BIAB Efficiency

Discuss all things BIAB (Brew In A Bag)
Post Reply
User avatar
GuingesRock
Award Winner 20+
Award Winner 20+
Posts: 5190
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 2:26 pm
Name: Mark
Location: Wolfville, NS

BIAB Efficiency

Post by GuingesRock » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:04 am

CorneliusAlphonse wrote:Re: guingesrock- your statement regarding BIAB not being any less efficient - I use my bag as my grain filter both when I do biab and a more traditional cooler mash. I experience a definite efficiency drop doing biab compared to single batch sparge - drops from 75 down to ~67.
Liam, Last night I emailed your post to Pat Hollingdale to see if he had suggestions for your reduced efficiency with BIAB and his response is below. He's just going into summer down under (Australia), as we are heading into winter, so takes the opportunity to rub it in, the bugger!

As mentioned he is one of the main BIAB pioneers, has an international BIAB site and is the author of BIABacus, so he should be the guy to know about this: http://beersmith.com/blog/2011/02/24/br ... odcast-10/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (that interview with him also deals with efficiency)
Howdy Mark,

Hope all is well at your end........(personal stuff omitted)

As for a short answer on this, it’s very hard but I have done side by sides on batch and BIAB and achieved about 5% higher with BIAB. To do proper tests you have to do the same recipe side by side. The other thing you have to do is measure mash efficiency. Your friend has measured fermentor efficiency which just distorts things even more.

Anyway, I don’t encourage fine grinding at all, That is just as likely to cause problems – see: http://www.biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=28" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Heavy squeezing is not necessary unless your bag was far too fine. If it is good, a quick squeeze before pulling and another one just before the boil starts is all you need. A small false bottom shouldn’t cause any problems, not like a small bag can. As for the mash-out...

This is where we will begin to find an answer and that main answer we will find is time. You can’t do a 60 minute BIAB mash and expect the same efficiency as if you do a traditional mash followed by a good half hour or more of sparging. However if you pulled your BIAB bag at the same time as you were finishing your final traditional sparge, then you will find the BIAB will exceed the traditional brew.

So, time is the usual culprit. I have just added this as point number 10 of this post: http://www.biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php ... 9207#p9207" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. That post will find most inefficiency culprits. Many apply to all types of all-grain methods.

Hope this helps you Mark and keep warm!
Pat
-Mark
2nd place, Canadian Brewer of the Year, 2015
101 awards won for beers designed and brewed.
Cicerone Program - Certified Beer Server

AllanMar
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:16 pm
Name: Allan
Location: Dartmouth, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by AllanMar » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:43 am

I have always assumed BIAB was less efficent as well (although without any solid basis). What is your personal BIAB Mash Efficency? (kettle efficency?, he has a good point that brewhouse efficency isnt a real good comparison as losing wort in chillers/etc really drags it down).

From what i've read (I have never done BIAB), 3 vessel setups allow the possibilities for higher efficencys then BIAB. Electric Brewery guy claims 95% (brewhouse), I've seen 92-95% mash efficencies on my setup, but I'm loosing so much wort on a 5 gallon batch to trub/chiller/etc that my brewhouse is normally more like 78-85%. But from what ive read BIAB may be more efficent then your typical cooler/batch sparge setup at times.

User avatar
GuingesRock
Award Winner 20+
Award Winner 20+
Posts: 5190
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 2:26 pm
Name: Mark
Location: Wolfville, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by GuingesRock » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:51 am

82% "Brewhouse efficiency" for what it's worth. I'd have to look up mash efficiency when I get home.
-Mark
2nd place, Canadian Brewer of the Year, 2015
101 awards won for beers designed and brewed.
Cicerone Program - Certified Beer Server

User avatar
Jimmy
Site Admin Award Winner
Site Admin Award Winner
Posts: 6984
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:35 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by Jimmy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:54 am

I'm usually right around 78% mash efficiency when I do BIAB. If I add a sparge* into the equation my efficency takes a significant jump.

*A sparge on my setup involves simply adding the remaining water to the hybrid cooler and draining into the kettle. I don't heat the water, don't vorlauf etc., it's straight from the tap. This eliminates the extra mash time as the factor that Pat is referring to in his message.

With that being said, my no-sparge BIAB efficiency is just as efficent (actually a little higher) than my 3 vessel system was when I batched sparged.

