BIAB Efficiency Calculation

I am on my third BIAB batch. I am trying to fine tune my system, and improve my efficiency. I would like someone to confirm if I am calculating this properly. I brewed the following recipe:

Coffee Bender Clone
9.5 Lbs Maris O. (added an additional 1 lb to compensate for lower efficiency predicted by past brews)
2.0 Lbs Aromatic
.75 Special Roast
.75 Crystal 55
.25 Chocolate Malt
.75 Flaked Outs

Wyeast - British Ale
.5 Oz Willamette Pellet Hop 4.7AA Mash Hop
.5 Oz Columbus Pellet Hop 15 AA (Bittering) 60 M
.5 Oz Willamette Pellet Hop 4.7 AA (flameout) 0 M
2 Oz Willamette Pellet Hop 4.77 AA Dry Hop 5 days in primary at end of evident fermentation
10 Oz of Indonesian Sulawesi fresh ground, cold steep. <= I plan on racking the beer off my sediment back to my primary and adding this after fermentation is complete

I used the calculator here to determine how much water to add and my strike temperature. I did not reserve boiling water for mashout, instead, I direct fired my kettle.

http://www.simplebiabcalculator.com/

8.38 gallons of water to mash
6.63 gallons of water preboil
5.63 gallons post boil
5.5 gallons transferred

I took a pre-boil and post-boil gravity reading.
Post boil it was 1.055 at 79 degrees F
Pre-boil it was 1.052 at 74 degrees F

I am trying to figure out if I am calculating efficiency correctly. Using my post boil gravity and correcting for temperature, with this calculator:

http://www.brewersfriend.com/hydrometer-temp/

i get 1.056.

I squeezed quite a bit of wort out of the bag. I mashed out, first raising the temperature to 170, then waiting 10 minutes, and removing the bag.

Due to the amount sqeezing, or maybe partially underestimating the boil off (not sure which), I believe I transferred about 5.75 gallons to my primary. I estimated losing .5 to trub, so I think I'm pretty close here.

When I milled my grain, I was able to set the gap on the mill. I set it to .030. I only ran the grain through the mill once.

I am trying to determine my efficiency, so I use the calculator here:
http://www.brewersfriend.com/brewhouse-efficiency/

with the ingredients above, and my post boil reading (for example) of 1.056 and 5.75 gallons (estimated), and my efficiency is 63.23%.

Am I calculating this correctly?

Up until this recent brew, I was unable to know what the gap on the mill was. But this time I went to a different LHBS to mill my grain, and I was able to know what the gap was set at.

I did add an additional 1 lb of base malt to the recipe (it called for 8.5, but I used the 9.5 listed above) to compensate for a lower efficiency.

I am trying to fine tune my system, and any suggestions would be appreciated. My efficiency just seems to be off in comparison to what I have read.

Something doesn't add up. You're basically saying:

weeple2000 said:

6.63 gallons of water preboil at 1.052

5.63 gallons post boil at 1.056

Click to expand...

Plugging those sets of numbers into the efficiency calculator I get two different numbers. They should be the same. There is the same amount of sugar preboil as post boil. Dilution from boiling raises the gravity.

Also, using the boil off/dilution calculator, if you started with 6.63 gallons of 1.052 wort and boiled it down to 5.63 gallons the resulting wort would be 1.062.

I harp on people a lot for measuring gravity at the temp your hydrometer was calibrated for. It has to be a measuring error. Either volume or gravity.

ETA:

weeple2000 said:

5.63 gallons post boil
5.5 gallons transferred

I believe I transferred about 5.75 gallons to my primary.

...and my post boil reading (for example) of 1.056 and 5.75 gallons (estimated), and my efficiency is 63.23%.

Click to expand...

I just read it again. You can't estimate quantities and you've given three different quantities for the same thing here. I'm confused.

I am on my third BIAB batch. I am trying to fine tune my system, and improve my efficiency. I would like someone to confirm if I am calculating this properly. I brewed the following recipe:

Click to expand...

If you really want to increase your efficiency, mill those grains finer. That's the key to great efficiency and the reason you plan on 60 to 70% efficiency with the conventional mash tun is that you have to give up some efficiency to ensure you have sufficient intact hulls to make a filter bed. You don't need a filter bed with BIAB because you are using the fine mesh of the bag to do your filtering.

