Jump to content

poor fermentation


Greenfield

Recommended Posts

@PeteB--When it gets to the U.S., let me know! Always looking to expand my whiskey horizons.

And I've never seen oil in my finished rye fermentations, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Milling's effect on yield is significant, and I'll see if I can dig up a paper or two on it.

Enzymes (malt or concentrated) can only do so much, and if you're not exposing substrate to begin with, their effect (on yield) will be minimal to what they're supposed to do.

 

@Tom Lenerz

396.18 L at 40% abv- converted to proof gallons is 396.18L * (80p/100p) * (1gal/3.785L) = 83.7pgs., and is 7.92% abv  for a 2000L fermentation.

For ferm efficiency, if calculated theoretical is 9% abv = 88.04% efficiency. I wish I could advise on whether or not this is good, but it's definitely not low, and if you're letting it ferment too long and oxidize, you may be reaching your peak earlier in the process, and losing EtOH to aldehydes.

@Greenfield

What is your cooker and/or fermenter density in terms of dry substance? This is a good number to know off the top of your head when it comes to yield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rcornel said:

 

396.18 L at 40% abv- converted to proof gallons is 396.18L * (80p/100p) * (1gal/3.785L) = 83.7pgs., and is 7.92% abv  for a 2000L fermentation.

For ferm efficiency, if calculated theoretical is 9% abv = 88.04% efficiency. I wish I could advise on whether or not this is good, but it's definitely not low, and if you're letting it ferment too long and oxidize, you may be reaching your peak earlier in the process, and losing EtOH to aldehydes.

@rcornel Thanks for clearing this up, I see now I calculated gallons of pure alcohol instead of PGs, too many unit conversions too early in the day.

I agree it is about total dry substance, because if he is running 30 gallon beer he got 83.7 (not the 40ish I miscalculated) out of 87.5 theoretical PGs (which seems really good) but if he is thicker then that efficiency is definitely going down. A difference of 70 pounds more to make it a 28 gallon beer brings the theoretical PGs to 94.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I ran the numbers, and It seems to be looking pretty good! Let me know if this does or doesnt make sense.

Based on your guys' help:

I am using 422USG water with approx 17.49 bushels of grain. This works out to be 24 beer gallons.

For arguments sake, lets assume 5PG/bushel possible which means a theoretical yield would be 87.5 PG (5*17.49)

From this batch, I got 370KG (815lb) of  40% low wines, which I cut at appx 15% abv. This equates to 396.15L at 40%, or 158 LAA.

158 LAA = 41.74 USG absolute (GAA) = 83.78 PG.


If this is correct, and since some alcohol was left in the wash as well, my yield isnt too far off!

 

Thanks

 

  • Thumbs up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 6:42 AM, Tom Lenerz said:

Thanks for clearing this up, I see now I calculated gallons of pure alcohol instead of PGs, too many unit conversions too early in the day.

QUOTE "I am using 422USG water with approx 17.49 bushels of grain. This works out to be 24 beer gallons.

For arguments sake, lets assume 5PG/bushel possible which means a theoretical yield would be 87.5 PG (5*17.49)"

 

BEER GALLONS well that is a new unit for me, US gallons, wine gallons, proof gallons, bushels (are they the same as British?), US Proof (or British proof), pint (US or British), ABV (at 60F or 20c), are there some I missed?  then many of you mix in some metric as well eg PG per 100 Kg

No wonder some get confused with the maths.

All you need is Kg, Liters and ABV at 20c(or 60f if you insist).  The only extra description is LAA = Liters of Absolute Alcohol

I gather the "beer gallon" refers to the ratio of water to grain. Most of the rest of the world would measure that as Liters per Kg.

WTF   :wacko::(

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello @PeteB

Yes I apologize for all the different units. Confusion stems from me being in Canada and typically using the metric system, and most of the fine gents here providing help from elsewhere (assuming mostly U.S). I only flip flopped back and forth to save people from having to convert outside of this forum, which is the least I could do considering the help they've given me.

Beer gallons was a new term to me as well, but now that I know it, it is a good quick check reference for grain to water ratio.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Greenfield said:

Hello @PeteB

Yes I apologize for all the different units. Confusion stems from me being in Canada and typically using the metric system, and most of the fine gents here providing help from elsewhere (assuming mostly U.S). I only flip flopped back and forth to save people from having to convert outside of this forum, which is the least I could do considering the help they've given me.

Beer gallons was a new term to me as well, but now that I know it, it is a good quick check reference for grain to water ratio.