User avatar
dean2k
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 1172
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:08 pm
Name: deano
Location: Sackville, NB

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by dean2k » Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:25 am

I've had a couple of batches where my brewhouse efficiency has been way lower than expected that were the result of mashing too high (trying to rush the process with a floating thermometer with an abysmally poor lag time in its readings). But normally when I'm dialed-in, I average around 75% and it doesn't seem to matter if it's a 60, 90, or overnight mash.

That being said, this sounds like a dangerous rabbit hole to go down. You could get bogged down with this and fight to add 2% or 3%, or simply roll with what you get. I try to go with flow.
.............................................

User avatar
CorneliusAlphonse
Award Winner 1
Award Winner 1
Posts: 2988
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:28 pm

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by CorneliusAlphonse » Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:48 am

Meh. I was merely mentioning my experience. Similar recipes give me same end volume but lower gravity when I do biab.
planning: beer for my cousin's wedding
Fermenting: black ipa
Conditioning:
Kegged: barrel barleywine from 2014 - i think i still have this somewhere

User avatar
LeafMan66_67
Award Winner 2
Award Winner 2
Posts: 4596
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:10 am
Name: Derek Stapleton
Location: Lower Sackville, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by LeafMan66_67 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:58 am

My mash efficiency for BIAB is 83%, consistently for 1.040 to 1.065 OG's, 21L batches. 75 to 90 minute mash.
"He was a wise man who invented beer." - Plato

User avatar
GuingesRock
Award Winner 20+
Award Winner 20+
Posts: 5190
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 2:26 pm
Name: Mark
Location: Wolfville, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by GuingesRock » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:48 am

Pat just sent a quick follow up note:

One thing I should have done is written the term ‘kettle efficiency’ instead of mash efficiency. Mash efficiency is much too ambiguous sorry.

Kettle efficiency can be taken at any time during the boil.
-Mark
2nd place, Canadian Brewer of the Year, 2015
101 awards won for beers designed and brewed.
Cicerone Program - Certified Beer Server

User avatar
Jimmy
Site Admin Award Winner
Site Admin Award Winner
Posts: 6984
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:35 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by Jimmy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:07 am

Shouldn't the comparison be done on mash efficiency since that's the only difference between BIAB and the traditional method? It's telling you directly what you pull from the mash - which is what's in question.

User avatar
LeafMan66_67
Award Winner 2
Award Winner 2
Posts: 4596
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:10 am
Name: Derek Stapleton
Location: Lower Sackville, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by LeafMan66_67 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:05 pm

Jimmy wrote:Shouldn't the comparison be done on mash efficiency since that's the only difference between BIAB and the traditional method? It's telling you directly what you pull from the mash - which is what's in question.
Just to confuse everyone I think the folks from BIABrewer have renamed mash efficiency to kettle efficiency ...
"He was a wise man who invented beer." - Plato

AllanMar
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:16 pm
Name: Allan
Location: Dartmouth, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by AllanMar » Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:08 pm

What exactly is the difference under their definition I wonder?

User avatar
Jimmy
Site Admin Award Winner
Site Admin Award Winner
Posts: 6984
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:35 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by Jimmy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:09 pm

But Pat is saying that you can check kettle efficiency at any point during the boil ?

User avatar
LeafMan66_67
Award Winner 2
Award Winner 2
Posts: 4596
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:10 am
Name: Derek Stapleton
Location: Lower Sackville, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by LeafMan66_67 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:25 pm

Yeah .. they throw some different terms around ... Efficiency into Kettle and Efficiency into Fermentor are two I remember from playing around on that site. IMHO, efficiency into kettle is mash efficiency,
"He was a wise man who invented beer." - Plato

User avatar
GuingesRock
Award Winner 20+
Award Winner 20+
Posts: 5190
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 2:26 pm
Name: Mark
Location: Wolfville, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by GuingesRock » Wed Oct 30, 2013 3:27 pm

Jimmy wrote:Shouldn't the comparison be done on mash efficiency since that's the only difference between BIAB and the traditional method? It's telling you directly what you pull from the mash - which is what's in question.
As I mentioned, “mash efficiency” is very ambiguous and it was an error using that term in my first email. “Mash efficiency” should mean the efficiency after mashing but before sparging but it is rarely used that way. When people use the term, most are meaning efficiency into kettle though. I’m not sure why I used it earlier as I tend to only use only two efficiency terms as much as possible – “kettle efficiency” or “fermentor efficiency”. These are very hard to misinterpret.

