I brewed a scottish ale today...its like my 13th batch all grain... I've got a 10 gallon igloo cooler with a false bottom for a mash tun... (no dip tube tho) ... hit my temp range of 154-156... held for an hour.... fly sparged for about 45 mins... kept 2 inches or more water over the grain bed by laying the tube from my LHT on top of the water... boiled and came out just shy of 5 gallons... was supposed to be 1.050 at 70% but hit 1.049... ive brewed other things at 75% and up... i just don't know what im doing wrong... My local HBS is Grape and Granary in akron... they said there gap on their crusher is .38... could that be it? the only thing I can think of is I quit using distilled water and started getting filtered water from the machine at the grocery store. PLEASE HELP!
stumped and frustrated over my efficency!!! PLEASE HELP!
- Thread starter J311gonzo
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
So, you're within one gravity point of your target at 70% and you're not happy? There's nothing wrong with a 70% efficiency. My system has a 70% efficiency, lots of systems have a 70% efficiency, many recipes are calculated for a 70% efficiency. You will see people posting about their rocking 90% efficiencies and I never respond to those threads, because, quite honestly, good for them and who really cares? Maybe I'm not understanding your issue, but I think if you can settle in at 70% you should be happy with that. Consistency is the key. If you're all over the board THAT is a problem.
Agreed that I wouldn't be upset by a 0.001 difference. Also agree that 70% efficiency is fine and that consistency is the key efficiency issue.
bknifefight
Well-Known Member
Freaking out over a 0.001 difference? I hate to see what kind of state you're in if your yeast takes 1 minute longer than normal to start working 
neko
Well-Known Member
Relax. 1.050 and 1.049 are pretty much the same. One person could read the sample as 50 and another person could read 49.
I'd be satisfied with that close. I usually shoot over the mark and add a touch extra grain each time. like a "pinch for good measure" kind of thing.
I mean your water/steam lost during the boil could have changed a bit during that brew from ambient temperature/humidity. Who knows, could be a ton of factors.
End of the day, I'd be happy with your results.
I mean your water/steam lost during the boil could have changed a bit during that brew from ambient temperature/humidity. Who knows, could be a ton of factors.
End of the day, I'd be happy with your results.
shafferpilot
Well-Known Member
the crush is why you are at 70%. If you want into the 80's, crush your own and crush the hell out of it. Otherwise, just plan for 70% for all your brews and everything is hunky dory. Consistency and hitting target gravities is way more important than efficiency.
I get 69% eff and plan on it. Remember that your efficiency will drop with very large amounts of grain. I mean over 1.060 beers. You will get lower eff than normal so plan for it with an extra lb or so of grain, you can dilute with water if OG is higher than your recipe calls for.
JKoravos
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone should be upset with 70%, but I also don't think you necessarily should be satisfied that you are getting 70% efficiency. Not that I think you need higher efficiency, but that it's good understand WHY you are getting 70% efficiency and what you can do to change your efficiency. You might be getting outstanding conversion efficiency, but terrible lautering efficiency, or vice versa, or just getting average efficiency in both areas. I think that's a good thing for a brewer to understand about their brewing system.
I get 80-85% efficiency on every batch, regardless of gravity, up to the limit of my mash tun (which is about 1.075) because I understand how to affect my efficiency by changing parameters in my process.
I get 80-85% efficiency on every batch, regardless of gravity, up to the limit of my mash tun (which is about 1.075) because I understand how to affect my efficiency by changing parameters in my process.
rjschroed
Well-Known Member
typical issues with fly sparging efficiency are grain bed channeling and sparging too fast. . . it doesn't sound like your sparging too fast and only you can really determine if your getting channeling. That being said, I too wouldn't worry about such a small difference. FWIW, I also agree that I would worry more about consistency and not super efficiency, I hate every time a read when someone says "check out my %1105 efficiency!" Some people are honestly looking for advice because they simply cannot believe that number and are trying to better understand how to calculate efficiencies so they can better plan their beers, those people I help. Coming on here and bragging about your inability to read a hydrometer or measure volumes does very little to improve the quality of your beer. If your consistently and planning to hit mid to upper 80s or low 90s props to you, but most of those people aren't bragging about it. Having the worlds best efficiency shouldn't be the goal, making great beer should be. Sorry for the bit of a rant.
I have to disagree with you.
My mill is set to 1.045 (I've checked it) and it is not adjustable, and I regularly get 85% efficiency.
I do agree that consistency is more important than achieving a high efficiency for one batch
-a
shafferpilot
Well-Known Member
it's a metric thing. you know them britts showing off
J311gonzo
Well-Known Member
Everyone again thanks for all the input... I did 2 brews the past 2 days... Both weighed for 70% efficiency and both landed at the correct gravity. Until I build a higher quality and larger brew set up (which is another question, RIMS or HERMS?) I am happy to know I consistently brew at 70% and will plan so accordingly.
Thanks again! This forum and it's members are amazing!
Thanks again! This forum and it's members are amazing!
miggedymike
Active Member
the conversation looks resolved so I won't respond to anything already said, but I looked at my water profile and mash ph etc for improvements - seems to have helped a little.
Oops. The gap is 0.045" Perhaps I was thinking of the gravity of the situation.
Sorry for any confusion.
-a.
Similar threads
