Increasing Efficiency

SSBrew - 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.
Grain bill 8.75
Strike water 2.9
Sparge 2.3
Sparge 2.3
Pre boil volume 6.5 SG 1.036
Post boil volume 5.25 SG 1.039
 
Ok, I get the following:
Conversion Efficiency: 70% (terrible, should be above 90%)
Grain Absorption Rate: 0.114 gal/lb (better than the typical MLT at 0.12)
Lauter Efficiency: 94% (excellent, but would drop a little with better conv eff)
Mash Efficiency: 66% (mediocre)​
Your pre-boil SG is unrealistically high given your post-boil volume and SG. Pre-boil SG's can be unreliable when sparging due to incomplete mixing of the wort prior to sampling. The values can be too high or too low, depending on if you sample a more concentrated region or a less concentrated region. You should mix your wort much more thoroughly before sampling.

Brew on :mug:
 
doug293cz said:
Ok, I get the following:
Conversion Efficiency: 70% (terrible, should be above 90%)
Grain Absorption Rate: 0.114 gal/lb (better than the typical MLT at 0.12)
Lauter Efficiency: 94% (excellent, but would drop a little with better conv eff)
Mash Efficiency: 66% (mediocre)​
Your pre-boil SG is unrealistically high given your post-boil volume and SG. Pre-boil SG's can be unreliable when sparging due to incomplete mixing of the wort prior to sampling. The values can be too high or too low, depending on if you sample a more concentrated region or a less concentrated region. You should mix your wort much more thoroughly before sampling.

Brew on :mug:
Click to expand...
So to improve my conversion you recommend mashing longer?
 
00Seven said:
Pre boil volume 6.5 SG 1.036
Post boil volume 5.25 SG 1.039
Click to expand...

Not possible. Out of these 4 data points, at least one of the 4 (maybe more) has to be way off, because physical science dictates that gravity units times volume must remain constant from preboil to post-boil, assuming all measurements are made at the same temperature. Are you taking measurements at warm to hot mash or boil temperatures? Standard convention requires all measurements to be taken at about 70 F for the utmost accuracy. If you aren't doing room temp measurements, it likely explains the discrepancy, and your efficiency is likely much higher than previously calculated.

Cheers and best of luck.
 
dmtaylor said:
Not possible. Out of these 4 data points, at least one of the 4 (maybe more) has to be way off, because physical science dictates that gravity units times volume must remain constant from preboil to post-boil, assuming all measurements are made at the same temperature. Are you taking measurements at warm to hot mash or boil temperatures? Standard convention requires all measurements to be taken at about 70 F for the utmost accuracy. If you aren't doing room temp measurements, it likely explains the discrepancy, and your efficiency is likely much higher than previously calculated.

Cheers and best of luck.
Click to expand...
I take the readings and adjust for temperature and calibration of my equipment. My hydrometer is calibrated at 60 degrees. Not sure how else to do it.
 
The most common cause of this discrepancy is inadequate mixing of the pre-boil wort. This can cause either high or low readings depending on where the sample is taken. I previously addressed this in a post above.

Brew on :mug:
 
i did a better job yesterday, both taking better readings and getting better conversion and brew house. Brewers friend calculated 80% conversion and 72% brew house. I determined my issue was temperature during mash. My thermometer showed correct but I used two other ones in different spots and realized quickly that I wasn't hot enough. I pulled 1-2 quarts at a time off the bottom thru the drain, heated to 180 then added back in until I got target temp from the bottom consistently. Oddly enough my main thermometer reading never changed but I believe it was accurate in the spot it was in. Once I hit temp I used an iodine test and had conversion pretty quick and hit all of my numbers on the money. Thanks for the help
 
I want to make sure I understand this...I fly sparge, should I make sure the mashtun is empty after collecting all wort to the boil kettle? I usually always maintain the sparge water level just above the grain bed. I brew big beers and am always looking to improve efficiency.
 
Carry on as you are. In fly sparging, you are moving a "wave" of fresh water, and pushing out the higher SG wort ahead of it. You want to sparge until your runnings SG is about 1.010 in order to maximize your lauter efficiency. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with stopping the addition of sparge water when there is just enough liquid left in the MLT to make your pre-boil volume, and then draining the MLT fully. It will just cost you a few percentage points of lauter efficiency.

Brew on :mug:
 
doug293cz said:
Carry on as you are. In fly sparging, you are moving a "wave" of fresh water, and pushing out the higher SG wort ahead of it. You want to sparge until your runnings SG is about 1.010 in order to maximize your lauter efficiency. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with stopping the addition of sparge water when there is just enough liquid left in the MLT to make your pre-boil volume, and then draining the MLT fully. It will just cost you a few percentage points of lauter efficiency.

Brew on :mug:
Click to expand...

I’m not so sure sparge water pushes higher SG wort ahead of it. It mixes, dilutes, etc. vs remaining separate. If you have an authoritative source for this explanation I’d like to read about it.
 
That actually is the working premise behind fly-sparging. The gravity gradient is supposed to be as sharp as possible, hence the effort to introduce sparge liquor as gently as possible and keeping an inch or so of liquor atop the bed tp help avoid channeling.

If one ends up significantly mixing sparge liquor with the high gravity wort one probably should have simply done one or two batch sparges as otherwise the deficient fly-sparge pre-boil gravity could end up lower than batch sparging...
Cheers!
 
Last edited:
brewbama said:
I’m not so sure sparge water pushes higher SG wort ahead of it. It mixes, dilutes, etc. vs remaining separate. If you have an authoritative source for this explanation I’d like to read about it.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is some mixing, but it is very far from complete. As @day_trippr says, you want to run the fly sparge in a manner that minimizes mixing in order to maximize lauter efficiency.

Brew on :mug:
 
I have seen a few of you say that you should sparge until the gravity is 1.010. Is this a temp corrected gravity based on the calibration of your hydrometer? Example: hydrometer calibration is 60F so that would be 1.010 @ 60F.
 
doug293cz said:
Yes, there is some mixing, but it is very far from complete. As @day_trippr says, you want to run the fly sparge in a manner that minimizes mixing in order to maximize lauter efficiency.

Brew on :mug:
Click to expand...

...and your source for the push statement? Is this anecdotal or do you have one?
 
So I went to the lhbs today and there was good and bad. The good was that I milled twice and could see the difference. The bad was the for sale sign out front :( They said if they get a buyer for the building and dirt they are closing:(

Anyway brewing next Sunday and hoping the finer crush will increase my efficiency and fg.
Eric
 
I wanted to throw in my process since I tend to do things that I see a lot of people often comment not to do, I have a 3 vessel electric setup with a long ULWD rims and small dc pumps and use bayou classic kettles including one with the FB for my mash tun. I wont go into the long details but they are in my build thread in my signature.

1) I used a credit card to set my mill gap .030

2) I never use rice hulls nor needed to. (I do have a section of braided line connected to my pickup tube UNDER my bayou false bottom which helps for this)btw I have a whopping 3 gallons of space UNDER my FB in my 16 gallon MT which is another thing people say can normally hurt but not in a recirculating system.

3) I find my efficiencies are similar whether im brewing a 6 gallon or 11 gallon batch of beer which shouldnt be if the whole taller vs wider grainbed always mattered but again I think since I recirculate during the whole mash at a flowrate of between 1.5 and 2gpm depending on grainbed and fly sparge at an even lower rate, that its doesnt matter. Even at 1gpm the rims is still doing fine at keeping the mash at a consistent temp with very little risk of any channeling or stuck flow this way. (I do use a flowmeter to measure flow and always start the pumps out at a lower speed for the first couple mins until the grain bed starts to settle in.)

4) I found that my efficiencies did go up when I started doing a proper mashout before transferring to the BK began.

I average consistently between 90 and just over 91% brewhouse efficiency.

I see some have commented in that efficiency doesnt really matter on a homebrewing level but find the CONSISTENCY of being able to accurately predict and account for the efficiency and alter the recipe based upon that to be the most valuable thing about dialing my system in, and if I can save some money in uunwasted grain as well as space in my compost bin then great!

This setup has worked so well for me and my brewing partner that we have modeled a larger 3bbl electric brewhouse after it in the brewpub we are opening. I even use small (by comparision) TD5 24v pumps which I can control the flow on and water trials have been very promising. (BTW those little pumps are strong enough to fill a 140 gallon BK from the bottom TC port!)
 
Last edited:
“I see some have commented in that efficiency doesnt really matter on a homebrewing level but find the CONSISTENCY of being able to accurately predict and account for the efficiency and alter the recipe based upon that to be the most valuable thing about dialing my system in, and if I can save some money in uunwasted grain as well as space in my compost bin then great!”

Second that.
 
