2nd Time Low Efficiency (50%)?

[Kozwald]

The way I look at it, no excuse for an all-grain brewer not to own their own mill, at least not if they want any semblance of consistency. Grain crush is a huge factor, and unless you're setting the store mill gap and crushing yourself, or at least inspecting it every time they crush it and complaining if they don't crush it enough and making them tighten the gap and redo it (quick way to burn a bridge), who knows what you're going to get. I think most stores crush for extract brewers doing a pound or two at a time where extraction won't be a big deal, and as such aren't really worried about it.

Mills aren't that expensive. Definitely cheaper than a lot of other items. Just buy a mill.

I decided to go for it and bought a Cereal Killer mill. Set it at .032" and just finished my first mash. Recorded about 77% eff. That's about the best I've seen with my set up. Glad I bit the bullet and bought the mill.

 

[BowAholic]

I decided to go for it and bought a Cereal Killer mill. Set it at .032" and just finished my first mash. Recorded about 77% eff. That's about the best I've seen with my set up. Glad I bit the bullet and bought the mill.

 

[Liveforliving]

I decided to go for it and bought a Cereal Killer mill. Set it at .032" and just finished my first mash. Recorded about 77% eff. That's about the best I've seen with my set up. Glad I bit the bullet and bought the mill.

Awesome! We were going to try out my new Barley Crusher this weekend, but the local brew store was closed for inventory. Very depressing.

The good news is that this confirms why one day I will have my own grain storage. Heck, with the ways things are going, I might as well open my own local brew store!

 

[pricelessbrewing]

Awesome! We were going to try out my new Barley Crusher this weekend, but the local brew store was closed for inventory. Very depressing.

The good news is that this confirms why one day I will have my own grain storage. Heck, with the ways things are going, I might as well open my own local brew store!

I know the feeling. I have 22 strains of yeast in my yeast bank, a sack of base malt, and 15 different specialty malts on hand. I can brew most styles that I typically do as long as I don't get to crazy. Don't ask about hops.

 

[Liveforliving]

Finally! Brew Day! Time to test out the Barely Crusher!

We set it to .035". Might try .032" next time, but didn't want to make it too fine. The crush went well. Word of advice for those who don't have a mill (yet): Don't use a cheap drill! We burnt ours out about 1/2 way through 11.5 lbs of grain. Luckily we had a 2nd drill (high quality) in the workshop.

We're heating up our mash water now. Stay tuned for our efficiency results...

 

[brewbama]

Crush is very important but volume is as well. I'll bet you can increase your efficiency but pouring the whole kettle into the fermenter. Yooper alluded to this in the first reply. When you loose wort to the trub in the brew kettle you are loosing efficiency.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Crush is very important but volume is as well. I'll bet you can increase your efficiency but pouring the whole kettle into the fermenter. Yooper alluded to this in the first reply. When you loose wort to the trub in the brew kettle you are loosing efficiency.

Kind of. Brewhouse efficiency might kind of go up in terms of how BeerSmith measures it, but it has no REAL benefit since you'll just lose the trub/hop material volume when you go to bottle/keg anyway. If your system loses unneeded wort in separation of kettle trub then yes. But that's brewhouse and not mash. It won't change your gravity, just your fermenter volume.

 

[doug293cz]

Kind of. Brewhouse efficiency might kind of go up in terms of how BeerSmith measures it, but it has no REAL benefit since you'll just lose the trub/hop material volume when you go to bottle/keg anyway. If your system loses unneeded wort in separation of kettle trub then yes. But that's brewhouse and not mash. It won't change your gravity, just your fermenter volume.

Kind of depends on how well the trub compacts in the fermenter. If it compacts to higher density in the fermenter than the kettle, then you might lose less liquid overall (higher packaged efficiency) by dumping the trub in the fermenter. But, there are probably situations where the reverse would be true, and you might lose more liquid overall (lower packaged efficiency) by dumping the trub in the fermenter.

I think the takeaway is that there are two efficiencies worth using for comparisons: mash efficiency and packaged efficiency. Comparing brewhouse efficiencies between someone who takes trub loss at the BK and someone who takes it at the fermenter is meaningless.

