I just got 94% efficiency!

Acumen · 05-12-2009, 05:35 AM

I grind at my LHBS, with the gap at its closest setting. Hulls come through fine. No tannins yet. I just grind slowly and evenly and it comes out near flour, but still managable.

Vorlauf for 30 minutes or more at a trickle. I normally cycle the whole batch at least once before sparging. It comes out looking like a gemstone when I finally start removing wort.

Sparge at the same slow pace. The process adds about an hour to the mash, but 94% efficiency is worth it IMHO. 5 gallons reaching 1.081 with only 13# of grain shaves a good amount of long term batch prices.

I talked to one of the brewers at Bluepoint Brewery recently, they get 99.9% efficiency there, taking up to 18 hours to mash/vorlauf/sparge. Next time I have an extra long timeslot available, I will try a 2 hour vorlauf to try and catch them.

Benny Blanco · 05-12-2009, 07:14 AM

99.9%.......riiiiiiiiiiight.....

ODaniel · 05-12-2009, 07:16 AM

Wow. I thought I read it wasn't good to mash too long, but I dunno, maybe not. What is your MLT setup like? What grain/water ratio do you mash at? I was getting about 75% efficiency, then changed a few things yesterday, one being 1.25 to 1.5 grain/water ratio. I mashed for 90-110 minutes and fly sparged for about 40 minutes (both of which I had done before) and I got 84% efficiency both times. Also my grain was crushed at the LHBS in Louisville. That could have made a difference as well. My other batches have been from Midwest.

**Bobby_M** · 05-12-2009, 01:18 PM

I was hitting 92% brewhouse with a batch sparge (not 18 hours of sparging, more like 18 minutes). The consensus is that as you progressively get closer to 100%, you're compromising your wort quality. That's why I purposely backed off to about 80%.

**Cpt_Kirks** · 05-12-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby_M

I was hitting 92% brewhouse with a batch sparge (not 18 hours of sparging, more like 18 minutes). The consensus is that as you progressively get closer to 100%, you're compromising your wort quality. That's why I purposely backed off to about 80%.

Man, my 62% efficiency must indicate that the quality of my wort ROCKS!

Yay.

LooyvilleLarry · 05-12-2009, 01:30 PM

99.9....yeah... I went fishing this weekend and caught this 46 lb bass, but it jumped out of my hands as we were taking the picture...

The Pol · 05-12-2009, 01:39 PM

99.9%

Hrmm, I have this island, no one has heard of it, or even knows it exists. I will sell it to you, sight unseen.

BobbyM is right. The first wort, is the highest quality wort. Which is why batch spargers generally have higher quality wort. They may sacrifice a couple points of eff. but they keep the PH low and sugar high in the runnings.

RedBeerMan · 05-12-2009, 01:48 PM

If grain was $5 a pound, it might matter to me. Since it's less than $1, mash efficiency is secondary to quality.

**CharlosCarlies** · 05-12-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedBeerMan

If grain was $5 a pound, it might matter to me. Since it's less than $1, mash efficiency is secondary to quality.

+ infinity

The Pol · 05-12-2009, 01:56 PM

At 82% it takes 11.5 pounds to get 1.062
At 94% it takes 10.0 pounds to get 1.062

1.5 pounds of grain

50# for $41 = $.82 per pound

$.82 x 1.5 = $1.23

Now consider that you are sacrificing wort quality.

Consider that most people pay $3-$4 per ounce for hops (ouch)

Then consider that some people pay $1-$1.50 per ounce for hops (yippee)

You can save a lot more by getting better hop pricing or utilization than you will in saving 1.5 pounds of grain.

I guess what I am driving at is that there are ways to reduce cost, that dont concurrently reduce the quality of your wort.