efficiency boosted

Folks,

I've been all grain brewing for just under one year. Tonight I had my most successful brew as of yet. Previously my brewhouse efficiency had been in the 60s. However, tonight we somehow hit 79%, as well as wrapped everything up in just under 4 hours :rockin:

Improvements are likely all due to the stickies on this forum. THANKS!
-Stirring my (batch) sparge
-Knowing my dead space and other volume losses.
-Hitting temps and volumes perfectly
-Thermapen!
-Did however use local shop's mill

Recipe is inspired from most recent issue of Zymurgy section on Patersbier.
11lbs Belgian pilsner
0.5lbs aromatic
0.75lbs wheat malt
1lb clear candi sugar

1 oz saaz @ 60 min
1 oz saaz @ 15 min
WLP 530 double yeast starter

Pitched at 66 degrees
5 gallons
1.072 OG

I'll have to report back when ready. Safe to assume flavor profile will improve with better efficiency?

No, not safe. Efficiency measures converted sugar extraction. There will always be other stuff, like proteins and tannins, in the wort. So as you vary the ratio of sugar to other stuff, you will affect the flavor.

This is likely the reason Jamil Zainasheff says home brewers should target about 75% for best flavor.

I personally think the knock-on effect therefrom is to magnify the fermentation effects especially and the other brew factors generally. I.e., increased efficiency results in a less forgiving wort.

My two cents.

Firstly, congratulations OP. If you keep fine-tuning your process you will find your efficiency will improve even more. And that's a good thing, but I don't think it means your beer will taste better. There will just be more of it to taste!

Mer-man said:

No, not safe. Efficiency measures converted sugar extraction. There will always be other stuff, like proteins and tannins, in the wort. So as you vary the ratio of sugar to other stuff, you will affect the flavor.

This is likely the reason Jamil Zainasheff says home brewers should target about 75% for best flavor.

I personally think the knock-on effect therefrom is to magnify the fermentation effects especially and the other brew factors generally. I.e., increased efficiency results in a less forgiving wort.

My two cents.

Click to expand...

Not to be argumentative, but this is complete false. 75% is used as a base efficiency because it is achievable, it is repeatable, and it doesn't require complicated brewing systems.

Commercial breweries target as high an efficiency as they can get (typically 92-98%). Without an advanced RIMS or HERMS system, homebrewers are limited to efficiencies under 95%. The whole "tannin extraction" argument is a complete load of hoo-ha. If your terminal gravity from runnings is 1.010 (to prevent tannin extraction), and your grain absorption factor is 0.1 gal / lb, then theoretically there is less than 3% of tannin-laden sugars remaining in the mash.

10 (pts/gal) x 0.1 (gal/lb) / 36 (pts/lb) = 2.78%

Efficiency versus quality is not a new topic, and the arguments are entirely subjective with no real valid support for assertions that higher efficiency brewing produces better or worse beer. It really boils down to defending your process and product as being "better", much like the discussions about the merits of BIAB versus traditional mash and sparge, or infusion versus decoction mash. Does it follow that because one process takes more time and effort it must produce better beer? Obviously not, likewise higher efficiency or lower efficiency does not result is better or worse beer. The results may not be identical, but those of us who are deeply concerned about repeating the exact product each time will use the same process each time to achieve that repeatability, but repeatability does not equal superior beer. Note Budweiser, and it's ability to reproduce the identical product each time, or McDonalds with it's ability to produce the perfect "rat burger" again and again from New York to Beijing. Is my saison or my Belgian better or worse than yours because of my efficiency or my process? Our object is to make good beer, and that can be done with any process, and weather our efficiency is 60% or 90%. People who claim otherwise are either ignorant, or just looking for a fight!

H.W.

Efficiency is just part of the equation. Will higher efficiency make better beer? Not really. What is most important to me is getting consistant efficiency. I get 70% and am perfectly happy with that. I get it almost dead on every brew. It would be worse to get 60% one time and 80% the next.

Commercial breweries target higher edficiency because it means more profit. (They can use less grain) For those of us at the homebrew level for a 5 gallon batch a few extra percentage points of efficiency may mean just a few cents for more grain. Not really a big deal.

Learn your system and get consistant and that will go a log way towards making better beer.

Owly055 said:

Note Budweiser, and it's ability to reproduce the identical product each time, or McDonalds with it's ability to produce the perfect "rat burger" again and again from New York to Beijing.

Click to expand...

is the "rat burger" only available in nyc and Beijing? kinda like how the "royale with cheese" is only served in France..... I guess McDonald's is giving up on trying to polish the brand, and now they're just getting the cheapest ingredients they can find to squeeze out profits.

im gonna give them a call, see if they'll take a meeting about my idea for Pigeon Nuggets.

SanPancho said:

is the "rat burger" only available in nyc and Beijing? kinda like how the "royale with cheese" is only served in France..... I guess McDonald's is giving up on trying to polish the brand, and now they're just getting the cheapest ingredients they can find to squeeze out profits.

im gonna give them a call, see if they'll take a meeting about my idea for Pigeon Nuggets.

Click to expand...

I like the idea of Pigeon Nuggets........ Go for it!!

Years ago a disk jockey in Philly came up with the original idea of "rat fishing", and launched a contest. The idea was to cast bait down the alleys and actually fish for rats using big treble hooks. It became a fad briefly, and awards were given for the most rats, the biggest rat, the prettiest rat, etc. You would cast your bait and jigg it to attract a rat, then set the hook, reel it in and club it. Needless to say the animal right people got involved, and now if it is done, it is not done so publicly. Seems a great sport to me. In the brief time I spent in South Florida (a year), I saw rats as big as house cats...... Unbelievable creatures! Makes you half afraid of going out at night!!

H.W.

specharka said:

Not to be argumentative, but this is complete false. 75% is used as a base efficiency because it is achievable, it is repeatable, and it doesn't require complicated brewing systems.

Commercial breweries target as high an efficiency as they can get (typically 92-98%). Without an advanced RIMS or HERMS system, homebrewers are limited to efficiencies under 95%. The whole "tannin extraction" argument is a complete load of hoo-ha. If your terminal gravity from runnings is 1.010 (to prevent tannin extraction), and your grain absorption factor is 0.1 gal / lb, then theoretically there is less than 3% of tannin-laden sugars remaining in the mash.

10 (pts/gal) x 0.1 (gal/lb) / 36 (pts/lb) = 2.78%

Click to expand...

I appreciate and respect your argument, so please do not apologize. Discourse is the best way to address false notions, no?

We agree that more efficiency does not necessarily improve flavor profile, which is what the OP asked.

Zainasheff may have those underlying reasons as you cite, but what he said at the time (multiple times over the history of the show Brew Strong) is that flavor is best in the neighborhood of 75%.
I agree, he was probably thinking of the risk of tannin extraction, and so any sugar-to non-sugar ratio was not likely his motivation. (I'd edit my post, but that seems disingenuous.)

I, on my part, was speculating on the potential impact of increased sugar to non-sugar in solution on flavor. That ratio must exist, but it is entirely plausible that it has no material impact.

Rock on!

I pretty much ignore all of those older texts that talk about efficiency and quality.

Therare several sources that say the best quality beer is brewed with 70% efficiency. How was that determined? Who did it? Was that just based on "most award winning beers were made with 70% so it must be true! " The reason and logic is never given.

Likewisthere are as many sources, sometimes within the same text, sometimes from the same source, that state that the first runnings are the highest quality, and so for big brews like his or barleywines you shouldn't sparge as that lowers the quality...

It is probably a least common denominator. I get an average of 82% efficiency and have won multiple awards. I know brewers that get 75% and have just as many awards. On the commercial level, they are trying to get every bit out of their grains and systems to lower their total cost per batch. If you are making really good beer at 72% and the cost of grain doesn't bother or impact it, then don't change it. I have gotten better efficiency and my beer quality wasn't the same, I think mine is appropriate for my equipment and process, that I'm happy with 82-83%.

Owly055 said:

I saw rats as big as house cats...... Unbelievable creatures! Makes you half afraid of going out at night!! H.W.

Click to expand...

We call those opossums. Yell at them and they'll roll over and play dead.

Cute critters.

All the Best,
D. White

dwhite60 said:

We call those opossums. Yell at them and they'll roll over and play dead.

Cute critters.

Click to expand...

I accidentally shot one in low light in my garage. Thought it was a rat.
I still feel pretty bad about that.
Docile critters. His only mistake was getting lost in my garage. The don't hurt anything.

ahem....(sniff) .. As to the efficiency issue, the problem lies with the term itself. Look up synonyms to "efficiency". Efficient implies "better".
Too bad... since the real goal is consistency in your process to make a good recipe the same over and over again. It really doesn't matter if a little extra water or grain is involved.

dwhite60 said:

We call those opossums. Yell at them and they'll roll over and play dead.

Cute critters.

All the Best,
D. White

Click to expand...

I'm familiar with possums......... I know the difference. I had one for a pet when I was a kid. Admittedly there are appearance similarity, but the behavior and places they frequent are different. These were just huge wharf rats. You don't find possums running through the hallways at night, foraging through garbage cans, etc.