Anyway, in all these discussions, I am assuming we are talking pure BIAB. In other words, full-volume brewing where all the water needed for the brew is used in the mash. This is what BIAB is really about. Any BIAB that involves sparging starts to move to more of a form of batch sparging. If large amounts of sparge water are used, it become the same as batch sparging.

In pure BIAB, the mash and sparge occur simultaneously. This means that the first point at which a pure BIAB and a traditional brew can be compared, efficiency-wise, is at the end of the final runnings as the mash and sparge have been completed in both systems at this point. Practically, the end of the final runnings can be viewed as the same as the start of the boil. So, to compare two systems, take a volume and gravity reading a the beginning of the boil. Such readings are hard to take accurately so any measurement should be confirmed, preferably at the end of the boil, when everything is much easier to measure. Any set of volume and gravity readings taken during the boil will give you what we call a kettle efficiency reading. (In truth, getting the two figures to match is hard. Many brews and many figures have to be kept to build up good averages. A single reading on a single brew gives you almost no valuable data.)

You can take a kettle efficiency reading at any stage during the boil because as the boil develops, volume decreases but gravity increases. In other words, the actual weight of sugar in the boil doe not vary and this is what efficiency figures are looking at – how much sugar is in the wort which leads to...

The only difference between a kettle efficiency reading and a fermentor efficiency reading is how much kettle to fermentor loss (things like kettle trub) you have. Fermentor efficiency is not a valuable number at all as it just disguises the far more important kettle efficiency figure. For example, you and I might both do a brew and we both have an 85% kettle efficiency. You may have used a hopsock and be been careful in your transfer from kettle to fermentor and only had 2 L of kettle to fermentor losses and scored say 23 L into your fermentor. I though may have used no kettle trub management techniques and ended up with 5L of kettle to fermentor loss and only 20 L into my fermentor. The end result of all this is that while both of us had an identical kettle efficiency of 85%, your fermentor efficiency would have been about 78% compared to mine of 68%.

The first and hardest bit about understanding efficiency is realising that there are these two main types of efficiency, kettle and fermentor, but this is never made clear to brewers. The literature out there is very poor and ambiguous. Fermentor efficiency should never have really ever been created. A much better way of looking at things would be to say something like, “I had a kettle efficiency of 85% on this recipe and had a kettle to fermentor loss of x%.”

But, I think it’ll be a long time before we see that clear language becoming a standard.

That’s all I can offer for now but there is a lot more on this subject. I haven’t even mentioned how your kettle efficiency should change depending on the gravity of the recipe. In other words kettle efficiency is not the constant that nearly all literature and software would like us to believe, it is very much a variable.

Have to race,

Pat
-Mark
2nd place, Canadian Brewer of the Year, 2015
101 awards won for beers designed and brewed.
Cicerone Program - Certified Beer Server

User avatar
Jimmy
Site Admin Award Winner
Site Admin Award Winner
Posts: 6984
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:35 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by Jimmy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 3:43 pm

I'm not sure why an accurate gravity reading in the kettle, but before the boil is difficult.

I measure my volume into the kettle with a graduated stick, and take the gravity reading with a refractometer.

AllanMar
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:16 pm
Name: Allan
Location: Dartmouth, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by AllanMar » Wed Oct 30, 2013 3:58 pm

Yea, i'd say to most people on here Mash Eff = Kettle Eff and Brewhouse Eff = Fermentor Eff.

I think these new names makes it less clear rather then more, but to each their own.

User avatar
LeafMan66_67
Award Winner 2
Award Winner 2
Posts: 4596
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:10 am
Name: Derek Stapleton
Location: Lower Sackville, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by LeafMan66_67 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 4:08 pm

Jimmy wrote:I'm not sure why an accurate gravity reading in the kettle, but before the boil is difficult.

I measure my volume into the kettle with a graduated stick, and take the gravity reading with a refractometer.
Same here.
"He was a wise man who invented beer." - Plato

User avatar
GuingesRock
Award Winner 20+
Award Winner 20+
Posts: 5190
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 2:26 pm
Name: Mark
Location: Wolfville, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by GuingesRock » Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:22 pm

I sent him an email. He has a full time job and is very busy on his own site (http://www.biabrewer.info" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) answering questions on BIAB. There’s 12 hours difference, so when we are up, he’s in bed.
Thanks Pat, There's a few more questions/comments on that thread. Don't feel obliged to respond, unless you want to. Either way, thank you very much for contributing to BIAB (and previously no-chill) discussions on our site.