Thanks

I wasn't having a go at you for flip flopping the units, you just provided the chance for me to point out what an antiquated units system the US has.

Australia went to metric in the 1960's

It must be very hard for US distillers who are not naturally good at mathematics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PeteB said:

I wasn't having a go at you for flip flopping the units, you just provided the chance for me to point out what an antiquated units system the US has.

Australia went to metric in the 1960's

It must be very hard for US distillers who are not naturally good at mathematics.

Litres, gallons, wine gallons, hectolitres, absolute gallons, proof gallons, barrels, beer barrels, kilograms, pounds, grams, oz, bushels of corn, bushels of wheat.

Drives me nuts.

When I'm calculating our results I just do it in absolute gallons of alcohol and the pounds of grain/cane used. Makes an simple base value to calculate any further number that I could ever need.

  • Thumbs up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PeteB said:

I gather the "beer gallon" refers to the ratio of water to grain. Most of the rest of the world would measure that as Liters per Kg.

Yes Pete it does. It is more useful to American distillers than Liters/KG or Pounds/Gallon for on grain fermentation as a bushel of Corn is typically, 56 but sometimes its more or less, malt is 38 pounds a bushel, rye is 54 or 56 and wheat is 60. So if you want to keep a consistent mash thickness for process reasons, measuring grain by volume is more important than weight. Especially with continuous distillation, which is the standard way of making American whiskey. 

It is also good for comparing yields and brix or SG from distillery to distillery as a 30 gallon beer at my place should have around the same values as a 30 gallon from yours. It doesn't matter the size of the tank or pounds used or any other variable. 

I had to do a bunch of unit conversions to get to my comfort zone, as I have adopted the American standard for describing grain-in mash and fermentation because it is the standard, really easy and I didn't want to have to reinvent the wheel. 

The only units I use on a daily basis are bushel, gallons, proof and proof gallon. That's it. When it comes to packaging I have a little cheat sheet with proof gallons per 4.5 liter box depending on bottling proof. Since I know my PG per bushel of hearts on average, I can determine an entire years worth of production needs based off target cases in a manner of minutes. Mashbills are made using percentage by bushel and pound weights are written down. Weights are adjusted if needed as the bushel weight is tested when grain arrives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to highjack Greenfield's thread here, but I think this units discussion highlights part of the problem when trying to calculate yield.

I have several questions.

1, What is the current meaning of a bushel? When I was in grade 4 in 1962 a bushel was a volume of 8 British gallons. Wiki says it is measure of exactly 2150.42 cubic inches, a volume.

2 How do you measure 2150.42 cubic inches of grain?

3 Bushel weights do vary. Does a higher bushel weight generally give a higher yield?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey @PeteB

not a problem, from my understanding, back in the day, a bushel was a set volume of 8 gallons. At one time, grain products were simply counted in bushels by literally filling bushels to the brim of whichever grain they were selling/buying.

nowadays, since grain is processed in different ways, and traded in many different forms, a bushel has taken on a set weight depending on which grain. Im assuming this was developed by taking an actual bushel, filling it to the brim with corn, and then weighing that grain. This was then repeated with other grains which is why the weight varies. Now, if youhave 56 lbs of corn, if its un-milled it may take up 8 gallons of space, but then if it were turned into flour, the packing factor would increase thus occupying a smaller space... but you still have a bushel!

Hope this helps.

As for higher bushel weights having higher yields? I guess that purely comes down to an available starch:lb ratio for the specific grain in question.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, PeteB said:

Sorry to highjack Greenfield's thread here, but I think this units discussion highlights part of the problem when trying to calculate yield.

I have several questions.

1, What is the current meaning of a bushel? When I was in grade 4 in 1962 a bushel was a volume of 8 British gallons. Wiki says it is measure of exactly 2150.42 cubic inches, a volume.

2 How do you measure 2150.42 cubic inches of grain?

3 Bushel weights do vary. Does a higher bushel weight generally give a higher yield?

 

1) Bushel is an antiquated unit, like you do mention, but here in the states that is the standard unit for farmers. They size bins and storage containers in bushels not weight because it is a volume for storing and the amount stored by weight could be different depending on grains. I originally tried to tell my farmer in pounds, and he would try to remember the standard weights for different things and do the mental math, but it was just easier for me to use the same language. Market prices are published per bushel and if I tell my farmer I need 1000 bushels and he knows in that field he averages 180 bushels an acre he knows how many acres I need. We bring in grain in bulk boxes that hold 45 to 46 bushels.

