Hi there
I have 60% of efficiency in my BIAB system and for my recipe I'm running 45 minutes of mashing. Assuming that I have the correct temperature and ph, does anyone know how much efficiency I gain (approximately of course) if i keep the mashing time going on till 90 minutes?
Post #2 made 10 years ago
NCL, a longer mash does help the GIB ( gravity into the Boil)
the attached XLS is FAR from Complete, but show Gravity measurements from a couple of our Members YMMV
the attached XLS is FAR from Complete, but show Gravity measurements from a couple of our Members YMMV
Honest Officer, I swear to Drunk, I am Not God.
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
-
Post #3 made 10 years ago
wow, that's an higher profit that i was expected.
So standing to your data if i keep 90 min. instead of 45 min. i can gain 10% point of efficiency!
can i ask you the ratio between malt and water you used?
So standing to your data if i keep 90 min. instead of 45 min. i can gain 10% point of efficiency!
can i ask you the ratio between malt and water you used?
Post #4 made 10 years ago
NCI, these numbers came from Full Volume Brewing, so it could be 2.5 to 6 L/Kg, depending on the Specific Gravity desired from the GrainBill.
For a quick read on ideas of Over-Night Mashing see...
https://byo.com/hops/item/931-is-there- ... he-morning
For a quick read on ideas of Over-Night Mashing see...
https://byo.com/hops/item/931-is-there- ... he-morning
Honest Officer, I swear to Drunk, I am Not God.
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
-
Post #5 made 10 years ago
ncl, can you explain your efficiency, at what point in your process is 60%?
MS
MS
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
-
Post #6 made 10 years ago
i used 3.4 kg of pale ale malt (2 row), 0.1 kg of crystal malt on 15 liters of final wort; just before inoculate yeast i made the Gravity Measurement and i found that the density of my wort was 1044.
Just to simplify my calculus i use this tool http://www.brewersfriend.com/brewhouse-efficiency/ obtaining 59.64%
Just to simplify my calculus i use this tool http://www.brewersfriend.com/brewhouse-efficiency/ obtaining 59.64%
Post #7 made 10 years ago
Hey ncl, you may want to give the BIABacus a try.
If you enter your kettle dimensions correctly (and recipe), it can help you take accurate volume measurements simply by measuring depth of wort or kettle headspace, throughout the brew. If you record your measurements in the approriate fields, it will also calculate efficiency throughout the process ie efficiency into boil, efficiency of ambient wort, and efficiency into fermentor. Sounds like the calculator you used is calculating efficiency into fermentor, which is the least important of the three, since it is dependant on how much trub you leave behind (kettle to fermentor loss) which varies brew to brew and brewer to brewer.
The BIABacus actually does much much more than the above, see this post:
http://www.biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php ... 137#p46456
If you enter your kettle dimensions correctly (and recipe), it can help you take accurate volume measurements simply by measuring depth of wort or kettle headspace, throughout the brew. If you record your measurements in the approriate fields, it will also calculate efficiency throughout the process ie efficiency into boil, efficiency of ambient wort, and efficiency into fermentor. Sounds like the calculator you used is calculating efficiency into fermentor, which is the least important of the three, since it is dependant on how much trub you leave behind (kettle to fermentor loss) which varies brew to brew and brewer to brewer.
The BIABacus actually does much much more than the above, see this post:
http://www.biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php ... 137#p46456
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Canada
-
Post #8 made 10 years ago
Brewersfriend (Brewhouse efficiency) is coming in within 1% of what the BIABacus calculates.
Your 60% equated to the BIABacus efficiency into fermentor, a.k.a. EIF. The BIABacus predicts a 78.4% EIF.
Your 60% equated to the BIABacus efficiency into fermentor, a.k.a. EIF. The BIABacus predicts a 78.4% EIF.
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
-
Post #9 made 10 years ago
mmmh i don't think 78% is a truthful value because the recipe i used has been calibrated with 72% of efficiency and they ask for 1050 gravity point. If i use Brewersfriend to calculate the value of efficiency with the original recipe it correspond. In my brew i reached only 1044 so 60% let me understand that it's a good approximation.
By the way i discovered BIABiacus after my last brew, i will try it the next time.
By the way i discovered BIABiacus after my last brew, i will try it the next time.
Post #10 made 10 years ago
NCl, The Final Gravity was 1.044????
How long did you Boil, and how close to the Final Volume did you get?????
If the Final volume was more than planned, that may have been the reason you had 1.044 instead of 1.050.
How long did you Boil, and how close to the Final Volume did you get?????
If the Final volume was more than planned, that may have been the reason you had 1.044 instead of 1.050.
Honest Officer, I swear to Drunk, I am Not God.