The harder you can squeeze the bag to get the sugars out, the higher efficiency you can achieve. Since any wort left in the bag contains fermentable sugars, do everything you can to get them out. I find that even a small rinse of the bag helps and a dunk sparge will get even more sugars out.

You don't need to do a mash out because you will be heating the wort quickly after removing the bag of grains. Mash out is important with a fly sparge because it takes more time and the enzymes want to keep breaking the long chain sugars down into more fermentable sugars.

I don't lose anything to trub when I transfer the cooled wort to the fermenter. It all goes in. The hops settle to the bottom and the yeast settles on top of it. That will increase your efficiency a little too as you won't leave any sweet wort behind.

elkshadow said:

Something doesn't add up. You're basically saying:



Plugging those sets of numbers into the efficiency calculator I get two different numbers. They should be the same. There is the same amount of sugar preboil as post boil. Dilution from boiling raises the gravity.

Also, using the boil off/dilution calculator, if you started with 6.63 gallons of 1.052 wort and boiled it down to 5.63 gallons the resulting wort would be 1.062.

I harp on people a lot for measuring gravity at the temp your hydrometer was calibrated for. It has to be a measuring error. Either volume or gravity.

ETA:



I just read it again. You can't estimate quantities and you've given three different quantities for the same thing here. I'm confused.

Click to expand...

This is part of the problem here. I have wort in a pot, and I am not certain what the volume is. I have a 6 gallon carboy for a primary, it is marked at the 6 gallon mark. Judging by what went into the carboy at the end, I suspect I transferred about 5.75 gallons. There was a small amount that didn't get transferred, probably 0.10 of a gallon or so.

I tried measuring with a ruler to estimate what was in the pot, but something went wrong there because my measurement didn't add up seeing what went into the carboy at the end of it all.

The 2 readings for the hydrometer were:
1.052 at 74 degrees F pre boil
1.055 at 79 degrees F post boil

I guess I have a better idea of the amount of liquid I have post boil. I understand that the two calculations for efficiency should be the same because there is the same amount of sugar in the wort.

RM-MN said:

If you really want to increase your efficiency, mill those grains finer. That's the key to great efficiency and the reason you plan on 60 to 70% efficiency with the conventional mash tun is that you have to give up some efficiency to ensure you have sufficient intact hulls to make a filter bed. You don't need a filter bed with BIAB because you are using the fine mesh of the bag to do your filtering.

The harder you can squeeze the bag to get the sugars out, the higher efficiency you can achieve. Since any wort left in the bag contains fermentable sugars, do everything you can to get them out. I find that even a small rinse of the bag helps and a dunk sparge will get even more sugars out.

You don't need to do a mash out because you will be heating the wort quickly after removing the bag of grains. Mash out is important with a fly sparge because it takes more time and the enzymes want to keep breaking the long chain sugars down into more fermentable sugars.

I don't lose anything to trub when I transfer the cooled wort to the fermenter. It all goes in. The hops settle to the bottom and the yeast settles on top of it. That will increase your efficiency a little too as you won't leave any sweet wort behind.

Click to expand...

What should I be milling my grain at? When I was at the store I looked it up on my phone, and it seemed that .030 was a common setting for BIAB. I didn't run the grain through twice because I thought .030 was a good number. If I go finer, what should it be next time?

I thought mash out would help remove sugar from the grain before removing the grain from the pot. I think I would continue to do this erring on the side of caution because I suspect that while it may not help, it probably isn't hurting either.

I did squeeze the bag, and I felt that I was able to get a lot of wort out of the bag. I suspect that my boil off estimate of 1 gallon per hour for my 11 gallon bayou classic pot may be correct, and that the reason I wound up with extra liquid at the end is because I had squeezed so much.

I have considered attempting either a rinse sparge or a dunk sparge (in a bucket) to try to boost efficiency. When I realized I could work on the variable of the mill setting, I decided to change that variable and not also attempt a sparge.

