Efficiency for higher gravity

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.
M

mggray87

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2023
Messages
296
Reaction score
91
Location
California
I am tackling a very high 1.100-1.104 gravity brew saturday. Never attempted this high before. My last two 7% beers were 75% efficiency all said and done. Should i roll with it and keep it at 75% or lower to 70% with recipe. I dont mind if the outcome is under the 10% and is 9 or even 8. but if im expected to see maybe a 10% drop. 70% would atleast cushion it slightly.

I plan on trying to double mill for the first time for my Brew in a basket to maybe cushion slightly.

anyway I have both ways all set up and the brewing salts for both already done. just wondering if leaving it at 75% isnt smart. I guess either way saturday Ill get an idea on my system how the High gravity BIAB is gonna work for me. full volume mash.
 
All else being equal, your mash efficiency will be lower with a larger grain bill. How much lower will depend on your equipment and process. But as a swag, I'd probably expect roughly 6-7% lower mash efficiency for the kind of scale up you're looking at (assuming a no-sparge system).
 
VikeMan said:
All else being equal, your mash efficiency will be lower with a larger grain bill. How much lower will depend on your equipment and process. But as a swag, I'd probably expect roughly 6-7% lower mash efficiency for the kind of scale up you're looking at (assuming a no-sparge system).
Click to expand...
ok ill just go with 70% instead of my regular 75% and try for the first time a double pass on the mill and ill see what happens.....
 
Good to read this - I am at about 72%, and was going to drop it 10 pts, to 62%, for an 1848 Barclay Perkins RIS, intended OG 1.104. It's been many years since my last RIS, and I don't have the log unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
If you have data from previous brews that includes:
  • Grain bill weight
  • Grain bill weighted average extract potential (a default value can be used here if data doesn't exist)
  • Strike water volume
  • End of mash SG (after a good stirring)
We can calculate your typical conversion efficiency. Lauter efficiency can be predicted as a function of process, grain bill weight, and pre-boil volume. And since mash efficiency equals conversion efficiency times lauter efficiency, we can predict with good accuracy what your mash efficiency will be for a brew with a much larger than normal grain bill.

If your typical conversion efficiency is less than 100%, then double milling is likely to improve your conversion efficiency. If you are already ~100%, then double milling will not improve your mash efficiency.

Lauter efficiency drops off as the grain bill weight to pre-boil volume ratio increases (increasing grain weight for constant pre-boil volume.) This happens for all lautering processes roughly equally. Below is a chart that shows this effect:

Efficiency vs Grain to Pre-Boil Ratio for Various Sparge Counts.png


My spreadsheet can do the mash and lauter predictions for you.

Brew on :mug:
 
3v2p single tier herms, 45.5 pounds of malt, tight grind, underlet strike, fly sparge, 14% boil-off (14g preboil -> 12g cooled post boil). I lose another half gallon to kettle lautering (hops and cocoa goop in the kettle) and a gallon to fermentor goop putting ~10 gallons in kegs...

Cheers!
 
day_trippr said:
3v2p single tier herms, 45.5 pounds of malt, tight grind, underlet strike, fly sparge, 14% boil-off (14g preboil -> 12g cooled post boil). I lose another half gallon to kettle lautering (hops and cocoa goop in the kettle) and a gallon to fermentor goop putting ~10 gallons in kegs...

Cheers!
Click to expand...
A good fly sparge will beat the solid green line in the chart I posted above. It's not likely that a basket system could do as well as a good traditional 3 vessel system.

Brew on :mug:
 
When I mash high gravity worts, I tend to do it in two stages. Stage 1 is all base malt using 50% of the weight of the overall grain bill then sparge. I collect the sparge runnings separately in a different vessel and make it up to a full strike volume by adding first runnings to it (if necessary). Finally, I mash the remaining base malt and all of the adjuncts in that new "strike wort", holding aside a second sparge volume of water at 170F to rinse down the secondary mash.
 
doug293cz said:
If you have data from previous brews that includes:
  • Grain bill weight
  • Grain bill weighted average extract potential (a default value can be used here if data doesn't exist)
  • Strike water volume
  • End of mash SG (after a good stirring)
We can calculate your typical conversion efficiency. Lauter efficiency can be predicted as a function of process, grain bill weight, and pre-boil volume. And since mash efficiency equals conversion efficiency times lauter efficiency, we can predict with good accuracy what your mash efficiency will be for a brew with a much larger than normal grain bill.