Brew on

 

[brew703]

I've had issues with the LHBS crush since I started brewing last June. The only place I was able to get a good crush was from Homebrewsupply.com. I have ordered from them 4 times and each time the crush was great. I just ordered a Cereal Killer mill. Should get it next week just in time to brew next weekend.

 

[brewbama]

...comparing brewhouse efficiencies between someone who takes trub loss at the bk and someone who takes it at the fermenter is meaningless.

Brew on

+1

 

[Qhrumphf]

Kind of depends on how well the trub compacts in the fermenter. If it compacts to higher density in the fermenter than the kettle, then you might lose less liquid overall (higherpackaged efficency) by dumping the trub in the fermenter. But, there are probably situations where the reverse would be true, and you might lose more liquid overall (lower packaged efficiency) by dumping the trub in the fermenter.

I think the takeaway is that there are two efficiencies worth using for comparisons: mash efficiency and packaged efficiency. Comparing brewhouse efficiencies between someone who takes trub loss at the BK and someone who takes it at the fermenter is meaningless.

Brew on

My issue with brewhouse efficiency, and particularly with packaged efficiency, is that it's dependent on both recipe AND process, and some recipes necessitate change in process. As a result, trying to equate that efficiency to a given recipe is valid, but if you don't rebrew that recipe it's more or less an arbitrary figure. Dry hops, how many times it's racked, adding ingredients that may add volume (fruit) or reduce it (oak), different yeast strains creating more or less compact yeast cakes, and so on, all will influence packaged efficiency.

I take ALL my efficiency-related readings/calculations based on defined points- gravity of first runnings, gravity in the kettle pre-boil, and gravity in the kettle post-chill, as those are the only points where I can make a defined determination between gravity and volume that will remain more consistent from recipe to recipe.

The rest can vary widely depending on recipe and process, and while I know the typical results, I also know from experience when to expect variance (I typically lose 0.5 gallons to the yeast cake, but if I dry hop, I'll assume an extra 0.1-0.2 gallons lost). Oaking is insignifcant if not a barrel. As are most small ingredients. But adding fruit can add substantial volume, and I don't brew many fruit beers so that's always something I'd have a hard time estimating properly.

 

[pricelessbrewing]

@Qhrumphf I usually don't care too much about packaging yield except for priming sugar calculations, and if it's enough to fill the keg (when I had kegs...). I don't mess with fruit, and I usually don't dry hop too often so my fermentation loss is a pretty constant ratio to batch size. Also I'm jealous of your bottle cellar.

@doug293cz that's precisely why I prefer mash efficiency to brewhouse efficiency. Some whirlpool and have a kettle loss, some have a greater fermentation loss. I'm in the second group, as I believe it's going to compact down much more after fermentation than it would during whirl pooling. Also I'm lazy.

 

[doug293cz]

My issue with brewhouse efficiency, and particularly with packaged efficiency, is that it's dependent on both recipe AND process, and some recipes necessitate change in process. As a result, trying to equate that efficiency to a given recipe is valid, but if you don't rebrew that recipe it's more or less an arbitrary figure. Dry hops, how many times it's racked, adding ingredients that may add volume (fruit) or reduce it (oak), different yeast strains creating more or less compact yeast cakes, and so on, all will influence packaged efficiency.

I take ALL my efficiency-related readings/calculations based on defined points- gravity of first runnings, gravity in the kettle pre-boil, and gravity in the kettle post-chill, as those are the only points where I can make a defined determination between gravity and volume that will remain more consistent from recipe to recipe.

The rest can vary widely depending on recipe and process, and while I know the typical results, I also know from experience when to expect variance (I typically lose 0.5 gallons to the yeast cake, but if I dry hop, I'll assume an extra 0.1-0.2 gallons lost). Oaking is insignifcant if not a barrel. As are most small ingredients. But adding fruit can add substantial volume, and I don't brew many fruit beers so that's always something I'd have a hard time estimating properly.

