Is 100% efficiency possible?

[Spawn-Inc]

Just did a mash with the recipe below and according to Brewersfriend's efficiency calculator i got 99% efficiency which i find hard to believe.

9 Lbs - Canadian 2 row
3 Lbs - Flaked Oats
3 Lbs - German Pilsner
1 Lbs - American White Wheat

I ended up with just under 7 gallons total after the sparge and a reading of 1.082 across 2 different hydrometers and 1 ATC refractometer.

Thoughts?

 

[wilserbrewer]

99 or 100% efficiency is impossible...
You likely have data errors.

Wort temperature while taking gravity readings???

 

[Spawn-Inc]

99 or 100% efficiency is impossible...
You likely have data errors.

Wort temperature while taking gravity readings???

I cooled the sample down to 26c (78.8f) and measured.

The odd thing is now that the boil is done and it's been chilled to 27c (going for 20c(68f)), it's reading 1.064. The only variable is my temperature probe is not reading correctly or my hydrometer's and refractometer are off.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Preboil reading? Stratified runnings. You sampled more first wort than last wort and didn't get a representative sample.

Getting 99%+ *conversion* is easily done with a good crush (either fine or wet milled), and the right temps and pH.

But getting all that sugar into the kettle is another story. And getting 95% efficiency, while doable, without simultaneously pulling stuff you don't want, is also incredibly difficult.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

99 or 100% efficiency is impossible...

I would agree with this. The low 90% is in reach...but 99%? The max yield is achieved with malt ground to a powder and involves a multiple hour, multiple step process.

I ended up with just under 7 gallons total after the sparge and a reading of 1.082 across 2 different hydrometers and 1 ATC refractometer.

Was this with multiple samples or using the same sample? What was your OG going into the fermenter?

 

[Spawn-Inc]

Preboil reading? Stratified runnings. You sampled more first wort than last wort and didn't get a representative sample.

Getting 99%+ *conversion* is easily done with a good crush (either fine or wet milled), and the right temps and pH.

But getting all that sugar into the kettle is another story. And getting 95% efficiency, while doable, without simultaneously pulling stuff you don't want, is also incredibly difficult.

I'm using a robobrew v3 and that was indeed preboil. i ran the pump for maybe a few minutes then grabbed the sample from the running pump (so from the bottom of the kettle).

Was this with multiple samples or using the same sample? What was your OG going into the fermenter?

same 3 cup sample for all 3 test devices. my OG into the fermentor was 1.064 so something was obviously wrong with my pre boil sample.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Not familar with the Robobrew (heard of it, know nothing about it). Unless you got good rotation of the entire kettle, that probably wasn't enough to mix it.

 

[dmtaylor]

Preboil reading? Stratified runnings. You sampled more first wort than last wort and didn't get a representative sample.

Likely this ^^^. Stratification is very real and can have a very significant effect.

 

[brewbama]

...and/or you may have over estimated volumes?

 

[cire]

100 percent mash efficiency is possible, indeed more than 100 percent can be achieved. The reason is because the extract given by the maltster is from a mash done in specific manner which can bettered. However, it does need good water treatment to improve conversion and a prolonged and well controlled sparge that most home-brewers are reluctant to attempt. Basically speaking, if your mash and sparge are completed inside 4 hours, you are unlikely to achieve 100 percent extraction efficiency.

 

[bleme]

Is it possible the ingredients he used just had more sugar than the recipe calculator thought they should?

 

[dmtaylor]

Is it possible the ingredients he used just had more sugar than the recipe calculator thought they should?

YES, plausible.

Cheers.

 

[Big Monk]

100 percent mash efficiency is possible, indeed more than 100 percent can be achieved. The reason is because the extract given by the maltster is from a mash done in specific manner which can bettered. However, it does need good water treatment to improve conversion and a prolonged and well controlled sparge that most home-brewers are reluctant to attempt. Basically speaking, if your mash and sparge are completed inside 4 hours, you are unlikely to achieve 100 percent extraction efficiency.

Conversion Efficiency can hit 100% easily and I guess technically speaking Lauter Efficiency can as well, although it’s unlikely a homebrewer will achieve the 100% Lauter Efficiency required to hit 100% Mash Efficiency.

On paper yes. In reality, very unlikely.

People have enough trouble just getting > 95% Conversion Efficiency.

 

[Hopalong]

"100 percent mash efficiency is possible, indeed more than 100 percent can be achieved. The reason is because the extract given by the maltster is from a mash done in specific manner which can bettered."

You are correct about "mash done in a specific manner which can be bettered" but, 100% efficiency is difficult to obtain. Extract efficiency is indicated on a malt spec sheet and it is seldom over 83%. Different brewing methods such as the decoction method require a long brew day. The decoction method extracts everything from malt and makes high efficiency achievable. Infusion brewing methods cannot reach the efficiency of the decoction method. Infusion method temperatures are low. The hard, heat resistant, complex starch that makes up the tips of malt, amylopectin, is thrown away with the spent mash. The temperatures aren't high enough to burst the starch before Alpha denatures. Turing the starch into powder and using temperatures in the range of Alpha causes issues with pectin.
Amylopectin contains tasteless, nonfermenting, complex types of sugar responsible for body and mouthfeel in beer. For dextrinization and gelatinization to occur mash has to be boiled. Alpha liquefies amylopectin releasing A and B limit dextrin during dextrinization, at the same time the mash jells up due to pectin which dissipates when the pectin coils stretch out at temperatures above 185F. To shorten the brew day, conversion, dextrinization and gelatinization are omitted from homebrew recipes. Without the steps it's difficult to produce ale and lager because it requires more than amylose, Alpha and glucose to make ale and lager.

 

[Big Monk]

"100 percent mash efficiency is possible, indeed more than 100 percent can be achieved. The reason is because the extract given by the maltster is from a mash done in specific manner which can bettered."

You are correct about "mash done in a specific manner which can be bettered" but, 100% efficiency is difficult to obtain. Extract efficiency is indicated on a malt spec sheet and it is seldom over 83%. Different brewing methods such as the decoction method require a long brew day. The decoction method extracts everything from malt and makes high efficiency achievable. Infusion brewing methods cannot reach the efficiency of the decoction method. Infusion method temperatures are low. The hard, heat resistant, complex starch that makes up the tips of malt, amylopectin, is thrown away with the spent mash. The temperatures aren't high enough to burst the starch before Alpha denatures. Turing the starch into powder and using temperatures in the range of Alpha causes issues with pectin.
Amylopectin contains tasteless, nonfermenting, complex types of sugar responsible for body and mouthfeel in beer. For dextrinization and gelatinization to occur mash has to be boiled. Alpha liquefies amylopectin releasing A and B limit dextrin during dextrinization, at the same time the mash jells up due to pectin which dissipates when the pectin coils stretch out at temperatures above 185F. To shorten the brew day, conversion, dextrinization and gelatinization are omitted from homebrew recipes. Without the steps it's difficult to produce ale and lager because it requires more than amylose, Alpha and glucose to make ale and lager.

To be clear, malt sheet values for extract are % extract potential, not extract efficiency.

Fine Grind Dry Basis and Fine Grind As Is extract potential say nothing of how efficiently you extract up to 100% of the available sugars from the grain. That’s conversion Efficiency.

I do agree, however, that multi step mashes, if nothing else, help the brewer extract 100% of the available sugars from the grain. Whether they then Lauter efficiently is another story.

 

[Vale71]

"100 percent mash efficiency is possible, indeed more than 100 percent can be achieved. The reason is because the extract given by the maltster is from a mash done in specific manner which can bettered."

You are correct about "mash done in a specific manner which can be bettered" but, 100% efficiency is difficult to obtain. Extract efficiency is indicated on a malt spec sheet and it is seldom over 83%. Different brewing methods such as the decoction method require a long brew day. The decoction method extracts everything from malt and makes high efficiency achievable. Infusion brewing methods cannot reach the efficiency of the decoction method. Infusion method temperatures are low. The hard, heat resistant, complex starch that makes up the tips of malt, amylopectin, is thrown away with the spent mash. The temperatures aren't high enough to burst the starch before Alpha denatures. Turing the starch into powder and using temperatures in the range of Alpha causes issues with pectin.
Amylopectin contains tasteless, nonfermenting, complex types of sugar responsible for body and mouthfeel in beer. For dextrinization and gelatinization to occur mash has to be boiled. Alpha liquefies amylopectin releasing A and B limit dextrin during dextrinization, at the same time the mash jells up due to pectin which dissipates when the pectin coils stretch out at temperatures above 185F. To shorten the brew day, conversion, dextrinization and gelatinization are omitted from homebrew recipes. Without the steps it's difficult to produce ale and lager because it requires more than amylose, Alpha and glucose to make ale and lager.

What a load of nonsense.

- there is no pectin in malt, you must be thinking of fruit wine.
- you don't need to boil malt to achieve gelatinization. In the worst possible case you might get gelatinization temperatures approaching 65°C which make a multi-step mash without decoction hard to do succesfully. Unmalted cereals are a different thing but they are usually cooked anyway so that takes care of gelatinization as well.
- the mash done in a specific manner is called a Congress mash and it is the golden standard against which efficiency is measured for a reason. Large commercial operations using a very fine grind with mash filters can get as close as just 0,5% below what is given in the malt analysis. And they do this with sinlge step infusion, no decoction necessary. Nobody actually wants to go above that because you will start to extract parts of malt that do not bring any fermentable sugars to the wort and will also affect flavor negatively (think tannins, f.e.). I know the latter is not from you and you were just quoting but I just didn't want to split my post.

 

[@RoyalGallon]

What a load of nonsense.

- there is no pectin in malt, you must be thinking of fruit wine.
- you don't need to boil malt to achieve gelatinization. In the worst possible case you might get gelatinization temperatures approaching 65°C which make a multi-step mash without decoction hard to do succesfully. Unmalted cereals are a different thing but they are usually cooked anyway so that takes care of gelatinization as well.
- the mash done in a specific manner is called a Congress mash and it is the golden standard against which efficiency is measured for a reason. Large commercial operations using a very fine grind with mash filters can get as close as just 0,5% below what is given in the malt analysis. And they do this with sinlge step infusion, no decoction necessary. Nobody actually wants to go above that because you will start to extract parts of malt that do not bring any fermentable sugars to the wort and will also affect flavor negatively (think tannins, f.e.). I know the latter is not from you and you were just quoting but I just didn't want to split my post.

I recall from my brewing exam days many years ago that efficiencies (in commercial plants - not home brew mind) were often above 100% - 103/104 was oft quoted as an expectation.
That's because - as you say - the efficiency is based on the hot water extract. A prescribed bench top method that dictates the fineness of milling and the temp and water addition rates and how to collect the wort. This is often not as efficient as the brew house of a commercial brewery.
There's also more than one method - the congress brew is the European method and the IOB and ASBC also have their own methods. So depending on which HWE value is used in the claculation the efficiency you see could be different.

 

[Vale71]

I recall from my brewing exam days many years ago that efficiencies (in commercial plants - not home brew mind) were often above 100% - 103/104 was oft quoted as an expectation.

Yeah, that is probably due to the different ways in which potential extract is calculated. One more thing to worry about besides metric and imperial units...

 

[Big Monk]

9 Lbs - Canadian 2 row (56.25%)
3 Lbs - Flaked Oats (18.75%)
3 Lbs - German Pilsner (18.75%)
1 Lbs - American White Wheat (6.25%)

Thoughts?

Judging by this grain bill and the fact that it contains 25% Unmalted Cereals and Wheat Malt, I'd say it's unlikely you got even > 90% conversion efficiency, let alone anything else.

 

[Big Monk]

Yeah, that is probably due to the different ways in which potential extract is calculated. One more thing to worry about besides metric and imperial units...

Right. I personally think that Fine Grind As Is is the best way to go. This lines up better with realistic conversion efficiency values versus Coarse Grind As Is.

Some people advocate Coarse Grind values because it more closely matches actual homebrew milling situations but data from myself and my collaborator shows that Coarse Grind is only accurate if 100% conversion efficiency is assumed. For some, this may actually be a better general value to use if they don't mess with tracking conversion and thier first wort gravity.

For those who do track conversion efficiency and are measuring first wort gravity as a standard metric and troubleshooting tool, Fine Grind As Is is a better value to use.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

Curious. If I look at the specs for Briess Brewers Malt I see:

• Extract FG, Dry Basis: 81%
• Extract CG, Dry Basis: 80%

I get the concept of Fine Grind (FG) and Course Grind (CG) and that "Dry Basis" is based on the grain having no moisture...but what is this a percentage of?

From what I understand, the Max PGG of Pale Malt is around 38.

From https://byo.com/article/understanding-malt-spec-sheets-advanced-brewing/

The following formula can be used to calculate extract potential:

Extract potential (S.G.) = 1 + (DBFG / 100) * 0.04621

The 0.4621 multiplier in the formula is the extract potential of sucrose (1.04621), against which all extract is measured. For example, a malt with a DBFG value of 80.5% results in a calculated extract potential of 1.0372.​

So the Briess numbers of 81% and 80% put you in the general range of the "Max PGG" value of 38.

I am also curious what the maximum Extract % you can expect from a malt. Does this number ever get up to or above 85%? A couple references said that 78% is the low value for quality malt.

 

[Vale71]

Curious. If I look at the specs for Briess Brewers Malt I see:

• Extract FG, Dry Basis: 81%
• Extract CG, Dry Basis: 80%

I get the concept of Fine Grind (FG) and Course Grind (CG) and that "Dry Basis" is based on the grain having no moisture...but what is this a percentage of?

From what I understand, the Max PGG of Pale Malt is around 38.

From https://byo.com/article/understanding-malt-spec-sheets-advanced-brewing/

The following formula can be used to calculate extract potential:

Extract potential (S.G.) = 1 + (DBFG / 100) * 0.04621

The 0.4621 multiplier in the formula is the extract potential of sucrose (1.04621), against which all extract is measured. For example, a malt with a DBFG value of 80.5% results in a calculated extract potential of 1.0372.​

So the Briess numbers of 81% and 80% put you in the general range of the "Max PGG" value of 38.

I am also curious what the maximum Extract % you can expect from a malt. Does this number ever get up to or above 85%? A couple references said that 78% is the low value for quality malt.

It's a percentage of the dry weight. So 81% extract means you get 81 grams in solution out of 100 grams of dry malt.

Considering that malt contains around 10-11% in weight as proteins and that less than a fifth of that is water soluble and then there is cellulose in the husks there is definitely an upper limit to how much you could extract even from the best malt.

 

[Qhrumphf]

What a load of nonsense.

- there is no pectin in malt, you must be thinking of fruit wine.
- you don't need to boil malt to achieve gelatinization. In the worst possible case you might get gelatinization temperatures approaching 65°C which make a multi-step mash without decoction hard to do succesfully. Unmalted cereals are a different thing but they are usually cooked anyway so that takes care of gelatinization as well.
- the mash done in a specific manner is called a Congress mash and it is the golden standard against which efficiency is measured for a reason. Large commercial operations using a very fine grind with mash filters can get as close as just 0,5% below what is given in the malt analysis. And they do this with sinlge step infusion, no decoction necessary. Nobody actually wants to go above that because you will start to extract parts of malt that do not bring any fermentable sugars to the wort and will also affect flavor negatively (think tannins, f.e.). I know the latter is not from you and you were just quoting but I just didn't want to split my post.

Not this guy again.

Surprised "inferior prohibition style beer" wasn't included.

Everything this person posts is nonsense. And given the repeated phrases throughout, some of us suspect it to be a bot.

 

[Vale71]

Seems a bit too articulate and apparently on topic to be a bot...

P.S. I just took a look at his most recent posts and got goosebumps. Bloody trolls...

 

[CascadesBrewer]

It's a percentage of the dry weight. So 81% extract means you get 81 grams in solution out of 100 grams of dry malt.

Thanks, that makes sense.

Everything this person posts is nonsense. And given the repeated phrases throughout, some of us suspect it to be a bot.

Ahhh...I guess I won't waste any more cycles trying to comprehend what was said in that post.

 

[Big Monk]

I am also curious what the maximum Extract % you can expect from a malt. Does this number ever get up to or above 85%? A couple references said that 78% is the low value for quality malt.

With 100% Conversion Efficiency, you can expect a maximum first wort extract consistent with the Fine Grind As Is extract potential (%):

FGAI Potential = FGDB Potential * ( 1 - Moisture )

Your Pre-Boil Gravity will then be a function of your First Wort Extract content and how efficiency you Lauter.

For example:

I plan on using Weyermann Pilsner malt with a FGDB value of 81.5% and a Moisture Content of 4.6%.

So FGAI Potential would be:

0.815 * ( 1 - 0.046 ) = ~0.778 = ~ 77.8%

Of course this assumes 100% Conversion. I would guess that many people are not hitting 100% Conversion, especially on Single Infusion mashes.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Troll or bot, doesn't matter either way, still best to pay no mind.

 

[Carolina_Matt]

I just did a 60 minute mash at 155 degrees (BIAB) with 10 pounds of Briess 2-row and 12 ounces of Great Western Crystal 15L. I used my calibrated refractometer and had 1.056-1.057 gravity after the mash. (Started with 7.25 gallons, ended with about 6.75 gallons).

I take the reading by stirring the wort with a mash paddle, lifting it up and letting a few drops drip onto the refractometer, then shut the top of the refractometer maybe 15 seconds later. According to brewers friend, I had 102.46% conversion efficiency and 95.39% pre-boil efficiency. This is with a crush as narrow as the Cereal Killer will go (.025").

I'm sure there's a calculation error somewhere in there - I didn't weight the grain, for instance, so maybe the kit came with slightly over 10 pounds - but either way I'm happy that I was someone close to 100% conversion.