Efficiency Curiosity

[Gytaryst]

Now that I have the equipment I want, (I think), I've been focusing on increasing my efficiency. I've noticed in some of the threads I've posted as well as other threads, some of the more experienced and respected brewers on this site make comments like, "I never worry about efficiency" or "Efficiency is irrelevant to me." Those aren't direct quotes from anyone specifically; more a paraphrase of several comments from different members.

I will admit I don't fully understand how the numbers are actually arrived at, or all that they entail. I will also confess that my single-minded interest in efficiency has to do with me being a cheapskate more than anything else. In my limited understanding, if I want to brew a recipe that was designed for 75% efficiency, and my efficiency is only 65%, I need to buy more ingredients to get the same results? (that is both a statement and a question because I honestly don't know).

So therein lies my "curiosity." Is there more to it? I understand that consistent efficiency is as important or more important than the actual number. I get that. I also get that the ultimate goal is to make good beer. With that in mind - if I make a good beer at 65% efficiency, and then I can get my efficiency up to 75%, it seems to me that I can still make that same good beer but for less money? Am I missing something? Is it possible that a beer could taste awesome at 65% efficiency, but when scaled to 75% efficiency and all the numbers matching, not be as good?

Just curious is all

Cheers

 

[SlitheryDee]

I think generally you're correct. Higher efficiency means less ingredients for a given beer, but that's also not all there is to it. I've heard extremely high efficiencies being associated with excess tannin extraction, which will negatively affect the beer. I suppose there's also a balance between the sugars in malt and the other compounds that mainly affect flavor. Getting really good efficiency could be tantamount to adding adjuncts to the beer because the balance between sugar and flavor elements becomes unbalanced.

This is all just hypothetical to me though. I have indeed heard of homebrewers taking steps to keep their efficiency down because they had undesirable results at really high efficiencies.

 

[McGarnigle]

I haven't noticed many "efficiency is irrelevant to me" comments here. If they exist, I wonder if the poster is just saying he's not killing himself to create a system that hits 85% or whatever. If he has to pay a little extra for grain, so be it.

So I kind of see it as the opposite of the OP. You might get the impression here that higher efficiency (and higher attenuation) make better beer. They don't necessarily. And some people are pushing back against that.

 

[TheMadKing]

I think the only thing you're missing is that the monetary difference between a 75% efficiency and an 85% efficiency beer is approximately $1.50. So yes, higher efficiency means less malt, but not much cost difference really.

As far as taste, yes, if you brew a beer with a recipe that's expecting 75% efficiency and only hit 65% efficiency, your OG will be lower. So the beer will be lower ABV, the IBU's will be slightly higher, the body will be slightly thinner, etc.

You should be shooting for a specific OG, not a specific efficiency if you want consistent/predictable beer

 

[dyqik]

I think there's a matter of diminishing returns, as well as what other effects are due to whatever is causing the low efficiency.

If you are getting below 65% on a medium gravity regular Pale Ale when doing a standard batch or fly sparge, then there's probably something up with your process that may impact other things, and fixing that may benefit the beer. OTOH, if you are at 75%, then there's no reason to believe that there's something up with the process, and pushing to 85% won't improve the beer, and may cause other issues that make it worse. And getting consistency and predictability is also important.

If you have high efficiency and issues with the beer, there's normally something else you can do to eliminate the issues without reducing efficiency. Astringency can be dealt with by acidifying sparge water, for example.

 

[Gytaryst]

I haven't noticed many "efficiency is irrelevant to me" comments here. If they exist, I wonder if the poster is just saying he's not killing himself to create a system that hits 85% or whatever. If he has to pay a little extra for grain, so be it.

And as I said, "Those aren't direct quotes from anyone specifically; more a paraphrase of several comments from different members." To put it in context - my efficiency for the past few brews has been in the low 60's. Right or wrong I'm not satisfied with that - it seems too low. And I agree the difference in cost (for one brew) is negligible. It's not so much the exact quote I was trying to nail as the recurring theme that efficiency wasn't that much of a concern, or at least not a priority.

And just to be clear, I would be happy with 75% efficiency. My goal is not to get 99.999% efficiency. My goal is not even to get 85% efficiency. Someone else threw that number in.

... As far as taste, yes, if you brew a beer with a recipe that's expecting 75% efficiency and only hit 65% efficiency, your OG will be lower. So the beer will be lower ABV, the IBU's will be slightly higher, the body will be slightly thinner, etc.

I get that. What I was saying is if I figure a recipe at 65% and hit 65%, and then re scale the recipe to 75% and hit 75% - all the numbers match - is it the same beer (theoretically)? Like others have said, when you start getting into higher efficiency you start risking things like tannins and off flavors. So if you figure a recipe at 60% efficiency with an OG 1.050 and an FG of 1.010, and then figure the same recipe at 85% with the same numbers - is it the same beer or are there other contributing factors, (aside from the fact that it's impossible to step into the same river twice).

If you are getting below 65% on a medium gravity regular Pale Ale when doing a standard batch or fly sparge, then there's probably something up with your process that may impact other things, and fixing that may benefit the beer.

That would be my thinking as well, which is why I was "curious" about comments implying that efficiency isn't that big of a concern.

If I was hitting 75% efficiency consistently I would probably never mention efficiency again. And I suppose if someone posted their concern about efficiency I might make the comment that "I'm not that concerned about efficiency." Maybe that's all it is - although if someone is asking about their low efficiency I can't see where my mentioning that I'm not concerned about MY efficiency would be of any benefit to them?

... if you are at 75%, then there's no reason to believe that there's something up with the process, and pushing to 85% won't improve the beer, and may cause other issues that make it worse.

If I was at 75% I'd be happy. My efficiency has been in the low 60's and I'm not satisfied with that so I've been trying to figure what steps I can take to improve it. My ultimate goal is good beer - not high efficiency.

Say I brew a beer for $30 at 65% efficiency. If I can brew the same beer for $28 at 75%, why wouldn't I want to do that? If I brew that beer twice a month I'm saving $48 a year, or, I can almost afford to brew it two more times at 75% than at 65% for the same cost. Still not a bank buster, but . . . .

My curiosity was if the beer is the same from 65% to 75% as long as you scale the ingredients down to match, then why not strive for 75%?

I don't know that my question has been answered. Some have suggested that going from 75% to 85% could cause negative differences in the beer. If that's true than logic dictates that there are probably differences between 65% and 75% as well, although maybe not as noticeable.

Maybe it's a question that can't be answered. Hell, I don't know

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

I think there's a matter of diminishing returns, as well as what other effects are due to whatever is causing the low efficiency.

If you are getting below 65% on a medium gravity regular Pale Ale when doing a standard batch or fly sparge, then there's probably something up with your process that may impact other things, and fixing that may benefit the beer. OTOH, if you are at 75%, then there's no reason to believe that there's something up with the process, and pushing to 85% won't improve the beer, and may cause other issues that make it worse. And getting consistency and predictability is also important.

If you have high efficiency and issues with the beer, there's normally something else you can do to eliminate the issues without reducing efficiency. Astringency can be dealt with by acidifying sparge water, for example.

I hit about 61% Brewhouse efficiency on my typical IPA brew pretty consistently. I started to delve into it, and I keep pretty good brew notes, but I'm not seeing where I can really improve it. It's not an issue with those beers, but I'd like to brew a really big stout and I'm gonna have issues reaching my target OG with that.

The interesting thing is that I seem do do OK on my extraction, I don't seem to have a lot of waste in the MLT, I don't leave a lot behind in the kettle, so I'm really confused on where I'm losing it.

The good news is that it is consistent, so I can create and nail my recipes. I'm thinking for the big stout I'll just have a few pounds of DME on hand so that if I come in too low I can augment during the boil.

 

[dyqik]

It'll all depend on the reasons for the inefficiency, and where that inefficiency is occurring.

There are at least three places that inefficiency can occur - conversion, lautering (sub-divided into mash tun deadspace and sparging) and trub loss in the kettle. There's also trub loss in the fermentor, but that's outside the usually quoted efficiency into the fermentor.

It's worth looking at this web page for a fuller explanation:
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency

Poor conversion or maybe lautering efficiency may conceivably affect the color and taste of the beer from the original recipe - I can imagine that color compounds and caramel malt compounds may get into the kettle more readily than sugars converted from malt (which is why steeping grains works well for extract brews). That would mean that if you scale your grain bill up as a whole to compensate for poor efficiency, you might end up with a darker beer with more caramel/dark malt character than desired. Maybe it goes the other way for certain flavors, I don't know, but it's probably a bit different. Sparging inefficiencies might do something similar, in either direction.

Trub loss and dead space etc. OTOH are just losses in volume of the beer. That's not going to affect the flavour any more than just spilling beer on the way to the fermentor would. It might affect a dry hop, but not a lot else.

 

[TheMadKing]

I get that. What I was saying is if I figure a recipe at 65% and hit 65%, and then re scale the recipe to 75% and hit 75% - all the numbers match - is it the same beer (theoretically)? Like others have said, when you start getting into higher efficiency you start risking things like tannins and off flavors. So if you figure a recipe at 60% efficiency with an OG 1.050 and an FG of 1.010, and then figure the same recipe at 85% with the same numbers - is it the same beer or are there other contributing factors, (aside from the fact that it's impossible to step into the same river twice).

Yes it would be the same beer unless you have something wrong with your process where you are extracting tannins or something at a very high efficiency. If your OG is the same, your ingredients are the same, your process is the same, it is the same beer. The efficiency is irrelevant to the taste unless there is something wrong with your process.

From the rest of your replies, I'm guessing that your real issue is that you have low efficiency and wish to improve? Perhaps we can help!

The first thing you need to do is define which efficiency you're talking about, since there are several definitions. Let's assume you're talking about mash efficiency, since that has a large impact on the grain bill size.

Mash efficiency = conversion efficiency x lauter efficiency

Conversion efficiency = % of simple sugars in your wort / % of complex starches in your wort

Lauter efficiency = % of possible sugars in your grain / % of sugars that end up in your wort (accounting for wort volume and grain absorption of water)


So the question is: What is suffering? Are you not converting your starch to sugar fully? or are you not separating the sugar from your grain effectively? Or both?

A few questions to help pinpoint where your issue is:

-How do you crush your grain?
-How long are you mashing for?
-How are you stirring your grain at mash-in, during, and mash-out?
-What is your mash temp?
-How are you sparging?
-Can you post a recipe you've had a problem with?

 

[dyqik]

Personally I'm stuck at about 65%, btw. I think it's because my base malts stocks are nearly 3 years old thanks to nearly a year's gap in brewing while moving house and recovering from a broken collarbone.

 

[Sailingeric]

I am not chasing efficiency but I want to be consistent so I know how to plan recipes. I don't want to be shooting for a 4.5% beer and end up with 7% ABV or visa-versa. I have been hitting around 72% to 74% the last half dozen brews so I use 72% in my recipe builder and if I come in a little higher then that is a plus.

 

[Gytaryst]

-How do you crush your grain?
-How long are you mashing for?
-How are you stirring your grain at mash-in, during, and mash-out?
-What is your mash temp?
-How are you sparging?
-Can you post a recipe you've had a problem with?

How do you crush your grain? LHBS crushes it. I called and according to them their crusher is set at .38. The crush looks good - I don't think that's it.
How long are you mashing for? Usually 60 minutes. I was doing low temp mashes and going 75-90 minutes for awhile, but for the most part 152˚-154˚ for 60 minutes. I did the chalk and iodine test when I first started but I've gotten a little lazy.
How are you stirring your grain at mash-in, during, and mash-out? I stir a lot when I dough-in. I usually shoot for a couple degrees over my rest temp and then bring it down by stirring to make sure I don't have any dough balls or hot/cold spots. I was batch sparging, (either single or double). I stirred mildly during those. This last batch I brewed I did fly sparging for the first time and didn't stir.
Can you post a recipe you've had a problem with? This recipe was my last brew. According to the Brewers Friend calculator my Brew House Efficiency was 62.16%. The OG in the recipe is 1.065 - mine was 1.059.

 

[Gytaryst]

I am not chasing efficiency but I want to be consistent so I know how to plan recipes. I don't want to be shooting for a 4.5% beer and end up with 7% ABV or visa-versa. I have been hitting around 72% to 74% the last half dozen brews so I use 72% in my recipe builder and if I come in a little higher then that is a plus.

That's really my only goal, (72% to 74%). If I could stay in that range consistently I'd be satisfied. My last brew was 62% and, right or wrong, I'm not okay with that. Even if I could hit 62% on the dot for ten batches in a row I still wouldn't be satisfied. I can't wait until I can say, "I am not chasing efficiency" as well.

 

[dyqik]

Additional question: do you measure pH, or calculate and adjust your water to hit it?

Related to that, do you measure first runnings gravity?

 

[TheMadKing]

How do you crush your grain? LHBS crushes it. I called and according to them their crusher is set at .38. The crush looks good - I don't think that's it.

How long are you mashing for? Usually 60 minutes. I was doing low temp mashes and going 75-90 minutes for awhile, but for the most part 152˚-154˚ for 60 minutes. I did the chalk and iodine test when I first started but I've gotten a little lazy.

How are you stirring your grain at mash-in, during, and mash-out? I stir a lot when I dough-in. I usually shoot for a couple degrees over my rest temp and then bring it down by stirring to make sure I don't have any dough balls or hot/cold spots. I was batch sparging, (either single or double). I stirred mildly during those. This last batch I brewed I did fly sparging for the first time and didn't stir.

Can you post a recipe you've had a problem with? This recipe was my last brew. According to the Brewers Friend calculator my Brew House Efficiency was 62.16%. The OG in the recipe is 1.065 - mine was 1.059.

What was your first runnings gravity compared to expected? That sounds like a volume/lautering issue to me, possibly over sparging? Are you boiling off the expected amount of water? What is your mash efficiency showing on the session tab?

 

[Gytaryst]

Additional question: do you measure pH, or calculate and adjust your water to hit it?

Related to that, do you measure first runnings gravity?

Yes - I now calculate mash pH and adjust my water to hit it. Having absolutely zero knowledge of brewing beer, I only started brewing 2 1/2 years ago. So while I've been physically brewing beer for 2 1/2 years, it's been a learning process from the ground up. When I started I was concerned with other things and paid no attention to pH. Now . . . at this point of my journey . . . I've learned a little more about beer pH and I pay more attention to it. I have taken first runnings gravity measurements and written them down in my notes - but I had no idea if it was relevant information and to date I've never needed to go back and use my first runnings gravity numbers for anything.

That said: I'm still just trying to learn what all the numbers mean and how they affect the final beer, (which is the reason for my OP here). I've used online calculators to figure out my BH efficiency on the last 3 or 4 brews and it's been between 59% and 63%. That seems low to me. If you ask me why it seems low I couldn't tell you. I don't have a solid enough understanding about all that number entails yet, so the fact that it seems low to me is really just an uneducated "feeling" based on nothing.

While surfing around the web trying to learn more about what those numbers mean I started running into comments made by persons who have been home brewers for some time, implying that they don't concern themselves with "efficiency." My initial assumption was that if these veterans of home brewing don't concern themselves with efficiency then apparently efficiency isn't that important. But after reading into it more I realized that those who say they don't concern themselves with "efficiency" are usually achieving 72% or higher efficiency when they brew. So I suppose if and when I can ever get my efficiency up to 72% or better, then I can say "I don't concern myself with efficiency."

The real purpose of my post was in an effort to figure out exactly how efficiency affects the final outcome. With that in mind - are these two recipes the same beer?

62% Efficiency

85% Efficiency

 

[Gytaryst]

what was your first runnings gravity compared to expected? What is your mash efficiency showing on the session tab?

66.4%
I just started paying attention to most of these numbers. I'm still trying to get my brain wrapped around what they mean and which ones are more important than other to focus on.
On that brew my estimated Post Mash Gravity was 1.048. I had to read up to find out Post Mash gravity is the gravity of all the wort collected combined. The estimated pre boil volume was 7.86 gallons and I just rounded it up to 8.0 gallons. My measured Post Mash Gravity was 1.043, (which I assumed accounted for the extra 2.25 cups I added).

I did a fly sparge which lasted roughly 55 minutes. The water in the HLT was at about 175* but I didn't measure the temp of the wort coming out. BeerSmith calculated that I needed 9.57 gallons of water total. I started with 10 gallons and after the sparge I only had about a 1/2 gallon left in the MLT. I mashed 18 qts in at 162* for a 60 minute rest @ 149*. I measured 149.9* when I closed the MLT up, and when I opened it 60 minutes later I measured 149.1*

I usually have a high boil off rate and this was a 90 minute boil, so as soon as I was thru hotbreak I dialed back the flame so it was just a very gentle roll on the surface. And even at that I BARELY got 5.5 gallons into the fermenter.

Everything seemed to go smoothly - for the most part. The low efficiency was disappointing - but I'll kee a better eye on it next time.

 

[TheMadKing]

I have taken first runnings gravity measurements and written them down in my notes - but I had no idea if it was relevant information and to date I've never needed to go back and use my first runnings gravity numbers for anything.

I don't have a solid enough understanding about all that number entails yet, so the fact that it seems low to me is really just an uneducated "feeling" based on nothing.

are these two recipes the same beer?

Yes I would argue that they are exactly the same beer.

I would definitely agree that you can improve upon your process with the goal of having an efficiency somewhere between 65% and 80% and consistent, is fairly ideal IMO

Your first runnings gravity is important because it will be a clue as to whether or not your efficiency is suffering because of poor conversion of starch to sugar, or because of some other factor. If your first runnings gravity is significantly lower than beersmith predicts, that would tell me that one of your mash parameters is off (temperature, pH, crush size, mixing, time)

If your first runnings gravity is good, but your efficiency is still low, that means you have poor lauter efficiency and you will need to make improvements to your process or system to compensate.

 

[dyqik]

How do you crush your grain? LHBS crushes it. I called and according to them their crusher is set at .38. The crush looks good - I don't think that's it.
How long are you mashing for? Usually 60 minutes. I was doing low temp mashes and going 75-90 minutes for awhile, but for the most part 152˚-154˚ for 60 minutes. I did the chalk and iodine test when I first started but I've gotten a little lazy.
How are you stirring your grain at mash-in, during, and mash-out? I stir a lot when I dough-in. I usually shoot for a couple degrees over my rest temp and then bring it down by stirring to make sure I don't have any dough balls or hot/cold spots. I was batch sparging, (either single or double). I stirred mildly during those. This last batch I brewed I did fly sparging for the first time and didn't stir.
Can you post a recipe you've had a problem with? This recipe was my last brew. According to the Brewers Friend calculator my Brew House Efficiency was 62.16%. The OG in the recipe is 1.065 - mine was 1.059.

The first thing I see here is that you might not be stirring enough when batch sparging - the description I've seen from people who do it (I nearly always fly sparge) is to stir the bejesus out of it.

