Efficeincy Help

Williams 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
S

soup67

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
143
Reaction score
1
I am flummoxed by my consistently low efficiency-- 60-65% after 40 or so AG batches. So I'm here for some suggestions. I've read the sticky, and have tried all thicknesses of mashes, long mashes, mashing out, single and double batch sparges, stir like crazy-- nothing has a measurable impact on efficiency.

I have adjusted my recipes accordingly and my beer is good, but I am really scratching my head as to why I can't get into the mid-70s with my system.

System is a rectangular cooler with a 14" SS braid.

My brew day today (temp corrected):

Recipe was an 1.072 OG IPA. 13 lbs of 2-row, 2lbs of Munich and 1/2 lb of C-40.

We have soft water, so I add 1 tsp each of CaCL and Gypsum per 5G. Mashed at 1.3 qt/lb at 153 for an hour-- stirred well, no dough balls. Mash temp was 151 at the end. Vourlauf and drain as fast as possible. Got 2.75g of first runnings at 1.084. Single batch sparge with 185 degree water, stirred for 5 mins, yielded 3.6g @ 1.031. Again, drained as fast as possible. I was very careful to fully drain the cooler each time.

One hour boil. It was dry and breezy, so I boiled off a little more than usual. Ended up with 5g @ 1.071 into the fermenter-- or about 62% by my math (Brewer's Friend Brewhouse Efficiency Calculator).

I have a buddy using the same crush and same water and getting 75-80%. Only difference is he has a manifold in his mash tun.

What am I missing?

Thanks.

soup
 
Last edited:
soup67 said:
Ended up with 5g @ 1.071 into the fermenter-- or about 62% by my math (Brewer's Friend Brewhouse Efficiency Calculator).

I have a buddy using the same crush and same water and getting 75-80%.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

It may be about what you're comparing to and considering "good efficiency". Is you buddy using the same calculation as you? I.e., is it possible he's calculating mash efficiency and not brewhouse efficiency. If your 5g into the fermenter was really "as measured into the fermenter" and you had more than 5g post-boil, then your mash efficiency would be higher. Really, 62% brewhouse efficiency isn't too bad.

I'd still advise to visually examine the crush. It's a very common source of lower efficiency.
 
Thanks. I put 5g of 1.071 wort into the fermenter. Recipe was calculated at 68% and to put 5.25g into the fermenter (to allow for trub), but I boiled off a little extra (and undershot my OG.

soup
 
The next time you brew, post a photo up of your crush and let us take a look and see if it looks like a good crush.

I assume you stir very well when you dough in, and of course stir like you mean it when you batch sparge. Have you tried splitting your sparge water into two additions? I didn't do better with doing that, but more than a couple of brewers said it makes a difference in their efficiency.

How much do you boil off? Do you get a nice hard rolling boil, and boil off about 1.5 gallons an hour or so? Do you leave behind any trub/break material in the boil kettle? Any dead space in the MLT or in the boil kettle?
 
Will do on the crush pic, but it looks a lot like what I see here as a decent crush.

I stir well and have tried the double batch sparge several times. It never resulted in any meaningful increase.

I boil rather gently, and boil off about 1g/hour. Today was a little different (dry and windy) and I boiled off 1.25g.

Today there might have been a cup or two of wort left in the MLT each time (how does one actually measure this?)-- I tilted the cooler and let the runnings wind down to a wee trickle.

I pour the entire brew pot into the fermenter, trub and all, so no dead space in the kettle.

soup
 
So you sparge up to your boil volume? About 6 gallons?

Have you ever tried sparging up to about 7 gallons, and then boil harder to condense the wort? Generally, the more you sparge the more sugars you extract so using more sparge water does tend to increase efficiency, but the trade off is using more fuel to do so.

How about your friend? What's his boil volume to start?
 
Yes, I sparge to my boil volume-- 6.25g for a 5g batch (I shoot for 5.25 into fermenter). My buddy does 10g batches, but boils off at roughly the same rate. He tells me his second runnings are around 1.010-- significantly lower than mine, which tells me I am leaving a lot of sugar in the MLT.

So the idea of a bigger sparge/harder/longer boil makes lot sense (or just buy more grain, right?). But that is what I am trying to avoid. It also seems like when I increase the grain to compensate for lower efficiency, the efficiency decreases a bit again, so I am never going to get to something consistent.

I'm not really trying to hit any specific efficiency. I just read a lot about 70-80% with this system, and I have never gotten there. I reference my pal simply because we are using the same water and grain/crush.

soup
 
How big is your mash tun? What is the depth of water that covers the grain during the sach rest? What is the before and after temperature for the sach rest?
 
48 qt Coleman cooler for an MLT. Not sure how much water was above grain bed after it settled-- maybe 3-4 inches? Mash started at 153 and finished at 151.
 
Would increase water to 1.75 qt/lb for sach rest followed by enough sparge water to cover grain bed by at least 2 inches. Possibly there's not enough water to rinse the grains.
 
It's no fair (to you) to compare your brew system with another. They are different and will always produce different results. It's like comparing salaries; only the person getting paid the most feels good and they'd still prefer to make more ;)

Consistent 60-65% efficiency is nothing to bat your eyelashes at because you have decent brewhouse efficiency and, most importantly, consistency. It's something you can count on, expect, achieve, and develop recipes around, consistently. This is better than many brewers can hope for.

Regardless, it sounds like you consistently want more sugar from your grains for every batch. That's your goal and is what you want to work towards. Right off the bat I would simply say: crush your grain finer. If you're using LHBS for crushing then run it through twice. If you have your own mill then tighten the gap. However you need to do it, get the crush finer. Since you're using a SS braid you shouldn't have too much worry about fine particles getting through. Draining your runnings may go slower but if the end result is more sugar from your grains then you'll be achieving your goal.

Want even more sugars from your grains then switch MLT and sparging methods. Continuous sparging is proven to extract more sugars from grain than batch sparging. It's a one time investment and you can probably gain about 5% additional efficiency, generally speaking.
 
stpug said:
It's no fair (to you) to compare your brew system with another. They are different and will always produce different results. It's like comparing salaries; only the person getting paid the most feels good and they'd still prefer to make more ;)

Consistent 60-65% efficiency is nothing to bat your eyelashes at because you have decent brewhouse efficiency and, most importantly, consistency. It's something you can count on, expect, achieve, and develop recipes around, consistently. This is better than many brewers can hope for.

Regardless, it sounds like you consistently want more sugar from your grains for every batch. That's your goal and is what you want to work towards. Right off the bat I would simply say: crush your grain finer. If you're using LHBS for crushing then run it through twice. If you have your own mill then tighten the gap. However you need to do it, get the crush finer. Since you're using a SS braid you shouldn't have too much worry about fine particles getting through. Draining your runnings may go slower but if the end result is more sugar from your grains then you'll be achieving your goal.

Want even more sugars from your grains then switch MLT and sparging methods. Continuous sparging is proven to extract more sugars from grain than batch sparging. It's a one time investment and you can probably gain about 5% additional efficiency, generally speaking.
Click to expand...

I batch sparge and get mid to upper 80's % extraction repeatedly. Haven't seen a continuous sparging system that does the same or better.
 
TrubHead said:
I batch sparge and get mid to upper 80's % extraction repeatedly. Haven't seen a continuous sparging system that does the same or better.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, well look how long my stick is...

=====================================================>

beat that :p
 
Last edited:
BTW, batch sparging, I typically have around 90% mash/extraction efficiency with an 84-86% fermenter efficiency, and my friends that continuous sparge don't see those kind of percentages but then again I crush my own while they use the LHBS. Crush is, by far, the #1 control variable in the efficiency game. The rest is usually just some small percentages. Spend a couple hundred bucks and eventually the saving in extra grain will pay itself off (not to mention you can always recoup some of that investment down the road if you ever decide to bail out of the game). The real questions are: Is it worth it? and, Do you want to have to crush your grain each and every brew, too?

I was just as happy when I was having a consistent 74% fermenter efficiency when using my LHBS grain mill. No complaints whatsoever because it was a great efficiency and, more importantly, it was consistent. I could rely on this each and every batch so I could formulate recipes with reasonable and achievable expectations. This is for more valuable than a moving target any day of the week. (My LHBS uses a MM3-2.0 so I was spoiled :D)

In the end, it doesn't matter what numbers you hit because 90% efficiency can taste like **** and 50% can taste great. ;)
 
soup67 said:
I mashed at 1.3qt/lb and got first runnings of 1.084. Per Kaiser's table, this is pretty close what I should expect, right? So I really don't think it is a crush/mash problem. Something is off with my sparge.

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency#Measuring_conversion_efficiency
Click to expand...

Yep, that's my thinking as well.

You said you stir for 5 minutes. Do you stir like the SOB owes you money? :D

What temperature water do you use to sparge? In theory, you should get the same efficiency with a cold water sparge, but some brewers say they do get better extraction with hotter water (perhaps more soluble sugars?).

I still think that at least part of this comes from the undersparging. If you're getting out, say, 3 gallons of first runnings, then the sparge would be 3.25 gallons and that is not optimizing your efficiency due to that. I would try starting with a bit more volume so you'd sparge more, and boil harder to reduce the volume, and I bet that would increase the efficiency at least a few percentage points.
 
soup67 said:
I mashed at 1.3qt/lb and got first runnings of 1.084. Per Kaiser's table, this is pretty close what I should expect, right? So I really don't think it is a crush/mash problem. Something is off with my sparge.

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency#Measuring_conversion_efficiency
Click to expand...