I like making beer and wine a lot. It is just frustrating because I don't have my system dialed in for BIAB yet. When I read about people getting efficiency in the 80s I have to scratch my head and wonder if I am doing something wrong in the process, or if my method of calculating efficiency is flawed.

weeple2000 said:

This is part of the problem here. I have wort in a pot, and I am not certain what the volume is. I have a 6 gallon carboy for a primary, it is marked at the 6 gallon mark. Judging by what went into the carboy at the end, I suspect I transferred about 5.75 gallons. There was a small amount that didn't get transferred, probably 0.10 of a gallon or so.

I tried measuring with a ruler to estimate what was in the pot, but something went wrong there because my measurement didn't add up seeing what went into the carboy at the end of it all.

The 2 readings for the hydrometer were:
1.052 at 74 degrees F pre boil
1.055 at 79 degrees F post boil

I guess I have a better idea of the amount of liquid I have post boil. I understand that the two calculations for efficiency should be the same because there is the same amount of sugar in the wort.

Click to expand...

You need to mark your big spoon with volume measurements. Pour in a gallon, mark it, another gallon mark it, etc... I make 3 gallon batches so I also use a 1 gallon measuring pitcher to measure everything.

It looks like you're calculating it correctly. Just measure amounts better and read your hydrometer at its calibrated temp. Good luck.

If you set the mill much finer than the .030" you may have trouble getting the grain to feed through. Opening it up a bit and double milling might work out better.

The point of the mashout isn't getting the more sugar out, it is "killing" the enzymes that do the sugar conversion so they quit working and your wort ends up with the right amount of long chain vs short chain sugars so your beer doesn't become too dry. By squeezing the bag in your hands (don't try that at mashout temps) you will notice that even the last bit of the wort you can squeeze out will make your hands sticky from the sugars because the wort is saturated. By doing some kind of sparge you will add more water for the sugars to dissolve into.

Ok, so I can double mill at 0.030 next time and do a sparge to increase efficiency then? The spoon I use for brewing isn't actually that big, it is just a slotted spoon for cooking and such. Perhaps I should get another spoon just for brewing. I could mark my spoon the depths of half gallon increments that fit into my brew pot. I have a dremel so I could mark the spoon permanently. Or perhaps I should just use sharpie? Although I suspect that would come off.

If anyone else has any suggestions, I'm all ears. I really want to hit the 80% mark for BIAB.

FWIW, I crush my grains once at 0.030 and then a second time at ~0.017 according to the grain mill at Midwest. I use at least 2.0 qts/lb water ratio. I get mid to high 70s for efficiency depending on the grain bill.

I hit 80%+ with a gap setting of .030 a single time through. I held back 8 quarts of 170 degree water for a sparge of sorts. Rinsed the bag. I think this probably makes a difference as I switched to full volume BIAB with no sparge on the last batch and dropped to 75%.

Just brewed first all grain ever after quite a few extracts and I did it via biab. The recipe has the og at 1.040. I got 1.048 after boil into fermenter. Does that mean I got 100percent or really more efficientce

BYOB504 said:

Just brewed first all grain ever after quite a few extracts and I did it via biab. The recipe has the og at 1.040. I got 1.048 after boil into fermenter. Does that mean I got 100percent or really more efficientce

Click to expand...

No. You can't get 100% efficiency, or even very close to it.

The recipe would have assumed some percent efficiency. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it assumed 75%. If 75% efficiency would yield 40 "points" (i.e. 1.040), then 48 points (i.e. 1.048) means that efficiency would have been:

(48/40) x 75% = 90%

This assumes that the volume was exactly the same as planned. This is very often not the case, and is probably the most common cause of misunderstanding about actual efficiencies achieved.

BYOB504 said:

Just brewed first all grain ever after quite a few extracts and I did it via biab. The recipe has the og at 1.040. I got 1.048 after boil into fermenter. Does that mean I got 100percent or really more efficientce

Click to expand...

No, it just means you got higher efficiency than the recipe assumed, or you had the same or lower efficiency, but had less volume after boil - so OG was higher than the recipe target.

