Is greater than 100% efficiency possible?

[dwarven_stout]

My first reaction: no, of course not!
Then I found this on specialtymalts.com:

What does the lab do to get 100% extract yield? A professional brewer mentioned that one place he worked got better than 100% by separating the starch and husks, then grinding the starch very finely and mashing in a shallow, large diameter tun. What other techniques are practical (or not) for production brewing?
Posed by Don Obenauer, Atlanta GA USA on May 12, 1999

In essence, the lab uses just the endosperm portion of the kernel. You could expect material losses in this seperation process to be very high and also very time consuming.

Extract is determined by the specific density of extracted solution. This density is compared to a similar sugar solution. With this definition, the amount of sugar extracted could very well be above 100% if the specific gravity were high enough.

Anyone have more info on this? It sounds like it's possible under extreme conditions (read: not worthwhile except in a theoretical sense).

 

[wildwest450]

I know I always give a 110%, at least that's what I say in the press conferences.

 

[IXVolt]

Over 100% would be pulling more starch/sugars out of the grain than exists...

 

[sundowner]

I'll settle for my 85% unless I'm on the football field. In that case, I'll give 110%

 

[Rothman]

I'm pretty sure it is possible to exceed 100%. I don't have it with me but I remember a line from "Brewing Science and Practice" saying that newer brewing systems may be exceding the 100% mark. I think that better methods or equipment have allowed brewers to pass the old benchmark.

 

[SavageSteve]

By definition, you cannot have more than 100% of a thing.

Most likely, the 100% extraction number is defined as the most that a lab can produce from a given malt given a specific efficient process. If you somehow get more sugars than a professional lab can, then you aren't really getting more than 100% of potential sugars, just more than the lab got.

-Steve

 

[weirdboy]

Right, the whole deal with extract efficiency calculations is that we use baseline numbers for potential extract for different types of grain. These extract potentials are going to vary based on a lot of factors including age of grain, where it was grown, when it was grown, the weather, how it was transported, etc.

So just the basic assumptions that go into calculating extract efficiency have a lot of variation that is not usually considered.

 

[mattmcl]

My guitar amp goes up to 11.

 

[DrinksWellWithOthers]

That's nothing, my mash tun goes to 11. That's how I get 117% efficiency.

 

[dwarven_stout]

By definition, you cannot have more than 100% of a thing.

Most likely, the 100% extraction number is defined as the most that a lab can produce from a given malt given a specific efficient process. If you somehow get more sugars than a professional lab can, then you aren't really getting more than 100% of potential sugars, just more than the lab got.

-Steve

Let's rephrase the question, then. Is it possible, in a homebrew setting, to get better efficiency than the testing lab?

 

[bernerbrau]

By definition, you cannot have more than 100% of a thing.

Sure you can. Then you just have more than one thing.

 

[SavageSteve]

Let's rephrase the question, then. Is it possible, in a homebrew setting, to get better efficiency than the testing lab?

I would be very surprised if the average homebrewer could do better than a lab. I got 81% efficiency on my mash yesterday, and I'm pretty happy with that.

-Steve

 

[SavageSteve]

Sure you can. Then you just have more than one thing.

Nope.

You'd have a 100% or greater increase in your amount of stuff, but still only 100% of all the stuff.

If you have one apple, you have 100% of your apples.

If I then give you two apples, you have increased your number of apples by 200%, but you still only have 100% of your apples, be they one or three.

-Steve

 

[The Pol]

This reminds me of the thread where the dude claimed 98% eff. on his homebrew system. Come to find out, he was using faulty software giving him bad calculations.

These threads crack me up.

You are an EXCELLENT homebrewer if you can get somewhere in the 80s for eff. AND make good tasting beer.

Sure you can get 100% or more, if you use faulty calculations.

 

[menschmaschine]

Let's rephrase the question, then. Is it possible, in a homebrew setting, to get better efficiency than the testing lab?

It is possible but very rare. If it did happen, it would more likely be a slight discrepancy in weight or volumes before it would be greater than 100% efficiency. Additionally, you would need the malt analysis of each grain used to know for sure. The potential SGs listed in brewing software is an historic average for the given malt.

 

[Trubadour]

Nope.

You'd have a 100% or greater increase in your amount of stuff, but still only 100% of all the stuff.

If you have one apple, you have 100% of your apples.

If I then give you two apples, you have increased your number of apples by 200%, but you still only have 100% of your apples, be they one or three.

-Steve

If an apple tree can produce 50 apples at full capacity (100%), but it ends up producing 51 apples, then it produced more than 100%, but that's only b/c somebody said that 50 apples was full capacity.

So in the case of more than 100% efficiency, faulty calculations aside, it would be due to extacting more than somebody said could be extracted.

 

[Kaiser]

It's possible but not likely in a homebrew setting.

We base our efficiency calculation on a benchmark process that involves a pretty efficient mash and no lauter losses. The mash is so efficient bc it starts at 45C, ramps up to 70C, is held there for 60 min and is done with finely ground malt at a high water grist ratio.

What you need to suprass this is a mash that could liberate enven more extract from the grain. Only a decoction mash comes to
mind for this. But even then the additional gain would be minimal. Mabe an additional 2-3% at best. Now your lauter losses need to be less than that which means an highly optimized lauter system. Maybe even a mash filter.

If home brewers get more than 100% it's always measurement errors, incorrect malt potential data or faulty calculations.

Kai

 

[bernerbrau]

Nope.

You'd have a 100% or greater increase in your amount of stuff, but still only 100% of all the stuff.

If you have one apple, you have 100% of your apples.

If I then give you two apples, you have increased your number of apples by 200%, but you still only have 100% of your apples, be they one or three.

-Steve

You're splitting really fine hairs here. If I have 150% of an apple, I have an apple and a half.

If you're talking about percent in relationship to a given maximum, yeah, sure, but you didn't make that stipulation in your original claim.

 

[Bobby_M]

If your software tells you that you just got 105% efficiency:

1. The software is wrong.
2. The database entry for the grain you have has not been updated to the actual sack you used.
3. You measured the gravity innaccurately.
4. You weighed the grain innaccurately.
5. You measured the wort volume innaccurately.
6. All of the above or some of the above.

I would trust the lab specs more than anything else.

 

[dwarven_stout]

We're not talking software errors here. Maybe this topic would have been better place in the Brewing Science forum...

Thanks Mensch and especially Kaiser... those were the types of hypothetical answers I was interested in reading in response to my hypothetical.

 

[JeepDiver]

We're not talking software errors here. Maybe this topic would have been better place in the Brewing Science forum...

Thanks Mensch and especially Kaiser... those were the types of hypothetical answers I was interested in reading in response to my hypothetical.

Either Palmer or Papazian has info on it in one of their books. Without looking it up, and from memory, They usually assume that the grain is only going to be able to convert a certain % during malting on average, then the percentage of efficiency is based on that percentage of the grain.

(totally made up numbers since I don't have the chart in front of me) So if 2 row is based at the malting only making 85% of the starch available for conversion, if you had 100% efficiency during your brew session you only really have 85% of the sugar that the grain has.

So in theory, if the malting session wasn't normal and somehow managed to make 100% of the starch/sugar available, then you got 85% during your Mash, you would actually end up with over 100% of that grains normal availability.

This is overly simplified from what is in the book, but you get the point.

 

[Kaiser]

There are some losses during malting but after malting pretty much all the strarch is available for converion (generally about 80% of the grain's dry weight) the rest is insoluble and you cannot convert it to sugars during mashing anyway.

Kai

 

[Bobby_M]

Yeah, malting happens before the lab analysis though. They derive 100% potential by grinding way finer than you ever will and mashing longer.

 

[Griffsta]

Ok, Im a total newbie, but my last 2 brews, my calc (on beersmith) showed me to get about 96% efficiency. Now, I dont actually believe that I got it, but whats going wrong. Here is my last brew:

16 lbs Munich
1 lb carapils
1 lb Crystal 60L

Mashed in with 25.2 gallons of water, mashed for 60 minutes.

I collected 12.2 gallons into my boiler which had a OG of 1.051 (final runnings at 1.011, and yes, I chilled down the sample to 62 degrees before I took the hydro reading).

So, what could be the culprit? Am I using Beersmith wrong or am I just super lucky?

 

[phatuna]

Griff, I'm not sure that I understand your process. Are you just collecting your mash? No sparging?
Are you really mashing w/ 25 gallons of water? and not 25 quarts?

I've never heard of anyone not doing a sparge of some sort, but the process that you describe above would lead to some interesting efficiency numbers indeed (unless I'm reading it wrong)

 

[Griffsta]

Im sorry, that was a poorly written comment.

I infuse to sac temp with 25.2 QUARTS. Then I fly sparge till I collected 12.2 gallons.

So, i cant really get 96%, can I?

 

[menschmaschine]

Im sorry, that was a poorly written comment.

I infuse to sac temp with 25.2 QUARTS. Then I fly sparge till I collected 12.2 gallons.

So, i cant really get 96%, can I?

That's possible, but double-check your volumes in Beersmith. Under Equipment- Details... look at Evaporation Rate, Loss To Boil Trub and Chiller, Top up Water (should be zero unless you are topping off).

 

[Brewsmith]

Anytime I see a homebrewer post with an efficiency of 90% or more, everything is suspect. The brewing software programs can easily calculate both mash and brewhouse efficiency, but there are several places along the way to put big errors into those numbers. The biggest is incorrect volumes.

The other thing is knowing the difference between the different efficiencies. Mash efficiency is extracting sugars out of the grain. Anyone claiming much more than 85% is either wrong or extracting a huge amount of tannins.

Brewhouse efficiency is how much of your collected wort ends up in the finished beer. This number can be closer to 100% because simple brewing setups don't have problems with dead space in kettles, and losses to pumps, hoses, and transfer lines.

 

[Griffsta]

Beersmith states "actual efficiency" at 90.66, and "Efficiency into Boiler" at 95.93. I assumed I wasnt getting any tannins if the runnings dont fall below 1.008. I use an evaporation rate of 9% per hour, .08 gal to boil trub, and have .87 gallons of tun deadspace under my FB. These seemed ok to me. I have Zeros in everything else.

Now, I dont believe that I am actually getting 96%, im just trying to figure out where I am going wrong.

Also, I am not a thread highjacker, I just didnt want to post this new and have everyone refer me back to this thread... Wait, thats thread highjacking. Sorry...

 

[homebrewer_99]

Just like 100% extraction of bitterness from hops is about 30%.

Which leads me to question: (After the crush), if you place a fan in front of the grains and shake them on a screen the husks will fly off (seperating the wheat from the chaff so to speak)...will that remove all tannins/chill haze from your brew?