2) We do use a scale to keep track of weight as we mill because it is easier to measure weight than volume in that situation.

Test weight for bushels can be determined with a bunch of things. We have a hand held unit that measures test weight (pound per bushel) and moisture in just a few seconds. We work with only a few farmers, so we really only have to adjust our weights for mash bills rarely. 

3) Higher test weight of the same grain type will generally yield more, 56 pound corn yields better than 54 pound. Grain buyers typically pay premiums for higher test weights and lower moisture content (or discounted prices for poor numbers) for this reason, they are buying the starch after all. However hard red wheat is 60 pound test weight, and doesn't yield quite as good as yellow corn at 56, because it has a higher percentage of protein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies.

I understand how older farmers would use bushels as a measurement for their grain bins, I still remember my crop yields of years ago in bushels per acre, but modern Australian farmers use tons per hectare, easy to measure because trucks loads of grain are put over scales, or often have them fitted to the truck. It does not matter what shape the truck bin is, or if it not completely full, it can be very easily weighed. Very occasionally volume is used but that is in cubic metres.

I just can't see the point in weighing grain then converting to an antiquated bushel volume, especially if the yield/weight will be more consistent than yield/bushel.

22 hours ago, Skaalvenn said:

Litres, gallons, wine gallons, hectolitres, absolute gallons, proof gallons, barrels, beer barrels, kilograms, pounds, grams, oz, bushels of corn, bushels of wheat.

Drives me nuts.

I'm with Skaalvenn.

I do all my calculations in metric, it is so much less complicated. If someone needs answer in imperial units then convert the final answer.

GO METRIC  :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metric has its virtues don't get me wrong, and use obviously what makes the least amount of work for you. But here in America these are the standards, I'm not saying the rest of the world should use them, I'm just saying on that there are reasons these units make sense and work in America better than alternatives.

I do realize these forums are used by people all over the world, but sometimes I forget about that, how very American of me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I saw a number of 5 PG / bushel being tossed around.  I assume this is only valid for corn.  Does anyone have any ball park numbers on wheat or rye?  They can be in any units.  I can convert them.

We recently started distilling rye whiskey and our yield is about 70% of what we typically get for our bourbon.  Is that typically or is it possible that we are not getting full conversion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@agporte

5 pg/bu is a generally good number for corn yields, yes.

Once you start throwing in small grains (i.e.-wheat,rye,malt), this yield tends to go down due to a couple reasons:

1. Lower % starch

2. Tougher to breakdown to release starch

Also, what's your rye whiskey mashbill, if you don't mind sharing?

I would expect closer to 85%-90% of corn yields.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, 

We have found average yields on 100% malted rye to be in the 3.8-4.2 PG/BSL range, 100% unmalted rye in the 1.8 PG/BSL range, malted red wheat about 4.5 PG/BSL, malted white wheat about 4.2 PG/BSL, unmalted wheat around 2.5 PG/BSL. Rye and wheat yields go up when combined, strangely. Might be a nutrient thing. All of this is just ballpark from scanning my spreadsheets. I actually keep my calculations as grams of alcohol per kilogram, which allows me to see the efficiency of the fermentation as well. But I'm bilingual in metric and 'merican, on account of being in Canadian schools when they went from archaic to metric. 

Mass and molarity are far more informative than cubits and ares. 

Malted rye yields can approach corn with a good enzyme regimen. Malted wheat is MORE diastatic than most malts, and doesn't benefit much from enzyme additions. I'll also add that grind screen size has a LOT to do with yields. There was an interesting presentation at ADI by a food scientist from Diageo about that..."upstream processing."

 

Hope some of those numbers are useful. I might add that all of those are on-grain ferments, and that your yields go up as your batch size goes up (better attenuation with more convection, generally) but that you can match most attenuation with a bit of spin-fermenting. 

Cheers :-)

Dan

  • Thumbs up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2016 at 6:27 AM, Silk City Distillers said:

Taking it to the next level, anybody willing to chat about hearts cut percentage as a percentage of total yield/theoretical yield?

Probably a touchy subject.