Recently I've found I have to do 90 minute mashes to get good conversion efficiency, particularly below 152F mash temperature. I'm testing conversion efficiency by measuring the sg of the recirculating wort with a refractometer, against the mash ratio numbers on the braukaiser link I gave above. The sg is still rising at 75-80 minutes. Iodine tests have been negative at 60 mins and later, suggesting the problem is either in getting starch into solution, or beta amylase action. The first would probably be crush, although I crush with conditioned grain as tight as my cereal killer type mill will go. The latter would be old grain, I suspect, or my RIMS tube overheating the wort somehow.

 

[TheMadKing]

66.4%
I just started paying attention to most of these numbers. I'm still trying to get my brain wrapped around what they mean and which ones are more important than other to focus on.
On that brew my estimated Post Mash Gravity was 1.048. I had to read up to find out Post Mash gravity is the gravity of all the wort collected combined. The estimated pre boil volume was 7.86 gallons and I just rounded it up to 8.0 gallons. My measured Post Mash Gravity was 1.043, (which I assumed accounted for the extra 2.25 cups I added).

I did a fly sparge which lasted roughly 55 minutes. The water in the HLT was at about 175* but I didn't measure the temp of the wort coming out. BeerSmith calculated that I needed 9.57 gallons of water total. I started with 10 gallons and after the sparge I only had about a 1/2 gallon left in the MLT. I mashed 18 qts in at 162* for a 60 minute rest @ 149*. I measured 149.9* when I closed the MLT up, and when I opened it 60 minutes later I measured 149.1*

I usually have a high boil off rate and this was a 90 minute boil, so as soon as I was thru hotbreak I dialed back the flame so it was just a very gentle roll on the surface. And even at that I BARELY got 5.5 gallons into the fermenter.

Everything seemed to go smoothly - for the most part. The low efficiency was disappointing - but I'll kee a better eye on it next time.

Ok so I see a few things you can tighten up on right now:

-Don't round up on volume, it affects your efficiency significantly
-your post mash volume and gravity should be taken after you sparge, not before, it sounds like you might be confusing these a bit
-You should stir your mash every 15-20 minutes during the mash
-Your boil-off rate seems very high, you should double-check your volume measurements. My boil off is half that and I boil ~7.5 gallons in a 15 gallon pot
-Your fly-sparge might still be too fast, a longer contact time with the grain will allow the sparge water to better mix with the wort contained in the grain particles
-If you batch sparge, make sure you're stirring often

How are you measuring your SG? if hydrometer, are you measuring the wort at the correct temperature (they are calibrated to only work at 1 temperature, usually 60F or 68F)

 

[Gytaryst]

... Your first runnings gravity is important because it will be a clue as to whether or not your efficiency is suffering because of poor conversion of starch to sugar, or because of some other factor. If your first runnings gravity is significantly lower than beersmith predicts, that would tell me that one of your mash parameters is off (temperature, pH, crush size, mixing, time)

If your first runnings gravity is good, but your efficiency is still low, that means you have poor lauter efficiency and you will need to make improvements to your process or system to compensate.

Good info. You explained it very well. However I just switched from batch sparging to fly sparging so there aren't any "first runnings" . . . unless I'm doing it wrong.

 

[TheMadKing]

Good info. You explained it very well. However I just switched from batch sparging to fly sparging so there aren't any "first runnings" . . . unless I'm doing it wrong.

You can run off your mash entirely before you begin fly sparging, that will allow you to take a data point, and will allow a longer contact time of the sparge water with your grain as you refill your MLT. Then once your water level is right at the surface of your grain, you can balance your run off with your fly sparge and carry on as normal

 

[passedpawn]

I don't care at all about efficiency (I used to be obsessed with it though). It's always in the 70% - 85%, which is fine by me. Yes, it changes depending on the beer (higher OG beers will be worse). But I DO care about my OG, which I always hit.

To hit my OG every time,

• Wait for boil to begin to ensure the sugars are well mixed in the kettle. Add bittering hops.
• Use refracometer to measure gravity
• Use concentration formula to know what volume I need to stop at to hit my OG.

Volume_final = (Volume_start * gravitypoints_start) / gravitypoints_end

So, if I take my refract measurment and it's 1.050 (50 gravity points) and volume is 13g, and my target is 1.060 (60 gravity points), my final volume needs to be 10.8g.

 

[Gytaryst]

The first thing I see here is that you might not be stirring enough when batch sparging - the description I've seen from people who do it (I nearly always fly sparge) is to stir the bejesus out of it.

That was probably true. Starting with the last batch I brewed I switched to fly sparging and I think I'll stick with that for the time being.

Recently I've found I have to do 90 minute mashes to get good conversion efficiency, particularly below 152F mash temperature. I'm testing conversion efficiency by measuring the sg of the recirculating wort with a refractometer, against the mash ratio numbers on the braukaiser link I gave above. The sg is still rising at 75-80 minutes. Iodine tests have been negative at 60 mins and later, suggesting the problem is either in getting starch into solution, or beta amylase action. The first would probably be crush, although I crush with conditioned grain as tight as my cereal killer type mill will go. The latter would be old grain, I suspect, or my RIMS tube overheating the wort somehow.

Interesting. I did the iodine tests for awhile but got lazy. I haven't really been measuring conversion. My last batch was 149* rest. I went 60 minutes and just started sparging without checking. That could very well be part of the problem.

I looked into getting a grain crusher. According to the LHBS I use, they set their rollers at .38, which he said was slightly finer than average. They can't adjust the rollers for every customers preference, (which makes sense). He also told me he's tried sending it thru twice but because of the rollers being set at .38 the grain is too fine for the rollers to grab the second time thru. I still plan on eventually getting a mill, but I'm sick of washing bottles so buying the stuff to start kegging takes priority over a grain mill right now.

I also decided to stay with a gravity fed system for now for several reasons. I have three converted 15.5 gallon sanke kegs heated with propane burners. The MLT is bottom drain so I can't heat it directly. I looked into electric heating elements but decided against it. I also looked into RIMS. That might be something I want to look more seriously at down the road. Right now I want to keep things as simple, uniform and straight forward as I can until I can get a better understanding of what I'm doing.

 

[Gytaryst]

You can run off your mash entirely before you begin fly sparging, that will allow you to take a data point, and will allow a longer contact time of the sparge water with your grain as you refill your MLT. Then once your water level is right at the surface of your grain, you can balance your run off with your fly sparge and carry on as normal

AH... Okay. Everything I watched or read seemed to suggest that you just vorlauf and then start the sparging process. I like the idea of draining everything first though. It makes more sense.

 

[TheMadKing]

That was probably true. Starting with the last batch I brewed I switched to fly sparging and I think I'll stick with that for the time being.

Interesting. I did the iodine tests for awhile but got lazy. I haven't really been measuring conversion. My last batch was 149* rest. I went 60 minutes and just started sparging without checking. That could very well be part of the problem.

I looked into getting a grain crusher. According to the LHBS I use, they set their rollers at .38, which he said was slightly finer than average. They can't adjust the rollers for every customers preference, (which makes sense). He also told me he's tried sending it thru twice but because of the rollers being set at .38 the grain is too fine for the rollers to grab the second time thru.

To do an iodine test properly you need to crush particles of grain to check the conversion within the grains themselves. Many people only check the conversion in the liquid wort which registers as negative because the conversion is much faster there.

No offense, but Your lhbs guy sounds lazy. A 0.38 gap is huge. 0.032 is more common for a 3 vessel system I believe. I biab and my gap is 0.028. I strongly suspect that your crush is at least a large part of your problem now.

And if the grain is too fine for the rollers to grab the second time through, there's too much space between the rollers.

 

[Gytaryst]

I don't care at all about efficiency (I used to be obsessed with it though). It's always in the 70% - 85%, which is fine by me. Yes, it changes depending on the beer (higher OG beers will be worse). But I DO care about my OG, which I always hit.

To hit my OG every time,

• Wait for boil to begin to ensure the sugars are well mixed in the kettle. Add bittering hops.
• Use refracometer to measure gravity
• Use concentration formula to know what volume I need to stop at to hit my OG.

Volume_final = (Volume_start * gravitypoints_start) / gravitypoints_end

So, if I take my refract measurment and it's 1.050 (50 gravity points) and volume is 13g, and my target is 1.060 (60 gravity points), my final volume needs to be 10.8g.

It seems like a pretty straight forward formula. I'm trying to get away from trying too many new procedures and techniques every brew day. That's how I've been doing it for 2 1/2 years and the end result is I have no idea what works, what doesn't, or how my current set up actually performs because I have no two brews to compare to each other.

And like I said, as soon as I can get my efficiency up into the 70's I'll probably start saying "I don't care at all about efficiency" too.

Cheers

 

[Gytaryst]

... No offense, but Your lhbs guy sounds lazy.

Ha Ha Ha, that's entirely possible. There's three home brew shops near me; one is only 10 miles from me, one is 18 miles and one is 40 miles. I go to the one that's 40 miles away, (for a lot of reasons). So my LHBS isn't as "L" as I would like.

I bought "The Brew Bag" for my MLT about a month ago and I've done two brews with it. I'm not sure if it's really considered BIAB though? BIAB stands for "Brew in a bag" or "Boil in a bag." I don't brew or boil in it, I just use it in the mash tun. I read reviews that said by using the bag instead of a false bottom you could use a much finer crush for the grain and increase your efficiency. It made sense to me, so I went with it. After two brews with the bag I'm now looking at false bottoms.

Now I'm thinking maybe I should just bite the bullet and invest in a grain mill before I throw up my hands and abandon the bag idea.

 

[GoeHaarden]

I don't care at all about efficiency (I used to be obsessed with it though). It's always in the 70% - 85%, which is fine by me. Yes, it changes depending on the beer (higher OG beers will be worse). But I DO care about my OG, which I always hit.

I'm on this boat, more concerned with OG. Consistent OG's is what will make consistent beer.

 

[TheMadKing]

Ha Ha Ha, that's entirely possible. There's three home brew shops near me; one is only 10 miles from me, one is 18 miles and one is 40 miles. I go to the one that's 40 miles away, (for a lot of reasons). So my LHBS isn't as "L" as I would like.



I bought "The Brew Bag" for my MLT about a month ago and I've done two brews with it. I'm not sure if it's really considered BIAB though? BIAB stands for "Brew in a bag" or "Boil in a bag." I don't brew or boil in it, I just use it in the mash tun. I read reviews that said by using the bag instead of a false bottom you could use a much finer crush for the grain and increase your efficiency. It made sense to me, so I went with it. After two brews with the bag I'm now looking at false bottoms.



Now I'm thinking maybe I should just bite the bullet and invest in a grain mill before I throw up my hands and abandon the bag idea.

Several members of my home brew club use a mesh bag in addition to a false bottom for easier cleaning of their mlt.

Brew in a bag (biab) is where you mash with the full volume of water in your boil kettle, and then just lift all the grain out at once with the bag. There's usually no sparge. But if you're using a bag in a 3 vessel system, you can definitely use a finer crush which will help your conversion a bunch, it just loses many of the benefits and of biab.

 

[pricelessbrewing]

Brew in a bag (biab) is where you mash with the full volume of water in your boil kettle, and then just lift all the grain out at once with the bag. There's usually no sparge.

Well that's just your opinion man. :fro:

One of the best things, IMO, is that biab is so versatile. Because it's just a (better) mash filter, you can really brew in whatever way you want. You can no sparge, or you can sparge and increase efficiency a bit if you do, or you can do a decoction, or multi-step mash, or single infusion, or direct fire (proceed with caution).

 

[TomVA]

My LHBS mills at 0.040" and I get a consistent 75-80% BH efficiency. I BIAB with full water volume and no sparging (so easy and convenient!), but I do squeeze the bejesus out of the grains after the one hour mash.

 

[Gytaryst]

My LHBS mills at 0.040" and I get a consistent 75-80% BH efficiency. I BIAB with full water volume and no sparging (so easy and convenient!), but I do squeeze the bejesus out of the grains after the one hour mash.

I did BIAB (partial boil) when I started. I wasn't sure how much time or money I wanted to invest in this "hobby" and that was a cheap way to get into it.

My challenge has been to build a system with few limitations that I can brew whatever I decide I want to brew, but that doesn't cost more than my house. Something I can brew on while I'm putting it together without having to wait until everything is finished, and that minimizes, (to the extent possible), spending money on equipment that I'm not going to need or that I'm going to have to upgrade in 2 months.

Not for any particular reason, but I just haven't considered No sparge BIAB. I like the idea of sparging. Like everything, I'm sure there are advantages and disadvantages.

For now my focus is simply to fine tune what I have. I've brewed quite a few batches over the last 2 1/2 years and it recently occurred to me - I've never brewed two batches, back to back, using the same equipment or the same process. I'm basically starting from square one on every batch. So rather than just brewing something and crossing my fingers, my goal is to dial in this system using the same process each time. I might even brew the same recipe each time to help narrow things down a bit.

Someone on this thread pointed out that I'm probably not getting the most out of my grain having the LHBS crush it. I had a grain mill on my wish list but it was down at the bottom. I moved it up to the next thing I buy, and then I'll go from there.

Cheers guys

 

[dyqik]

Have a look at the brewery efficiency troubleshooter page and spreadsheet on braukaiser's wiki. That might be helpful in evaluating things on your next brew.

 

[TheMadKing]

I did BIAB (partial boil) when I started. I wasn't sure how much time or money I wanted to invest in this "hobby" and that was a cheap way to get into it.

My challenge has been to build a system with few limitations that I can brew whatever I decide I want to brew, but that doesn't cost more than my house. Something I can brew on while I'm putting it together without having to wait until everything is finished, and that minimizes, (to the extent possible), spending money on equipment that I'm not going to need or that I'm going to have to upgrade in 2 months.

Not for any particular reason, but I just haven't considered No sparge BIAB. I like the idea of sparging. Like everything, I'm sure there are advantages and disadvantages.

For now my focus is simply to fine tune what I have. I've brewed quite a few batches over the last 2 1/2 years and it recently occurred to me - I've never brewed two batches, back to back, using the same equipment or the same process. I'm basically starting from square one on every batch. So rather than just brewing something and crossing my fingers, my goal is to dial in this system using the same process each time. I might even brew the same recipe each time to help narrow things down a bit.

Someone on this thread pointed out that I'm probably not getting the most out of my grain having the LHBS crush it. I had a grain mill on my wish list but it was down at the bottom. I moved it up to the next thing I buy, and then I'll go from there.