If your typical conversion efficiency is less than 100%, then double milling is likely to improve your conversion efficiency. If you are already ~100%, then double milling will not improve your mash efficiency.

Lauter efficiency drops off as the grain bill weight to pre-boil volume ratio increases (increasing grain weight for constant pre-boil volume.) This happens for all lautering processes roughly equally. Below is a chart that shows this effect:

View attachment 838761

My spreadsheet can do the mash and lauter predictions for you.

Brew on :mug:
Click to expand...
Fantastic. Thanks doug. I'll have to chew on this but at first reading, awesome on the lauter efficiency curves. Kudos to you!
 
I haven't read any of the other responses yet so here is my own answer in my own words:

If you want to maintain good efficiency with high gravity beers, the key concept is that you need to sparge more and boil longer versus a standard gravity batch. Sparging more will collect extra sugars, and when boiled longer will concentrate down where you want them, ending up with a standard batch size of X number of gallons that you want. Either that, or you can brew as normal, but plan on making a smaller batch size, again allowing those sugars you've collected to concentrate down more than normal.

If you enjoy the full volume mash (BIAB), plan to use a much bigger volume, collecting a heck of a lot more wort and boil longer. (EDIT: And by longer, I mean like 2 or 3 hours.) Otherwise your efficiency WILL suck. Expect an efficiency loss close to 10-20% if you don't collect extra wort and boil longer.
 
dmtaylor said:
I haven't read any of the other responses yet so here is my own answer in my own words:

If you want to maintain good efficiency with high gravity beers, the key concept is that you need to sparge more and boil longer versus a standard gravity batch. Sparging more will collect extra sugars, and when boiled longer will concentrate down where you want them, ending up with a standard batch size of X number of gallons that you want. Either that, or you can brew as normal, but plan on making a smaller batch size, again allowing those sugars you've collected to concentrate down more than normal.

If you enjoy the full volume mash (BIAB), plan to use a much bigger volume, collecting a heck of a lot more wort and boil longer. (EDIT: And by longer, I mean like 2 or 3 hours.) Otherwise your efficiency WILL suck. Expect an efficiency loss close to 10-20% if you don't collect extra wort and boil longer.
Click to expand...
So if I normally boil 60 min and it's like 1.62g boil off. You mean what beersmith says. Add another 1.62g of volume to my mash and do a 2 hour boil???
 
dmtaylor said:
Otherwise your efficiency WILL suck. Expect an efficiency loss close to 10-20% if you don't collect extra wort and boil longer.
Click to expand...

Looking at his gravities, I don't see this getting to even 10% lower. Off the cuff, I predicited 6-7% in post #2, which I think is roughly what he'd see using @doug293cz's charts/spreadsheet.

mggray87 said:
So if I normally boil 60 min and it's like 1.62g boil off. You mean what beersmith says. Add another 1.62g of volume to my mash and do a 2 hour boil???
Click to expand...

So even though I think @dmtaylor's estimate of your expected efficiency loss is a bit high, the idea of mashing with more water is certainly a valid way to improve mash efficiency. The reason is that mashing with more water makes a larger overall volume of wort, with the sugars/dextrins spread "thinner" in that larger volume. After runoff, the same volume of (non-usable) wort remains in the grains, but it's at a lower gravity. Less sugars/dextrins left in the grains means more sugars/dextrins in the kettle. (But then you have to boil longer.) Or you can take the mash efficiency hit and adjust the grain bill accordingly.
 
At some point (varies by person and system), the sheer volume of grain in the bag makes it harder to squeeze like normal. So you get the one-two punch of lower lauter efficiency due to concentration while simultaneously sliding down in efficiency due to higher than normal water content.
 
VikeMan said:
Looking at his gravities, I don't see this getting to even 10% lower. Off the cuff, I predicited 6-7% in post #2, which I think is roughly what he'd see using @doug293cz's charts/spreadsheet.