Nice meter. I just installed a linear flow valve on my pump outlet which is head and shoulders above a ball valve for controlling flow. If I can find an exact vertical install point I may shoot for one of these soon.
 
From the original post: "Shorter grain bed will reduce your efficiency".

Why? Most of the other points in the original post are well explained whereas this is just presented as fact and I cannot see anyone in the thread disagree. I can imagine that it could make temperature control more difficult. I can certainly believe the shallow grain bed gives less effective filtration when circulating, but that has nothing to do with efficiency. A shallow grain bed could be more prone to channelling when fly sparging but I don't see much downside for batch sparge. A larger mash tun could also potentially have more dead space and lost wort which would certainly impact total efficiency, if not conversion. Overall I can think of a lot for good reasons to size the tun appropriately to the batch, but none seem obviously to really drive efficiency to me. I BIAB so have never directly tested any of this.
 
rjs3273 said:
From the original post: "Shorter grain bed will reduce your efficiency".

Why? Most of the other points in the original post are well explained whereas this is just presented as fact and I cannot see anyone in the thread disagree. I can imagine that it could make temperature control more difficult. I can certainly believe the shallow grain bed gives less effective filtration when circulating, but that has nothing to do with efficiency. A shallow grain bed could be more prone to channelling when fly sparging but I don't see much downside for batch sparge. A larger mash tun could also potentially have more dead space and lost wort which would certainly impact total efficiency, if not conversion. Overall I can think of a lot for good reasons to size the tun appropriately to the batch, but none seem obviously to really drive efficiency to me. I BIAB so have never directly tested any of this.
Click to expand...

If fly sparging you need a minimum "height" of the grain bed I believe.
 
DrGMG said:
If fly sparging you need a minimum "height" of the grain bed I believe.
Click to expand...
rjs3273 said:
From the original post: "Shorter grain bed will reduce your efficiency".

Why? Most of the other points in the original post are well explained whereas this is just presented as fact and I cannot see anyone in the thread disagree. I can imagine that it could make temperature control more difficult. I can certainly believe the shallow grain bed gives less effective filtration when circulating, but that has nothing to do with efficiency. A shallow grain bed could be more prone to channelling when fly sparging but I don't see much downside for batch sparge. A larger mash tun could also potentially have more dead space and lost wort which would certainly impact total efficiency, if not conversion. Overall I can think of a lot for good reasons to size the tun appropriately to the batch, but none seem obviously to really drive efficiency to me. I BIAB so have never directly tested any of this.
Click to expand...
I dont find that it makes any difference in my setup how deep the grainbed is. I get similar efficiencies between 6 and 11 gallon mashes.. I really think the reason this is true for many is the channeling that occurs and the fact that in a shallow setup the grain farther away from the drain under the bottom filter/false bottom gets less flow. in a narrow tall setup the liquid is forced to travel through more of the grain.
 
glad I stumbled onto this thread...I've been missing lots of details on mashing over the years, all my "knowledge" is old-pre internet/forums...

I definitely will be stepping up my mash & sparge game this weekend...I'm guessing I'm a fly sparge guy? I didn't even know there was a batch/fly difference...
 
Has anyone every asked their local pro brewers how they do their fly sparging?

I'm just curious, because even though I typically hit my estimated gravities at the correct pre-boil volumes according to BeerSmith, there always seems to be a lot of sugars left behind in the mashtun, and with a final runnings reading such as 1.030 or higher I am almost tempted to do another sparge for brewing a low gravity beer from the same mash.

This forum thread about "efficiency" became a sticky because who obviously doesn't want more efficiency out of their systems. I'm OK with my numbers, but I still feel guilty about leaving sugars behind unless there is something I can learn from a pro brewer.

One pro brewer I asked said he doesn't mind leaving sugars behind as long as he achieved the numbers he was expecting for that particular recipe. His spent grains go to a local farmer to feed a small herd of buffalo.

So have you ever asked or seen how your local pro brewers do their fly sparge?

1) Do they sparge the grain bed up until the calculated amount of sparge water has been added, and then let the grain bed run dry until the pre-boil volume has been achieved?

2) Do they constantly keep the grain bed covered with sparge water until they reach their desired pre-boil volume? This method would leave the MLT full of water and obviously seems like a waste of resources at a commercial level.

3) Do they drain the wort from the MLT down to some level (ie: 30%) before beginning to sparge? One brewer recently said he drains down his MLT to extract a portion of their high gravity wort before adding sparge water. It would seem to me that this method might collapse or compact the grain bed, but who am I to question his method.
 
Last edited:
BlackDog-Brewery said:
Has anyone every asked their local pro brewers how they do their fly sparging?

I'm just curious, because even though I typically hit my estimated gravities at the correct pre-boil volumes according to BeerSmith, there always seems to be a lot of sugars left behind in the mashtun, and with a final runnings reading such as 1.030 or higher I am almost tempted to do another sparge for brewing a low gravity beer from the same mash.

This forum thread about "efficiency" became a sticky because who obviously doesn't want more efficiency out of their systems. I'm OK with my numbers, but I still feel guilty about leaving sugars behind unless there is something I can learn from a pro brewer.

One pro brewer I asked said he doesn't mind leaving sugars behind as long as he achieved the numbers he was expecting for that particular recipe. His spent grains go to a local farmer to feed a small herd of buffalo.

So have you ever asked or seen how your local pro brewers do their fly sparge?

1) Do they sparge the grain bed up until the calculated amount of sparge water has been added, and then let the grain bed run dry until the pre-boil volume has been achieved?

2) Do they constantly keep the grain bed covered with sparge water until they reach their desired pre-boil volume? This method would leave the MLT full of water and obviously seems like a waste of resources at a commercial level.

3) Do they drain the wort from the MLT down to some level (ie: 30%) before beginning to sparge? One brewer recently said he drains down his MLT to extract a portion of their high gravity wort before adding sparge water. It would seem to me that this method might collapse or compact the grain bed, but who am I to question his method.
Click to expand...

The 2 times that I've brewed with pros it has been #2. Me at home I do #1.
 
I do #3 at home and am very happy with my results. I have no idea what goes on in the local brew pubs shiny stainless tanks.
Eric
 
I wouldnt go as far as calling our establishment "pro" but on our 3bbl setup we do #1 with calculated water amounts from beersmith and always have a few extra gallons of wort left in the MT we dont use.. we aim for 85% efiiciency and sometimes we are a bit low and sometimes a bit higher as we are still learning the new system but every brew session we get things a bit more dialed in.
 
At home I use the first method. I always calculate water requirements. Out of the three breweries I've worked at, two of them employ process 1, the other process 2. I don't know how I could make any real chemistry adjustments without knowing how much water I'm going to use. But some brewers just can't be bothered with it, and they make decent beer. But the effects of over sparging do occasionally show up in the final product.
 
00Seven said:
I take the readings and adjust for temperature and calibration of my equipment. My hydrometer is calibrated at 60 degrees. Not sure how else to do it.
Click to expand...

Gravity units are constant - you neither gain nor lose them, only the water volume changes.

It is more a matter of obtaining the sample. At various stages, the wort is stratified. Heavy sugar at bottom of kettle right after sparge, less sugar up top. It is important to mix things up to ensure wort is homogeneous and then draw the sample. No pre-boil splashing about here - stir for a bit and let mix, then give it another whirl. I have found the greatest consistency by getting my wort up to just a few degrees away from boil and stirring a few times while the temp rises. Between the stirring and the convection as the pot heats, it gets mixed very well.

Measure volume and gravity and calculate gravity units. If they do not match, the sample process may well be off
 
This sticky was super useful to read through. Thanks for pinning it.

There is one part that confuses me, at least when applied to my home setup. Why does the thickness of the grain bed matter if stirring is okay during the mash out?
Until recently, I had always thought the rule was "don't touch the grain bed" because it needs to set and act as a filter (despite having a false bottom is doing a lot of the filtering). But if stirring is okay, why not even stir during the sparge and avoid channeling altogether?
I'm sure there's good reason, I just think I'm overlooking some critical fact.
Thanks
 

Similar threads

S
In search of...predictable mash efficiency for differing batch sizes & gravities
Replies
11
Views
770
Deadalus
Deadalus
A
RO Water - starting with lower pH
Replies
30
Views
1K
jerrylotto
jerrylotto
S
Going from my old, simple set up to something more "modern", opinions?
Replies
16
Views
1K
JeffersonCoastal
JeffersonCoastal
GirthySquirt
Brewing: Low Efficiency Desirable Benefits Possible? Can Tanking Efficiency INCREASE Flavor?
Replies
15
Views
1K
Bobby_M
Bobby_M
N
Stuck recirculation BM’s Cream of 3 Crops
Replies
10
Views
1K
Niatras
N

Latest posts

Back
Top