I have now brewed 2 batches of beer using the BIAB. The first beer was an English IPA with a OG of 1.059 and the End of Boil efficiency was calculated at 86%. My method was experimental, but I used a crude batch sparge. The beer was awesome and true to style.
My next batch, I improved the method by doing a step infusion method as follows:
Step 1 - dough in with 3.5 gals of water at 125 deg for 15 minutes ( I am using an 8.4 gal pot with false bottom at the 1 gal level)
Step 2 - Tempertaure raised to 156 deg and held for 40 minutes.
Step 3 - Mash out at 168 deg for 10 minutes
Step 4 - Batch sparge with remaining water (about 3.5 gal) for 45 minutes at 172 deg
Boil for 60 minutes with final volume reaching 5.1 gal
The OG reading taken of the cooled wort was 1.052, it should have been 1.046 given the 86% efficiency calculated from the previous brew. The newly calculated efficiency was 93%. My question, is this a reasonable efficiency to expect in future recipes of this range of OG's? BTW I stir nearly continuously and I use a smal pump to take the wort from below the bag back to the top of the grain bed.
Would love some feedback from experienced BIAB brewers on this one.
Post #2 made 14 years ago
Hi there bcull,
Congrats on your first two brews
.
Your efficiency numbers and the variance between them look fine to me. It is totally normal to get such variances. (You can see some of the variances I had on my last 6 brews here.)
For the home brewer the aim of using a good efficiency figure is not to hit your numbers every time (which is impossible on the home brewing scale) but to make sure you are going to end up at the end of the day within sensible boundaries.
Quite a few of us here are working on trying to improve what efficiency into kettle figure (theoretically the same as end of boil efficiency) to use for different gravity brews. For a new brewer brewing beers of around 1.050 OG, I would go for go for about 82%. While this may well be on the low side for many BIAB'ers, the end result (assuming evaporation rates are also in the ball park) will be a slightly higher gravity brew which can easily be dealt with by a small dilution at pitching time.
The more brews you do, and the more measurements you take, the faster you'll get better efficiency figures to work from.
The other thing to remember is that sole readings from single instruments are not very reliable so if you ever have a mate around on a brew day, tell them to bring their hydrometer, thermometer etc and have a play around at measuring.
The thread I linked above will show various ways you can double-check your numbers but taking too many measurements can spoil a brew day if they throw you into a panic so just explore the numbers more as a bit of fun rather than becoming fixated on them. Remember that the best we can do is get in the ball park and make sensible adjustments. Good recipes will taste as good at 1.047 as at 1.053 OG (in fact a good recipe will have a great range of tolerance) so we really can be quite relaxed.
PP
Congrats on your first two brews
.Your efficiency numbers and the variance between them look fine to me. It is totally normal to get such variances. (You can see some of the variances I had on my last 6 brews here.)
For the home brewer the aim of using a good efficiency figure is not to hit your numbers every time (which is impossible on the home brewing scale) but to make sure you are going to end up at the end of the day within sensible boundaries.
Quite a few of us here are working on trying to improve what efficiency into kettle figure (theoretically the same as end of boil efficiency) to use for different gravity brews. For a new brewer brewing beers of around 1.050 OG, I would go for go for about 82%. While this may well be on the low side for many BIAB'ers, the end result (assuming evaporation rates are also in the ball park) will be a slightly higher gravity brew which can easily be dealt with by a small dilution at pitching time.
The more brews you do, and the more measurements you take, the faster you'll get better efficiency figures to work from.
The other thing to remember is that sole readings from single instruments are not very reliable so if you ever have a mate around on a brew day, tell them to bring their hydrometer, thermometer etc and have a play around at measuring.
The thread I linked above will show various ways you can double-check your numbers but taking too many measurements can spoil a brew day if they throw you into a panic so just explore the numbers more as a bit of fun rather than becoming fixated on them. Remember that the best we can do is get in the ball park and make sensible adjustments. Good recipes will taste as good at 1.047 as at 1.053 OG (in fact a good recipe will have a great range of tolerance) so we really can be quite relaxed.
