First All Grain Brew - Horrid Efficiency

[Blackdirt_cowboy]

I brewed my first all grain brew today, which is only my third brew overall. I've done one extract, one BIAB, and now one traditional AG. I'm just trying to find out which system is for me, and I enjoyed the traditional all grain brew the best. However, my efficiencies were absolutely horrible. I'll outline my equipment, recipe, and process, and hopefully someone can shed some light on what my issues may be.

My equipment is pretty limited, as I'm just getting started. I have a 10 gallon stainless steel brew kettle, and I converted a 70 quart Coleman extreme cooler into a mash tun. I used an extra cooler that I have as a hot liquor tank.

The recipe that I used today is for a Founders Porter clone. The grain bill is:

9.5 lbs Maris Otter
1.25 lbs chocolate malt
1 lb Munich
10 oz carapils
8 oz crystal 120
4 oz black patent

Hops:

.75 oz nugget at 60 min
.75 oz crystal at 20 min
.75 oz willamette at 20 min
.25 oz crystal at 5 min
.25 oz willamette at 5 min

White labs California ale yeast wlp001
I made a 2 liter starter yesterday and had it on a stir plate since noon yesterday.

As for my process, I heated my strike water (4.1 gallons/1.25 qt per lb) to 171 and put it in my mash tun to warm it up. I lost three degrees to the mash tun and then added my grains. I stirred well and broke up all dough balls. The mash temp stabilized at my target temperature of 155°. I mashed for 60 minutes and only lost 1°. I drained the wort from the mash tun and took a sample. Gravity of first runnings was 1.070, which gave me a conversion of only 80.4%.

Next I batch sparged with 5 gallons of 170 degree water for ten minutes. I drained the sparge water into my boil kettle and stirred it thouroughly to mix with the first runnings. I took another sample and had a pre boil gravity of 1.041. The recipe estimate for pre boil gravity was 1.048. This gave me a pre boil efficiency of only 65%, or 24 ppg.

My total boil volume ended up being 7.67 gallons. I was shooting for 7.2 gallons. I brought the wort up to a boil, and made my hop additions. The boil lasted for 75 minutes. At flame out, I used my immersion chiller to bring the wort down to 66° within 14 minutes. I whirlpooled by hand a let the wort sit for 20 minutes. Then I drained the kettle to my fermenter and took another sample. The gravity of this sample was 1.053, well short of the 1.066 the recipe estimated. I ended up with 5.5 gallons in the fermenter, which is what I was aiming for, but ending kettle efficiency was only 63%. This gave me a final brewhouse efficiency of only 60%. That being said, I hit all my volumes dead on except boil volume. I had about a half gallon extra boil volume over what I was aiming for.

Now, I have a couple of theories of what could have happened. I buy all my grains pre crushed from Austin Homebrew Supply. I had them double crush this batch of grains as I was intending to do BIAB again. When the grains arrived, however, a lot of the barley appeared whole. I wish I would have taken a picture, but I didn't. I think it's possible that the crush is no good. Has anyone else had this issue with AHS?

Second, I had my water tested and it is highly, highly alkaline. My RO system is currently down, so I'm brewing with this highly alkaline water. According to bru'n water, my mash ph should've have been around 6.0. I don't have a ph meter to verify this, so I guess that's on my short list of upcoming purchases. Could that high of a ph have that negative of an effect on my efficiencies?

Perhaps my ph issues coupled with a poor crush combined to reduce my efficiencies. I'm just not sure. I don't have the brewing experience to be able to say for sure what went wrong. That's why I'm turning to the experts here. If any of y'all can help shed some light on what went wrong, I would be eternally grateful.

 

[doug293cz]

It all starts with your terrible conversion efficiency. Your lauter efficiency seems pretty close to optimal. The biggest issue is most likely your crush. If you indeed had intact grains, that is a large part of the problem. You get almost no conversion from uncracked kernels, and larger grits convert significantly slower than smaller grits. The extremely high pH may have also played a role in slowing the rate of conversion. Your pre-boil SG was higher than would be expected based on the SG of your first runnings. This indicates that conversion was continuing to occur during your sparge, because conversion was not complete at the end of your mash.

I wouldn't buy pre-crushed grain from any supplier that has uncracked kernels in the crush. The only way to really get control of your efficiency is to get your own mill. Corona style mills can be had for less than $30, and many brewers use them successfully. A two roll mill can be had for around $100. The Cereal Killer is well reviewed, but the Barley Crusher does not have as good reviews. You can get a really nice three roll mill (Kegco) for about $150. Waiting for sales, or finding coupon codes, can save some $$ on the Cereal Killer or Kegco.

Brew on

 

[Blackdirt_cowboy]

Thanks Doug. My last BIAB batch also had terrible efficiency. It was 67%, and I was surprised that the traditional AG batch was even worse. May have had something g to do with the high amounts of specialty grains and lower diastatic power. AHS also crushed those grains for me. Looks like a grain mill is in my future.

 

[SleepyCreekBrews]

Hmmm, at first, I though you had too much water until I saw the long boil time.

It's entirely possible the PH and crush could account for the difference, but I was also wondering if you had stirred the bash at all during the 60 mins...that might also contribute if you didn't.

correcting PH with PH buffer is an easy fix, and so is stirring, so try that next time and see how it goes.
...and RDWHAHB

 

[Blackdirt_cowboy]

I did not stir during the 60 minute mash. I did stir when I added the sparge water. I can't imagine not stirring knocking 15 points off of efficiency, but it probably did contribute somewhat. I'll try stirring at the 30 minute mark next time and see if that helps any. Thanks for the tips!!

 

[thehaze]

I would stir every 20 minutes and perhaps make the mash 75-90 minutes, if you are not changing the crush on your grains. You could try ordering finer crushed grains.

The one shop in UK I order from lets you decide the crush. Last time I opted for .039 ( aprox. 1 mm ) and it was fine, but not flour fine. I got mash efficiency up to 89%.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Ultimately I would highly, HIGHLY recommend anyone brewing all-grain get their own mill.

pH buffers like 5.2 really don't work well, if at all. If your water is very highly alkaline then RO is a good bet as it seems you're already aware. Lactic or phosphoric acid could be used to reduce the pH as well, but at a point you'll actually begin to taste the byproducts.

 

[SleepyCreekBrews]

There's only a certain amount of factors that affect your conversion efficiency :

• starch extraction,
• pH,
• crush,
• diastatic power of grain,
• mash temperature,
• mash type
• and mash time.

What we don't know (you didn't mention) was whether there was any remaining starch in the runnings that could've been converted, right? If there wasn't ,your process did the best it could with what it had. If there was starch remaining, well, that's another story entirely.
Prolly a good idea to do an starch (iodine) test in the future if you're super concerned about it.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Your efficiency will increase if you mash at 150 degrees F. instead of 155 degrees F.

I have my 2 roll grain mill gap set at 0.036"

https://mashmadeeasy.yolasite.com/

 

[eadavis80]

Your efficiency will increase if you mash at 150 degrees F. instead of 155 degrees F.

I have my 2 roll grain mill gap set at 0.036"

https://mashmadeeasy.yolasite.com/

It's my understanding that mash temp impacts FERMENTABILITY of the wort - not the actual efficiency. Is that not true? What I mean is that a higher mash temp will usually leave more body/mouthfeel, but a higher FG while a lower mash temp will result in a thinner beer, but probably a lower FG, thus higher ABV.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

It's my understanding that mash temp impacts FERMENTABILITY of the wort - not the actual efficiency. Is that not true? What I mean is that a higher mash temp will usually leave more body/mouthfeel, but a higher FG while a lower mash temp will result in a thinner beer, but probably a lower FG, thus higher ABV.

Maybe I'm looking at this incorrectly, but from the chart(s) present within the braukaiser link which I have placed below, it appears that maximum efficiency occurs at 66 degrees C., wherein 66 degrees C. = 150.8 degrees F. Are not fermentability and efficiency intricately linked?

Increasing mash time from 60 minutes to 75 or 90 minutes should also have beneficial efficiency effect, as will slightly decreasing the grain crush gap.

The main concern with gap tightening is that at some juncture you may begin to experience the dreaded stuck sparge, with little to no wort run-off. The cure here is often found to be adding and stirring into the mash some quantity of Rice Hulls.

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.ph...ity_and_efficiency_in_single_infusion_mashing

https://mashmadeeasy.yolasite.com/

 

[wilserbrewer]

Copied from your link....

"The higher temperature mash outperformed when it comes to extraction efficiency. This is a result of the stronger alpha amylase activity and possibly better gelatinization of the starches. Alpha amylase is the main enzyme for converting starch into water soluble glucose chains."

I don't believe fermentability and efficiency are intricately linked. There may be a small correlation, but I've never heard this theory.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I will read it again, more closely, and I thank you for pointing this out to me.

That leaves mill gap and mash time as the best initial bets. If the OP is using BIAB, it is my present understanding that he should be able to close down the mill gap appreciably with little concern. I need to consider switching to this, as presently I mash in a braid equipped cooler conversion.

Edit: I just read it again, and it is states that the initially lower efficiency seen from a lower temperature mash can be off-set by using a longer mash time.

https://mashmadeeasy.yolasite.com/

 

[helibrewer]

Mash pH and crush. A mash pH of 6 is about 700X more alkaline than the optimal pH....that is huge. Combine that with a poor grist grind and I think you have your answer.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Mash pH and crush. A mash pH of 6 is about 700X more alkaline than the optimal pH....that is huge. Combine that with a poor grist grind and I think you have your answer.

Another of our forum members recently carried out some carefully undertaken sample batch sized tests wherein mash pH's ranging from 5.8 to 5.35 yielded identical efficiency results. Admittedly though, this test was not taken out to pH 6.0.

 

[Blackdirt_cowboy]

Mash pH and crush. A mash pH of 6 is about 700X more alkaline than the optimal pH....that is huge. Combine that with a poor grist grind and I think you have your answer.

That was my thoughts exactly. I've got new membranes for my RO system on the way. Then I can build my water accordingly. That will take care of that issue. I guess I should order a mill as well. I've been looking around at them. I've pretty much narrowed it down to the kegco 3 roller mill or the monster mill mm3. I want to buy once a be done. What are y'all thoughts on these two mills?

 

[eric19312]

Perhaps my ph issues coupled with a poor crush combined to reduce my efficiencies. I'm just not sure. I don't have the brewing experience to be able to say for sure what went wrong. That's why I'm turning to the experts here. If any of y'all can help shed some light on what went wrong, I would be eternally grateful.

I think you got it. Both of these are an issue.

For the poor crush result the answer is to get your own mill. You will never have that issue again and you will gain the advantage of being able to buy base malts in 50lb sacks at considerable savings. Until you have your own mill you can compensate by extending the mash time when the crush looks poor. Actually you easily could have decided to extend mash time when you checked the gravity of runnings on this batch and saw you were only at 80% conversion. Another 30-60 minutes probably would have finished the job.

As for the pH if you were really at pH 6 that probably was a contributing issue. Best to check a couple calculators and if they are in agreement that pH is that high a small lactic acid addition to the mash or use of some acid malt will help. Easy solution would probably be to get that RO system fixed then most of your beers should be pretty close to good mash pH and your salt additions will be more about flavor. If you are going to be brewing with tap water a pH meter may be best way to go but not usually something for a beginning brewer to have to mess with. I say this because water reports from my water authority are averages. I predict pH using Bru'n Water spreadsheet and most of the time it is fine but occasionally I get unexpected result. I believe this is due to variability of the water I am using.

 

[eric19312]

That was my thoughts exactly. I've got new membranes for my RO system on the way. Then I can build my water accordingly. That will take care of that issue. I guess I should order a mill as well. I've been looking around at them. I've pretty much narrowed it down to the kegco 3 roller mill or the monster mill mm3. I want to buy once a be done. What are y'all thoughts on these two mills?

I have not used either of these. Am still trying to wear out my barley crusher to justify the upgrade. I am not sure about the advantage of the 3 roller mills over the 2 roller mills. When this thing finally dies I will probably upgrade to the MM2 for the larger harder rollers and reportedly better manufacturing quality. But my BC did a fine job yesterday chugging through about 35 lbs of grain no issues and 79.6% Brewhouse Efficiency.

 

[Qhrumphf]

I apparently got (and get) a lot more mileage out of my BC than others. The MM mills are fantastic if you're able/willing to pay for them.

A 3 roller mill, all else being equal, should allow more exposed grain kernel contents while leaving the husks more intact. How effective the difference actually is is another story. The same thing can be attained using conditioned grain.

The difference really doesn't matter much unless you're fly sparging or brewing large batches.

 

[eric19312]

I apparently got (and get) a lot more mileage out of my BC than others.

3400 lbs through my BC so far. Still going strong. Have to poke the roller with a stick (long handled plastic spoon actually) every once in awhile.

The difference really doesn't matter much unless you're fly sparging or brewing large batches.

Do you mean intact husks are advantage for methods other than BIAB? Just clarifying as I do fly sparge but found when I switched from batch sparge in a cooler to recirculating mash + fly sparge I needed to back off on my crush a bit to improve efficiency.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Generally one wants the husks to be greatly intact so you do not wind up with a stuck sparge. With BIAB I'm not sure that this matters much.

https://mashmadeeasy.yolasite.com/

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Be careful to adjust only one process parameter per batch, else you will never know which specific change led to raising your efficiency (assuming that it goes up).

https://mashmadeeasy.yolasite.com/

 

[doug293cz]

There's only a certain amount of factors that affect your conversion efficiency :

• starch extraction,
• pH,
• crush,
• diastatic power of grain,
• mash temperature,
• mash type
• and mash time.

What we don't know (you didn't mention) was whether there was any remaining starch in the runnings that could've been converted, right? If there wasn't ,your process did the best it could with what it had. If there was starch remaining, well, that's another story entirely.
Prolly a good idea to do an starch (iodine) test in the future if you're super concerned about it.

At a mash thickness of 1.25 qt/lb, the first runnings wort would have an SG of 1.095 - 1.096 @ 100% starch conversion (ref.) The fact that OP's first runnings wort only had an SG of 1.070 tells us that somewhere around 24% of the available starch had not been converted. No need for an iodine test.

Brew on

 

[Qhrumphf]

3400 lbs through my BC so far. Still going strong. Have to poke the roller with a stick (long handled plastic spoon actually) every once in awhile.



Do you mean intact husks are advantage for methods other than BIAB? Just clarifying as I do fly sparge but found when I switched from batch sparge in a cooler to recirculating mash + fly sparge I needed to back off on my crush a bit to improve efficiency.

Finer crush will almost always yield a higher conversion efficiency. With fly sparging in particular, too fine means slow if not poor lautering, which means it doesn't all make it into the kettle. It's a balancing act. With batch sparging as you're draining it all it's not as big of a deal unless it sticks, which is certainly possible with a finer crush.

Shredding husks isn't really ideal at all as they can lead to increased tannins/polyphenols, however if your temps and pH are in line and you don't oversparge I've never had a detectable issue. However I haven't had a shredding issue since switching from a Corona mill to a BC years ago.

That and large batches that get stuck are a pain even with batch sparging.

And I've probably put at least that much through my BC as well. I do now have to strip and fully clean it every 100 lbs or so or the passive roller starts sticking, but simply brushing it out afterwards was sufficient for a long time (and mostly sufficient now). Although if I could use the big boy for pilot batches I would lol (commercial 3 roller that'll mill an entire sack in about 30 seconds), but I still use my BC regularly.

 

[doug293cz]

Maybe I'm looking at this incorrectly, but from the chart(s) present within the braukaiser link which I have placed below, it appears that maximum efficiency occurs at 66 degrees C., wherein 66 degrees C. = 150.8 degrees F. Are not fermentability and efficiency intricately linked?
...

Fermentability is a measure of the ratio of small (fermentable) sugars to large (unfermentable) sugars and any residual soluble starch. Most yeasts can handle mono- and di-saccharides, and some can handle tri-saccharides. Tetra-saccharides and larger are unfermentable, but soluble.

Efficiency is a measure of how much of the insoluble original starch has been made soluble (but not necessarily fermentable.) Whatever is in solution in the wort affects the SG, which is what is used to determine efficiency.

So no, efficiency and fermentability are not intricately linked. They may be somewhat correlated under most circumstances, but it is not necessary for them to correlate.

Brew on

 

[Blackdirt_cowboy]

At a mash thickness of 1.25 qt/lb, the first runnings wort would have an SG of 1.095 - 1.096 @ 100% starch conversion (ref.) The fact that OP's first runnings wort only had an SG of 1.070 tells us that somewhere around 24% of the available starch had not been converted. No need for an iodine test.

Brew on

With that being said, it has to be related to my water and/or my crush, correct? My temperatures were spot on. The only other thing I can think of, is that the diastatic power of this grain bill was only 48 with all the specialty grains in it. Should I have mashed longer than 60 minutes, and also sparged twice?

