93% efficiency?

Brewer's Friend 728
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.
insanim8er

insanim8er

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
1,640
Reaction score
340
Location
Oregon City
I just did my first 10 gallon batch last night It's a milk stout clone recipe.

I had problems with my barley crusher, so finally I got it, sorta, working. But I had done a graff the other day where my efficiency was ~ 47% because the gap was too big.

For this milk stout, I got the barley crushed working at a larger than desired gap, so I ran it through twice. It was pretty well crushed by then.

I added the grain to the mash and had a ton of dough balls. I also got my first stuck sparge, but it was easily fixed. I mashed for 75 minutes and I did a fly sparge @ 170f

As I collected the runnings, I let it drain super super slow.

I ran my numbers using homebrewing.com and it says:

Brewhouse Efficiency Calculator
Points/Pound/Gallon (PPG): 32.34
Efficiency: 93.15%

Pre-Boil Gravity: 1.064
Total Fermentable Amt: 22.76 lb
Pre-Boil Wort Amt: 11.5 gal
Fermentable 1: 14lb Two Row
Fermentable 2: 2lb Crystal 60
Fermentable 3: 1.50lb Munich
Fermentable 4: 1.50lb Roasted Barley
Fermentable 5: 1.50lb Chocolate
Fermentable 6: 1.25lb Flaked barley
Fermentable 7: 1.00lb Flaked oats


Is it really possible to get that High of an efficiency, or is something wrong?

If it's important, I have a 10 gallon mash tun with false bottom my mash temp was at 151f
 
An efficiency that high is not desirable. I'd attribute it to crushing the grains too fine.
 
I'll ask the obligatory questions about ruling out a measurement error. Is your hydrometer calibrated, did you cool the sample before measuring (given that correction factors often don't work well at high temps), stir the wort thoroughly before taking your sample, accurately measure your pre-boil volume?
 
chickypad said:
I'll ask the obligatory questions about ruling out a measurement error. Is your hydrometer calibrated, did you cool the sample before measuring (given that correction factors often don't work well at high temps), stir the wort thoroughly before taking your sample, accurately measure your pre-boil volume?
Click to expand...

Refractometer readings ... Numbers were taken several times and "corrected" and it's auto calibrating for high temps, so I can take readings during the boil. I live in Portland Oregon, and we have awesome water. So I generally add my water straight to the kettle then boil it for a while. I always use that water to calibrate my refractometer to 0 before I start the mash.

And yes, the wort was fully stirred. No question about that.

I read high efficiency is one of those widely debated issues. Some say bad, some say its fine.

I'm not aiming to be that high. I felt the grain was too course during the first crush. I adjusted it to the proper thickness for the second crush but felt it was too fine after that second crush. I even added rice hulls to the mash because I was a bit concerned of a stuck mashed. I did get one, but it was a simple fix and didn't give any more issues after.

I'm probably selling this barley crusher to get something else. I read a lot of people have the issue I had with it not pulling the grain down.
 
With an ultra fine, coarse flour level grind like I use for BIAB, I get 83%. I don't think you are really getting 93%, especially considering your dough balls - much more likely you overestimated volume.
 
Trail said:
With an ultra fine, coarse flour level grind like I use for BIAB, I get 83%. I don't think you are really getting 93%, especially considering your dough balls - much more likely you overestimated volume.
Click to expand...

I have a 20 gallon blichmann boilermaker. The pot was level and the sight gauge is what I was reading off of. It was right at 11.5 gallons.

Why because of the dough balls?

My buddy poured slow while I stirred. There was a lot of powder and the balls formed on the top of the water. I managed to crush them and dissolve them pretty well. I feel we did a good job of mixing the mash.

Idk... all I know is during the boil my gravity was way high. I ended up with 11 gallons at 1.077 (before the lactose addition) after adding more wort at 1.019 from the last of the fly sparge runnings.
 
Because dough balls decrease efficiency. 93% efficiency would be unlikely even if everything went right... which it sounds like it didn't.

If your volumes were correct, it's likely you used more grain than you thought. Or that you temp corrected your hydrometer meter reading wrong.

Bottom line is, if you actually got 93 efficiency on the batch there's something up with your water PH (and probably not in a good way.)
 
Trail said:
Because dough balls decrease efficiency. 93% efficiency would be unlikely even if everything went right... which it sounds like it didn't.

If your volumes were correct, it's likely you used more grain than you thought. Or that you temp corrected your hydrometer meter reading wrong.

Bottom line is, if you actually got 93 efficiency on the batch there's something up with your water PH (and probably not in a good way.)
Click to expand...