Agree. Assuming your using the same grain specs as the table, you're getting about 91% conversion efficiency. Nice detective work! I always did like the Kaiser's articles on efficiency. Those methods are how I determined my problems were in conversion due to a poor crush. I don't remember that handy table being there last time I looked. I always did the calculation by hand based on my actual grains.
 
Stir? I've stirred hard and long. Once even with a 5g paint stirrer attached to a drill, to the point that I was worried I beating up the grain. No noticeable improvement.

I normally use a big SS spoon. Maybe I should use this as a reason to make a cool mash paddle?
 
I guess humor is lost on some people.

In case you couldn't "pick up what I was putting down", I'll explain it in terms that you can hopefully understand:

I started by stating that comparing efficiencies is pointless and unhelpful because of the intricacies involved. I explained why I think a consistent efficiency of 60-65% is not necessarily a bad thing when brewing beer. (Granted, it's at the lower end of the scale, but that doesn't mean it's bad, per se.) I went on to give a couple examples of how someone could increase their efficiency.

You reply by quoting my entire post and stating that you get "mid to upper 80's % extraction repeatedly. Haven't seen a continuous sparging system that does the same or better.".

A) You set up a comparison of efficiencies (unhelpful)
B) You inadvertently suggested that anything less than 80's is sub-par (not true)
C) You compared one method of lautering to another, seemingly to indicate yours is superior (unhelpful and unfounded)
D) You provided no helpful advice to the OP's situation

Who's the troll here?

BTW, my stick grew overnight, see:
====================================================================> :D
 
You say you "vourlauf and drain as fast as possible". I would try slowing down the lautering, both mash and sparges. I'd also use a thick enough mash when possible that you have enough water volume to double batch sparge. I'd be surprised if those two things combined don't push you up to 75-80% BHE.
 
stpug said:
I guess humor is lost on some people.

In case you couldn't "pick up what I was putting down", I'll explain it in terms that you can hopefully understand:

I started by stating that comparing efficiencies is pointless and unhelpful because of the intricacies involved. I explained why I think a consistent efficiency of 60-65% is not necessarily a bad thing when brewing beer. (Granted, it's at the lower end of the scale, but that doesn't mean it's bad, per se.) I went on to give a couple examples of how someone could increase their efficiency.

You reply by quoting my entire post and stating that you get "mid to upper 80's % extraction repeatedly. Haven't seen a continuous sparging system that does the same or better.".

A) You set up a comparison of efficiencies (unhelpful)
B) You inadvertently suggested that anything less than 80's is sub-par (not true)
C) You compared one method of lautering to another, seemingly to indicate yours is superior (unhelpful and unfounded)
D) You provided no helpful advice to the OP's situation

Who's the troll here?

BTW, my stick grew overnight, see:
====================================================================> :D
Click to expand...

LMAO, deeeeestroyed

I agree with the consistency being the #1 goal. I'm usually at about 70%, but I wouldnt change my methods to achieve higher extraction. My whole recipe formulation and brewing process is based around that 70% so I'm fine with spending an extra dollar or two for a few more ounces of malt
 
stpug said:
I was just as happy when I was having a consistent 74% fermenter efficiency when using my LHBS grain mill. No complaints whatsoever because it was a great efficiency and, more importantly, it was consistent. I could rely on this each and every batch so I could formulate recipes with reasonable and achievable expectations. This is for more valuable than a moving target any day of the week. (My LHBS uses a MM3-2.0 so I was spoiled :D)
Click to expand...


I would relay that although you may have achieved better consistency with your LHBS' crush, this is probably the exception rather than the rule, as having your own mill and being able to measure the crush width between every batch would provide more measurable consistency than a lot of LHBS' "we'll take care of that, thanks very much", who-knows-what-the-width-is-today style.
 
clickondan said:
You say you "vourlauf and drain as fast as possible". I would try slowing down the lautering, both mash and sparges. I'd also use a thick enough mash when possible that you have enough water volume to double batch sparge. I'd be surprised if those two things combined don't push you up to 75-80% BHE.
Click to expand...

But with batch sparging, there is no reason at all to slow down the draining. A quick runoff of both the mash and sparge runnings will not reduce efficiency at all.
 
Yooper said:
But with batch sparging, there is no reason at all to slow down the draining. A quick runoff of both the mash and sparge runnings will not reduce efficiency at all.
Click to expand...

That was my understanding, so I just drain the MLT as quickly as possible. I've also tried double batch sparges many times with no improvement, although intuitively it seems like a second rinse of the grain would help.

I plan to increase my boil volume to 6.75g and boil a little harder (hopefully back down 5.25g) and see what the bigger sparge and harder boil does. After that, I'm not going to worry about it any more.

soup
 
Yooper said:
But with batch sparging, there is no reason at all to slow down the draining. A quick runoff of both the mash and sparge runnings will not reduce efficiency at all.
Click to expand...