So even though I think @dmtaylor's estimate of your expected efficiency loss is a bit high, the idea of mashing with more water is certainly a valid way to improve mash efficiency. The reason is that mashing with more water makes a larger overall volume of wort, with the sugars/dextrins spread "thinner" in that larger volume. After runoff, the same volume of (non-usable) wort remains in the grains, but it's at a lower gravity. Less sugars/dextrins left in the grains means more sugars/dextrins in the kettle. (But then you have to boil longer.) Or you can take the mash efficiency hit and adjust the grain bill accordingly.
Click to expand...
Mind you, without the flame out honey

Well added. Beersmith says I want to be at 1.091.

Well, maybe I'll use the 70% eff instead of my normal 75%. And do double mill AND 120 min boil and just see where it goes.
 
kevin58 said:
If you're using beersmith just increase your boil time and the software will adjust the volume required.
Click to expand...
I just did that and I'm ready for tomorrow. Question making boil 2 hours why did my ibu go from 98.1 to 108. The two hop additions still are set to 60 min and 15 min. But why would the ibu jump just By setting 2 hour boil. It shouldn't change as I'll just do a hour boil first then start my hour with hop additions??
 
mggray87 said:
I just did that and I'm ready for tomorrow. Question making boil 2 hours why did my ibu go from 98.1 to 108. The two hop additions still are set to 60 min and 15 min. But why would the ibu jump just By setting 2 hour boil. It shouldn't change as I'll just do a hour boil first then start my hour with hop additions??
Click to expand...
It's wrong. And in reality, you'll have about 90 IBUs in your final beer, as this is the ceiling for any beer. Physically only so much alpha acid can be isomerized without plating out somewhere in your fermenter or package before being served in your glass. So, with enough hops for >90 IBUs, regardless of the calculations, it won't matter AT ALL for THIS batch. You'll have about 80-90 IBUs.
 
As another data point if it helps, I'm anywhere from 65-75% depending on my beer gravities. 65 for an Imperial, 75 for a light pale ale.

Of course sparging, mash temps, other things play a role but when all else is equal, the grain bill effect keeps me somewhere in between those numbers.
 
I plan for reduced efficiencies and let my recipe calculate and increase the grain bill. Adding a couple of dollars of extra grain vs my time is worth it to me. I also set calculator for a 45 min mash which increases grain bill ever so slightly. If I’m short of SG at 45 min I just extend my mash time to pick up a couple of extra points. I use an Anvil Foundry with a bag in the malt pipe. I stir and lift pipe every 15-20 min to redistribute mash water from the dead space between malt pipe and outer wall (known issue with the Foundry even when recirculating). I also grind my malt fine. For low to mid gravity beers my mash efficiencies are in the low 70s.
 
youngdh said:
I also set calculator for a 45 min mash which increases grain bill ever so slightly.
Click to expand...

What calculator varies the grain bill size based on mash time? That doesn't make sense. The goal of every mash should be 100% conversion. And even if it weren't, where would any model get the data to predict a conversion % that varies with mash time?
 
DBhomebrew said:
You're setting a 45m mash which decreases conversion efficiency which in turn requires a larger grain bill to hit your desired OG?

Hedging your bets in lieu of honing your process to ensure full and reliable conversion and lauter efficiencies?
Click to expand...
I’ve honed my BIAB process as much as I can. BIAB is known for lower efficiencies so I just plan for it and move on :). The beauty of this hobby is we have choices.
 
I usually mash 45 minutes and have seen brewhouse efficiency averaging >90% with a fine crush and collecting every drop of first runnings from the mash and every drop of the sparge, batch sparged with an even split volume 50/50 between first runnings and sparge. I've achieved the same with BIAB by sparging the bag (either dunk or "pseudo-fly"). Trouble is, stuck runoff sometimes (especially when not doing BIAB but even in a bag it can be painful sometimes), for which it was more reasonable in my view to dial back on the mill gap by a few mils to average 80-85% brewhouse instead.

Conversely, if you're not getting full conversion at 45 minutes, you might want to mill a little finer. You CAN get there. Then it's a matter of how fine is too fine for YOUR system before it gets stuck.

But if you don't care about full conversion... well you don't have to I suppose. :)
 
youngdh said:
I’ve honed my BIAB process as much as I can. BIAB is known for lower efficiencies so I just plan for it and move on :). The beauty of this hobby is we have choices.
Click to expand...