Cheers guys

BIAB really has no disadvantage that I can think of, except that you need slightly more volume in your boil kettle than with a traditional 3 vessel system, and you need some kind of pulley to get the bag out.

As priceless said: The process can be modified to incorporate anything you can do with a 3-vessel system. You can sparge, step mash, decoction mash, there's no such thing as a stuck mash, high conversion efficiency, faster lauter, fewer vessels, less cost. Any beer you can brew on a 3-vessel system you can brew with BIAB, but I would argue it takes about 1/3rd less effort and time.

 

[Gytaryst]

Have a look at the brewery efficiency troubleshooter page and spreadsheet on braukaiser's wiki. That might be helpful in evaluating things on your next brew.

Yes, I remembered you posted a link earlier:

... It's worth looking at this web page for a fuller explanation:
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency ...

I finally scrolled back to find it yesterday. I meant to thank you for posting it - great content. Thanks

 

[Gytaryst]

BIAB really has no disadvantage that I can think of, except that you need slightly more volume in your boil kettle than with a traditional 3 vessel system, and you need some kind of pulley to get the bag out.

As priceless said: The process can be modified to incorporate anything you can do with a 3-vessel system. You can sparge, step mash, decoction mash, there's no such thing as a stuck mash, high conversion efficiency, faster lauter, fewer vessels, less cost. Any beer you can brew on a 3-vessel system you can brew with BIAB, but I would argue it takes about 1/3rd less effort and time.

I might give the BIAB thing a try again, (down the road). I just ordered the Cereal Killer from AIH - $99 and free shipping was hard to pass up. So I'm going to give my system a few more batches to see what it can do. I understand the argument that OG is more important than efficiency. That said, when I can consistently hit my OG with an efficiency of 72%, I'll move on to tweaking other aspects. As long as my efficiency remains in the low 60's I'm going to still obsess about it - it's a mental thing.

Cheers

 

[TheMadKing]

I might give the BIAB thing a try again, (down the road). I just ordered the Cereal Killer from AIH - $99 and free shipping was hard to pass up. So I'm going to give my system a few more batches to see what it can do. I understand the argument that OG is more important than efficiency. That said, when I can consistently hit my OG with an efficiency of 72%, I'll move on to tweaking other aspects. As long as my efficiency remains in the low 60's I'm going to still obsess about it - it's a mental thing.



Cheers

I think that's perfectly reasonable. Efficiency in the low 60's indicates a problem somewhere in your process or system that can be improved. Keep us updated on how it turns out!

 

[Dcpcooks]

I'm of the opinion that efficiency is less important than repeatability. Grain is cheap. The key to making good beer is knowing how your brewhouse performs and being able to consistently hit your numbers. You can minimize losses in your system i.e collecting the sugars in an efficient and consistent manner. You can play with false bottoms or bags to improve collection of sugars. You can play with grain crush and malt conditioning. You can minimize loss do to hoses and pumps and trub loss.

At some point you will find your happy place. In my opinion that's all that really matters. This hobby offers many rabbit holes to climb down. You can argue points about biab vs 3teir vs fly sparge vs batch sparge vs dump everything in the fermentor vs whirlpool vs well you get my [emoji121]️. The key is to find a system that is repeatable. One that allows you to take a recipe and know how it will turn out on your system. Most of that comes from experience with your set up. I would say you need to know what your systems efficiency is and that it's repeatable. Software and good measurements during the brew day will get you to that point. After that is up to you to decide how far you want to go down the rabbit hole.

It seems to me that some folks find more enjoyment on the equipment side and some folks find more enjoyment with other parts of the process. You can be a number type, a yeast type, an ingredient type a buy once cry one type or a diy type. That is the best part of this hobby...

I spend most of my time and money on temperature control from mash to fermentation. Efficiency is just a tool to help you know how you've hit your numbers. So since I know what my efficiency is and I know I can repeat it I no longer really care what my efficiency is. If my numbers are off I know something else went wrong along the way and that's what I'd spend time looking to solve.

 

[V-Fib]

I might give the BIAB thing a try again, (down the road). I just ordered the Cereal Killer from AIH - $99 and free shipping was hard to pass up. So I'm going to give my system a few more batches to see what it can do. I understand the argument that OG is more important than efficiency. That said, when I can consistently hit my OG with an efficiency of 72%, I'll move on to tweaking other aspects. As long as my efficiency remains in the low 60's I'm going to still obsess about it - it's a mental thing.

Cheers

When I got my cereal killer my efficiency increased 16% from my LHBS mill. I recommend using what ever left over grain have to make a trial batch of something and aim low on the ABV level so you don't end up with a 8.6% amber ale like I did.

The bad part of the increase in efficiency is that now all my recipes have weird grain weights. I did my best to keep them X% of each grain but it has caused things weigh out odd. Before it was all even pounds/oz so I had a basic idea of grain I had on hand. Now its 6.4 oz of this, 2.9oz of that...