PP
Last edited by PistolPatch on 12 Apr 2012, 17:50, edited 3 times in total.
If you have found the above or anything else of value on BIABrewer.info, consider supporting us by getting some BIPs!
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
-
Post #3 made 14 years ago
I guess, for standard brews varying from 1.045 to 1.055 efficiency into kettle can be expected to be about 75-85%
(efficiency will drop as gravity goes up)
For sparged brews, EIK would be about 80-95%
You're numbers sound totally ball park for a sparged BIAB.
(efficiency will drop as gravity goes up)
For sparged brews, EIK would be about 80-95%
You're numbers sound totally ball park for a sparged BIAB.
Fermenting: -
Cubed: -
Stirplate: -
On Tap: NS Summer Ale III (WY1272), Landlord III (WY1469), Fighter's 70/- II (WY1272), Roast Porter (WY1028), Cider, Soda
Next: Munich Helles III
5/7/12
Cubed: -
Stirplate: -
On Tap: NS Summer Ale III (WY1272), Landlord III (WY1469), Fighter's 70/- II (WY1272), Roast Porter (WY1028), Cider, Soda
Next: Munich Helles III
5/7/12
Post #4 made 14 years ago
Don't listen to a word stux says bcull - stux has been drinking cider tonight 
.
Stux loves exploring numbers and has put many hours into it. What we need though is more brews measured to adjust his predictions. For example, like you, I am getting way higher efficiencies on full-volume brews than predicted from Stu's CE calculator. I am not so far, getting much gain from sparging (less than 2% on the three side by sides I have done.)
So, my first impressions so far are that...
1. The CE Calc, and BIABrewer.info, are under-predicting Efficiency into kettle.
2. The CE Calc is over-estimating the gains of an 'active' sparge.
I personally am not attached to the results. (In fact, on my last run of brews, I only took a good look at my measurements the day after I had completed the brews.) What I would like is for us to get many more results! This can only be done by many brewers doing many brews of many different methods.
For now, I have to disagree with stux and say that your measurements are typical of a BIAB whether actively sparged or not.
PP
.Stux loves exploring numbers and has put many hours into it. What we need though is more brews measured to adjust his predictions. For example, like you, I am getting way higher efficiencies on full-volume brews than predicted from Stu's CE calculator. I am not so far, getting much gain from sparging (less than 2% on the three side by sides I have done.)
So, my first impressions so far are that...
1. The CE Calc, and BIABrewer.info, are under-predicting Efficiency into kettle.
2. The CE Calc is over-estimating the gains of an 'active' sparge.
I personally am not attached to the results. (In fact, on my last run of brews, I only took a good look at my measurements the day after I had completed the brews.) What I would like is for us to get many more results! This can only be done by many brewers doing many brews of many different methods.
For now, I have to disagree with stux and say that your measurements are typical of a BIAB whether actively sparged or not.
PP
If you have found the above or anything else of value on BIABrewer.info, consider supporting us by getting some BIPs!
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
-
Post #5 made 14 years ago
bcull,Whats up with teh imperial measurements?Your first post said you are from Canada.Are you a displaced American? 
Do you use Imperial gallons or American? 
If you can get your head around it, you will find this forum very metric friendly. 
Do you use Imperial gallons or American? If you can get your head around it, you will find this forum very metric friendly. AWOL
Post #6 made 14 years ago
Thanks for the reassuring comments everyone.
I am an experienced brewer and have been at it using a lauter tun system and HERMS systems for well over 10 years. My brew efficiencies with these methods have always been in the 75% range, without much variation.