I also find mash efficiency (and its components conversion and lauter efficiency) the most interesting. Even mash efficiency will vary based on recipe depending on size of the grain bill. If you want to compare efficiencies, then it should be for similar target OG's.

Brew on

 

[Qhrumphf]

I also find mash efficiency (and its components conversion and lauter efficiency) the most interesting. Even mash efficiency will vary based on recipe depending on size of the grain bill. If you want to compare efficiencies, then it should be for similar target OG's.

Brew on

If we take mash efficiency as the combo of both conversion and lauter efficiency, ie the total amount in the kettle pre-boil, given a consistent preboil, then yes. But to me, that's simply a matter of how much you sparge. Sparge less, lower efficiency. Sparge more, higher efficiency. That's less a function of "higher grain bill means a lower efficiency" as much as an incentive to partigyle if one doesn't want to either do a stupidly long boil OR take an efficiency hit. To an extent, I don't mind bumping a 60 minute boil up to a 90 minute boil to make up a few points. But if I'm brewing a big enough beer where I'll take a significant gravity hit, I'd rather just partigyle it.

 

[RM-MN]

Finally! Brew Day! Time to test out the Barely Crusher!

We set it to .035". Might try .032" next time, but didn't want to make it too fine. The crush went well. Word of advice for those who don't have a mill (yet): Don't use a cheap drill! We burnt ours out about 1/2 way through 11.5 lbs of grain. Luckily we had a 2nd drill (high quality) in the workshop.

We're heating up our mash water now. Stay tuned for our efficiency results...

Keep tightening the mill until you have trouble with a stuck sparge, then tweak it just a little farther open. That will get you the best efficiency on your system.

 

[Liveforliving]

Keep tightening the mill until you have trouble with a stuck sparge, then tweak it just a little farther open. That will get you the best efficiency on your system.

I've heard that milling it too close will mess with the hulls too much, which can cause off flavors. If my understanding is correct, .032" might be as far as we go.

Our results efficiency were better. We had a 70% efficiency, which is great compared to the 50% we had twice in a row, but still short of where we expect to be (80-90%). Our volume is coming out correct (we use http://www.brew365.com/mash_sparge_water_calculator.php to calculate, always seems to give us good volumes).

So having a mill has been a great improvement, but to our surprise, it may not be our only problem. Other than milling the grain with a smaller gap, I'm thinking there may be a problem in mashing or sparging. We're using a cooler, so it could be in temperature control or something in our fly sparge method.

 

[doug293cz]

I've heard that milling it too close will mess with the hulls too much, which can cause off flavors. If my understanding is correct, .032" might be as far as we go.

You won't extract off flavors from shredded hulls unless your mash pH is too high (above about 6.) Your mash pH should be between 5.3 and 5.7, so if you do that and don't sparge with high alkalinity water, no problem. I've won 1st place in a competition with grain milled at 0.016". You can't do that with off flavors.

Our results efficiency were better. We had a 70% efficiency, which is great compared to the 50% we had twice in a row, but still short of where we expect to be (80-90%). Our volume is coming out correct (we use http://www.brew365.com/mash_sparge_water_calculator.php to calculate, always seems to give us good volumes).

So having a mill has been a great improvement, but to our surprise, it may not be our only problem. Other than milling the grain with a smaller gap, I'm thinking there may be a problem in mashing or sparging. We're using a cooler, so it could be in temperature control or something in our fly sparge method.

Have you tried the suggestion earlier in the thread about checking the SG of the wort in the mash for percent conversion (http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency#Measuring_conversion_efficiency)? Knowing whether your efficiency losses are due to poor conversion or inadequate sparging will tell you what you need to work on in order to improve efficiency.

Brew on

 

[Liveforliving]

Have you tried the suggestion earlier in the thread about checking the SG of the wort in the mash for percent conversion (http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency#Measuring_conversion_efficiency)? Knowing whether your efficiency losses are due to poor conversion or inadequate sparging will tell you what you need to work on in order to improve efficiency.

Brew on

No, I forgot about this in hopes that the mill was the only main issue. This is a solid next step. Thanks for the reminder!