Anybody else not really care of (super) high efficiency?

[erockomania]

I see folks talking a lot about increasing their efficiency (they are in the 70% range already) and it makes me wonder why... grain is so cheap! I mean, if you are running a brewery, it's one thing... but for the home brewer doing smaller batches... I just don't understand why people geek out about it. I'm happy in my 70-75% range with my simple processes. Thoughts?

 

[Demon]

I'm at 75% on my three tier batch sparge system and 70% on my Brutus 20 system. I have absolutely no ambition to increase that. At less than 50 cents for a pound of 2-row I would rather toss in some extra grain than play the efficiency game.

 

[Misplaced_Canuck]

It doesn't really matter. As long as it's consistent.

M_C

 

[erockomania]

Exactly... if it's consistent, what's a dollar or two?

 

[Mysticmead]

when I was bouncing from 60-80% yeah I was worried about it.. but now that I'm at a consistent 80-82% I'm not worried.. if it was 70% all the time I wouldn't be worried either. I just want it to be consistent so I can reproduce the beer and have it taste the same each time (or at least close to it).

 

[Palefire]

Yep. Who cares.

 

[JKoravos]

It's a challenge that helps people learn more about brewing. It's not necessary, but it's also not a waste of time.

 

[Bobby_M]

Agreed. I don't care in terms of saving grain. Understanding why you are 65% efficient when you're not consciously trying cut it back is a learning experience more than anything else.

 

[jbsg02]

I'd rather have a consistent 70% that I can count on batch after batch than jump from 75-85% all the time

 

[LakewoodBrew]

i'd rather have a consistent 70% that i can count on batch after batch than jump from 75-85% all the time

+1

 

[WilliamWS]

The only advantage I see to my consistent 90-92% efficiency is that it allows me to get higher gravity beers out of my 5 gallon cooler mash tun. I like using the 5 gallon mash tun because, with very little head space, I loose less than 1 degree over the course of the mash. Not a huge advantage but an advantage none the less. Also, I've experienced zero downside to really good efficiency-no stuck sparges, no tannin extraction, etc. So why not-it takes the exact same effort.
I do agree though that consistency is the most important factor.

 

[RosewaterFoundation]

Yeah, I get a consistent 65% and know why. Because it's consistent, I'm not worried about it.

 

[Bobby_M]

Every time someone mentions maximizing efficiency or the merits of the exercise, you get a several posts that talk about consistency being more important. Has anyone ever argued that inconsistent efficiency is a good thing? It's like saying that it's better to not have lacto infections in your pale ales. I know I'm being a ******.

 

[Airborneguy]

Whatever works for you, is what's important. When I was sub-70%, it definitely bothered me. I'm now consistent at 72-75% and probably won't do anything to change that until I move into a bigger house and change my system, at which point I'll start the process again.

If the brewer's motivation is purely to be able to brag about a high number, that's obviously stupid, but some people might do it to save money, or to increase thier knowledge as Bobby said. It's not always a worthless endeavor.

 

[JKoravos]

The only advantage I see to my consistent 90-92% efficiency is that it allows me to get higher gravity beers out of my 5 gallon cooler mash tun. I like using the 5 gallon mash tun because, with very little head space, I loose less than 1 degree over the course of the mash. Not a huge advantage but an advantage none the less. Also, I've experienced zero downside to really good efficiency-no stuck sparges, no tannin extraction, etc. So why not-it takes the exact same effort.
I do agree though that consistency is the most important factor.

That is a good point that often gets overlooked. Many homebrewers are limited by their mash tun size. In my 50 qt cooler I could brew a ~1.080 beer at 90% efficiency, but only a ~1.058 at 65% efficiency.

 

[rjschroed]

Every time someone mentions maximizing efficiency or the merits of the exercise, you get a several posts that talk about consistency being more important. Has anyone ever argued that inconsistent efficiency is a good thing? It's like saying that it's better to not have lacto infections in your pale ales. I know I'm being a ******.

Thanks for the laugh Bobby.

My 2 cents. It drives me nuts when people get on here and brag about their super high efficiencies and it's not because I'm dialed in at 72-74%. Keep it simple stupid. I'm happy to consistently and easily get that efficiency on LHBS crush. So much stuff goes into measuring efficiency that I often wonder if the "My efficiency is 1105%" people can't read their hydrometer or measure volumes. It literally drives me nuts and I feel like it sets new AG brewers up for failure bc they are so worried about their efficiency that they forget to focus on the process. Dial in a process that you can consistently repeat at the same efficiency, regardless of that number, then you have my respect.

 

[IXVolt]

If breweries worried more about efficiency and threw consistency to the wind, we'd have the same beer all over the map. Dial in your consistency, then fine tune the process to where you are operating both economically and efficiently.

This is the reason we (well most of us) take notes during our brew day. If the beer turns out awesome we want a reproducible brew.

 

[ksbrain]

The only advantage I see to my consistent 90-92% efficiency is that it allows me to get higher gravity beers out of my 5 gallon cooler mash tun.

This. I can get 1.066 from 13 pounds at a reasonable water ratio with 80% efficiency in my five gallon mash cooler. I'd be spending more money on DME otherwise.

 

[_JP_]

The engineer in me makes me strive for higher efficiency. It's like a "neat freak" living in a house that just isn't "perfect" because the ceiling fan blades are dusty and it drives them nuts.

On the other hand, the best beer I've brewed yet was one that had around 75% efficiency, which is way below what I've gotten on the batches since, so it's making me think I need to throw all that out the window and concentrate on taste alone. There are lots of reports out there how a no-sparge mash is so much maltier and better tasting than one that's sparged. All at the cost of lower efficiency..... so it's a trade off I suppose.

In the end, make beer that tastes good. A batch that saved you $2 isn't worth if if you don't like drinking it. On the other hand, if you can get a 15% higher efficiency, I see it as a buy 8, get one free. It all depends on what's important for you.

 

[RyanDe680]

Agreed. I don't care in terms of saving grain. Understanding why you are 65% efficient when you're not consciously trying cut it back is a learning experience more than anything else.

^ that. Agreed.

 

[dlester]

I can see why you wouldn't care. In general I don't either. However, like others have mentioned, I desire consistency so that I can accurately calculate my results with my brewing software.

I think there is one exception, high gravity beers. Better extraction means you don't need bigger brewing pots, and/or more sugars from less grains. This, however, is the only exception I can think of. But, even this can be overcome by later additions of malt extracts (at a greater cost).

My homebrew suppy corrected their crush and I dialed in my single tier Brutus 10 and get a consistant 82% efficiency. I direct fire the mash tun and circulate several gallons a minute to fully extract the sugars. This works well for me and haven't given efficiency another thought until this thread.

Cheers my brewing friends,
David

 

[EricT]

My beer has gotten better since staying at the 76-77% range. I would sometimes get in the mid 80's and I think I ended up extracting tannins, and other unwanted flavors trying to maximize efficiency. Perfectly happy with what I got.

 

[Mikethepoolguy]

The time and money is better spent trying to increase penis size.

 

[Homercidal]

I can see wanting to simply be consistent, but I also think that if you aren't getting 70% r better, you should find out why. It's so friggin easy to get more than 70%.

But it's not like your BEER is going to be worse at 60% either.

I think most people should be able to get close to 80% on the usual equipment.

 

[dlester]

I can see wanting to simply be consistent, but I also think that if you aren't getting 70% r better, you should find out why. It's so friggin easy to get more than 70%.

But it's not like your BEER is going to be worse at 60% either.

I think most people should be able to get close to 80% on the usual equipment.

You must be an advanced brewer. Can you share your methods of efficiency? I know it goes against this threads "who really cares?" But, it makes good conversation.

David

 

[Homercidal]

Sure. Crush as well as you can without getting stuck sparges. Don't leave any more in the mash tun than you have to. Mash at proper temp.

I use a drilled copper manifold in a rectangular cooler and I built my own crusher. I got more than 80 percent right off the bat.

I am confident that most of the MLT designs on here will do as well or better. Slots, holes, false bottoms, etc.

I think as long as you have a decent crush and don't have a terrible fluid dynamic in your MLT for fly sparging, you will do ok.

I think there could be problems if you get your grain pre-crushed, since you have no control over that. you could try someone else, or live with it. It's not that big a deal. But I think that most of the stores ought to get you around 70% on the average grain bill without risking a stuck sparge. For them it's easier to sell grain that they KNOW won't be a problem, and a coarser crush also means more sold grain...