86% Efficiency!!

Holy Crap!! I did a brown ale I found on the board here this weekend. I was completely blown away that this was even possible. This was my first experiance with MO and the new set-up. I don't know what to atribute this to. I have really dialed in my process so the whole batch takes about 3.5 hours from heating the HLT to pitching the yeast.:rockin:

Just wanted to brag a bit

Awesome, congrats... practice makes perfect.

Wow, I was down to 65% this weekend, but I had some issues with the mash tun falling apart... 86% is sweet!

Hopefully I can repeat that. I will be brewing again this weekend. I don't know if this had anything to do with it but I started recirculating in my MLT instead of lautering. I hooked up my march pump to my output and had a lid I had converted for fly sparging. About 3 mins of recirculating and a double batch sparge.

Amazing efficiency and an amazing AG time! 3.5 hours from initial heating to pitching yeast...wow. I am having trouble staying under 5 hrs with a 60 min mash, double batch sparge, and a 60 min boil.

I guess practice is needed.

Good job with the efficiency. Now you just gotta get consistency which is a biotch for me.

I don't even understand how it is possible to go from cold water to pitching yeast in 3.5 hours.

Benjibbad said:

Holy Crap!! I did a brown ale I found on the board here this weekend. I was completely blown away that this was even possible. This was my first experiance with MO and the new set-up. I don't know what to atribute this to. I have really dialed in my process so the whole batch takes about 3.5 hours from heating the HLT to pitching the yeast.:rockin:

Just wanted to brag a bit

Click to expand...

I used to always get 75%, the last few brews I have experimented with water treatment and added calcium chloride to the mash and got 85% 3 times in a row. So it is possible consistently - either that or the scales at LHBS have gone out of calibration and he's giving me more grain than I paid for

JKoravos said:

I don't even understand how it is possible to go from cold water to pitching yeast in 3.5 hours.

Click to expand...

Florida Ground water Mid day is at about 85-90 degrees. Hurricane burner helps too.

Not to piss in your cheerios,but you'll get better tasting beer with 70-75%.

Joos said:

Not to piss in your cheerios,but you'll get better tasting beer with 70-75%.

Click to expand...

Yep. Most award winning homebrewers seem to advocate to 70-75% efficiency as the magic number for the best beer.

mkling said:

Yep. Most award winning homebrewers seem to advocate to 70-75% efficiency as the magic number for the best beer.

Click to expand...

Whatever, I get 80+ and my beer is damn good. Damn good I tell you!

mkling said:

Yep. Most award winning homebrewers seem to advocate to 70-75% efficiency as the magic number for the best beer.

Click to expand...

I set my software to 83% and get between 83 and 86 every time. The beer tastes fine too. I think it would be more work to try and get 75% rather that just do what I'm doing.

I brewed again last night and ended up with 87% effciency!! Though I had a question I added 1lb of lactose and .5lb of semi-sweet baker chocolate to a stout last night would this affect my effciency. I know they are non fermentable sugars, but I don't know how they would affect my readings.

ANY sugars will affect your reading, whether they are fermentable or not. When you mash hot, you get a lot of unfermentables too, but those still count toward your OG.

humann_brewing said:

I set my software to 83% and get between 83 and 86 every time. The beer tastes fine too. I think it would be more work to try and get 75% rather that just do what I'm doing.

Click to expand...

Its not a lot of work to get a lower efficiency. You just have to sparge less.

I did a double batch sparge and mashed at 153. Anyone have any idea what the potential sugar extract is from 1lb of lactose?

remilard said:

Its not a lot of work to get a lower efficiency. You just have to sparge less.

Click to expand...

But, if I sparge less, then I dont hit my pre-boil volume. Then I either end up with less beer (still no large eff. change) or I top off with water?

Benjibbad said:

I did a double batch sparge and mashed at 153. Anyone have any idea what the potential sugar extract is from 1lb of lactose?

Click to expand...

That is about 30 ppgpp, (1.030) so if you have 5 gallons, it added about .006

Joos said:

Not to piss in your cheerios,but you'll get better tasting beer with 70-75%.

Click to expand...

I believe this is a myth that has zero merit.

Using extreme measures to get a higher efficiency is one thing. Having a sound system and good practices that results in a high effciency will not result in worse beer.

dfohio said:

I believe this is a myth that has zero merit.

Using extreme measures to get a higher efficiency is one thing. Having a sound system and good practices that results in a high effciency will not result in worse beer.

Click to expand...

You are right... and here is why someone with 65%eff could have worse quality wort than a guy with 85%eff. There is no direct correlation between eff. and wort quality.

Getting near 100% conversion eff. and then nailing down an effective sparge process so that you can EVENLY sparge the grain bed will both drastically improve your eff. and wort quality.

I can have an ill designed manifold in my MLT and nail 65% eff... but I could also have a falsie or a properly designed manifold and increase my eff. and IMPROVE my wort quality.

If you have an ill managed lauter process you are very likely oversparging some of your mash and under sparging others, costing you wort quality AND efficiency. In this case, improving your conversion eff. AND your lauter eff. would actually increase your wort quality.(increasing the first wort volume AND reduction in OVERsparging areas of the mash) In a sense, improving your eff. by improving your process actually holds keys to improving your wort quality.

Pulling out dilute wort because 25% of the grain bed isnt even getting sparged while the other 75% is getting over sparged will give you 65% eff. perhaps, but low eff. is not an idication of wort quality, it could be quite contrary.

To this end... someone achieving 65% eff. could very well have poorer wort quality than someone achieving 85% efficiency, easily. The 85% guy is getting 100% conversion eff, mashing thinner, increasing the volume of first wort AND he is evenly sparging his grain bed. He is doing everything in his power to INCREASE wort quality IMHO. The 65% guy COULD have excellent wort, but loss of eff. means either poor conversion eff (thicker mash, less first wort volume) or poor lautering (over sparging some areas and under sparging others) both of which will not lead you to better wort.

ok so with that change I am still over 80% still good IMO. I used to get around 70%-75% but this set system I have is really working out great!! I love being able to recirculate the mash. Man I love March pumps!!

Having a dedicated system helps a lot. My eff. doenst waver from 82% or 83%... so it is extremely consistent. I mash thinner to boost my conversion eff. which also increases my volume of first wort, which then reduces the amount I sparge. (better wort quality) and I also have a false bottom, so I am lautering the grain bed as evenly as I possibly can (better wort quality). I sparge with about 3.5 gallons of water total, the rest is first wort.

Some of the keys to better wort quality, are also keys to better eff. This is why the whole "lower the eff. the better the wort quality" idea is bunk. There is absolutely no direct correlation.

I mash thin too. I get 80% every time. I'm happy enough with 80% as long as the consitency remains as good as it does.
Consistent efficiency is the one part of the brewing process that I can take some pride in, and it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that sometimes trickles down my leg.

The Pol said:

But, if I sparge less, then I dont hit my pre-boil volume. Then I either end up with less beer (still no large eff. change) or I top off with water?

Click to expand...

More grain and water in the mash (same ratio).

You have a mash ratio and sparging regimen that result in X efficiency. All I am saying is that you could easily have a mash ratio and sparging regimen that result in Y < X efficiency if you wanted.

I don't think anybody should want to, just that they can.

mkling said:

Yep. Most award winning homebrewers seem to advocate to 70-75% efficiency as the magic number for the best beer.

Click to expand...

And yet, virtually all commercial breweries they strive to match get significantly higher efficiency from their mashes. So, yeah...

JKoravos said:

And yet, virtually all commercial breweries they strive to match get significantly higher efficiency from their mashes. So, yeah...

Click to expand...

Commercial breweries also routinely use all domestic malt, limited hop varieties, older hops, repitch yeast until characteristics change etc.

Since we are engaged in a hobby wherein, at least in my view, the point is to spend money and not to make money, we have the luxury of chasing the last 10th of a percent if we want to.

The Pol said:

My eff. doenst waver from 82% or 83%... so it is extremely consistent.

Click to expand...

Does it really stay that consistent even between a small and big beer? I brewed a bitter with a starting gravity around 1.040 this weekend and got close to 80%, but when I brew bigger beers, say around 1.060 to 1.070, my efficiency suffers and I drop down to around 70%. Is there a good way to get consistent efficiency across a wide range of starting gravities?

earlytimes said:

Does it really stay that consistent even between a small and big beer? I brewed a bitter with a starting gravity around 1.040 this weekend and got close to 80%, but when I brew bigger beers, say around 1.060 to 1.070, my efficiency suffers and I drop down to around 70%. Is there a good way to get consistent efficiency across a wide range of starting gravities?

Click to expand...

I have brewed beers at 1.039 to 1.070 and the eff. has been either 82% or 83% each time.

I do have an electric HERMS though, so I am constantly recirculating and I do fly sparge with a false bottom. Dont know if that matters, but if your eff. suffers with large grain bills, that is a lautering issue.

humann_brewing said:

I set my software to 83% and get between 83 and 86 every time. The beer tastes fine too. I think it would be more work to try and get 75% rather that just do what I'm doing.

Click to expand...

How hard would it be to lauter less?

dantodd said:

How hard would it be to lauter less?

Click to expand...

Not hard, but you wont end up with 5 or 10 gallons after the boil, will you?

So youd be making less beer?

The assumption is that someone getting 80%+ is sparging more than someone who is getting say 65%. Which is simply not true. The only way that wort will be of higher quality is if you sparge LESS, but I sparge LESS now than when I did when I was at 70%.

I sparge LESS and get 83%, I sparged MORE when I was at 70%. This is why the entire argument that lower eff. means better wort is completely bass ackwards

The Pol said:

Not hard, but you wont end up with 5 or 10 gallons after the boil, will you?

Click to expand...

I didn't realize it was against the law to add water to the boil that didn't go through the grain bed.

dantodd said:

I didn't realize it was against the law to add water to the boil that didn't go through the grain bed.

Click to expand...

Its not, but again, the assumption is that higher eff. equals lesser quality wort, when there is no direct correlation between the two. To sparge less, and add top off water, just to reduce ones eff. is plain silly.

Like I said, guys who sparge less have higher eff. than guys that get 65-70% eff. which contradicts this silly argument that lower eff. is better for wort.

Oversparging by definition doesnt give you a significant amount of sugars, so I dont see how oversparging, draining wort that has a SG of 1.008, will take someone from 70% to 80%.

When you say sparge less, do you mean ending up with a smaller pre-boil/batch size, or do you mean using a thinner mash resulting in less water to sparge with?

ODaniel said:

When you say sparge less, do you mean ending up with a smaller pre-boil/batch size, or do you mean using a thinner mash resulting in less water to sparge with?

Click to expand...

Thinner mash, leaving less sparge water.

The Pol said:

Its not, but again, the assumption is that higher eff. equals lesser quality wort, when there is no direct correlation between the two.

Click to expand...

I never made such an argument. Perhaps you should read the context and posts before you start arguing with someone.

Pol, what ratio are you using between water and grain? Thanks.

jts15 said:

Pol, what ratio are you using between water and grain? Thanks.

Click to expand...

2.0qt/lb mash ratio

dantodd said:

I never made such an argument. Perhaps you should read the context and posts before you start arguing with someone.

Click to expand...

Never said you did make that argument. But with all due respect, the whole idea of sparging less and adding top up water was started in this thread when the assumption was made that lower eff. would equal better quality wort. Without that false assumption, no one would be talking about how to reduce eff., reduce sparging, or topping off after the boil.

With all due respect... my posts have everything to with the context of posts in this thread.

mkling said:

Yep. Most award winning homebrewers seem to advocate to 70-75% efficiency as the magic number for the best beer.

Click to expand...

This is a false assumption. Just because your eff. is less, doesnt mean your wort is better