First AG - 95% efficiency - Am I the son of god or calculation mistake

Brethen, after mucking around with a handful of partial mashes I rustled up my first AG batch last night.
So everything went relatively smoothly - technique-wise I use what you could describe as a stovetop-stepmash - to explain:
Ingredients:
Pale 2 row - 4.5 pounds
Wheat - 0.8 pound
Roasted barley - 0.3 pounds
Chocolate Malt - 0.5 pound
Vienna Malt - 2 pounds
Mash Process:
30 minute mash of Pale, Vienna and Wheat in 10 litres @ 145f
30 minutes mash of Pale, Vienna and Wheat in 11 litres @ 155f
then add the Choc Malt and Roasted barley and mash the lot for 30 mins at 160f
"Lautering"
dump the grain bag into 8 litres of 180f degree water and leave it for another 20 minutes, drain the lot into boil kettle (I'll admit to applying a little pressure to the grain bag)

I ended up with 4 gallons of wort and reserved a little of that and let it cool overnight to 20c celcius for the OG test
And that was the interesting part - I get: 1070

based on my J Palmer PPG figures driven manual calculation that equates to 95% efficiency does it not??
I simply cannot/will not believe this - I expected something like 70%.
My assumption is that some overnight evaporation might have increased the OG sample a little - but surely not by a margin of 15 - 20%??

Is my hydrometer lying?

I appreciate that my mash schedule is relatively long - is in in fact possible to get this sort of efficiency with my caveman methods??

It would be great if someone could challenge my math before I quit my day job

thanks!

Your hydrometer is fine - you actually are the Son of God.

Welcome, we have been waiting for you and have a lot of stuff we need you to deal with.

It's looking like your calcs are off a bit and you may have gotten 85% efficiency.....which is normal. Good job for your first try though!!! Keep on doing it!

twoodward15 said:

It's looking like your calcs are off a bit and you may have gotten 85% efficiency.....which is normal. Good job for your first try though!!! Keep on doing it!

Click to expand...

Ok 85% relegates me to love child of Saint Peter status - can you please tell (me or point me) to your calculation method - I plugged my figures into this: http://www.brewersfriend.com/brewhouse-efficiency/ and it gave me 93%.
thanks

Your hydrometer could be wrong, you could check it. Another possibility is that you collected less than 4 gal. I don't know if it is possible to get 95%, but I agree with you that it is unusual. I've heard on these forums that when wort sits after lautering it can stratify into different SGs at different depths. So, if you didn't stir well before drawing your sample, it is possible you got an unrepresentative sample. You will find out post boil.

BTW, I calculated it at 95% too.

Might want to check your receipt and make sure you didn't have extra grain.

pkeeler said:

Your hydrometer could be wrong, you could check it. Another possibility is that you collected less than 4 gal. I don't know if it is possible to get 95%, but I agree with you that it is unusual. I've heard on these forums that when wort sits after lautering it can stratify into different SGs at different depths. So, if you didn't stir well before drawing your sample, it is possible you got an unrepresentative sample. You will find out post boil.

Click to expand...

Only one way to find out about the hydrometer - in fact I should have tested the damn thing in 20c water before ranting about it possibly being at fault

interesting remark about strata generating in the wort - thing is I set the sample aside in a glass and then the following morning tipped that into the hydrometer tube, so it was thoroughly re-agitated at point I took the reading.

I collected 4 gallons (a smidgeon under 15 litres to be exact). I always make a point post-lauter of dumping collected wort into my (marked) bottling bucket for volume measurement.

maybe I just need to accept my fate and take my place in the holy trinity

Are you using Imperial gallons or US gallons for your volume measurements?

-a.

ajf said:

Are you using Imperial gallons or US gallons for your volume measurements?

-a.

Click to expand...

US Gallons - as I say I collected a little under 15 litres and translated that to 4 Gallons for my calculations.
I'm thinking of targeting > 100% efficiency on my next brew at this rate

Unfortunately high efficiency doesn't necessarily translate into good beer

how did you measure the gallons? i've heard many of the standard fermenting buckets with the markings already on them are usually off by a decent amount. other then that i got nothin, i'm just starting to get to the all grain side.

Are you confident in you grain weights?

well i did the calculations and with promash it gives me 100% and really thats not acurate, maybe big breweries with step mash get 97% or less

but let me know if im wrong, maybe you mill your grain until powder

i get from 85-90%

joe1996 said:

well i did the calculations and with promash it gives me 100% and really thats not acurate, maybe big breweries with step mash get 97% or less

but let me know if im wrong, maybe you mill your grain until powder

i get from 85-90%

Click to expand...

no man, I'm using pre-milled grain - and it looks pretty granular to me, I think its ok.
What mash/sparge method do you use to get your 85 - 90%

Why brew, just turn water into wine.......

LMAO!! He already did that.

lone_wolf said:

no man, I'm using pre-milled grain - and it looks pretty granular to me, I think its ok.
What mash/sparge method do you use to get your 85 - 90%

Click to expand...

mash for an hour to hour and a half, fly sparge for about 45 mins in 10 gal batches, i use a false bottom.

gettin the right amount of grain/water will help you out, and for the mill im using the barley crusher with a 3/8 drill with the pre-set gap between the rollers

"I pray to you lone_wolf:

Please bless my brew and make it turn out great. Watch over my fermentation and protect it from infection.

Don't worry about the starving kids in Africa, they'll be fine.

Amen."

joe1996 said:

mash for an hour to hour and a half, fly sparge for about 45 mins in 10 gal batches, i use a false bottom.

gettin the right amount of grain/water will help you out, and for the mill im using the barley crusher with a 3/8 drill with the pre-set gap between the rollers

Click to expand...

see i'm thinking thats maybe what it was - I confess I've read an unnatural amount about amylase activity and know that them enyzmes like a thick-ass mash - 8 pounds into 10 litres was pretty sludgy, and for 1.5 hours (not counting the sparge).
that, or my kit is enchanted...

this thread makes me LOL.

I get 91% efficiency. Impressive, not unbelieveable with a 90 minute step mash. Good job, the question is: how reproducable is it?

On my first calculation using Daniels method I get %101 efficiency. You're actually pulling sugars out of fat air. Maybe I should double check my math but why even bother?

Probably Son of God.

I got 95% the other day and am pissed. I am trying to dial in my new system and did not expect to overshoot my OG by that much. I was trying to make a small APA for a session beer. I guess my sessions will be much shorter than I intended.

On my old system I typically get around 80-85% but was thinking I would hit about 70-75% while dialing in this new gear. Boy was I off. Now to try and get the same results every time - that is the hard part.

Pivovar_Koucky said:

I get 91% efficiency. Impressive, not unbelieveable with a 90 minute step mash. Good job, the question is: how reproducable is it?

Click to expand...

at last a believer!! Brother, I agree that reproducability is indeed the question - so the thing is, I was considering making this my last BIAB brew and having a crack at some proper (more proper?) bucket-in-a-bucket based lautering - basicially because I just assumed there was no way in hell I could ever acheive > mid 70% performance on efficiency with BIAB
My results have thrown this into doubt however and I feel I owe everyone/thing from the BIAB process, myself, the skeptics on this thread and my country at least another stovestop stepmash.
I do acknowledge though there is one big drawback with BIAB even if you are getting 300% efficiency (at least I'm pretty sure there is) - and that is the wort you get will never be as clear as something thats properly lautered - I'm curious to know what others experiences are here - topic of a different thread I think?

suprchunk said:

I got 95% the other day and am pissed. I am trying to dial in my new system and did not expect to overshoot my OG by that much. I was trying to make a small APA for a session beer. I guess my sessions will be much shorter than I intended.

On my old system I typically get around 80-85% but was thinking I would hit about 70-75% while dialing in this new gear. Boy was I off. Now to try and get the same results every time - that is the hard part.

Click to expand...

Ok this can't go on unchecked - we need to set up a support group for us 95 percenters. we'll start by focussing on some of the consequences of the condition (truncated sessions, ego inflation) etc and then address root cause

on more serious note, what process do you use when hitting your high efficiency fgures

lone_wolf said:

at last a believer!! Brother, I agree that reproducability is indeed the question - so the thing is, I was considering making this my last BIAB brew and having a crack at some proper (more proper?) bucket-in-a-bucket based lautering - basicially because I just assumed there was no way in hell I could ever acheive > mid 70% performance on efficiency with BIAB
My results have thrown this into doubt however and I feel I owe everyone/thing from the BIAB process, myself, the skeptics on this thread and my country at least another stovestop stepmash.
I do acknowledge though there is one big drawback with BIAB even if you are getting 300% efficiency (at least I'm pretty sure there is) - and that is the wort you get will never be as clear as something thats properly lautered - I'm curious to know what others experiences are here - topic of a different thread I think?

Click to expand...

My last BIAB was at 83% with a single infusion mash @ 154F for 90 min., then batch sparge at 170F for 20 min. I too give my bag a little squeeze

Yes, I'm sure my wort isn't as pretty as most not using the BIAB method, but my beers are still coming out crystal clear. I probably have more trub but so what. I do 5.5 gal. batches and I'm still getting 50+ 12oz bottles.

I find that the biggest problem with high efficiency is adjusting grain amounts for the recipes I find on the forums.. Most recipies are written for 75% efficiency and all the grain amounts are nice and round numbers. If I want to hit the correct OG for the recipe I have to weigh out a little from each grain to hit the right numbers. I usually go with the amounts in the recipe and have a beer with a little higher ABV

lone_wolf said:

I do acknowledge though there is one big drawback with BIAB even if you are getting 300% efficiency (at least I'm pretty sure there is) - and that is the wort you get will never be as clear as something thats properly lautered - I'm curious to know what others experiences are here - topic of a different thread I think?

Click to expand...

I really don't care about the clarity of my wort, I know my BIAB beers are crystal clear. The only clouding is from the yeast at the bottom of the bottle.

lone_wolf said:

on more serious note, what process do you use when hitting your high efficiency fgures

Click to expand...

I mash at 150-154 for an hour or until conversion. Fly-sparge slow, but not overly slow. And boil just like everyone else. I do use the best crusher in the world though - Monster Mill. (no affiliation, just a satisfied person who has bought three of them)

To the guys that are getting crystal clear beer with BIAB - So I should be clearer(!)
assuming I brew without a crapload of dark malt the beer in the bottle is clear - that is to say I do not have issues with haze (aside from what can be expected towards the bottom of a bottle conditioned beer).
However what I am seeing on close inspection is quite a bit of suspended minute particulate matter.
Now my assumption is that these are tiny fragments of grain that are small enough to pass through the grain bag wall, are not being picked up by a "proper" lautering process and are not heavy enough to settle into the trub.

I suspect that post-mash if I set the contents of the grain bag up as a grain bed and reticulated etc then these particles would not make it into the finished product
thoughts?

lone_wolf said:

However what I am seeing on close inspection is quite a bit of suspended minute particulate matter.
Now my assumption is that these are tiny fragments of grain that are small enough to pass through the grain bag wall, are not being picked up by a "proper" lautering process and are not heavy enough to settle into the trub.

Click to expand...

So as a disclaimer I have only done 1 BIAB and that was my first all grain and my first boil as I have been up to now just usings coopers cans:cross:

But I calculated my eff to be around 85-89% (my volume measurement wasn't the most accurate meathod). What LHBS do you go to? I got mine from Hauraki Homebrew and used their crushed grain.
I have noticed that that beer also has those tiny tiny tiny fleks of something in it, only really can see them if held up to the light. Beer taste great though, 186x better than even a 2 can coopers with no extra dextrose! Now I just need to get a bigger pot (current is just a Warehouse 4.5 gallon I got for $18!) because I dont see 3 gallons of that beer lasting very long

mattd2 said:

So as a disclaimer I have only done 1 BIAB and that was my first all grain and my first boil as I have been up to now just usings coopers cans:cross:

But I calculated my eff to be around 85-89% (my volume measurement wasn't the most accurate meathod). What LHBS do you go to? I got mine from Hauraki Homebrew and used their crushed grain.
I have noticed that that beer also has those tiny tiny tiny fleks of something in it, only really can see them if held up to the light. Beer taste great though, 186x better than even a 2 can coopers with no extra dextrose! Now I just need to get a bigger pot (current is just a Warehouse 4.5 gallon I got for $18!) because I dont see 3 gallons of that beer lasting very long

Click to expand...

Yes! exactly, when you hold the beer up to the light the flecks become visible. I've sourced my grain from haurakihomebrew and brewshop.co.nz. I'm not sure I've noticed a difference in texture to be honest.

I also get those flecks. I really don't think it effects the end product though. As long as you are fermenting your brew long enough, I don't think it matters. For crying out loud, you're getting 90+% efficiency, think about how much $$ you'll save!

lone_wolf said:

Yes! exactly, when you hold the beer up to the light the flecks become visible. I've sourced my grain from haurakihomebrew and brewshop.co.nz. I'm not sure I've noticed a difference in texture to be honest.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link to www.brewshop.co.nz, I think this will be were I'll get ingredients from now as I can't find any reasonable priced brewshops in Tauranga!
Cheers

Sweet Jeebus! I hate to be the bearer of bad news but something can't be right. The only way you're getting those high efficiencies is if you're squeezing a lot of the fluid out of the grains, not measuring volumes correctly, or using more grain than you think. The efficiency calculations are assuming the grains are soaking up a percentage of the liquid. Squeezing the grains violates that assumption. There's a reason people go through the trouble of long fly sparges in order to achieve those 90%+ efficiencies. Osmosis takes quite a while as the high concentrations of sugars in the grains migrate to low concentrations of the sparge water. Squeezing grains is not recommended. Try brewing two tea bags, allow one to drip and squeeze the other one. Taste both of them and ye shall see the light. Your mouth will pucker up from the astringent tannins of the squeezed bags. My Dad used to say: "Do you want it fast, cheap, or good? Pick two."

Sizz said:

Sweet Jeebus! I hate to be the bearer of bad news but something can't be right. The only way you're getting those high efficiencies is if you're squeezing a lot of the fluid out of the grains, not measuring volumes correctly, or using more grain than you think. The efficiency calculations are assuming the grains are soaking up a percentage of the liquid. Squeezing the grains violates that assumption. There's a reason people go through the trouble of long fly sparges in order to achieve those 90%+ efficiencies. Osmosis takes quite a while as the high concentrations of sugars in the grains migrate to low concentrations of the sparge water. Squeezing grains is not recommended. Try brewing two tea bags, allow one to drip and squeeze the other one. Taste both of them and ye shall see the light. Your mouth will pucker up from the astringent tannins of the squeezed bags. My Dad used to say: "Do you want it fast, cheap, or good? Pick two."

Click to expand...

In my defence I did say right at the outset that there is some grain bag squeezage going on - to be extra clear after the sparge I let it drain as throughly as possible in a big colander and only then start squeezin - basically, I let it drip, then I let it rip :rockin: I'll admit that by the time i'm finished with the grain its pretty damn dry
Not wanting to rake muck thats probably settled in other forums but I thought the whole squeeze the bag causes tannins theory had pretty much been debunked - But I think its at least partially responsible for another problem and thats a crapload of protein and particulate matter coming through to the boil (particulate matter actually hangs around until bottling)

Sizz said:

Try brewing two tea bags, allow one to drip and squeeze the other one. Taste both of them and ye shall see the light. Your mouth will pucker up from the astringent tannins of the squeezed bags.

Click to expand...

So what does tea have to do with beer? Tea has a lot of tannins in it and you brew tea with 100 deg C water, I agree the "don't squeeze your sack" fear has been debunked.

lone_wolf said:

To the guys that are getting crystal clear beer with BIAB - So I should be clearer(!)
assuming I brew without a crapload of dark malt the beer in the bottle is clear - that is to say I do not have issues with haze (aside from what can be expected towards the bottom of a bottle conditioned beer).
However what I am seeing on close inspection is quite a bit of suspended minute particulate matter.
Now my assumption is that these are tiny fragments of grain that are small enough to pass through the grain bag wall, are not being picked up by a "proper" lautering process and are not heavy enough to settle into the trub.

I suspect that post-mash if I set the contents of the grain bag up as a grain bed and reticulated etc then these particles would not make it into the finished product
thoughts?

Click to expand...

Not sure what is going on with your brewing process, but I get nothing suspended, even when I hold the beer up to the light. There are no grain particles that I can see, nor has anyone else commented on when drinking my beers.

Anyone have a link to where the "squeezing = tannins" theory is debunked? I'm assuming it's basically a blind taste test and there was no discernible difference between both methods. If this is true, I'd like to add a press to my system and get most of the goodness out.

Take a look at this thread:
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f39/squeezing-grain-bag-bad-175179/

It starts off saying that squeezing is bad but than if you keep reading there are some references to articals that contradict that.