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
-
Post #11 made 10 years ago
one hour boiling.
the Original Gravity was 1044, the final 1010.
i used the amount of malt for a brew with 72% of efficiency (as my recipe considered). At the beginning i didn't know yet how much was my efficiency that's why i obtained such a light gravity.
the Original Gravity was 1044, the final 1010.
i used the amount of malt for a brew with 72% of efficiency (as my recipe considered). At the beginning i didn't know yet how much was my efficiency that's why i obtained such a light gravity.
Post #12 made 10 years ago
That looks like the fermentation.
Sorry, I was wondering the Final Volume into the Fermenter or the VIF and how close it was to planned.
The Volume created before fermentation, may be the reason for the 1.044
If your VIF was 12% greater then Planned, that would make the 1050 S.G. only 1.044 S.G.
Or for example, a 13L Planned batch would end up being 15L..
Sorry, I was wondering the Final Volume into the Fermenter or the VIF and how close it was to planned.
The Volume created before fermentation, may be the reason for the 1.044
If your VIF was 12% greater then Planned, that would make the 1050 S.G. only 1.044 S.G.
Or for example, a 13L Planned batch would end up being 15L..
Honest Officer, I swear to Drunk, I am Not God.
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
-
Post #13 made 10 years ago
Joshua has replied whilst typing, but I will leave it as below anyhow (although it seems to be a repeat)!
ncl - What Joshua is asking is we know your gravity was off, but did you match the volumes OK?
I think you should have had a VIF (or VAW) of 15L @1.050. If you got around 16-17L @1.044, your efficiency is the same, you just haven't evaporated as much water. If so, this could just be a boil off rate problem, not an efficiency one.
ncl - What Joshua is asking is we know your gravity was off, but did you match the volumes OK?
I think you should have had a VIF (or VAW) of 15L @1.050. If you got around 16-17L @1.044, your efficiency is the same, you just haven't evaporated as much water. If so, this could just be a boil off rate problem, not an efficiency one.
G B
I spent lots of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I squandered
I've stopped drinking, but only when I'm asleep
I ONCE gave up women and alcohol - it was the worst 20 minutes of my life
I spent lots of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I squandered
I've stopped drinking, but only when I'm asleep
I ONCE gave up women and alcohol - it was the worst 20 minutes of my life
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Great Britain
-
Post #14 made 10 years ago
i've reached the volume target.
The recipe i followed was described for 23 liters, i've used 2/3 of everything for space reason, doing in this way i should have obtained 15 liters with 1050 OG.
The recipe i followed was described for 23 liters, i've used 2/3 of everything for space reason, doing in this way i should have obtained 15 liters with 1050 OG.
Post #15 made 10 years ago
NCL, OK, there is some data that Mashing at less than 150F, needs more time than Mashing at 167F.
Of course, High mashing Temperature take less time to Mash, it causes Much more Body(less ferment-able Sugars).
So if you mashed at 150F or less you might need another Hour, to convert the Starch/Long Sugars.
The best temperature is 153+-2F, for 75-90minutes to get the best Conversion for Beta Amylase AND Alpha Amylase.
JMHO.
Of course, High mashing Temperature take less time to Mash, it causes Much more Body(less ferment-able Sugars).
So if you mashed at 150F or less you might need another Hour, to convert the Starch/Long Sugars.
The best temperature is 153+-2F, for 75-90minutes to get the best Conversion for Beta Amylase AND Alpha Amylase.
JMHO.
Honest Officer, I swear to Drunk, I am Not God.
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
-
Post #16 made 10 years ago
thank you, assuming you are right ( and i think you are ) i have to add the information that after 45 the iodine test was positive.
how is possible that i gain sugar in water also when there is no other sugar to extract?
how is possible that i gain sugar in water also when there is no other sugar to extract?
Post #17 made 10 years ago
Iodine tests are not reliable, they are just indicators.
Also, there is a presumption that all available starch is gelatinised and available to convert, and the enzymes have full access to it. This is not always the case.
Also, there is a presumption that all available starch is gelatinised and available to convert, and the enzymes have full access to it. This is not always the case.
G B
I spent lots of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I squandered
I've stopped drinking, but only when I'm asleep
I ONCE gave up women and alcohol - it was the worst 20 minutes of my life
I spent lots of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I squandered
I've stopped drinking, but only when I'm asleep
I ONCE gave up women and alcohol - it was the worst 20 minutes of my life
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Great Britain
-
Post #18 made 10 years ago
Guys, The Iodine test really shows when there are NO Starches are left......Or that 1 glucose molecule has been removed from each Starch molecule.
Amylopectin and Amylose are the two starches in Barley.
Amylopectin is highly branched, being formed of 2,000 to 200,000 glucose units.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylopectin
Amylose has some in the range of 300 to 3000 glucose units.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylose
Alpha breakdown starches in Big Pieces, and Beta nibbles off glucose molecules one by one
How long you mash determines how much Glucose is created....it is all up to you!!