BIAB is/was known for lower mash efficiencies because as originally envisioned (and still practiced by many/most) it's a no-sparge process. A no-sparge process will have (all else being equal) lower mash efficiencies than batch or fly sparge processes, because lauter efficiency is lower. But mash length has nothing to do with lauter efficiency. Mash length can affect conversion efficiency (the other component of mash efficiency), if it's too short. But incomplete conversion should never be a goal. Short mashes (or long) can be an effective control knob to influence fermentability, but mash length should never be chosen to target an incomplete conversion. If you're happy with the spreadsheet, that's cool. But if it behaves the way you say, it's based on a flawed premise.

ETA: Regarding/clarifying why it's based on a flawed premise...
It's entirely possible to get complete conversion (with a reasonable process) in a 45 minute mash. Extending the mash will not increase conversion. So if brewing software gives two different gravity predictions based on 45 minutes and something longer than 45 minutes, that's a flaw.
 
Last edited:
Great thoughts here, just wish my brain worked well enough to pencil it out. I get it in concept. Actually used to do a 90 minute runoff on my 12 gallon system and so far on this 5 gallon, Igloo system, about 45 minutes. I typically runoff 7.44 gallons, 90 minute boil at 1.1 g/hr boiloff, with 5 gallons net into fermenter with cooling and system losses. I'm hitting target gravities spot on.

I've really been wanting to dive into Ron Pattinson's world on some big brews, including 135 min. boils, and this seems a perfect opportunity. Just need to wend my way through the calculations. Appreciate the thread and the contributions.
 
Is gypsum sold at a local grocery store? Where can I get it. Noticed I don't have it.

Nevermind it's calcium sulfate. CaSO4 x 2H2O. That I have. Different name lol

Dang that's a lot of malt/grain. Phew. Warming up the mash temp
17050930903827591509762134129843.jpg17050931044611029265065959777853.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's too late for my $0.02 on this because you have already done it, but with really big malt bills, I normally mash overnight and let the enzymes go until they're pooped out. An amazing RIS and Wheat Wine both came out of this method.

Also, if you choose to use a separate MT for big beers, you can do multiple batch sparges to wash out the sugars in the grain; but then you need a longer boil to bring the volume down. For example, after the 1st & 2nd runnings were boiling away in the BK, I added the 3rd runnings once the volume was reduced enough to let them fit. It's a long brew day, but it's one of the best Barley Wines I have made. The kettle caramelization was amazing.
 
JAReeves said:
It's too late for my $0.02 on this because you have already done it, but with really big malt bills, I normally mash overnight and let the enzymes go until they're pooped out. An amazing RIS and Wheat Wine both came out of this method.

Also, if you choose to use a separate MT for big beers, you can do multiple batch sparges to wash out the sugars in the grain; but then you need a longer boil to bring the volume down. For example, after the 1st & 2nd runnings were boiling away in the BK, I added the 3rd runnings once the volume was reduced enough to let them fit. It's a long brew day, but it's one of the best Barley Wines I have made. The kettle caramelization was amazing.
Click to expand...
Starting OG. 1.100. Recipe called for 1.104. But mash efficiency was 72.3%. I actually had a little more batch volume than I was suppose too. I'd say that's because I started preboil with a little more after I pressed all the liquid out.

That being said I'd say it's a success. Oxygenated it. Gonna re oxygenate it again tomorrow 14-18 hours later. Just pitched.

Just scraped the vanilla beans and chopped em up. Now roasting my nibs at 275* for 12 min and going into my dark rum for 14 days!PXL_20240113_033421567.jpg
 
Last edited:
mggray87 said:
Starting OG. 1.100. Recipe called for 1.104. But mash efficiency was 72.3%. I actually had a little more batch volume than I was suppose too. I'd say that's because I started preboil with a little more after I pressed all the liquid out.
Click to expand...

You might know already, but that's basically called nailing it. Nice job.
 

Similar threads

F
stuck at 1.015
Replies
2
Views
432
doug293cz
doug293cz
Mr Drinklestien
Marzen Recipe Review
Replies
23
Views
1K
Mr Drinklestien
Mr Drinklestien
Airborneguy
Interesting Efficiency Issue
Replies
8
Views
505
DuncB
D
S
In search of...predictable mash efficiency for differing batch sizes & gravities
Replies
11
Views
762
Deadalus
Deadalus
fljim
Mash extract efficiency
Replies
2
Views
527
fljim
fljim
Williams Brewing 300

Latest posts

Back
Top