Ridiculously high efficiency

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.

menschmaschine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
3,259
Reaction score
53
Location
Delaware
My efficiency has always been high... around 92-93%. This is what I type into Beersmith's "Brewhouse Efficiency" and my OGs and post-boil volume are usually dead-on, or at least within 1 point and 1 pint. And I usually end up with minimal wort left in the kettle. I have malt analyses, from which I calculate and type the pertinent information into Beersmith, and use a Barley Crusher after weighing the grains on a digital scale. I'm confident in having a good crush and in the accuracy of my scale.

My system is a 3-tier keggle system with a SS false bottom in the mash tun and I fly-sparge. One thing I've noticed from batch to batch is that my efficiency never reduces regardless of how fast I fly sparge. My fastest was 30 minutes. This happened twice, but more out of coincidence than me doing it on purpose. So, yesterday I brewed a Helles with a slightly adjusted recipe from my last Helles. They've all had the base Pilsner malt from the same sack of grain.

The grain bill was 15.5 lbs Pilsner and 0.4 lbs Cara-Pils with a pre-boil volume of 14.45 gal. and a post-boil volume of 12 gal. (90 min. boil). My water to grain ratio was 1.1 qts per pound and I added 2 qts to thin it for the mash out. I did a Single Decoction mash with temps of 131dF, 154dF, and mashout at 168dF. I hit all my temps and volumes pretty darn close. My well water pH is 5.7.

I wanted to confirm the integrity of my 30-min. fly-sparge, so I did it again with this Helles, wondering if I'd lose a couple points of OG. Well, the opposite happened. My target OG was 1.046 and my actual OG was 1.049! What the heck?! Beersmith gives a 97% Brewhouse efficiency for this. That's insane.

Now I think my fly-sparging technique is very effective since I do what I've dubbed as "controlled random channeling". I simply have tubing running from my HLT and sprinkle water onto the mash, allowing the water flow to randomly disturb the grain bed under it's 1" cover of water.

So, what could I be doing wrong, either in the brewing or calculations, to get such (false?) high efficiency?... or am I just extremely fortunate?
 
The grain bill was 15.5 lbs Pilsner and 0.4 lbs Cara-Pils with a pre-boil volume of 14.45 gal. and a post-boil volume of 12 gal. (90 min. boil)...

My target OG was 1.046 and my actual OG was 1.049! What the heck?! Beersmith gives a 97% Brewhouse efficiency for this...

So, what could I be doing wrong, either in the brewing or calculations, to get such (false?) high efficiency?... or am I just extremely fortunate?
ProMash gives the same 97% efficiency for that grain bill and 12g @ 1.049. So as long as you're confident in your volume and gravity measurements, it's not "false", it's fortunate :mug:
 
But is 97% even possible (realistically)? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out why it's so high. I even checked my scale for calibration with weights and it's accurate. My gravity reading was taken at 60dF and my hydrometer measures 1.000 in distilled water, so no room for error there. I may have been an ounce or less heavy in my grain, but with that little bit, it still comes out to 97%. I'm a skeptic by nature, so if a homebrewer told me they got 97% efficiency, I'd probably give them the ol' crook-eye.;)
 
But is 97% even possible (realistically)? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out why it's so high. I even checked my scale for calibration with weights and it's accurate. My gravity reading was taken at 60dF and my hydrometer measures 1.000 in distilled water, so no room for error there. I may have been an ounce or less heavy in my grain, but with that little bit, it still comes out to 97%. I'm a skeptic by nature, so if a homebrewer told me they got 97% efficiency, I'd probably give them the ol' crook-eye.;)
The volume of the liquid being measured is more likely to be your source of error than any of these things.

If there is an error.
 
The volume of the liquid being measured is more likely to be your source of error than any of these things.

If there is an error.

I was thinking about that, too, so I just rechecked my kettle and dumped exactly 12 gallons of water into it. The sight gauge was exactly where it was at the end of yesterday's boil, if not a hair under. I can't think of anything else, but I'm still going to consider this a fluke and continue with my 92-93% efficiency into Beersmith. If it happens again, then I'll know. However, I think between my low water-to-grain ration and the single decoction, I probably maximized the extract yield in the mash. One thing I did learn from this... my 30 minute fly-sparge works!:ban:
 
That's freakin' awesome. You should start your own mash/lauter school. I'll sign up! :D

Me too. My efficiency is in the low 60's. It seems like just about everyone who gets kick a$$ efficiency has a Barley Crusher. Kind of like Will Smith in Independence Day when he flies the alien spacecraft "I have got to get me one of these!"
 
yeap I have a BC set at 1:00 (following EdWorts advice) and I get 80-82% consistently batch sparging with 5 gallon batches. I'm using a rectangular cooler so I know my efficiency would be better with 10 gallon batches, the grain bed is pretty shallow.

Before I got the BC my efficiency was all over the place and was never over 72%.

- Eric

EDIT: woohoo! 100 posts for me! Yay!
 
It seems like just about everyone who gets kick a$$ efficiency has a Barley Crusher.

That may be true, but I think homebrewers tend to put more into crush than is really there... not that crush doesn't affect efficiency, it's just that some think that it's the primary cause for efficiency. Before I got my BC, I had the LHBS crush it for me with a DIY crusher and I got high efficiency then, too.

I really think my high efficiency is largely due to my water pH (5.7... it doesn't get much better than that), my mash tun design (keggle with false bottom is probably the best configuration for uniform sugar extraction during sparging), and my fly-sparging technique. Don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to be some sort of efficiency tough-guy. This all came about by coincidence.:)
 
I live with my efficiency for now, but I would blow a sheep if I magically ended up with 75% efficiency from here on out. I'm probably going to eventually redesign my MLT.
 
I think mid 90's brewhouse is realistic with a well done fly sparge. You also get more for decocting for temp rise instead of infusion. Here's the thing, you can easily get a few extra points from the software's perspective if the potential of your malt is even a single PPG higher than the software thinks it should be. This number is not fixed from harvest/malting batch to batch. The number in the software is just a best guess.

I've hit 96% mash/lauter and 94% brewhouse on a couple beers in the 1.040 area before doing a batch sparge so I have no doubt it's possible to reach a bit higher on a well executed fly.
 
Here's the thing, you can easily get a few extra points from the software's perspective if the potential of your malt is even a single PPG higher than the software thinks it should be. This number is not fixed from harvest/malting batch to batch. The number in the software is just a best guess.

But I have the lot-specific malt analysis. I put in all of the numbers;).
 
Fly sparging is another consideration, but I don't know that I'm willing to devote the extra time necessary to this technique personally. I applaud you guys with your super efficiency and while I believe efficiency is important if I can maintain 75-80% efficiency in the future and batch sparge I'm going to be one happy brewer.
 
Fly sparging is another consideration, but I don't know that I'm willing to devote the extra time necessary to this technique personally. I applaud you guys with your super efficiency and while I believe efficiency is important if I can maintain 75-80% efficiency in the future and batch sparge I'm going to be one happy brewer.

But with my 30 minute fly sparge (on a 12 gallon batch), that's about the same time it takes to do a double batch sparge (so I've been told).

I don't want this to turn into an efficiency competition thread.:cross: The most important thing is being happy with your efficiency and being consistent. I was just trying to figure out if my grossly high efficiency was real. Getting higher efficiency really only matters for commercial brewers where a few points of efficiency is another sack of grain, or for homebrewers who are having problems with low efficiency.
 
I don't want to compete, I just want to improve my efficiency to a certain point.

What is this 30min fly sparge you speak of and where can I read more about it?
 
I highly doubt you are getting those numbers with a 30 min sparge. If you are, you are almost certainly, at the least, stripping a crap load of tannins during your sparge as well. You say you threw water in to test the measuring. But, was the water you used to test the same temperature as the water you are actually measuring in the brew process. A thermal expansion of only 10% would decrease your efficiency from 97 to 87. Just one thing to check.
 
I just got a 79% on a batch sparge. I overshot my volume by nearly a gallon. i used the beer smith calculations and the boil off was extreme for the past two batches. 97% is possible, Under lab conditions. If you can achieve this kind efficiency consistently one of the breweries is going to snag you up, kill all of your friends, pretend like you drowned in a boating accident and we'll never hear from you again. So keep it on the DL. just tell me your secret before you disappear.

P.S. anyone having trouble with their efficiency needs to start listening to the Basic brewing radio podcast. Batch spragers need to listen to the one on 04/12/07 especially.
 
I highly doubt you are getting those numbers with a 30 min sparge. If you are, you are almost certainly, at the least, stripping a crap load of tannins during your sparge as well.

I always thought tannins were a potential result of sparging for too long. Regardless, my well water pH is 5.7 and my sparge water is always 168-172dF. As long as your sparge water is below pH 6 and the temp is well under 180, there isn't much risk of tannins and none of my beers have ever tasted like it... even the oatmeal stout I forgot to vorlauf and got some grains/husks in the boil.

You say you threw water in to test the measuring. But, was the water you used to test the same temperature as the water you are actually measuring in the brew process. A thermal expansion of only 10% would decrease your efficiency from 97 to 87. Just one thing to check.

Good thought. I had thought about that too, but I don't think it's much of a concern. Both the test water (from my well) and the post-boil volume were checked around 60dF... this may not have been exact, but not enough to cause a significant volume difference.
 
What is this 30min fly sparge you speak of and where can I read more about it?

All of the sources I've seen (internet, and a few books), imply to do continuous sparging for like 45-90 minutes on a 10 gallon batch. So, the only place to read more about it that I know of is from me;). I'm not necessarily condoning everyone to do this. I'm just saying it works for me in my system and with my water. If people don't believe me, then anyone is welcome to come to Milton, DE on my next brew day and see it for themselves.:)

Now, I'm not bashing batch-sparging and the batch vs. fly debate is a dead horse. However, I will explain the reason I started with continuous sparging when I started brewing over a year ago instead of batch sparging... it was because it seemed so much easier in technique. All I had to do was fill up my HLT during the mash, making sure I had more water than what I would need for the sparge and heat it to sparge temp. Then I just had to keep an eye on my kettle and stop sparging when it got to pre-boil volume. Simple.

But I didn't make any elaborate sparge arm, etc. I figured I would get to that later. So, I just sat there, sprinkling water from the tubing by hand (from the HLT) onto the mash. This got a little tedious and it's not easy to know the right flow to coordinate it with 60 minutes. So, my sparge time varied from 30 minutes to 60 minutes. But I noticed my efficiency never seemed to flinch with my timing. So, I started wondering why because a 30 minute fly-sparge seemed to go against homebrewing convention.

One of the theories I formed was that I was using a single piece of tubing to empty the sparge water onto the mash bed. I noticed, when doing this, that it caused the mash bed to be slightly disturbed and initiate a channeling in random locations. I thought, wow, this random channeling all over the mash bed must really be getting the sugars off the grain. Maybe that theory isn't correct, but it makes sense to me.

In order to do this effectively, you need a round mash tun with a false bottom (dip tube in center). You need your sparge water pH be below 6.0, so if your water is higher, you could acidify it.
 
Back
Top