Stay cool (weather wise) :)

Mark
-Mark
2nd place, Canadian Brewer of the Year, 2015
101 awards won for beers designed and brewed.
Cicerone Program - Certified Beer Server

User avatar
GuingesRock
Award Winner 20+
Award Winner 20+
Posts: 5190
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 2:26 pm
Name: Mark
Location: Wolfville, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by GuingesRock » Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:47 pm

No problems Mark.



Apologies that I can’t write these points more briefly but this is an area that has become totally messed up over the years.



I just had a look at the thread and here are some more quick notes on the last questions...



1. Volume measurements can be tricky to take at the boil beginning because of all the movement and steam. Even if you turn the flame off, there is still some movement. Makes sure the volume is multiplied by 0.96 to return it to the “ambient” value.

2. Gravity measurements, at any time , need to be taken when the wort is well-agitated. If taken hot, it is best to grab a mug-ful of wort and let it cool down covered in plastic and allowing it to return to ambient temperature as much as possible because temperature correction tables are not that brilliant.

3. Terms such as “brewhouse efficiency” and “batch size” have become useless terms because two brewers, even using the same software (thanks to past errors in programs), can use these terms to mean two entirely different things. Kettle efficiency, efficiency into kettle, fermentor efficiency, efficiency into fermentor are far better terms as they are impossible to mis-interpret or use incorrectly. “Volume of ambient wort” or “volume into fermentor” should be used instead of batch size which can mean either.



“Volume of ambient wort” above is perhaps the only term that isn’t immediately obvious. It means the end of boil volume once the wort has cooled to ambient temperature. Basically it is your volume into fermentor plus your kettle to fermentor losses. This is the most important figure to convey to another brewer when sharing a recipe (just as important as original gravity) but unfortunately it is rarely given in any recipe report. If you were very lucky you might find something like “End of Boil Volume” in a recipe report but the question still remains as to whether the brewer means a chilled end of boil volume or hot. This alone makes 4% difference.



The main point is to realise that there are massive problems with the terminology currently used amongst home-brewers. There is a logical history of why this confusion has come about but that is a long story.



There is one positive to all this. If you give a brewer an ambiguous recipe report (as nearly all are) and he interprets it a different way from the original brewer, this can easily lead to the second brewer using say 20% more or less hops than the original brewer. The end result will be a beer somewhat different (or considerably different) from that of the original brewers but both beers might often still be excellent. IF you want to copy the original brewer’s recipe as closely as possible, you will need a far better recipe report than nearly all those that can be found on the net. This thread gives just a few examples of why but we have another thread where many more recipe report problems are dealt with. Hopefully soon we’ll get this whole problem and the solutions written out in a way that is easy to use and fast to learn.



I better leave it at that Mark and I better make this my last reply for the moment. I think there is enough in these emails to convey the main problems and this sort of stuff has to be read slowly to be absorbed properly. A quick speed read is not going to allow the major points to sink in and some of these points are very major. Hopefully one day though, these type of emails and forum threads will become unnecessary as everyone will be using the same clear language as it were.



Later (Aussie emoticon below)

Pat
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-Mark
2nd place, Canadian Brewer of the Year, 2015
101 awards won for beers designed and brewed.
Cicerone Program - Certified Beer Server

ottiscan
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:24 am
Name: Lew
Location: Cole Hbr.

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by ottiscan » Sun Nov 03, 2013 8:31 am

Hop Bomb...sort of....efficiency thing... with alterior motives.

We brewed a late hop APA on Sat. It was a 15 gallon batch, but we tried something a little different and did our version of a hop bomb. We don't have hoses and pumps or a hop bomb canister. At 45 mins into the mash we drew off 4 gals of wort through the spigot (while the bag was in the kettle) and replaced the water that we drew off with hot water to let the mash continue for another 45 mins.

The 4 gals of wort were boiled seperately on the stove top and about a half pound of hops were added to it to act as our "hop bomb" after the boil. It was really just a seperate boil with 0 min hops added. It was cooled with a wort chiller then added to the fermenter.

The main kettle, however, was refilled with 4 gals of fresh hot water and the mash continued for another 45 mins. The boil followed with late hop addtions.
This was all done simultaineously, so wort wasnt' sitting around at room temperature.