You cannot get 100% mash or brewhouse efficiency, because you cannot get all of the sugar created during the mash separated from the spent grain. The wort making the spent grain wet always contains some of the sugar created during the mash, so lauter efficiency is always less than 100%. Actual lauter efficiency depends on how thoroughly you sparge and/or squeeze the spent grains.

Mash efficiency is equal to conversion efficiency times lauter efficiency. Conversion efficiency measures how much of the available starch in the grain actually got converted to sugar (and other dissolved solids) in the wort. Conversion efficiency can be 100%, but is often less than that due to insufficient mash time or diastatic power (enzymes) for the crush size used. Finer crush is usually the most effective way you can increase low conversion efficiency (anything less than 95% is low.)

Lauter efficiency measures how much of the sugar created in the mash actually gets into the BK. Lauter efficiency equals one minus the fraction of the sugar remaining in the spent grains. Since you cannot get all of the sugar separated from the spent grains, lauter efficiency, and thus mash efficiency are always less than 100%.

Brewhouse efficiency measures how much of the potential sugar in the grain made it into the fermenter. So if no extra sugar was added after the mash, brewhouse efficiency is equal to mash efficiency times volume in fermenter divided by the post boil volume.

The volume times the SG minus 1 is an approximate measure of the total mass of the sugar in the volume of wort. If you have the same mass of sugar dissolved in two different volumes of water, the small volume will have the higher SG, even tho the amount of sugar is the same in both cases. Efficiency is about how much sugar you got, so you need to know both the SG and the volume to determine efficiency.

Brew on

Thank y’all for the lesson saving that for the next batch and taking down more data

weeple2000 said:

This is part of the problem here. I have wort in a pot, and I am not certain what the volume is. I have a 6 gallon carboy for a primary, it is marked at the 6 gallon mark. Judging by what went into the carboy at the end, I suspect I transferred about 5.75 gallons. There was a small amount that didn't get transferred, probably 0.10 of a gallon or so.

I tried measuring with a ruler to estimate what was in the pot, but something went wrong there because my measurement didn't add up seeing what went into the carboy at the end of it all.

The 2 readings for the hydrometer were:
1.052 at 74 degrees F pre boil
1.055 at 79 degrees F post boil

I guess I have a better idea of the amount of liquid I have post boil. I understand that the two calculations for efficiency should be the same because there is the same amount of sugar in the wort.

Click to expand...

One idea on the volume issue is buying a stainless steel ruler and use that to measure the wort volume. There's a formula based on kettle radius and wort temperature you can use to determine the volume. I did this for years.

I think there are threads to this effect, but as of last time I used it, Brewers friends efficiency calculation were somewhat inaccurate. For instance it did not take moisture in the grain under account. You have 14lbs, assuming 4% moisture content, your dry grain weight is 13.44 lbs. if you plug that into the calculator rather than 14 lbs, the resulting efficiency will go up by a food few points. There are other issues as well.

If you want to calculate efficiency precisely, I suggest you use @doug293cz spreadsheet. It takes all the small details under account which do make a significant difference in the numbers in the end. Another option is the priceless biab calculator.

I foune that neither beersmith, Brewfather not brewers friend are doing it right.

jdudek said:

I think there are threads to this effect, but as of last time I used it, Brewers friends efficiency calculation were somewhat inaccurate. For instance it did not take moisture in the grain under account. You have 14lbs, assuming 4% moisture content, your dry grain weight is 13.44 lbs. if you plug that into the calculator rather than 14 lbs, the resulting efficiency will go up by a food few points. There are other issues as well.

If you want to calculate efficiency precisely, I suggest you use @doug293cz spreadsheet. It takes all the small details under account which do make a significant difference in the numbers in the end. Another option is the priceless biab calculator.

I foune that neither beersmith, Brewfather not brewers friend are doing it right.

Click to expand...

If anyone wants to look at the spreadsheet, you can find it here.

Brew on

Please give me a hand with these calculations I am ending up with over 100% every where then brew house at 74% am I doing this wrong
All my boil data is at the bottom

Thanks cheers

BYOB504 said:

Please give me a hand with these calculations I am ending up with over 100% every where then brew house at 74% am I doing this wrong
All my boil data is at the bottom

Click to expand...

Before we plod through the math, you say your gravity was 1.052 at 140F, but also that it was 1.050 at 80F. Assuming no fermentation had taken place before that second measurement, these two measurements are not compatible with each other. Gravity is lower at higher temps and higher at lower temps.

For example, 1.052 at 140F ~= 1.066 at 80F. There's a huge difference between 1.066 at 80F and your 1.050 at 80F. Only one of your two measurements (at most) can be correct.

I see what your saying. Those where the numbers I had gotten at the 2 temp while it was chilling and after it was cooled in the ferm the def besides temp was volume 5 went into ferm out of the 5.75 in the kettle

BYOB504 said:

I see what your saying. Those where the numbers I had gotten at the 2 temp while it was chilling and after it was cooled in the ferm the def besides temp was volume 5 went into ferm out of the 5.75 in the kettle

Click to expand...

Well, as I mentioned, they can't both be correct. Let's assume that 1.050 @ 80F was correct. Corrected to room temp (68F), that's 1.052 (at 68F). Let's also assume you had 5.6 gallons post boil wort (at 68F). So, 5.6 gallons at 1.052 at room temp.

You used 9 lbs. of grain. Back of the envelope (assuming 36 possible Points per Pound), that's:
9 x 36 = 324 total possible points

Using the assumptions above, you got 52 points (i.e. 1.052) in 5.6 gallons, so...
52 x 5.6 = 291 points

291 actual points / 324 possible points = ~90% mash efficiency

ETA: I just noticed the 4 oz of rock candy. That would mean your mash efficiency was a little bit lower than calculated above (somewhere around 86% or so).

Ahhhhh so much math

VikeMan said:

Well, as I mentioned, they can't both be correct. Let's assume that 1.050 @ 80F was correct. Corrected to room temp (68F), that's 1.052 (at 68F). Let's also assume you had 5.6 gallons post boil wort (at 68F). So, 5.6 gallons at 1.052 at room temp.

You used 9 lbs. of grain. Back of the envelope (assuming 36 possible Points per Pound), that's:
9 x 36 = 324 total possible points

Using the assumptions above, you got 52 points (i.e. 1.052) in 5.6 gallons, so...
52 x 5.6 = 291 points

291 actual points / 324 possible points = ~90% mash efficiency

ETA: I just noticed the 4 oz of rock candy. That would mean your mash efficiency was a little bit lower than calculated above (somewhere around 86% or so).

Click to expand...

Is that a good efficiency for biab or I need to find holes in my method or technique

Again thanks for checking and correcting my work

BYOB504 said:

Ahhhhh so much math

Click to expand...

And that's the simplified version

Brew on

What mash efficiency should I be shooting for with biab if I did get 86%ish. Is that good to go or find the kinks and change some of my methods

BYOB504 said:

What mash efficiency should I be shooting for with biab if I did get 86%ish. Is that good to go or find the kinks and change some of my methods

Click to expand...

IMO, consistency is the most important thing. But if you want to wring out every last drop (literally) of efficiency, there's no shortage of BIABers with ideas.

BYOB504 said:

Is that a good efficiency for biab or I need to find holes in my method or technique

Again thanks for checking and correcting my work

Click to expand...

You got pretty much the highest efficiency possible for your specific combo of volumes and grain weight. You could increase your mash efficiency 1 - 3% by squeezing the gain bag to extract more wort. Your grain absorption ratio was about 0.08 gal/lb, and this can be reduced as low as 0.005 gal/lb with an aggressive squeeze. Leaving less wort (and sugar) in the grain mass gives you more sugar in the BK. You could get a bigger increase in efficiency if you wanted to add a sparge step.

Brew on

BYOB504 said:

What mash efficiency should I be shooting for with biab if I did get 86%ish. Is that good to go or find the kinks and change some of my methods

Click to expand...

This chart shows the highest possible lauter efficiencies (and thus the highest possible mash efficiencies) available for a couple of different grain absorption rates, and four different counts of batch sparge steps (including none.) Since mash efficiency equals conversion efficiency times lauter efficiency, mash efficiency will always be less than or equal to lauter efficiency. You should target as close to 100% conversion efficiency as you can (you appear to be there already with your first BIAB.)



Brew on

doug293cz said:

You could get a bigger increase in efficiency if you wanted to add a sparge step.

Click to expand...

Recirculation is also a very useful helper in achieving higher extraction, faster and more stable conversion, etc.

@doug293cz

We seem to utilize the same calcs from Kai for extract. I was curious and tested your sheet against my own and it was a dead ringer.

Big Monk said:

@doug293cz

We seem to utilize the same calcs from Kai for extract. I was curious and tested your sheet against my own and it was a dead ringer.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did my spreadsheet after studying Kai's web pages. It's an independent implementation, but is based on the same process model.

PricelessBrewing used the math in my spreadsheet to set up his on-line calculator, but later simplified the formulas (less rigorous, but very small error.)

Brew on

doug293cz said:

Yes, I did my spreadsheet after studying Kai's web pages. It's an independent implementation, but is based on the same process model.

Brew on

Click to expand...

Mine as well. One thing i love about Excel is the Solver. one of the things I've incorporated that make is essential as a troubleshooter tool:

The "Conversion\Extraction" Efficiency Solver Macro:



This button allows you to set the ratio of Actual versus First Wort Extract by changing the "Conversion/Extraction" (a.k.a. First Wort) Efficiency value.

Big Monk said:

Recirculation is also a very useful helper in achieving higher extraction, faster and more stable conversion, etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, recirculation during the mash can speed up conversion, thus allowing more complete conversion with shorter mash times, and less chance of having all the amylase denatured before conversion is complete. But, once you get to 100% conversion efficiency, there is nothing you can do to increase it further. The only way to "beat the chart" in my previous post is to do a good fly sparge, which can give you a few percent better lauter efficiency than a triple batch sparge.

Brew on

doug293cz said:

Yes, recirculation during the mash can speed up conversion, thus allowing more complete conversion with shorter mash times, and less chance of having all the amylase denatured before conversion is complete. But, once you get to 100% conversion efficiency, there is nothing you can do to increase it further. The only way to "beat the chart" in my previous post is to do a good fly sparge, which can give you a few percent better lauter efficiency than a triple batch sparge.

Brew on

Click to expand...

I don't believe 100% Conversion/Extraction Efficiency is possible.

You can Convert 100% of the available starches to sugars but you can't Extract 100% of the possible sugars from the grain. That's why I feel "Conversion Efficiency" is a confusing term. Should be "First Wort Efficiency". You'd be hard pressed to see anyone breaking the 95% threshold here.

Note: I have trouble with my naming conventions in my own sheets. It's difficult to break out variables with their own names, particularly efficiency terms because you run out of names fast!

Big Monk said:

Mine as well. One thing i love about Excel is the Solver. one of the things I've incorporated that make is essential as a troubleshooter tool:

The "Conversion\Extraction" Efficiency Solver Macro:

View attachment 697570

This button allows you to set the ratio of Actual versus First Wort Extract by changing the "Conversion/Extraction" (a.k.a. First Wort) Efficiency value.

Click to expand...

I didn't set mine up with a macro to do that. I just use "Goal Seek" to match calculated OG (or pre-boil SG) to actual measured OG by adjusting the "Conversion Efficiency" input cell. There are a lot of interesting things you can back calculate using Goal Seek

Brew on

Big Monk said:

I don't believe 100% Conversion/Extraction Efficiency is possible.

You can Convert 100% of the available starches to sugars but you can't Extract 100% of the possible sugars from the grain. That's why I feel "Conversion Efficiency" is a confusing term. Should be "First Wort Efficiency". You'd be hard pressed to see anyone breaking the 95% threshold here.

Click to expand...

That's why I don't consider conversion efficiency and extraction efficiency to be synonyms. I follow the terminology used by BrewSmith and Brewers Friend.

Conversion efficiency equals the percentage of potential extract in the grain that is actually created in the mash.

Lauter efficiency equals the percentage of extract created in the mash that makes it into the boil kettle.

Mash efficiency equals the percentage of potential extract that makes it into the boil kettle. Mash efficiency = conversion efficiency * lauter efficiency.

Extract is the sugar, soluble proteins, (and all other dissolved material) that comes from the grain.

Based on the definition of the word extraction, "extraction efficiency" could plausibly be used to describe mash efficiency or lauter efficiency. So, I prefer not to use that term.

"First wort" sounds equivalent to the wort in the mash just prior to the start of lautering (unless you still have gradients at the start of lautering.) It is indeed possible to get 100% first wort efficiency, according to this definition, and it is equivalent to conversion efficiency.

Brew on

doug293cz said:

That's why I don't consider conversion efficiency and extraction efficiency to be synonyms. I follow the terminology used by BrewSmith and Brewers Friend.

Conversion efficiency equals the percentage of potential extract in the grain that is actually created in the mash.

Lauter efficiency equals the percentage of extract created in the mash that makes it into the boil kettle.

Mash efficiency equals the percentage of potential extract that makes it into the boil kettle. Mash efficiency = conversion efficiency * lauter efficiency.

Extract is the sugar, soluble proteins, (and all other dissolved material) that comes from the grain.

Based on the definition of the word extraction, "extraction efficiency" could plausibly be used to describe mash efficiency or lauter efficiency. So, I prefer not to use that term.

"First wort" sounds equivalent to the wort in the mash just prior to the start of lautering (unless you still have gradients at the start of lautering.) It is indeed possible to get 100% first wort efficiency, according to this definition, and it is equivalent to conversion efficiency.

Brew on

Click to expand...

This could quickly devolve into a semantic battle but let’s just say I’m not sure I agree that your definition (and BF and BS) of Conversion Efficiency can equal 1 in any practical sense.

It would imply that dividing maximum potential gravity by actual gravity equals 1, or conversely that actual gravity equals the maximum potential gravity.

I could be looking at this incorrectly, of course.

Big Monk said:

This could quickly devolve into a semantic battle but let’s just say I’m not sure I agree that your definition (and BF and BS) of Conversion Efficiency can equal 1 in any practical sense.

It would imply that dividing maximum potential gravity by actual gravity equals 1, or conversely that actual gravity equals the maximum potential gravity.

I could be looking at this incorrectly, of course.

Click to expand...

Maximum potential gravity is defined by the actual SG obtained in a Congress Mash (dry basis, fine grind.) So, by definition a Congress Mash attains 100% conversion efficiency. Ordinary brewers can also attain 100% conversion efficiency with suitable mash conditions.

Brew on

BYOB504 said:

[86%ish]......Is that a good efficiency for biab or I need to find holes in my method or technique....

Click to expand...

I've always been intrigued by climbing. Even as a young child I thoroughly enjoyed the simple act of scrambling on top of a rock. I don't know why, it was just part of me. As a teenager I was drawn to climbing bigger rock faces, always with a child like fascination with them. I just enjoyed the feel of the rock in my hands, and the way I felt as I moved over the stone. Climbing a particularly aesthetic line, linking natural features up a cliff, placing only removable anchors that didn't alter the rock, was pure joy.

Somewhere along the way, rock climbing became a numbers game to most. They were striving to achieve the highest difficulty number possible. Many started drilling holes for expansion bolt anchors, and even chipping edges and drilling pockets where they wished holds would be. It seemed to me they had lost the soul of climbing just to achieve a higher number. Climbing gyms started popping up, where you pull on plastic holds bolted to artificial walls, always with the goal of climbing the highest difficulty number.

I agree with you, that's a bunch of ******** rambling that's only marginally relevant to the discussion at hand.

My point is don't let chasing numbers distract you from what is important. A beer that tastes good is good.

doug293cz said:

Maximum potential gravity is defined by the actual SG obtained in a Congress Mash (dry basis, fine grind.) So, by definition a Congress Mash attains 100% conversion efficiency. Ordinary brewers can also attain 100% conversion efficiency with suitable mash conditions.

Brew on

Click to expand...

I guess maybe that’s my hang up. I could never achieve 100% because I would never finely grind my malt or squeeze extract from my mash tun liner. (EDIT: see Vikeman’s response below to explain strikethroughs)

In this case it seems it’s just methods outside my SOP, i.e. I’d rather stick with lower efficiency and keep a coarser crush/not squeeze. The ends don’t justify the means IMHO.

Glad we cleared that up!