For a basic pot (e.g. in the style of Scotland) the heart cut can vary hugely. Macallan keeps 15% of collected spirit as hearts. I have seen some keep 60% as hearts using a fairly fast distillation speed and a basic pot, but these need a long time to age. Throw in four plates and a dephlegmator and you can keep an immense amount as hearts but personally I don't like the resulting style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Natrat said:

Hey guys, 

We have found average yields on 100% malted rye to be in the 3.8-4.2 PG/BSL range, 100% unmalted rye in the 1.8 PG/BSL range, malted red wheat about 4.5 PG/BSL, malted white wheat about 4.2 PG/BSL, unmalted wheat around 2.5 PG/BSL. Rye and wheat yields go up when combined, strangely. Might be a nutrient thing. All of this is just ballpark from scanning my spreadsheets. I actually keep my calculations as grams of alcohol per kilogram, which allows me to see the efficiency of the fermentation as well. But I'm bilingual in metric and 'merican, on account of being in Canadian schools when they went from archaic to metric. 

Mass and molarity are far more informative than cubits and ares. 

Malted rye yields can approach corn with a good enzyme regimen. Malted wheat is MORE diastatic than most malts, and doesn't benefit much from enzyme additions. I'll also add that grind screen size has a LOT to do with yields. There was an interesting presentation at ADI by a food scientist from Diageo about that..."upstream processing."

 

Hope some of those numbers are useful. I might add that all of those are on-grain ferments, and that your yields go up as your batch size goes up (better attenuation with more convection, generally) but that you can match most attenuation with a bit of spin-fermenting. 

Cheers :-)

Dan

Thanks Dan!! I've also found this thread to be very useful for calculating potential alcohol while I work out all the numbers as it explains the underlying carbohydrate calculations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Natrat said:

Hey guys, 

We have found average yields on 100% malted rye to be in the 3.8-4.2 PG/BSL range, 100% unmalted rye in the 1.8 PG/BSL range,

 

So with the un-malted rye are you adding enzymes? Why do you think it is so much lower than malted?

I can't be bothered working out those yields in real units, what are they in grams ethanol per Kg grain?

Thanks

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

All the numbers are for true yield, not for gross. Again, those are ballpark numbers gleaned from running a pivot table on my journal spreadsheet. 

No additional enzymes in those...if you look at pure rye using common exoamylase enzymes (such as Amylo 300), then the numbers look more like barley/rye or wheat malt/rye numbers. It's just that pure unmalted rye has pretty low diastatic power, and the numbers reflect that. 

i will also point out that grind screen size has a lot to do with it, and that different grains benefit from different screen sizes. If you have a shear emulsifier, then flour and microparticles can make for some fantastic yields, but not too many of us get to play with that kind of thing on a daily basis. Generally, too many fines will drop your yield like a stone, and that is more dramatic with unmalted rye than with any other grain (except oats) that I've played with. 

Hull size and friability  seem to be another indicator of yield. Excessively dry and friable grain is usually poor for fermentation, and large hulls can be the same. I believe that part of that has to do with mill shear...much easier to control with a 6 roll mill or a hammer mill. 

Having said all of that, I'm not a chaser of ultimate yield...I'm after consistency in yield, flavor, and fermentation schedule. 

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
On 8/4/2016 at 11:47 AM, PeteB said:

My understanding is that you aerate / oxygenate only before addition of yeast, not all the way through fermentation.

I once tried aerating for several days and got a very low yield.

Was told that the oxygen stimulated multiplication of yeast cells, not production of alcohol

yeast need o2 for building their cell walls as sterols (thus sterols can be used directly although its not be proven practical on a commercial level to my knowledge).  Yeast will consume sugar, oxygen, and most available nutrients during growth.  It will also produce alcohol provided there is more than 2g/L available in the wort - it just does it very inefficiently and simultaneous with reproduction.  The notion that yeast cannot produce alcohol under aerobic conditions isn't exactly right, it will, but it'll only produce small amounts of alcohol poorly.  I believe it's 8ppm o2 in wort that is the maximum level required.  

in response to other posts:

commercial enzymes should be able to reduce all starches completely and have very different pH and temp max (and optimal) levels than what barley itself has.  They aren't made from barley (a. niger is commonly used) and often have more than one base source.  You'll have one or more of the following: gluocoamylase (amyloglucosidase) reduces to glucose, alpha-amylase, pullulanse (limit dextrin - reduces "non-fermentables"), proteinases (breaks down protein), glucanases (breaks down glucans)

corn (typical dent corn, other varieties will vary) has 72% starch on a dry weight basis (400 lpa/ton - presumably continuous distillation and with exogenous enzymes used) LPA- liters pure alcohol

soft winter Wheat - 69% starch DWB

Rye - 68% starch DWB

Barley - 65% DWB

basically, barley - if not malted (malting uses some available starches) gives you the least potential alcohol of the 4 listed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...