I'm hopping that this will increase the efficiency, at the very least it did increase the volume of water to come in contact with the grain. Oh and don't forget that nice hop kick at the end.

If the mash water becomes saturated with sugar to the point where sugar extraction stops, draining some off and adding fresh water should help with efficiency, shouldn't it? I didn't have SG readings from a previous similar recipe so can't comment on an increased efficiency by doing this but it felt right so we did it, and this is all about experimentation right?
I know Guingess would agree, he's like a mad scientist on here. "It's alive!.....Alive!"

We have a 15 gal. kettle so we can never have enough water for a full 15 gal recipe, we usually end up with 13.5 to 14 gallons in the end, and if we start with ingredients for 15 gallons then Ke saraw saraw and Bob's your Uncle. I just like the idea of more (or enough) water coming into contact with the grain.

Regardless of efficiency it will be (usually is) a fine tasting beer. Clinical trials to follow.

User avatar
GuingesRock
Award Winner 20+
Award Winner 20+
Posts: 5190
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 2:26 pm
Name: Mark
Location: Wolfville, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by GuingesRock » Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:16 am

Sounds interesting. With the second 45 min mash, did you manage to get the mash temp where you wanted it to be?
-Mark
2nd place, Canadian Brewer of the Year, 2015
101 awards won for beers designed and brewed.
Cicerone Program - Certified Beer Server

ottiscan
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:24 am
Name: Lew
Location: Cole Hbr.

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by ottiscan » Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:24 am

Yes, "new" water was preheated to mash temp on the stove top, ready to go for topping up the kettle. I knew we'd need it.
I had been thinking about doing this for some time after reading about hop bombs. It isn't a hop bomb but it's close and it benefits my system because its 15 gallons of wort coming out of a 15 gallon kettle that contains a 15 gallon recipe's worth of grain. There ain't a lot of wiggle room there. This method gives it a bit more.

ottiscan
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:24 am
Name: Lew
Location: Cole Hbr.

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by ottiscan » Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:30 am

Ideally, I should have a 25 gal pot to do a 15 gal boil. But for now this is a way to make it work.

User avatar
GuingesRock
Award Winner 20+
Award Winner 20+
Posts: 5190
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 2:26 pm
Name: Mark
Location: Wolfville, NS

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by GuingesRock » Sun Nov 03, 2013 8:31 pm

Lew, Some questions:

Would you be draining off some of the enzymes at the 45min mark? Would they be in solution? if so might result in a slight reduction in efficiency?

Would you be draining off some dextrins that haven’t yet been catalysed by the mash, potentially resulting in more body and lower ABV of the end product? If you are bringing to the boil right away you would halt any further conversion (if enzymes are in solution also).

I think none of these factors would be significant, because I think most of the mashing process is complete at the 45 min mark.

Would tannin extraction be increased? …I think, probably not.

The smaller volume of wort won't extract as much from the hops as the full volume would. I haven't read up on "hop bombs" though, and not sure what you are referring to.

If this works well, it has potential to increase batch size in stove top brewing, and by employing more elements on the stove in heating up water, would also shorten the brew day.

I do a sort of similar thing, more traditional though. I start with 12.5 gal strike water, mash for 90 mins, drain, then add 4 gals water at 175, and stir, for a BIAB sparge/mash out. That way I can brew a 10 gal batch on the stove in the kitchen.
-Mark
2nd place, Canadian Brewer of the Year, 2015
101 awards won for beers designed and brewed.
Cicerone Program - Certified Beer Server

ottiscan
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:24 am
Name: Lew
Location: Cole Hbr.

Re: BIAB Efficiency

Post by ottiscan » Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:09 am

Mark,
I'm not sure about the enzymes and dextrins, but what you mention is why we chose 45 mins, plus 45 mins. The recipe calls for a 60 min mash so the 45/45 split to 90 mins was a way of compensating for this. It was a shot in the dark really to try the idea out, so the times reflect trying to not run it too short, or too long.

Oh, and I meant HOP BACK not hop bomb, I don't know where that come from, it was early Sat. am as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y29d9RF1lfU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The main boil is done on a propane burner, so another pot on the stove top was easily managed. As far as increasing brewing size, to get to volume in our case, the other option is a heavy sparge after mash. Which should work better for efficiency, a heavy sparge or a split mash? I don't know, but that's why we're trying it out. A BIAB sparge/mash out as you mention would be a third option, and we'll likely try it.

Post Reply

Return to “BIAB Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests