I just got 94% efficiency!

[Acumen]

This is where I have gotten my numbers:
The Brewer's Recipe Calculator

The 18 hour thing is true, I was talking to one of the brewmasters at a festival, don't know what else to tell you.

Like I said, I might not have gotten exactly 100%, of course there is always a margin of error. I did put it way up there though. The weight might have been a few percent higher then the recipe, the volume like a few percent lower, but its close enough for me and I will be repeating this method unless tannins become a problem, and it will be my grind that I look at first.

What I want people to take away from this, is that vorlaufing the first runoffs is common and a good thing to do, but recirculating the whole batch is MUCH better and makes a huge difference.

Whats the harm in trying it? Crush the grain to hell, and recirculate for 45 minutes, see for yourself. Just make sure to put liberal hulls over the entire manifold on your tun, I had a few stuck sparges at the beginning while I was working out my method.

 

[TommyBoy]

Didn't realize who you were talking to with the 100% efficiency statement, huh?

That's ok. Everyone makes mistakes.

 

[The Pol]

This is where I have gotten my numbers:
The Brewer's Recipe Calculator

The 18 hour thing is true, I was talking to one of the brewmasters at a festival, don't know what else to tell you.

Like I said, I might not have gotten exactly 100%, of course there is always a margin of error. I did put it way up there though. The weight might have been a few percent higher then the recipe, the volume like a few percent lower, but its close enough for me and I will be repeating this method unless tannins become a problem, and it will be my grind that I look at first.

What I want people to take away from this, is that vorlaufing the first runoffs is common and a good thing to do, but recirculating the whole batch is MUCH better and makes a huge difference.
Whats the harm in trying it? Crush the grain to hell, and recirculate for 45 minutes, see for yourself. Just make sure to put liberal hulls over the entire manifold on your tun, I had a few stuck sparges at the beginning while I was working out my method.

So, HERMS and RIMS brewers should be getting 100% all the time huh? I mean they vorlaugh for 60-90 minutes, much longer than you do. #1... vorlaughing has nothing to do with eff., where you got that notion, I am not sure. It has nothing to do with conversion and nothing to do with getting sugars OUT of the grist. It simply clears the wort. Sorry, it doesnt make a HUGE difference, it has no impact on eff. Your lack of knowlege about this, causes me to be very sceptical of your other claims.

Is this near 100% eff. conversion? Lauter? Or is it Brewhouse eff?

 

[TommyBoy]

This is where I have gotten my numbers:
The Brewer's Recipe Calculator

The 18 hour thing is true, I was talking to one of the brewmasters at a festival, don't know what else to tell you.

Was he dressed up like a clown? Did he make you a giraffe out of balloons when he told you this?

(Sorry but that's funny!)

 

[bob1852]

I did get 100%.

No joke.

My measurements on volume and weight are not exact, they are ballpark, but they are close enough for me to be happy, although with scientific equipment I am probably not at 100%.

Like I said, I might not have gotten exactly 100%, of course there is always a margin of error.

well, which is it? I'm curious as to how you can get "100%" if you don't take exanct measurements and you say there is a margin of error? Please explain further.

and I forgot to vorlauf last night - I hope my beer isn't ruined

 

[wildwest450]

I've seen some sorry threads on this site, this one may take the cake.

Why fight over efficiency numbers? Either you make good beer or you don't, it doesn't make a bit of difference how you get there.

 

[The Pol]

I've seen some sorry threads on this site, this one may take the cake.

Why fight over efficiency numbers? Either you make good beer or you don't, it doesn't make a bit of difference how you get there.

I dont think anyone cares about his eff., at least I dont see where anyone does.

I think it is more about being honest and making wild claims. Face it, you make wild claims like this, people are going to comment on it.

Also, there is false information being posted... like vorlaughing increasing eff? Cmon... there are ppl that read this stuff who read something and believe it because it is in print and they dont know any better.

This has nothing to do with eff., this thread could be about something else completely, and end up where it is now. This is about integrity and posting false info.

 

[wildwest450]

This is about integrity and posting false info.

Have you read any post's on here lately? 1/2 of them are hearsay, and false, if not misleading info.

 

[The Pol]

Have you read any post's on here lately? 1/2 of them are hearsay, and false, if not misleading info.

Yup, and they all get the same treatment... so that some newb doesnt wander in and read that you can ferment with spit just as effectively as you can with S-05.

 

[Reno_eNVy]

I did get 100%.

No joke.

Should be read:

"Hey guys I heard this funny joke:

<JOKE>
I did get 100%

No Joke

</JOKE>"

 

[schweaty]

100% efficiency or 50%, neither one guarantees that you're going to make great beer but both of them can. Personally I'd rather not "crush my grains to hell" and run the risk of tannins and/or stuck sparge. I guess I'd rather have a good quality beer than high efficiency. If I was doing this hobby to save money I DEFINITELY made a poor decision. In a brewery where you're making thousands of barrels of beer efficiency is important from a financial aspect. Maximize efficiency and increase profits, plain and simple, but I don't homebrew to make a profit.

 

[bob1852]

100% efficiency or 50%, neither one guarantees that you're going to make great beer but both of them can. Personally I'd rather not "crush my grains to hell" and run the risk of tannins and/or stuck sparge. I guess I'd rather have a good quality beer than high efficiency. If I was doing this hobby to save money I DEFINITELY made a poor decision. In a brewery where you're making thousands of barrels of beer efficiency is important from a financial aspect. Maximize efficiency and increase profits, plain and simple, but I don't homebrew to make a profit.

good post, and I agree ---> IF you know what you're going to get. If you make one batch and you get 50%, and your next batch you get 100%, it doesn't help much if you're shooting for a target OG.

That's why I'm perfectly happy consistently hitting ~75%

 

[Reno_eNVy]

Well I think the only way to really put this one to rest is to experiment....... says the broke-a$$ college student.

I think making a SMaSH would take a lot of different variables out... it would make sense to assume that if 100% were achievable (*snicker*) it would be easiest with a single, highly-modified grain.

9lbs of 2-row on BeerSmith gives me an S.G. of 1.049 at 75%, and 1.065 at 100%.

So three different batches would have to be made, I figure, to get proper results. One batch would be a control, say 60min mash at 150*F and a normal 1qt vorlauf. Batch number two can be the first experimental batch, to be brewed using your normal mash schedule. And the third batch will be the immaculate conception batch, with an extra long vorlauf. Or if you use a RIMS or HERMS setup, you can just make two batches, considering #2 and #3 would be basically the same process. But then again that would defeat the purpose of the experiment.

 

[ajf]

Hey - cut the guy a bit of slack, and visit the site he used to calculate his efficiency (linked on post 31).

I put the details of my last brew into the calculator he was using, and it told me I had 92% efficiency. Promash and my own calculations both said 82%. That's a 12% error in his calculator.

I agree he may not have much acumen, but it's hardly fair to blame him for deficiencies in a web based calculator

-a.

 

[MeatyPortion]

99.9....yeah... I went fishing this weekend and caught this 46 lb bass, but it jumped out of my hands as we were taking the picture...

You too!?

*high fives wife in face*

 

[Reno_eNVy]

*high fives wife in face*

+1 Solid.....

 

[onelegout]

Hey - cut the guy a bit of slack, and visit the site he used to calculate his efficiency (linked on post 31).

I put the details of my last brew into the calculator he was using, and it told me I had 92% efficiency. Promash and my own calculations both said 82%. That's a 12% error in his calculator.

I agree he may not have much acumen, but it's hardly fair to blame him for deficiencies in a web based calculator

-a.

Yeah methinks the calculator is a little off-target!

By the way, congrats on your 2000th post : )

- H

 

[The Pol]

Yes, that brewing calculator also gave me about 90% eff. when with my own calcs I got 82% and that is what Promash gave me...

AWESOME, getting 100% eff. is super easy, just use this brew calculator! I dont know why you guys have such a hard time hitting 100%.

 

[RCCOLA]

I think a lot of us are sceptical when we see high eff. claims based on changing a couple things in the process.If he can get 100% then more power to him.
As for me-I get 72%.Things I tried that make no difference in this.
1.Crush-mill set at .038or .028/once thru or thrice thru=72%
2.Water-well water thru pur filter vs. RO water w/ profile/style adj.=72%
3.Mash out vs. none=72%
4.Decoction to reach mash out temp=72%
5.triple sparge vs. single=72%

Good thing I'm happy with 72% HUH?

 

[bob1852]

AWESOME, getting 100% eff. is super easy, just use this brew calculator!

 

[Acumen]

Interesting about the calculator. The fermentation tank loss number is what is throwing it off. I am really not sure what that is referring to, but if you put it to 0 then you get the same as if you worked it out simply by hand. With fermentation tank loss at zero I get 96% efficiency from my last batch instead of 100%.

So three different batches would have to be made, I figure, to get proper results. One batch would be a control, say 60min mash at 150*F and a normal 1qt vorlauf. Batch number two can be the first experimental batch, to be brewed using your normal mash schedule. And the third batch will be the immaculate conception batch, with an extra long vorlauf. Or if you use a RIMS or HERMS setup, you can just make two batches, considering #2 and #3 would be basically the same process. But then again that would defeat the purpose of the experiment.

I like this idea.

One batch vorlauf 1 qt
One batch vorlauf for an hour

See what I think is happens, is that most people will get close to 100% of the sugars converted, but then they don't get it in solution. Through recirculation you are "stirring" the wort and disolving the sugars.

Edit: LOL!!!! at getting a caveman dedicated to me!!!

 

[The Pol]

Interesting about the calculator. The fermentation tank loss number is what is throwing it off. I am really not sure what that is referring to, but if you put it to 0 then you get the same as if you worked it out simply by hand. With fermentation tank loss at zero I get 96% efficiency from my last batch instead of 100%.



I like this idea.

One batch vorlauf 1 qt
One batch vorlauf for an hour

See what I think is happens, is that most people will get close to 100% of the sugars converted, but then they don't get it in solution. Through recirculation you are "stirring" the wort and disolving the sugars.

Edit: LOL!!!! at getting a caveman dedicated to me!!!

VORLAUGHING DOES NOT INCREASE EFF! How do I know... when I went from a simple cooler setup to a HERMS that constantly recirculates, my eff. stayed the same. Nothing changed in my system besides adding a coil and a pump.

It matters little if the sugars are dissolved, they are as soon as they are created in 150F water. The point is during the lauter, even if the sugars are "dissolved" you need to extract them from the grain bed. If you are getting 100% eff. or close to it, that assumes that you are getting 100% of the sugars from the grain bed, which vorlaughing will not affect.

Again, RIMS and HERMS brewers are vorlaughing for 90 minutes when they simply brew a beer. To get nearly 100%, you will also have to have no deadspace in your MLT.

Again, wild claims, and your assumption that the vorlough has anything to do with eff. makes me question how well you understand what is really going on in there.

Most ppl probably do convert about 100% of thier sugars, but they cant get them out of the gran bed. Dissolving sugars into solution shouldnt be a problem for anyone as lojng as they dont have a cold grain bed during the sparge. What will affect the lauter eff. is the type of false bottom, manifold or braid.

False bottoms are most eff. followed by properly constructed manifolds and then lastly by braids... all other things being equal.

You may get 100% conversion eff. But I know some extremely experienced brewers who, even if they tried to, could never get 96% or 100% eff. into the kettle.


Again, are you claiming 100% conversion eff, lauter, or brewhouse? That makes a HUGE difference.

 

[Acumen]

Brewhouse, but only 96% now. Again, that number can still be a little off as I did not scientifically measure, a 10lb scale for the grain, tried to get it as close to spot on as I could, then 5 gallons marked off on my carboys, from 1/2 gallon measure cups of water, which I tried to make sure was accurate when I filled it up.

The thing that makes me think it is the vorlauf, is that was the only think I changed recently as my efficiency started to shoot up. When I was crushing my grains on the min setting with the same setup and doing a 1/2 gallon vorlauf I was getting ~75%.

The only thing I have changed since then is the longer vorlauf and my efficiency shot up to ~96%.

I haven't done the same exact recipe side by side, but from what I have been doing it seems that the vorlauf is a huge part of it.

 

[The Pol]

96% brewhouse...

So you are getting 100% conversion, 96% lauter and have absolutely no losses in the MLT or the BK, or due to hops or trub? What are you using in the MLT, false bottom? To lauter the grain bed 100% evenly and efficiently is really the bottleneck (and fluid losses) in brewing.

Wow... I am humbled

 

[Acumen]

I am not trying to make some outrageous claims here or anything. I am simply stating what I have found as I thought it would be of interest to people. If there is something wrong with my process, by all means let me know. I am not trying to win some sort of online dick size contest. I am actually sort of surprised at the backlash I have gotten for just posting my brewnotes. Not that I can't take a joke (that caveman was awesome lol), but I tried to start this as a serious thread.

 

[bob1852]

Again, that number can still be a little off as I did not scientifically measure,

IMO, the MOST important factors when calculating actual efficiency is making accurate measurments of volume and gravity. If you don't get accurate measurements, the calculations resulting from inaccurate measurements really mean nothing; in fact with inaccurate measurements it's entirely possible to calculate OVER 100% efficiency.

 

[The Pol]

I dont know, if I had a brew that came in at 100% or even 96% eff. I would not assume that my calculations were correct.... why? Because I have been around the Hb thing long enough to know the eff. to expect from certain lautering devices and enough to know that the loss of even one quart of wort in my system will reduce my brewhouse eff. by 4% alone. If I lose one quart in the MLT and one in the BK due to hops/trub then I am already down to 92% even if I got 100% efficient conversion and lautering, which again is impossible.

 

[flyangler18]

Acumen,

Some of my HBT brethren lack a certain amount of tact, as has been shown in some of the exchanges here.

There is a computational error somewhere in your calculations, I suspect, as I find it highly unlikely to achieve that high a level of brewhouse efficiency with the typically rudimentary systems that most of us employ.

 

[Acumen]

I have a false bottom that I made from a strainer or flour sifter I found at walbaums. It happened to be the EXACT right diameter to sit snugly in the bottom of my 5 gallon igloo. I have a circular manifold of tubing in on the bottom with 2" from each side and 4" diameter.

I put in the manifold, then cover it with hulls, then put the strainer/false bottom on top of the hulls.

With just the strainer and manifold I was getting stuck sparges, the hulls help make a difference of night and day. Like I said I grain the grain to HELL.

 

[bob1852]

Not that I can't take a joke (that caveman was awesome lol), but I tried to start this as a serious thread.

btw - I wasn't referring that you were a caveman, rather, the on-line calculator you are using.....