93% efficiency Possible?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
D

dmashl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
359
Reaction score
30
Location
De Pere
Brewing a Fat Tire Clone today:
8.25lbs 2 row
1 lb munich
.75 lb 80L
.5 lb Victory

doing all grain(3rd batch), 13 qts water, mash at 154ish for 1 hr in a 5 gallon round converted cooler mash tun($42 DIY). Batch sparge...1 gallon, 1 gallon to get a 4 gallon boil volume(only have a 5 gallon kettle).

Bre boil gravity of 1.090@80 degrees F.

Beersmith says thats a 93% efficiency
 
dmashl said:
Brewing a Fat Tire Clone today:
8.25lbs 2 row
1 lb munich
.75 lb 80L
.5 lb Victory

doing all grain(3rd batch), 13 qts water, mash at 154ish for 1 hr in a 5 gallon round converted cooler mash tun($42 DIY). Batch sparge...1 gallon, 1 gallon to get a 4 gallon boil volume(only have a 5 gallon kettle).

Bre boil gravity of 1.090@80 degrees F.

Beersmith says thats a 93% efficiency
Click to expand...

Hello, I love Fat Tire.

Im assuming that is a 5 gal batch recipe ? if so the gravity would be a bit higher than expected, being that you only have 4 gals pre boil.

What is the gravity after boil and top off ?

Cheers :mug:
 
is efficiency measured pre boil or post boil. ended up with 1.052(which was what the recipe was supposed to be). total efficiency say 73%. topped off to 5.25 gallons post boil.
 
4 gallons of pre-boil 1.090 wort would yield about 5 gallons of 1.072 wort if topped up post boil. Efficiency numbers aside, something seems amiss with your measurements. How'd you end up at 1.052 from 1.090??
 
Boil went down to 3.5 gallons then top off to 5.25 gallons with fresh water.
 
dmashl said:
Boil went down to 3.5 gallons then top off to 5.25 gallons with fresh water.
Click to expand...

Something is still off. 4 gallons of 1.090 = 5.25 gallons of 1.068. Boiling and topping off doesn't change the amount of sugars you got from the mash, just concentrates or dilutes it. So either your 1.090 reading was wrong, or your 1.053..
 
Hopper5000 said:
Ya or he lost some to trub and/or hop absorbtion.
Click to expand...

Only if he transferred before adding top off water. Even if he did, I doubt you could lose enough to trub to go from 1.068 to 1.052. His 1.090 measurement has to be wrong, it's the only logical explanation...
 
I am thinking you are right, especially since he is doing BIAB and didn't really sparge... 92% would be pretty crazy
 
He must've measured the first runnings, or maybe just wrong calibration or simply misread..
 
Not doing BIAB....used a round mash tun, and no, I didn't misread. I took the measurement after getting my 4 gallon boil volume at 80 degrees Fahrenheit . So it is a very concentrated wort. My last batch I did i achieved 83% efficiency the same way, but the runnings didn't come out quite right.
 
dmashl said:
Not doing BIAB....used a round mash tun, and no, I didn't misread. I took the measurement after getting my 4 gallon boil volume at 80 degrees Fahrenheit . So it is a very concentrated wort. My last batch I did i achieved 83% efficiency the same way, but the runnings didn't come out quite right.
Click to expand...

If you believe you made no errors why did you post a question? Trust me, based on the numbers you provided it's a mathematical certainty that you made a mistake somewhere...
 

Similar threads

F
mashing a small amount of grain in a large amount of water.
Replies
8
Views
982
fluketamer
F
A
5 Malt Brown Porter
Replies
3
Views
629
all5n
A
kgranger
Lower than expected OG
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
hottpeper13
H
Rob2010SS
West Coast IPA recipe check
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
HM-2
HM-2
U
Efficiency, decoction mash versus single infusion?
2 3
Replies
95
Views
4K
VikeMan
VikeMan
Brewer's Friend 300

Latest posts

Back
Top