Best Efficiency Ever

[Druman07]

Hit 80%, up 17% from an identical recipe mashed a few weeks ago. Used my mill to double crush 2 row pale ale, despite what seemed to be a very good crush from my LBHS. Those intact, empty husks, present in the original, were crushed again, with only little shards of the husks remaining. I also mashed thinner, with a 1.6 qt/lb ratio, vs the same recipe done at 1.4. Based on what I have read on this site, the crush is the most important factor for high efficiency. but mash thinness may also have a contribution. And yes the sparge was sloooow, 50 minutes for a 1 gallon batch, which is another new record for me. The funny thing, is that ultimately efficiency is unimportant for small batches, but it's the challenge of getting every bit of potential from the grain that is so daunting, and when you do it, it feels pretty good.... Nice not having to add DME to makeup for missed OG targets, I feel that I have hit a new plateau.

 

[JohnSand]

I love those moments of achievement. While I have my process down pretty well, I'm still always growing and learning. It's one of the great things about brewing.

 

[day_trippr]

When I read the subject I immediately thought "My Tightest Crush Ever"

Cheers!

 

[tgolanos]

It is a great feeling hitting your numbers. I still get a massive sense of relief when I hit mine. The challenge now becomes maintaining that efficiency. I've personally found that hitting a range of 80%-84% keeps me happy - anything less than 80%, I'm disappointed; anything more is icing on the yeast cake.

 

[RM-MN]

Hit 80%, up 17% from an identical recipe mashed a few weeks ago. Used my mill to double crush 2 row pale ale, despite what seemed to be a very good crush from my LBHS. Those intact, empty husks, present in the original, were crushed again, with only little shards of the husks remaining. I also mashed thinner, with a 1.6 qt/lb ratio, vs the same recipe done at 1.4. Based on what I have read on this site, the crush is the most important factor for high efficiency. but mash thinness may also have a contribution. And yes the sparge was sloooow, 50 minutes for a 1 gallon batch, which is another new record for me. The funny thing, is that ultimately efficiency is unimportant for small batches, but it's the challenge of getting every bit of potential from the grain that is so daunting, and when you do it, it feels pretty good.... Nice not having to add DME to makeup for missed OG targets, I feel that I have hit a new plateau.

You were very close to if not within the definition of a stuck sparge. Adding rice hulls is one way to improve the flow, putting the grains into a fine mesh bag (BIAB) is another. You simple had such a tight filter bed that little wort would flow. The finer crush is the reason for the higher efficiency, the thinner mash gets faster conversion.

 

[Jtvann]

Unless he controlled the outflow and purposefully went that slow

 

[Jayjay1976]

Welcome to the tightest crush club! I also think that your thinner mash made a big difference in observed efficiency, though repeatability is more important. Keep doing it exactly the same way; hitting those numbers confidently every time feels great even if your efficiency is only in the high 70's. I haven't bothered to try it yet, but you can often times sparge again and brew a second smaller beer, with small batches its easy to find an extra ferm. vessel and space to keep it.

 

[Druman07]

No, I didn't purposely sparge that slow. I have seen rice hulls at my LBHS, time to buy some. What's the rule of thumb for addition to the grain bill?

 

[day_trippr]

The need for and amount of rice hulls is recipe and equipment dependent, imo. I only use rice hulls if the wheat malt or flaked adjunct amounts approach 20% of the grain bill, and for a 10 gallon batch will use around a quarter pound of hulls. I never need hulls for all-malted-barley recipes, to which I tip my brewer's hat to my Blichmann false bottom...

Cheers!