resulted from a batch of beer that had 2# of rather thoroughly gloppy rice in it, kind of like wallpaper paste after I was done stewing it in the oven, and a mash-out at an insufficiently high temperature. We here at the Hall Brewery will not do that again! For those normal folks out there with Zapap-type lauter tuns, try treating the flash on the holes with a blowtorch.  It will smell a bit when you’re done, but a few rinses with hot water take care of that.  You will find that cleaning those slightly larger, smooth, round holes is SO MUCH EASIER.  There is not a problem with grains and other crud slipping through them, trust me. Lest I start feeling overly proud of myself, I should remember that the folks who do decoction mashes ("LONG&HARDMASH") will undoubtedly brag about their efficiencies in the 34-36 range.  I usually don’t start that early in the day, myself … v   v  sssss | Certified Guru: all-grain brewing,| 2102 Ryan’s Run East  v v  s   s  | C, synthesizer comp & arranging,  | Rt 38 & 41   v    sss   | photography. Also not a bad cook. | Maple Shade NJ 08052 —–My employer isn’t paying for this, and my opinions are my own—–

Response:

                EXTRACT EFFICIENCY  I computed the extract ratio of my last ten batches and got  the following numbers:       27, 27, 26, 30, 28, 27, 25, 28, 29, 28  So that we are all using the same prayerbook, I calculated  the ratio as follows:  gals/lbs X gravity.  The gravity  being the first two digits following the zero after the  decimal point.            i.e. 1.050 = 50     e.g.   7 gal/10 lbs = .7 X 50 = 35  All of these (as have all my all grain batches) have been  made by kettle mashing as described in my article called  "Easymash".  There is one very significant point to consider before one  abandons ones current system in despair of achieving widely  publicized ratios.  It is easy to come up with the wrong numbers if the volume  is not accurately known.  For example, if in the above, a  gallon of wort was left behind in the trub and not included  in the calculation, the actual yield would have been 40.  This may seem like it is cheating but just because you throw  it away, does not mean it is not part of the net sweet wort.  The early design of EASYMASH left about an inch of wort on  the bottom of the kettle and it took me awhile to figure out  that this was part of the equation.  The new design leaves  less than a quart behind.  In any case, one can and should recover this (lost wort).    You can pour it into a gallon jug and refrigerate it  overnight.  It will settle out nicely and you can pour off  the clear wort into the fermenter or save it for starting  the yeast for the next batch.  js  p.s.  It should also be pointed out that according to Noonan, one can only expect to get about 75% extraction from the typical malt.  Not sure how this fits into the above or what sort of nonsense it makes out of the iodine test but I just thought I would add it to the confusion. jss

Response: