Is greater than 100% efficiency possible?

My first reaction: no, of course not!
Then I found this on specialtymalts.com:

What does the lab do to get 100% extract yield? A professional brewer mentioned that one place he worked got better than 100% by separating the starch and husks, then grinding the starch very finely and mashing in a shallow, large diameter tun. What other techniques are practical (or not) for production brewing?
Posed by Don Obenauer, Atlanta GA USA on May 12, 1999

Click to expand...

In essence, the lab uses just the endosperm portion of the kernel. You could expect material losses in this seperation process to be very high and also very time consuming.

Extract is determined by the specific density of extracted solution. This density is compared to a similar sugar solution. With this definition, the amount of sugar extracted could very well be above 100% if the specific gravity were high enough.

Click to expand...

Anyone have more info on this? It sounds like it's possible under extreme conditions (read: not worthwhile except in a theoretical sense).

I know I always give a 110%, at least that's what I say in the press conferences.

Over 100% would be pulling more starch/sugars out of the grain than exists...

I'll settle for my 85% unless I'm on the football field. In that case, I'll give 110%

I'm pretty sure it is possible to exceed 100%. I don't have it with me but I remember a line from "Brewing Science and Practice" saying that newer brewing systems may be exceding the 100% mark. I think that better methods or equipment have allowed brewers to pass the old benchmark.

By definition, you cannot have more than 100% of a thing.

Most likely, the 100% extraction number is defined as the most that a lab can produce from a given malt given a specific efficient process. If you somehow get more sugars than a professional lab can, then you aren't really getting more than 100% of potential sugars, just more than the lab got.

-Steve

Right, the whole deal with extract efficiency calculations is that we use baseline numbers for potential extract for different types of grain. These extract potentials are going to vary based on a lot of factors including age of grain, where it was grown, when it was grown, the weather, how it was transported, etc.

So just the basic assumptions that go into calculating extract efficiency have a lot of variation that is not usually considered.

My guitar amp goes up to 11.

That's nothing, my mash tun goes to 11. That's how I get 117% efficiency.

SavageSteve said:

By definition, you cannot have more than 100% of a thing.

Most likely, the 100% extraction number is defined as the most that a lab can produce from a given malt given a specific efficient process. If you somehow get more sugars than a professional lab can, then you aren't really getting more than 100% of potential sugars, just more than the lab got.

-Steve

Click to expand...

Let's rephrase the question, then. Is it possible, in a homebrew setting, to get better efficiency than the testing lab?

By definition, you cannot have more than 100% of a thing.

Click to expand...

Sure you can. Then you just have more than one thing.

dwarven_stout said:

Let's rephrase the question, then. Is it possible, in a homebrew setting, to get better efficiency than the testing lab?

Click to expand...

I would be very surprised if the average homebrewer could do better than a lab. I got 81% efficiency on my mash yesterday, and I'm pretty happy with that.

-Steve

bernerbrau said:

Sure you can. Then you just have more than one thing.

Click to expand...

Nope.

You'd have a 100% or greater increase in your amount of stuff, but still only 100% of all the stuff.

If you have one apple, you have 100% of your apples.

If I then give you two apples, you have increased your number of apples by 200%, but you still only have 100% of your apples, be they one or three.

-Steve

This reminds me of the thread where the dude claimed 98% eff. on his homebrew system. Come to find out, he was using faulty software giving him bad calculations.

These threads crack me up.

You are an EXCELLENT homebrewer if you can get somewhere in the 80s for eff. AND make good tasting beer.

Sure you can get 100% or more, if you use faulty calculations.

dwarven_stout said:

Let's rephrase the question, then. Is it possible, in a homebrew setting, to get better efficiency than the testing lab?

Click to expand...

It is possible but very rare. If it did happen, it would more likely be a slight discrepancy in weight or volumes before it would be greater than 100% efficiency. Additionally, you would need the malt analysis of each grain used to know for sure. The potential SGs listed in brewing software is an historic average for the given malt.

SavageSteve said:

Nope.

You'd have a 100% or greater increase in your amount of stuff, but still only 100% of all the stuff.

If you have one apple, you have 100% of your apples.

If I then give you two apples, you have increased your number of apples by 200%, but you still only have 100% of your apples, be they one or three.

-Steve

Click to expand...

If an apple tree can produce 50 apples at full capacity (100%), but it ends up producing 51 apples, then it produced more than 100%, but that's only b/c somebody said that 50 apples was full capacity.

So in the case of more than 100% efficiency, faulty calculations aside, it would be due to extacting more than somebody said could be extracted.

It's possible but not likely in a homebrew setting.

We base our efficiency calculation on a benchmark process that involves a pretty efficient mash and no lauter losses. The mash is so efficient bc it starts at 45C, ramps up to 70C, is held there for 60 min and is done with finely ground malt at a high water grist ratio.

What you need to suprass this is a mash that could liberate enven more extract from the grain. Only a decoction mash comes to
mind for this. But even then the additional gain would be minimal. Mabe an additional 2-3% at best. Now your lauter losses need to be less than that which means an highly optimized lauter system. Maybe even a mash filter.

If home brewers get more than 100% it's always measurement errors, incorrect malt potential data or faulty calculations.

Kai

Nope.

You'd have a 100% or greater increase in your amount of stuff, but still only 100% of all the stuff.

If you have one apple, you have 100% of your apples.

If I then give you two apples, you have increased your number of apples by 200%, but you still only have 100% of your apples, be they one or three.

-Steve

Click to expand...

You're splitting really fine hairs here. If I have 150% of an apple, I have an apple and a half.

If you're talking about percent in relationship to a given maximum, yeah, sure, but you didn't make that stipulation in your original claim.

If your software tells you that you just got 105% efficiency:

1. The software is wrong.
2. The database entry for the grain you have has not been updated to the actual sack you used.
3. You measured the gravity innaccurately.
4. You weighed the grain innaccurately.
5. You measured the wort volume innaccurately.
6. All of the above or some of the above.

I would trust the lab specs more than anything else.

We're not talking software errors here. Maybe this topic would have been better place in the Brewing Science forum...

Thanks Mensch and especially Kaiser... those were the types of hypothetical answers I was interested in reading in response to my hypothetical.

dwarven_stout said:

We're not talking software errors here. Maybe this topic would have been better place in the Brewing Science forum...

Thanks Mensch and especially Kaiser... those were the types of hypothetical answers I was interested in reading in response to my hypothetical.

Click to expand...

Either Palmer or Papazian has info on it in one of their books. Without looking it up, and from memory, They usually assume that the grain is only going to be able to convert a certain % during malting on average, then the percentage of efficiency is based on that percentage of the grain.

(totally made up numbers since I don't have the chart in front of me) So if 2 row is based at the malting only making 85% of the starch available for conversion, if you had 100% efficiency during your brew session you only really have 85% of the sugar that the grain has.

So in theory, if the malting session wasn't normal and somehow managed to make 100% of the starch/sugar available, then you got 85% during your Mash, you would actually end up with over 100% of that grains normal availability.

This is overly simplified from what is in the book, but you get the point.

There are some losses during malting but after malting pretty much all the strarch is available for converion (generally about 80% of the grain's dry weight) the rest is insoluble and you cannot convert it to sugars during mashing anyway.

Kai

Yeah, malting happens before the lab analysis though. They derive 100% potential by grinding way finer than you ever will and mashing longer.

Ok, Im a total newbie, but my last 2 brews, my calc (on beersmith) showed me to get about 96% efficiency. Now, I dont actually believe that I got it, but whats going wrong. Here is my last brew:

16 lbs Munich
1 lb carapils
1 lb Crystal 60L

Mashed in with 25.2 gallons of water, mashed for 60 minutes.

I collected 12.2 gallons into my boiler which had a OG of 1.051 (final runnings at 1.011, and yes, I chilled down the sample to 62 degrees before I took the hydro reading).

So, what could be the culprit? Am I using Beersmith wrong or am I just super lucky?

Griff, I'm not sure that I understand your process. Are you just collecting your mash? No sparging?
Are you really mashing w/ 25 gallons of water? and not 25 quarts?

I've never heard of anyone not doing a sparge of some sort, but the process that you describe above would lead to some interesting efficiency numbers indeed (unless I'm reading it wrong)

Im sorry, that was a poorly written comment.

I infuse to sac temp with 25.2 QUARTS. Then I fly sparge till I collected 12.2 gallons.

So, i cant really get 96%, can I?

Griffsta said:

Im sorry, that was a poorly written comment.

I infuse to sac temp with 25.2 QUARTS. Then I fly sparge till I collected 12.2 gallons.

So, i cant really get 96%, can I?

Click to expand...

That's possible, but double-check your volumes in Beersmith. Under Equipment- Details... look at Evaporation Rate, Loss To Boil Trub and Chiller, Top up Water (should be zero unless you are topping off).

Anytime I see a homebrewer post with an efficiency of 90% or more, everything is suspect. The brewing software programs can easily calculate both mash and brewhouse efficiency, but there are several places along the way to put big errors into those numbers. The biggest is incorrect volumes.

The other thing is knowing the difference between the different efficiencies. Mash efficiency is extracting sugars out of the grain. Anyone claiming much more than 85% is either wrong or extracting a huge amount of tannins.

Brewhouse efficiency is how much of your collected wort ends up in the finished beer. This number can be closer to 100% because simple brewing setups don't have problems with dead space in kettles, and losses to pumps, hoses, and transfer lines.

Beersmith states "actual efficiency" at 90.66, and "Efficiency into Boiler" at 95.93. I assumed I wasnt getting any tannins if the runnings dont fall below 1.008. I use an evaporation rate of 9% per hour, .08 gal to boil trub, and have .87 gallons of tun deadspace under my FB. These seemed ok to me. I have Zeros in everything else.

Now, I dont believe that I am actually getting 96%, im just trying to figure out where I am going wrong.

Also, I am not a thread highjacker, I just didnt want to post this new and have everyone refer me back to this thread... Wait, thats thread highjacking. Sorry...

Just like 100% extraction of bitterness from hops is about 30%.

Which leads me to question: (After the crush), if you place a fan in front of the grains and shake them on a screen the husks will fly off (seperating the wheat from the chaff so to speak)...will that remove all tannins/chill haze from your brew?

I think the problem with everyone's efficiency numbers is that you guys are over complicating it.

On my system I brew 5.5 gallons and I know that if I start with 7.0 gallons, I get 5.5 after I boil for an hour and chill. I set the efficiency in my recipe to somewhere between 78-80% on most recipes. When I check the gravity post-boil my mash efficiency is determined by comparing that reading to the recipe.

Example:

Pale Ale Recipe
5.5 Gallons
OG: 1.050
80% mash efficiency

In fermenter:
5.5 Gallons @ 1.050 = 80% efficiency
5.5 Gallons @ 1.048 = 77% efficiency
5.5 Gallons @ 1.052 = 83% efficiency

The short answer is if I set my recipe at 80% and I get the gravity I estimated in the recipe, then my mash efficiency is what it is. If I pull a quart for a sample, or the hops suck up a ton of wort, my efficiency is still the same.

Know the volumes of your system
Make it repeatable
Compare OG to recipe efficiency estimate and adjust as necessary.

Brewsmith said:

Anyone claiming much more than 85% is either wrong or extracting a huge amount of tannins.

Click to expand...

This assumes the brewing liquor is in a "normal" to high pH range since tannin extraction requires a high pH. If your water pH is below 6.0, you can sparge well into the 90s (efficiency) without tannin extraction.

menschmaschine said:

This assumes the brewing liquor is in a "normal" to high pH range since tannin extraction requires a high pH.

Click to expand...

Correct. I doubt that most of the reports of high efficiencies are people doing special water treatment to get there. The posts usually read "I batch and/or fly sparge and get X% efficiency", not "I treat my brewing liquor with process Y and get X% efficiency." I, and most people have "normal water" which would extract a detectable amount of tannin at their 90%+ efficiency report.

For quite a few batches my efficiency has been 85% and higher (ever since I got my crusher,) 93% was the highest. I do monitor pH and have gotten a good Idea of how to adjust my watter with a number of different grain bills. I am very suspect of PPG numbers and try to use the best info I can. Volume measurements may be off a few percent. I perceive no tannins. The highest being mostly pils and/or wheat malt. 2-row based beers are always lower than 90%. Inaccurate PPG numbers may play a part, I can't be sure.

I didn't expect this thread to get active again, but let me comment on the statements that were made.

Griffsta, did you correct the volume measurement for temperature? At 212F wort is about 4% larger than the same wort at 68F. I'm not sure if Beersmith does that for you.

I just checked your numbers. If I correct the volume for temp and assume 80% extract potential for the base malt and 75% for the crystal I get to 95% efficiency. Seems to match Beersmith. Certainly possible. If you got lucky and got a base malt that actually has 82% extract potential your efficiency drops to 93%. I don't think your efficiency is that unrealistic.

homebrewer_99, Yes you can separate husks and endosperm and only mash the latter and then add all or some of the husks for lautering. There are a small number of breweries that do that and they claim that their beers are better because of that. But most of the worlds greatest beers are brewed without that process.

Brewsmith, I don't think that getting above 85% efficiency requires you to get into the danger zone with respect to tannin extraction. It depends on how efficient your mash is. I normally get 87% (and that is with pretty precise measurements) with 1 batch sparge. As for Brewhouse efficiency, it is based on the extract potential of the grain and not the amount of extract that you have on the brew kettle. But there is debate if Brewhouse efficiency should be assessed in the brew kettle or the fermenter. The difference are the volumes and the transfer losses. Both sides have valid arguments and I circumvent this discussion by explicitly talking about the efficiency into the kettle as the efficiency that we should be discussing when talking about mash and lauter performance.

Kai

Thanks, Kaiser...I thought so...

Kaiser, I am considering my volume after it has cooled. Thanks for checking those numbers for me. One thing that I have noticed, I definitely dont get as high of efficiency if I only bre a 5 gallon batch. Im not sure why that is, but I do.

Well, I am happy getting anything over 75%. If I get way lucky and get over 90%, then the beer gods are shining down on me.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable or beat a dead horse...

Kai, you are right on, and I don't disagree with your process or efficiency numbers. For more experienced brewers that are checking pH levels, yes these numbers are possible without negative flavor impact.

It just seems like it is a contest sometimes to get the highest efficiency possible without regard to all of these other issues that we have been discussing. For a new brewer that sees their 70% efficiency numbers and assumes that they can just sparge more to get up to 90% is the wrong appproach, and I think untimately just leads to bad beer, especially when they are trying to only save $1-2 a brew.

My advice for everyone trying to accurately measure efficiency is to take accurate measurements of everything. If you are using software, make sure the data is entered in the correct places. Ultimately, do the same recipe a couple times and compare the numbers. Make your process repeatable before you start tweaking things. If your brews are hit and miss to begin with, changing more variables will not necessarily help.

Brew, I don't think that you're beating a dead horse, your points are valid (except for this blanket "I think the problem with everyone's efficiency numbers is that you guys are over complicating it.")

In all seriousness, many inexperienced brewers including myself do use software to input our numbers. I'm conviced that many of these efficiency numbers that spit out of the software are way off due to the fact that it takes weeks trying to figure out how to run the software.

I don't have the time or patience to dig down into brewsmith to try to find out where the hell to set up a double batch sparge for a medium bodied beer with 40% of my cooler space being used in my kitchen with the fan blowing but 14% humidity and blah blah blah.

Somebody's gotta develop something that can be used, easily by novices. Even if it gets us + or - a few eff. %

Would one of you programmers out there take some time to develop a simple, dumbed down piece of software? Or even a website, choose your setup from a dropdown list of 10 of the most common options, estimated efficiency, ingredients. hit go, it spits out recommended temps (both mash and sparge) and target OG. Enter your OG, spits out efficiency. Done.
Upgrade to the premium addition if you give a rats a$$ if you are using water from timbuktu or mars.

Does something like this exist?

The first time e brewed all grain I used a zapap and got 70% I was happy. After over 200 or so brews I'd be disapointed with that. It's not a contest. It's part of the personal progress in the hobby.

For a new brewer that sees their 70% efficiency numbers and assumes that they can just sparge more to get up to 90% is the wrong appproach, and I think untimately just leads to bad beer, especially when they are trying to only save $1-2 a brew.

Click to expand...

We all need to learn one way or another. I've gotten flack over posting a thing or two because "what will the noobs think?" I don't think we should have to woory about that. You can lead a horse to watter...