# Anvil Foundry Mash Eff

### Help Support Homebrew Talk:

#### doug293cz

##### BIABer, Beer Math Nerd, ePanel Designer, Pilot
Staff member
Mod
Ran across this YouTube video on Anvil mash efficiency. Pretty well spells out everything I was thinking that was causing low efficiency

The author of the video claims that his 72% vs. 76% difference is significant, but statistically his data is not good enough to show significance. If you do a tolerance analysis taking into account the possible errors/differences in volume measurements, grain & hop absorption rates, grain bill weight measurement, SG measurement, grain moisture content, and grain potentials, you find that most efficiency measurements at the homebrewer level are only accurate to +/- about 3% - 4%. By using the same grain in both batches, he eliminates the possible errors/differences in grain moisture and potential, but the other sources of uncertainty are still there. To claim significance with this small a difference in result, he would have to repeat the experiment multiple times.

Just because the result is not statistically significant, doesn't mean it isn't real. It might or might not be real - this experiment by itself is not adequate to determine that. Since there might be a real difference, you should probably run your own side by side experiments to see what results you get. Just remember, a single experiment is not likely to prove a difference, unless the difference is much greater than the expected variation from run to run.

Brew on

OP

#### WeHeavy

##### Well-Known Member
The author of the video claims that his 72% vs. 76% difference is significant, but statistically his data is not good enough to show significance. If you do a tolerance analysis taking into account the possible errors/differences in volume measurements, grain & hop absorption rates, grain bill weight measurement, SG measurement, grain moisture content, and grain potentials, you find that most efficiency measurements at the homebrewer level are only accurate to +/- about 3% - 4%. By using the same grain in both batches, he eliminates the possible errors/differences in grain moisture and potential, but the other sources of uncertainty are still there. To claim significance with this small a difference in result, he would have to repeat the experiment multiple times.

Just because the result is not statistically significant, doesn't mean it isn't real. It might or might not be real - this experiment by itself is not adequate to determine that. Since there might be a real difference, you should probably run your own side by side experiments to see what results you get. Just remember, a single experiment is not likely to prove a difference, unless the difference is much greater than the expected variation from run to run.

Brew on

And sometimes you can over think a problem that has a simple solution.

##### Which way is up again??
HBT Supporter
Ran across this YouTube video on Anvil mash efficiency. Pretty well spells out everything I was thinking that was causing low efficiency

Thanks for posting this, as it is absolute gold to me and possibly some others. I ordered the small batch ring thinking I’d actually do small batches and have been wondering if it might increase efficiency with regular batches for a little while now. But they took FOREVER to ship it and I eventually just cancelled the order for that part. (This was when the AF eas

But I just had my first brew on the AF with ironically, a 72% efficiency with a “presumed” .032 crush and bag in the pipe. (I state presumed because I evidently didn’t lock down the nuts and the eye bolts were loose after crushing the grains w/cereal killer). I was ecstatic as I was resigned to live in the low 60s.

A 76% sounds pretty damn good and something I’d def be okay with.

#### Noob_Brewer

##### Well-Known Member
I am most consistent at 75-76% mash/lauter efficiency using a bag in the malt-pipe and recirculating slowly. I initially was thinking about trying the small batch adapter but then saw the two protruding nubs and thought that they would rip my bag. So I didn't go that route. I do agree with @doug293cz though in that there will always be some variance in your mash efficiency. was curious as to my mash efficiencies on the foundry. I have completed 28 batches total on the foundry (this is my first all-grain brew system) and initially I was a little all over the place in terms of mash efficiency and my volumes were all over the place for a couple batches as well. But the batches that I hit my pre-boil volumes (n=23), my mash efficiencies came out to be and average (SD) of 74.7% (5.0) which had one major outlier (batch 2 @53.1 mash efficiency) which was a disaster for me due to poor crush and recirculating way to fast. After removing that one poor brew, by 22 batch average (SD) comes out to 75.7% (1.9). So without the small batch adapter, my average mash efficiency comes out right at what that tuber reported with the adapter. And given my standard deviation at about 2%, Im not sure the 4% difference reported by that utuber is really that big of an improvement given the singe experiment.