Amylopectin and Amylose are the two starches in Barley.
Amylopectin is highly branched, being formed of 2,000 to 200,000 glucose units.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylopectin
Amylose has some in the range of 300 to 3000 glucose units.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylose
Alpha breakdown starches in Big Pieces, and Beta nibbles off glucose molecules one by one
How long you mash determines how much Glucose is created....it is all up to you!!
Honest Officer, I swear to Drunk, I am Not God.
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
-
Post #19 made 10 years ago
True, hence my comment about them only being indicators.
What I was alluding to was the following paragraphs from Charlie Bamforth "Beer Tap into the Art and Science of Brewing".
When starch granules are heated, the molecules that compose them “melt,” and the granular structure disaggregates. This melting occurs at different temperatures, depending on the origin of the starch.
Barley starch exists in two populations: large granules, which are generally between 15 and 20 um in size (reminder: a micrometer is a thousandth of a millimeter), and small granules, which are less than 6 um in diameter. Although there are 5–10 times more small granules than large ones, the latter account for more than 85% of the total starch by weight.
The large granules gelatinize at 58–62˚C, whereas the temperature must be raised to 68˚C to melt the smaller ones. If the small granules are not degraded, they cause substantial problems for the Brewer. In practice, they don’t survive in significant quantities into a wellmodified malt, showing that despite their higher gelatinization temperature they are more readily consumed in germination, probably because of their much smaller size—they are less of a “mouthful” for the amylases.
What I was alluding to was the following paragraphs from Charlie Bamforth "Beer Tap into the Art and Science of Brewing".
When starch granules are heated, the molecules that compose them “melt,” and the granular structure disaggregates. This melting occurs at different temperatures, depending on the origin of the starch.
Barley starch exists in two populations: large granules, which are generally between 15 and 20 um in size (reminder: a micrometer is a thousandth of a millimeter), and small granules, which are less than 6 um in diameter. Although there are 5–10 times more small granules than large ones, the latter account for more than 85% of the total starch by weight.
The large granules gelatinize at 58–62˚C, whereas the temperature must be raised to 68˚C to melt the smaller ones. If the small granules are not degraded, they cause substantial problems for the Brewer. In practice, they don’t survive in significant quantities into a wellmodified malt, showing that despite their higher gelatinization temperature they are more readily consumed in germination, probably because of their much smaller size—they are less of a “mouthful” for the amylases.
Last edited by mally on 23 Jan 2015, 00:05, edited 1 time in total.
G B
I spent lots of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I squandered
I've stopped drinking, but only when I'm asleep
I ONCE gave up women and alcohol - it was the worst 20 minutes of my life
I spent lots of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I squandered
I've stopped drinking, but only when I'm asleep
I ONCE gave up women and alcohol - it was the worst 20 minutes of my life
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Great Britain
-
Post #20 made 10 years ago
Mally, Correct you are, if you mash below 143F/62C it take a LONG time to convert all the starch and sugars to glucose.
The gelatinization stage works well for Other starches too, at Different temperatures.
But, still need conversion to Glucose since gelatinization breaks stage down to 3 Glucose molecules.
Also, the Husk Material that is about 5-6% of a grain, that never changes and are not worth anything to BIAB.
The gelatinization stage works well for Other starches too, at Different temperatures.
But, still need conversion to Glucose since gelatinization breaks stage down to 3 Glucose molecules.
Also, the Husk Material that is about 5-6% of a grain, that never changes and are not worth anything to BIAB.
Honest Officer, I swear to Drunk, I am Not God.
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
-
Post #21 made 10 years ago
ncl, given your extra bits of information, such as 'it was for a 1.050 brew', as a matter of interest, take a look at some of our posts over here; http://biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php?f=5 ... =25#p28170
... you may have reached your 1.050 OG if you went out to 90 + mins for the mash.
MS
... you may have reached your 1.050 OG if you went out to 90 + mins for the mash.
MS
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
-
Post #22 made 10 years ago
Whilst there are many very good answers above, questions are being asked and then ignored or forgotten. Consequently, as a reader, there is no careful flow of information or education in this thread so far.
For example, Mad_Scientist's question asked in #5 above is a critical one. Explanations and links on EIK versus EIF and the importance of a 90 minute mash on most recipes need to be given to ncl first. Some other detailed answers above, whilst of high quality, are totally irrelevant to ncl.
If someone can back-track on this thread, it would be very much appreciated.
[Please note that Hints does not reply to direct questions.]
For example, Mad_Scientist's question asked in #5 above is a critical one. Explanations and links on EIK versus EIF and the importance of a 90 minute mash on most recipes need to be given to ncl first. Some other detailed answers above, whilst of high quality, are totally irrelevant to ncl.
If someone can back-track on this thread, it would be very much appreciated.
[Please note that Hints does not reply to direct questions.]