The dough balls formed and got broken up, as I said before he added it slow while I stirred. They formed on top and got mixed well. I just meant I saw more than I've seen before. That's because there was a lot more flour in the grain.

I did more research on it. People get 95% efficiency with no problems. I did read about the extractions of tannin possibly being an issue due to PH, but my wort tasted fantastic. And it's one of those debate topics where some say they do high eff and have never had issues while others say its bad.

I'm not dumb. I know I used the proper weight. I know I calibrated my refractometer. I have good equipment.

I'm pretty sure now that with fly sparging, doing a 75 minute mash and having of too fine a crush is why it's so high.

I believe the numbers now that I read more about it. I just have to wait and see if I have off flavors because of it, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be ok since the wort was amazing. But I'll be aiming more for 75-80%
 
I'm usually in the 85-90% range for efficiency so I wouldn't worry about that. I'd really like to hear why high efficiency is bad. Sounds a bit like a pervasive myth.
 
For everything I've heard/read. 93 isn't out of the question at all. Generally the finer the crush the greater the efficiency so I'm betting it was probably due to that (since you said you had it pretty fine and it stuck your sparge).
 
I think when people claim >90% they are really thinking 90% of a max extract of 85% (or whatever way they calculate their efficiency).

Look at it this way, you'll leave water stuck in your grains that will have extract in them. Your hops will absorb wort. Your lines will hold some. You will lose a little bit all along the process. You really cant take 90% of the goodness your malt has to give all the way to your fermenter.
 
Above a certain efficiency and you start to extract tannins and other off flavors. The good stuff is extracted early. That is why using only first runnings makes really delicious beer.
 
hoppus said:
I'm usually in the 85-90% range for efficiency so I wouldn't worry about that. I'd really like to hear why high efficiency is bad. Sounds a bit like a pervasive myth.
Click to expand...

Last IPA batch measured OG 1.074 and beer software calculated that at 92%. The pale ale batch prior measured OG 1.050 and software calculated that at 87%. So yeah it's a myth as far as I can tell. And don't believe the tannins myth either. Check with Denny. He gives good mashing tips.
 
DoWBrewer said:
Above a certain efficiency and you start to extract tannins and other off flavors. The good stuff is extracted early. That is why using only first runnings makes really delicious beer.
Click to expand...

I've read this before, but I'm yet to experience it myself. In fact one of my favorite beers has been a dry stout that I brewed entirely from the sparge water of a 1.109 RIS.
 
TrubHead said:
Last IPA batch measured OG 1.074 and beer software calculated that at 92%. The pale ale batch prior measured OG 1.050 and software calculated that at 87%. So yeah it's a myth as far as I can tell. And don't believe the tannins myth either. Check with Denny. He gives good mashing tips.
Click to expand...

It's good to get some validation here. I do think the reason for the tannin extract is due to the PH getting out of whack and becoming high when the efficiency is high. I also read it has more to do with the PH of the second runnings. If the PH isn't out of whack, it wouldn't be an issue. I guess brew houses can get crazy efficiency but they test the PH and balance it out with salts..etc.

But like I said, it's one of those debated topics where some say yay, some say nay. I'm confident I'll have some good beer, but if not.... Ill chalk it up to an expensive lesson.
 
It's possible, certainly in a commercial environment, to get 90+% efficiency. There is a reason, however, most commercial breweries run at <80%. Focusing on a high efficiency doesn't mean you're focusing on a better end product. It means you're focusing on a number regardless of the potential negative side-effects of the system you use to get to that number.

Wringing out your grains or over-milling will not create a superior product to a carefully constructed, lower-efficiency brew that focuses on a proper crush and consistency.
 
hoppus said:
I'm usually in the 85-90% range for efficiency so I wouldn't worry about that. I'd really like to hear why high efficiency is bad. Sounds a bit like a pervasive myth.
Click to expand...

Listen to the brew stong episode on efficiency. 70 +/- 5 is ideal.
 
c3hutson said:
Listen to the brew stong episode on efficiency. 70 +/- 5 is ideal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't feel like sitting through an hour and a half of people talking. Is there any actual evidence presented to support this claim? I only ever hear about this "off flavor" boogie man that I'm yet to experience myself.
 
Been to a few brew houses and chatted with the brewers about efficiency. Surprised to hear that it wasn't that high. Equipment and time are big limiting factors.
 
Are we talking total brew house efficiency here or mash efficiency? I get mash efficiencies in the low 90s but my total efficiency (based on post boil gravity and volume) is usually around 78%. Is everyone talking abort the same efficiency calculation? It looked like OP posted pre- boil numbers.
 
insanim8er said:
I'm probably selling this barley crusher to get something else. I read a lot of people have the issue I had with it not pulling the grain down.
Click to expand...

Selling, for that? I'd rough up the rollers with a dremel, if you haven't.
 
I consistently average 93-95% efficiency (into the fermenter) and my beers turn out pretty well :mug: I was worried about this at first, but with a few slight changes (reduce only the base malt) I have no complaints with the results. It certainly makes it even cheaper to brew.

I tend to think efficiency should not affect the flavor that much - as long as you adjust the recipe appropriately. I would not simply change the efficiency setting on a brew calculator and have it give you the new amounts for a new efficiency for a given OG. I like to think of it like JZ'a advice on the 60, 70, 80, 90 schilling Scottish ales, which is to keep the specialty malts the same (or nearly) and just reduce the amount of base malt you use.
 
pjj2ba said:
I consistently average 93-95% efficiency (into the fermenter) and my beers turn out pretty well :mug: I was worried about this at first, but with a few slight changes (reduce only the base malt) I have no complaints with the results. It certainly makes it even cheaper to brew.

I tend to think efficiency should not affect the flavor that much - as long as you adjust the recipe appropriately. I would not simply change the efficiency setting on a brew calculator and have it give you the new amounts for a new efficiency for a given OG. I like to think of it like JZ'a advice on the 60, 70, 80, 90 schilling Scottish ales, which is to keep the specialty malts the same (or nearly) and just reduce the amount of base malt you use.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling that your mashing setup is a notch or two above my 5 gallon cooler. :)

By the way, got an OG of 1.051 (90% eff) for the kolsch brewed this past weekend.
 
TrubHead said:
I get the feeling that your mashing setup is a notch or two above my 5 gallon cooler. :)

By the way, got an OG of 1.051 (90% eff) for the kolsch brewed this past weekend.
Click to expand...

It is not that sophisticated - other than it is direct fired by an induction cooker. This is simpler than a RIMS or a HERMS. Basically it is a big pot on a heating device, wrapped in insulation. I turn it off an on manually - no automatic control
 
insanim8er said:
I just did my first 10 gallon batch last night It's a milk stout clone recipe.

I had problems with my barley crusher, so finally I got it, sorta, working. But I had done a graff the other day where my efficiency was ~ 47% because the gap was too big.

For this milk stout, I got the barley crushed working at a larger than desired gap, so I ran it through twice. It was pretty well crushed by then.

I added the grain to the mash and had a ton of dough balls. I also got my first stuck sparge, but it was easily fixed. I mashed for 75 minutes and I did a fly sparge @ 170f

As I collected the runnings, I let it drain super super slow.

I ran my numbers using homebrewing.com and it says:

Brewhouse Efficiency Calculator
Points/Pound/Gallon (PPG): 32.34
Efficiency: 93.15%

Pre-Boil Gravity: 1.064
Total Fermentable Amt: 22.76 lb
Pre-Boil Wort Amt: 11.5 gal
Fermentable 1: 14lb Two Row
Fermentable 2: 2lb Crystal 60
Fermentable 3: 1.50lb Munich
Fermentable 4: 1.50lb Roasted Barley
Fermentable 5: 1.50lb Chocolate
Fermentable 6: 1.25lb Flaked barley
Fermentable 7: 1.00lb Flaked oats


Is it really possible to get that High of an efficiency, or is something wrong?

If it's important, I have a 10 gallon mash tun with false bottom my mash temp was at 151f
Click to expand...
I almost always get efficiency over 90% on a 10 gallon batch. 80% on a 5 gallon batch. I fly sparge.
 
hoppus said:
I'm usually in the 85-90% range for efficiency so I wouldn't worry about that. I'd really like to hear why high efficiency is bad. Sounds a bit like a pervasive myth.
Click to expand...
+ 1. No off flavors in my beer from high efficiency. Just saves me money.
 
hoppus said:
Yeah, I don't feel like sitting through an hour and a half of people talking. Is there any actual evidence presented to support this claim? I only ever hear about this "off flavor" boogie man that I'm yet to experience myself.
Click to expand...

I'll take palmer's word for it lol
 
insanim8er said:
Refractometer readings ... Numbers were taken several times and "corrected" and it's auto calibrating for high temps, so I can take readings during the boil.
.
Click to expand...