EDIT: I also noted that that tube video, the person is saying these were his brew house efficiencies, not mash efficiencies. SO would be curious if that was a typo/misstatement or not too.

EDIT2: I will also add that I'm a sparger. All but one of my brews Ive sparged a gallon to 1.5g which I imagine helped with my efficiency.

Last edited:

#### cmac62

##### Well-Known Member
I've only brewed two batches so far on the system, but my first was over 80% and my last was at almost 75%. I did recirc, and sparged with 2 gals in my old cooler MT. Just put the malt pipe into the cooler and ran the 170* water over the grainbed a couple of times. It was not too difficult and I know it is upping my efficiency.

#### Willglenn

##### Member
Finally, I hit 74% efficiency! Been stuck at around 60% using the Anvil malt pipe so I quit using it and went back to my cooler mash tun using the Anvil to heat strike water and boil. First attempt didn't go as well as I had hoped, didn't gang much but I learned a few things, todays brew I switched to a 90 minute boil, increased my batch size by 1/2 a gallon and batch sparged draining the tun before sparging. Only problem is my Special Bitter is in IPA territory. My mash tun is actually far easier to clean than the malt pipe and the wort going into the anvil for boil is crystal clear with no husk. For me the only reason I bought the Anvil was so I could brew indoors and didn't have to mess with propane, so I'm still thrilled with the unit I simply brew pretty much like I did before just doing it inside.

#### visitor

##### Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
For me the only reason I bought the Anvil was so I could brew indoors and didn't have to mess with propane, so I'm still thrilled with the unit I simply brew pretty much like I did before just doing it inside.
This is similar to my current setup with the foundry and my reasons for purchasing an electric unit. From time to time I still do a BIAB inside the Foundry for ease and to do a quick batch. Eventually I suspect I'll end up using the Foundry as a dedicated HLT or second running BK.

#### Willglenn

##### Member
This is similar to my current setup with the foundry and my reasons for purchasing an electric unit. From time to time I still do a BIAB inside the Foundry for ease and to do a quick batch. Eventually I suspect I'll end up using the Foundry as a dedicated HLT or second running BK.
I’ve thought about getting a 6.5 AF for a hot liquor tank. Right now I heat my mash water and then heat my sparge water while mashing. Which means I have to transfer the sparge water to an additional container so I can run off into the 10.5 AF.

#### visitor

##### Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
I haven't done any electrical upgrades to get 240v over to my brewing space so I'm still at 120v. I pre heat all my mash and sparge water in the Foundry all at once and then collect the wort into a different kettle before transferring it back over to the Foundry to boil. Yeah, it's extra steps and more cleaning but it really doesn't add much additional time to the complete brew day.

#### Krael52

##### New Member
Ideal? How do you define ideal? I have seen it written in literature as 1.20 to 1.25 qts/lb being a minimum for adequate starch solubility to achieve conversion, but never as an ideal and never referred to as a 'standard.' Certainly a mash thickness of 1.25 qts/lb is better for lauter efficiency as you have more water to sparge with and pull out more of the remaining sugars in the malts.

The Germans have frequently favored a thinner mash for conversion; the English, thicker to maximize the throughput of the mash tun. There are plenty of brewers, such as myself, who do full volume mashing and do not suffer lack of conversion (or mash efficiency) because of the thin mash conditions. A thinner mash has also been linked in literature to faster conversion most probably due to greater solubility of starches early in the mashing process. Unless you are using 30% or higher starchy adjuncts, lack of enzymes for conversion is hardly an issue with most common base malts available these days.

I do agree that the columnar design of all-in-one devices do lead to a higher sensitivity to mash compaction. Anytime you have a deeper grain bed that you pull or push liquid through you create a greater tendency to cause compaction and/or channeling which lowers the efficiency of the system. I have found, for my crush quality, if I recirculate the wort at a little less than a liter per minute that I can keep the grain bed loose and get complete conversion efficiency (98% to 100%) and acceptable lauter efficiency without any sparge step. My mash/lauter efficiency on the Anvil is now settled in at 85 +/- 1% (full volume mash/no sparge) after playing around with crush quality, recirculation flow, and different sparging methods for the first 10 brews.