 

[doug293cz]

With that being said, it has to be related to my water and/or my crush, correct? My temperatures were spot on. The only other thing I can think of, is that the diastatic power of this grain bill was only 48 with all the specialty grains in it. Should I have mashed longer than 60 minutes, and also sparged twice?

Sparging twice wouldn't have given much improvement with such low conversion efficiency. Your lauter efficiency is already at 87%+. It's really insufficient conversion that is the issue.

For the conversion issue, crush is probably the biggest contributor. Given the low diastatic power, and high mash pH, it's likely that a longer mash would have given better conversion efficiency, especially since there is evidence that conversion was continuing during your sparge.

Brew on

 

[Qhrumphf]

With that being said, it has to be related to my water and/or my crush, correct? My temperatures were spot on. The only other thing I can think of, is that the diastatic power of this grain bill was only 48 with all the specialty grains in it. Should I have mashed longer than 60 minutes, and also sparged twice?

Seldom in the world is it "has to be" but I'd bank on "most likely" crush with a secondary pH influence.

I doubt DP is much a factor. Of your starchy grains, all are enzymatic enough to self-convert. The others need minimal conversion in the first place- hence why they can be used as steeping grains. Low DP is the biggest concern when lots of non-enzymatic starchy grain is involved- think heavy amounts of flaked corn or unmalted wheat. The enzymes getting diluted enough to have trouble self-converting may be a *slight* issue, but I doubt it'd be that noticeable if it's an issue at all.

 

[brewbama]

Some ideas: 1. Mash longer or crush better (or both) to ensure complete conversion. An indication is your second run should be closer to 1.010. 2. Plug your grain bill into a water calculator to get a close enough pH. Use less than 5ml lactic acid to get within 5.3-5.4. 3. Find where you're system is wasting water like ensuring your mash/lauter tun drains completely to increase efficiency.

 

[doug293cz]

Like others have said: 1. Mash longer or crush better (or both) to ensure complete conversion. An indication is your second run should be closer to 1.010. 2. Find where you're system is wasting water like ensuring your mash/lauter tun drains completely to increase efficiency.

Actually, for OP's specific grain bill and volumes, second runnings should have had an SG of about 1.020, and pre-boil SG should have been about 1.037 - 1.038. The fact that pre-boil was 1.041, indicates that second runnings were significantly higher than 1.020 (about 1.025 - 1.026 actually.) The higher than expected SG for the second runnings indicates that conversion was continuing during the time from initial run-off to sparge run-off. This continued conversion during sparge tells us that a longer mash time would have resulted in better conversion efficiency.

Brew on

 

[tennesseean_87]

3400 lbs through my BC so far. Still going strong. Have to poke the roller with a stick (long handled plastic spoon actually) every once in awhile.



Do you mean intact husks are advantage for methods other than BIAB? Just clarifying as I do fly sparge but found when I switched from batch sparge in a cooler to recirculating mash + fly sparge I needed to back off on my crush a bit to improve efficiency.

Generally one wants the husks to be greatly intact so you do not wind up with a stuck sparge. With BIAB I'm not sure that this matters much.

https://mashmadeeasy.yolasite.com/

Many in a Recirculating BIAB thread have said a wider gap helps efficiency. I think my last batch confirms this since I opened up my Corona some and got better recirculation and thus better efficiency. Sometimes with too fine a crush the recirculation sticks, so it has to be slowed down. The constant moving of the liquid, enzymes, and starches when you can recirc at a higher rate actually compensated for the larger grits.

Some ideas: 1. Mash longer or crush better (or both) to ensure complete conversion. An indication is your second run should be closer to 1.010. 2. Plug your grain bill into a water calculator to get a close enough pH. Use less than 5ml lactic acid to get within 5.3-5.4. 3. Find where you're system is wasting water like ensuring your mash/lauter tun drains completely to increase efficiency.

Note that a longer mash may result in higher fermentability, which you can counteract by mashing a smidge higher. I'd bet a good stir halfway through might also help.

 

[eric19312]

At a mash thickness of 1.25 qt/lb, the first runnings wort would have an SG of 1.095 - 1.096 @ 100% starch conversion (ref.) The fact that OP's first runnings wort only had an SG of 1.070 tells us that somewhere around 24% of the available starch had not been converted. No need for an iodine test.

Brew on

+1

Take some time to consider the table in the reference. If you are having efficiency issues forget about iodine testing and measure the gravity of your first runnings. If they are too low conversion is not done and you need to give the mash some more time.