Stuck mashes are reason enough for me to slow it down. The faster you drain the grainbed the more compact it becomes, sometimes leading to a stuck mash. I've experienced several and have learned that wide-open valves don't work on my system with my typical water:grist ratio. (BTW, the more loose the mash the higher the potential). I have a feeling that 3/8" valves (i.e. what most folks used to use years ago) do not present the kind of sucking pressures inside the MLT that 1/2" valves do. I'd bet that 1/2" has double the draw of a 3/8" valve and thus the ability to really pull those grains down to the filtering device which can lead to the stuck mashes I've experienced. As long as you can deal with a stuck mash and get your runnings out then this should not have an impact on your mash efficiency. Granted, there are many way to address this issue but a simple one is just not draining as fast as possible.

In addition, depending on filtering system utilized, there is the potential to break the siphon effect before you've drained as much runnings as you could, and if you cannot restart the draining then it will lead to an overall lower mash efficiency due to left-behind sugars in the MLT. You may retrieve some of those on your next sparge but you will still leave a higher proportion of sugars behind simply due to the dilution effect. I've worked with my friends system enough times to realize this is what drives his mash efficiency (and overall brewhouse) down considerably. He's since changed his usual MLT to a more efficiency and effective design that doesn't present this problem.
 
It quite literally terrifies me to disagree with you, but at least on my setup it does make a difference, and I have almost the same rig that the OP has, which is why I thought I could help.

I'm not sure why it makes a difference, but my theory is that when I crack it wide open, I simply leave too much wort in the tun because it's trying to drain faster than it can filter. This is partially confirmed by just remembering how much more wort was left behind when cleaning out my tun later (a lot), back when I went full speed, compared to nowadays (much less). So that had a cumulative effect over mash/sparge, leaving my end of run gravity higher than it needed to be.

As I've dialed in my process over the past couple years, I started with about 65% BHE stabilized. Moved up to 73% by changing my stirring practices (mostly better stirring at sparging) and working on mash pH. Moved up to 78% when I slowed down all my runoffs by about 2x, then moved directly to 82% by double batch sparging, stabilized now at 82% BHE for the past about 5 brew sessions.

Everyone else's mileage will certainly vary, that's just my own experience with this gear.
 
Sorry, I was editing my post above while you replied to add more details.

Anyway, as to what he had and what he went to:

HAD:
-70+ quart square cooler. The kind with a pull out handle and wheels
-The drain sat about 2+ inches above the floor
-Using 1/2" copper manifold shaped like a square with two parallel lines through it; soldered
-Then an unsoldered copper riser off the manifold to short silicone hose section that connected to internal barb on drain valve

The problem would arise for a couple reasons:

1) He would drain too fast and air would find it's way to the manifold while the grainbed was still holding wort which, when enough air entered the system, broke the siphon. If the remaining wort in the grainbed was not enough to restart the draining of the runnings then he was stuck with not getting the wort out that remained.

2) He found on some iteration of his design that the unsoldered copper risers/elbows on the manifold would leak air such that when the wort level in the grainbed dropped below those points it would quickly break his siphon. This situation more problematic since the siphon could never get going again due to a) wort level not having the height to push the liquid through the lines and start the flow again, and b) air would just quickly get back in the tubes at the leaky unsoldered pieces.

If you calculate the amount of liquid that can be held in the bottom 2" of one of those coolers it comes out quite high: 2-3 gallons!!. That's as much as I collect from my first runnings alone! Granted, not all of the space can hold liquid BUT any space not filled with a solid is good, sugary wort.

HAS:
-He moved into a 5 gallon round home depot water cooler (igloo water cooler)
-He switched to a false bottom built for those coolers.

He doesn't have the brewday issue that he used to and his efficiency has stabilized and gone up. I don't know off the top of my head what he was getting and what he is currently getting, but I know from being there that he occasionally would hit 50-60% on his old system. He still keeps his old system around for high gravity beers after fixing the unsoldered pieces and knowing his limits on draining speeds.

Hope this helps.

Edit:
And it looks like clickondan (above) has experienced the same thing in draining his runnings too quickly.
 

Similar threads

T
Mash Volume Higher than Boil Volume eHERMS
Replies
5
Views
556
Town9
T
S
Going from my old, simple set up to something more "modern", opinions?
Replies
16
Views
1K
JeffersonCoastal
JeffersonCoastal
A
RO Water - starting with lower pH
Replies
30
Views
1K
jerrylotto
jerrylotto
S
In search of...predictable mash efficiency for differing batch sizes & gravities
Replies
11
Views
750
Deadalus
Deadalus
luckybeagle
First Big Pastry Stout - Mash Confusion
Replies
30
Views
791
DuncB
D
Brewer's Friend 300

Latest posts

Back
Top