[SoapBox] no you cant. The refractometer auto corrects for room temp differences, not sample differences. That being said, the small sample size on a refractometer cools very quickly so usually doesnt make a big difference
[/SoapBox]
 
c3hutson said:
Vs random dude on forum that says his beer is fine. Tannins are gross bro.
Click to expand...

Palmer's written a lot of great stuff but he isn't the final word on the topic. Gathering information on what does and does not work is what advances the state of the art.
 
Trail said:
Palmer's written a lot of great stuff but he isn't the final word on the topic. Gathering information on what does and does not work is what advances the state of the art.
Click to expand...
I agree with that but forum hear-say doesn't hold up as well to me as people that do controlled experiments and have reputations.
 
To get very high efficiency ( all the sugars out of the spongy grain bed ), you need to rinse (sparge) well. That probably means you've driven the gravity of the runnings very low, and thus the pH has risen and you risk extracting bitter tannins from the grain husks. I used to do this.

I tend to think that those people claiming high efficiency are not measuring one of the volumes correctly. Maybe they are real, dunno. I used to be very keen on efficiency. At some point I stopped calculating it. It's been 2 or 3 years since I did measure it. Not sure why I cared about it now (can't remember).

Eventually, most brewers settle in the normal 75-80% and concentrate on other parts of brewing to improve the result. That's what I did. Actually, thinking about it now, I probably stopped worrying about efficiency when I went to larger batches. Makes sense I guess.

Over-milling your grain is fine if your lautering system can handle it (i.e., avoid stuck sparges). I think I mill very fine.

John Palmer is great. Sure, he now represents the state of the art. But it's fun to look back to where he got his start, just like a lot of our noobs here. http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/1192.html#1192-6
 
pjj2ba said:
It is not that sophisticated - other than it is direct fired by an induction cooker. This is simpler than a RIMS or a HERMS. Basically it is a big pot on a heating device, wrapped in insulation. I turn it off an on manually - no automatic control
Click to expand...

Nice. How well does it hold temps?
 
TrubHead said:
Nice. How well does it hold temps?
Click to expand...

It holds temps very well. It has I think maybe 5 layers of aluminized bubble wrap surrounding it.

I used to be very keen on efficiency. At some point I stopped calculating it. It's been 2 or 3 years since I did measure it. Not sure why I cared about it now (can't remember).
Click to expand...

I have never been concerned about efficiency. My attitude is, it is what it is. I just changed things around as it went up.

I also mill very fine.

If people just took everything written as the truth and only way to brew, we'd still be brewing in wooden barrels using hot rocks to heat the wort, and using herbs and no hops. It is people who question the status quo and try new things that leads to innovation. Sure lots of new ideas fail, but some don't and that often makes things easier/better for the rest of us. If experimentation is not your thing, that is fine, but if something new comes along, don't automatically assume it doesn't work and pooh pooh it.
 
Bigscience said:
I think when people claim >90% they are really thinking 90% of a max extract of 85% (or whatever way they calculate their efficiency).

Look at it this way, you'll leave water stuck in your grains that will have extract in them. Your hops will absorb wort. Your lines will hold some. You will lose a little bit all along the process. You really cant take 90% of the goodness your malt has to give all the way to your fermenter.
Click to expand...

I know when I quote an efficiency number, I'm talking about mash efficiency and not brewhouse efficiency. If you boil correctly and hit all your volumes and gravity numbers set by beersmith, you sure can bring that same efficiency to the fermenter.
 
rgauthier20420 said:
I know when I quote an efficiency number, I'm talking about mash efficiency and not brewhouse efficiency. If you boil correctly and hit all your volumes and gravity numbers set by beersmith, you sure can bring that same efficiency to the fermenter.
Click to expand...

Not if you're leaving the hop sludge and break material behind in the kettle. I always lose about a gallon that way.
 
I measure two things; 1) Mash efficiency (conversion) which is very easy to get into the low 90%'s, and 2) Lautering efficiency.

Without knowing each individually you don't know where or how to fix problems in the kettle.
 

Similar threads

N
End results with low mash efficiency
Replies
13
Views
804
doug293cz
doug293cz
micraftbeer
Mash Efficiency Effect of Grain Past "Best By" Date on Sack
Replies
8
Views
956
micraftbeer
micraftbeer
Airborneguy
Interesting Efficiency Issue
Replies
8
Views
494
DuncB
D
Scottsdale
To crush or not to crush
Replies
6
Views
909
Bobby_M
Bobby_M
N
Stuck recirculation BM’s Cream of 3 Crops
Replies
10
Views
1K
Niatras
N

Latest posts

Back
Top