I was completely shocked with my second attempt at BIAB (much easier than the other two methods BTW, which have large PITA factors), that I reached an efficiency number of 93%. The problem (if there really is one) is that my planned special bitter (OG 1.046) now becomes an extra special bitter (OG 1,053) and my hop/malt ratio (IBU/SG) dips to .68 from .74. In future recipes I will adjust the grain bill and hope to hell the results aren't spurious.
BTW, my first brew with BIAB was a clone of the first IPA in history - Worthington's White Shield. It was such at success that the entire batch (19 litres)was consumed by the poker buds in one evening! My Scotsman friend announced that the brew, "...took me back to the days of have a pint in the pub with me dad". If you are interested you can read about the brew on my blog at http://lotusneuron.blogspot.ca/2012/02/ ... -beer.html
So thanks you Aussies for bringing this great method to the world!
Finally, to my Canadian friend Lylo, I am inclined to use imperial measurements because I was born in England a long time ago and educated in Canada when we measured things in inches, pounds and yards. But in brewing, the Americans seem to be very into the homebrewing scene and a lot of the recipes are in US measurements. But, point taken, I will try to clean up my language in the future!
I am an experienced brewer and have been at it using a lauter tun system and HERMS systems for well over 10 years. My brew efficiencies with these methods have always been in the 75% range, without much variation.
I was completely shocked with my second attempt at BIAB (much easier than the other two methods BTW, which have large PITA factors), that I reached an efficiency number of 93%. The problem (if there really is one) is that my planned special bitter (OG 1.046) now becomes an extra special bitter (OG 1,053) and my hop/malt ratio (IBU/SG) dips to .68 from .74. In future recipes I will adjust the grain bill and hope to hell the results aren't spurious.
BTW, my first brew with BIAB was a clone of the first IPA in history - Worthington's White Shield. It was such at success that the entire batch (19 litres)was consumed by the poker buds in one evening! My Scotsman friend announced that the brew, "...took me back to the days of have a pint in the pub with me dad". If you are interested you can read about the brew on my blog at http://lotusneuron.blogspot.ca/2012/02/ ... -beer.html
So thanks you Aussies for bringing this great method to the world!
Finally, to my Canadian friend Lylo, I am inclined to use imperial measurements because I was born in England a long time ago and educated in Canada when we measured things in inches, pounds and yards. But in brewing, the Americans seem to be very into the homebrewing scene and a lot of the recipes are in US measurements. But, point taken, I will try to clean up my language in the future!
Post #7 made 14 years ago
No problem bcull,I grew up with imperial too.It was when I started
AG that I switched/cranked my brain over to metric.The LME kits I used to get were mostly from the UK and made 5 Imp.gallons.Then when I started AG I found the whole mix of UK,US and metric recipes and measurements too confusing.(not a big task) I just found it easier and I feel sooo much younger!
PS.Nice Blog.It looks like you have seen alot more of this country than I have.
AG that I switched/cranked my brain over to metric.The LME kits I used to get were mostly from the UK and made 5 Imp.gallons.Then when I started AG I found the whole mix of UK,US and metric recipes and measurements too confusing.(not a big task) I just found it easier and I feel sooo much younger!
PS.Nice Blog.It looks like you have seen alot more of this country than I have.
AWOL
Post #8 made 14 years ago
Canoeing is a passion, for sure. I would love to do the South Nahanni again, but the cost is getting to be too much. Glad I had the chance when I did though.
I just racked the new brew into the secondary - I think it will be a good one! If you drop down the Trans Canada I will draw you one.
I just racked the new brew into the secondary - I think it will be a good one! If you drop down the Trans Canada I will draw you one.
Post #9 made 14 years ago
Hey bcull,
I added US conversions to stux's CE calc spreadsheet. It helps me since I am used to the measurements and use a lot of US recipes.
I added US conversions to stux's CE calc spreadsheet. It helps me since I am used to the measurements and use a lot of US recipes.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Fermenting:
Bottle Conditioning
Up Next:
Bottle Conditioning
Up Next:
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 20 Brews From United States of America
-
