Great quote from Palmer on Mash Efficiency

Mash Efficiency from John Palmer

"In the last 15 years, people have stopped getting hung up on "My efficiency is better than your efficiency", as JZ says, when your in a mediocre resource efficiency at 70-75%, your making a much richer tasting beer than if your brewing at 90 or 95% efficiency when your getting every last gram of extract out of your grain bill. You get a lot more polyphenols and stuff also leeching out of the grain at that point when your doing that much extraction. If you back off to 70 or 75%, your getting a better tasting beer out of that wort.

The Sunday Session; 9-13-2009 Approx. 2 hours into the show.

After Tasty ask's Palmer about bigger brewers shooting for higher numbers, 80-85%, Palmer say's

"I think, when your mash pH is spot on your going to get better conversion and higher extract efficiency from the same amount of grains. What we could be looking at there is they know their system well enough and the recipe well enough that they are getting optimum mash pH, getting better extract efficiency from that amount of grain, and there by, because the pH is spot on, getting a better flavor out of that beer."

"It may not be a quicker conversion but maybe less lautering necessary"

So, both ranges are good, but as always, it depends on several key factors.

Everyone understands this concept without further discussion? i dont think so...

It's nothing earthshakingly new, and I'm not sure how much I believe or agree with it. OTOH, I don't completely disagree, either. I don't think you can make a blanket statement one way or the other.

Not to be a jerk, but that show was in 2009. It's been covered in newer books and discussed a lot with regards to BIAB and no sparge brewing. All-grain brewers seem to be paying a lot more attention to mash pH as well nowadays.

i guess no one has seen the thread i just did about an experienced brewer praising his 90% efficiency to a newer brewer...

There are always going to be guys railing on about their crazy efficiency numbers. I'd go nuts if I made it a point to argue with every one of them about it.

Is this coming off as an argument? Im under the impression these forums are for the spread of good brewing information and the putting a halt to misinformation.

Does a tip in 2009 from john palmer go outdated? Has not the basics of brewing been around for thousands of years, still being taught today?

You know, believe it or not, there is a new brewer everyday asking basic questions that someone answered long ago, im merely trying to help bring some of it through.

Denny said:

It's nothing earthshakingly new, and I'm not sure how much I believe or agree with it. OTOH, I don't completely disagree, either. I don't think you can make a blanket statement one way or the other.

Click to expand...

Its not, from my view, a blanket statement. Palmer is answering a question concerning both sides of a coin. In the concept, any Efficiency is fine, depending on the situation.

Sort of
If someone asks about it, tell them information that is correct to the best of your knowledge. I'm not sure there's enough of a controversy among experienced brewers on the topic to generate a discussion. Most people value consistency and a good finished product more than chasing efficiency, as a pound or two of grain is fairly inexpensive.

pH is just part of making good beer. A good brewer will have it in range.

A good pro system gets well over 95%. A little comes from better sparge efficiency. Most of it comes from a great crush. You just can't talk about efficiency with out mentioning crush. A good crush will get more good out of the grain with out getting more tannin. Tannin can be fined, filtered or aged out anyway.

Here is a figure with some common mills.

Palmer is a beer god. Couple of months ago I bought the latest paperback edition of How to Brew. It's like reading the Encyclopedia Britannica of brewing.

And yes I get sick of others' boasting about efficiency, and yes it occurs all the time. But the truth is, you're always chasing something with brewing, whether it's a new toy or maxing out efficiency, so what the hey. To each his own.

Thanks for passing this bit of perspective on it.

Efficiency, PH, etc. it's all about making a beer that you like, one that your friends and family say "that's really good!" about. I'm brewing better beer now that I've stopped worrying about things

Honestly I think efficiency is close to the bottom of the list of things to worry about. pH, water, temperature matter. Efficiency is what it is. Go for consistency, and adjust quantities to target desired volumes. You'll make great beer every time. I stopped calculating it because it took longer to figure out than the length of time I cared. I care about gravity and volume so I can adjust hops. I never adjust gravity unless it's to dilute it pre boil.
The only time I calculate it now is if I make an equipment change.

could one of you help me with this then:

my last 5 or so brews, all pale ales or wheat beers, have had high 50s or low 60s eff. i get my grain from my LHBS (grape and granary), they crush it, i hit all my mash temps and hold for 90 mins, and fly sparge. i've been using tap water. I used to get 70-75 consistantly. i have no idea where this is coming from other then the posibility that its because of the LHBS mill... but i never had this problem before... some one please help!

J311gonzo said:

could one of you help me with this then:

my last 5 or so brews, all pale ales or wheat beers, have had high 50s or low 60s eff. i get my grain from my LHBS (grape and granary), they crush it, i hit all my mash temps and hold for 90 mins, and fly sparge. i've been using tap water. I used to get 70-75 consistantly. i have no idea where this is coming from other then the posibility that its because of the LHBS mill... but i never had this problem before... some one please help!

Click to expand...

It could be the mill gap setting changed accidentally, mention it to them the next time you're in. The water source if you're using tap water might have changed due to the season, and your pH could be outside of the optimum range. Also, double check your thermometer and recalibrate it or buy a new one.

FWIW, Sierra Nevada targets 100% efficiency and comes damn close to it. Their beers do not suck. It's foolish to get hung up on numbers. Shoot for making good beer.

rockfish42 said:

Sort of
If someone asks about it, tell them information that is correct to the best of your knowledge. I'm not sure there's enough of a controversy among experienced brewers on the topic to generate a discussion. Most people value consistency and a good finished product more than chasing efficiency, as a pound or two of grain is fairly inexpensive.

Click to expand...

+1 this

Denny said:

FWIW, Sierra Nevada targets 100% efficiency and comes damn close to it. Their beers do not suck. It's foolish to get hung up on numbers. Shoot for making good beer.

Click to expand...

I agree with this one. For a hobby project, I'm not going to sweat having to shell out an extra 10-20% on malts. I'm very new to this, but common sense tells me that my goal should be consistent efficiency, not absolutely maximized efficiency. Hitting my expectation will help me make more consistent, and eventually better, beer. Hitting 100% efficiency will just make cheaper beer.

Obviously, if I can hit 100% every time, that's both efficient and consistent, but I think that's unlikely.

zeg said:

I agree with this one. For a hobby project, I'm not going to sweat having to shell out an extra 10-20% on malts. I'm very new to this, but common sense tells me that my goal should be consistent efficiency, not absolutely maximized efficiency. Hitting my expectation will help me make more consistent, and eventually better, beer. Hitting 100% efficiency will just make cheaper beer.

Obviously, if I can hit 100% every time, that's both efficient and consistent, but I think that's unlikely.

Click to expand...

I've changed up my system a couple of times over the last few years- always upgrading, but one of the things I don't like about my "new" MLT each time is that my efficiency changes. I was getting 72% for years, and now I seem to be getting 75-77%. I've brewed with this new MLT about 4 times, and I'm thinking I'll have to change my efficiency in my recipes to 75%, but I'm not sure yet.

I would rather get 65% each and every time than 80% today and 75% tomorrow- it makes it so easy to formulate recipes, plan for the ABV, target a FG, etc, if you know what your numbers will be.

I've always said chasing efficiency was silly, unless there was a real issue and inconsistent results. Consistency is what I strive for.

For what it's worth - had an equipment malfunction (thermometer) which resulted in a lower mash out efficiency. The resultant brew (lower efficiency) had less flavor than a prior batch (same brew recipe). So I'm thinking efficiency matters.

TrubHead said:

For what it's worth - had an equipment malfunction (thermometer) which resulted in a lower mash out efficiency. The resultant brew (lower efficiency) had less flavor than a prior batch (same brew recipe). So I'm thinking efficiency matters.

Click to expand...

I don't completely agree. your root cause was a thermometer problem. Had it malfunctioned the other direction, you would have had the same or better efficiency, but the tannins you may have leached as a result would lead to an inferior product.
efficiency gives you a target for calculating grain requirements vs yield. It's just a calculation. it's like saying horsepower matters. Torque matters, horsepower is just a means of expressing torque at RPM via formula.

pelipen said:

I don't completely agree. your root cause was a thermometer problem. Had it malfunctioned the other direction, you would have had the same or better efficiency, but the tannins you may have leached as a result would lead to an inferior product.
efficiency gives you a target for calculating grain requirements vs yield. It's just a calculation. it's like saying horsepower matters. Torque matters, horsepower is just a means of expressing torque at RPM via formula.

Click to expand...

You're mixing apples and oranges when relating torque/horsepower to mash efficiency. The OG was lower on the less flavorful brew. OG is a measurement and not a calculation unless I'm missing something here.

TrubHead said:

You're mixing apples and oranges when relating torque/horsepower to mash efficiency. The OG was lower on the less flavorful brew. OG is a measurement and not a calculation unless I'm missing something here.

Click to expand...

It's like this- if you have a grain bill of 80% two row, and 20% crystal malt and an OG of 1.060, it doesn't matter if you take 15 pound or 9 pounds to get there. It simply is what it is.

But if you PLANNED on using 9 pounds of malt to get there, and missed by a lot and finished at 1.040, then yes, the beer will be "weaker" and less flavorful.

If we both make the same recipe, plan in advance to hit 1.060, and do, then the beer would be no different than if I did it and had 60% efficiency and you had 80% efficiency, if all other factors are equal.

Yooper said:

It's like this- if you have a grain bill of 80% two row, and 20% crystal malt and an OG of 1.060, it doesn't matter if you take 15 pound or 9 pounds to get there. It simply is what it is.

But if you PLANNED on using 9 pounds of malt to get there, and missed by a lot and finished at 1.040, then yes, the beer will be "weaker" and less flavorful.

If we both make the same recipe, plan in advance to hit 1.060, and do, then the beer would be no different than if I did it and had 60% efficiency and you had 80% efficiency, if all other factors are equal.

Click to expand...

Yes that's understood. I posted the effect of lower OG on flavor using the same grain bill recipe and amount from my brewing.

rockfish42 said:

Sort of
If someone asks about it, tell them information that is correct to the best of your knowledge. I'm not sure there's enough of a controversy among experienced brewers on the topic to generate a discussion. Most people value consistency and a good finished product more than chasing efficiency, as a pound or two of grain is fairly inexpensive.

Click to expand...

I was going to post something very much to this effect. Thanks, "rockfish42," you saved me the trouble. Given the cost of a pound of 2-row, although I've been brewing for five years I've never calculated an efficiency, and see no reason to start now. I can hit my OG consistently, and the finished product comes out fine, so why should I concern myself with calculations of efficiency?

TrubHead said:

You're mixing apples and oranges when relating torque/horsepower to mash efficiency. The OG was lower on the less flavorful brew. OG is a measurement and not a calculation unless I'm missing something here.

Click to expand...

Yes. Nowhere in your post did you mention OG. You mentioned efficiency. Of course different OG will taste different. On that we are in 100% agreement.
I wasn't trying to compare apples to apples, just the difference between calculated and measured values. OG is measured, agreed.
People who dump the entire BK into the primary will have a different brewhouse efficiency than those who leave half a gallon behind, but could have the same OG. all I'm saying is it's a calculated value which is only relevant to the system and conditions used (OP's original point excepted).
This is really beating a dead horse at this point however.

rico567 said:

I was going to post something very much to this effect. Thanks, "rockfish42," you saved me the trouble. Given the cost of a pound of 2-row, although I've been brewing for five years I've never calculated an efficiency, and see no reason to start now. I can hit my OG consistently, and the finished product comes out fine, so why should I concern myself with calculations of efficiency?

Click to expand...

Yes. Exactly.

rico567 said:

I was going to post something very much to this effect. Thanks, "rockfish42," you saved me the trouble. Given the cost of a pound of 2-row, although I've been brewing for five years I've never calculated an efficiency, and see no reason to start now. I can hit my OG consistently, and the finished product comes out fine, so why should I concern myself with calculations of efficiency?

Click to expand...

You may not be concerned with the exact number but if you've been brewing for 5 years then I suspect you have an "idea" what's your efficiency. Else why bother measuring the OG?

pelipen said:

Yes. Nowhere in your post did you mention OG. You mentioned efficiency. Of course different OG will taste different. On that we are in 100% agreement.
I wasn't trying to compare apples to apples, just the difference between calculated and measured values. OG is measured, agreed.
People who dump the entire BK into the primary will have a different brewhouse efficiency than those who leave half a gallon behind, but could have the same OG. all I'm saying is it's a calculated value which is only relevant to the system and conditions used (OP's original point excepted).
This is really beating a dead horse at this point however.

Click to expand...

OG is measured to calculate efficiency. Is there something missing here? Apples to apples?

TrubHead said:

OG is measured to calculate efficiency. Is there something missing here? Apples to apples?

Click to expand...

As is volume. You can collect 4.5 gallons, or 6 with the same OG and different efficiency. That was an unknown variable. Lower efficiency could have meant lower OG, or lower collected volume at the target OG.
This is to Yooper's point.
I am done on this topic though. I'd rather be drinking
Cheers.

pelipen said:

As is volume. You can collect 4.5 gallons, or 6 with the same OG and different efficiency. That was an unknown variable. Lower efficiency could have meant lower OG, or lower collected volume at the target OG.
This is to Yooper's point.
I am done on this topic though. I'd rather be drinking
Cheers.

Click to expand...

Not sure about your post but agree on "rather be drinking". Now if I could only make these "home improvements" go away.

I had been pulling my hair out trying to figure out how to improve on my CONSISTENT 70% efficiency... but I've realized that who the hell cares if I need to put an extra $1.50 worth of grain in... Not usually one to toot my own horn, but my beer is pretty damn tasty as is. I will take my consistency and be happy!

Cheers!

whoa, i went to the beach for a day and look what i came back to

Denny said:

FWIW, Sierra Nevada targets 100% efficiency and comes damn close to it. Their beers do not suck. It's foolish to get hung up on numbers. Shoot for making good beer.

Click to expand...

again, your not really understanding the quote my good man, others are also not seeing the simplicity in the quote.

No one said high efficiency is bad, no one said low efficiency is bad. The ideal is to know the whole picture, not just Mash Efficiency. What comes from the mash is just as important as what happens with attenuation.

" It's foolish to get hung up on numbers. Shoot for making good beer."

Denny, making good beer is easy. Getting to know numbers and not fear them can make great beer.

RJS said:

again, your not really understanding the quote my good man, others are also not seeing the simplicity in the quote.

Click to expand...

Your quote suggests low BHE makes better beer and that is not necessarily so. You can make bad beer with low BHE--it's even more likely to be so IMO.

Im seeing a lot of brewers settle down with where they are with brewing. The way i see it is to never settle, always keep learning and getting better, thats what separates a brewer from a brewmaster.

Malticulous said:

Your quote suggests low BHE makes better beer and that is not necessarily so. You can make bad beer with low BHE--it's even more likely to be so IMO.

Click to expand...

No, your not getting it friend. The quote is agreeing with both sides, low and high, depending on how well you know the rest of the process.

The brewer who praises to the beginner about 90% efficiency is not wrong, in his case its right, but he does not know his audience.

I think people get held up on "efficiency", when really what they're trying for is "quality". Efficiency is basically the inverse of "losses"

If you managed to get 100% of the available sugars in your malt into your fermenter, then you would have 100% brewhouse efficiency. This is not feasible.

What is feasible is to reduce all your losses to the minimum, and then you will have maximized your efficiency.

The problem is, something known as "Lauter Efficiency", which is how efficiently you remove the extracted sugars from the mash. If you over-lauter, well, actually over-sparge, then you can end up with quality problems.

So, to maximize efficiency and quality, don't over-sparge... simple really.

To expound

Conversion Efficiency * Lauter Efficiency = Mash Efficiency

I regularly achieve 99% conversion efficiency, achieving a high conversion efficiency does not affect the quality of the brew. Achieving it is basically about getting a good grind, and a good mashing process which allows you to achieve close to the same results which would've been achieved in a congress mash.

You measure it by measuring the gravity in your mash tun. The problem is you need to know how much liquid (including dissolved extract) is in your mash tun... which is tricky, but doable.

After you have managed to achieve 99% of the specified 100% extract, you then have the lauter stage... where we try to separate the sweet wort from the grains. The first runnings are easy... but the next thing is we generally try to rinse the remaining sugars out of the grain... this is where quality problems can occur. If you over-rinse you will extract tannins and other undesirables from the grain.

People talk about reducing their efficiency in order to achieve a higher quality. What they should be talking about is reducing their lauter efficiency in specific.

Any deadspace losses in your mashtun are just pure losses. They don't improve quality, they just waste resources. Try to reduce them through good design and process!

After the lauter, we end up with all the sugars in our kettle, and we've suffered losses to the mash tun and lauter. This efficiency, the "Into Kettle" or "Start of Boil" or "Mash Efficiency" is what is really key, if you are pursuing quality.

After the boil you have another transfer, to the fermenter, and as a result of that transfer you will leave trub behind in your kettle, the hot and perhaps cold break, maybe losses to hop absorption etc etc. Minimizing these losses will increase your overall efficiency without affecting quality. Perhaps a good false bottom in your kettle would help? Increasing these losses in a mistaken belief that a lower brewhouse efficiency would result in increased quality is misguided. Just pour some wort on the ground, it will have the same effect on quality.

No one ever talks about Into Packaging efficiency... After all, the trub in your fermenter doesn't affect the quality of your beer. Just like the trub in your kettle doesn't.

The only parameters which affect the quality are the Mash Efficiency parameters. Conversion Efficiency of 95+% is easily attainable, and a lauter efficiency of about 80-90% is easily attainable too, without affecting the quality of your mash.

My point, which is probably lost in that ramble is that aiming for a certain Into Fermenter efficiency in the hopes of ending up with a "quality" beer is not the way to do it. The way to get a quality beer is to aim for complete and efficient conversion in the mash, and then to get as much of those sugars into your kettle as you can, without over-sparging.

Of course, the easiest way to not over-sparge is to not sparge at all, and some people think that any sparge is too much