My new theory about efficiency

[Scooby_Brew]

So I brewed yesterday and today. Yesterday's efficiency - 77%. Today's: 60%. Both days I used the same equipment, the same sparging method, etc. The amount of grain was almost the same, same water/grain ratio etc. The only difference was the base grain, yesterday I brewed Schwartz Ale with 1/2 Pilsner and 1/2 Munich as a base grain, today Amber Ale with 2-Row. I bought the 2-row on sale and now I'm thinking that my 2-row was old and that's why there is such a big difference in efficiency.
Now I'm starting to think that the sparging method, the milling process etc, all those things have very little to do with efficiency and it all depends on how lucky you get and how old the malt was when you bought it at your LHBS.
What do you think about my theory?

 

[WCrane]

very interesting notion...you might have some weight to the argument since barley is an organic substance and is open to extreme various.

 

[MalFet]

Sorry man, I'm open to the idea that grain age impacts efficiency, but claiming that sparging and milling has very little impact is just crazy-talk.

 

[TotemWolf]

I don't know. Something had to be different. Don't know what, but something.

I hit within 1 or 2% of 85% evertime unless I mess up and then I know why.

Don't take that the wrong way. I'm not trying to say I'm better than you. Just saying I could see what could cause that.

I've used 1 year old grain without any problems so the age itself "shouldn't" be a problem.
Maybe the moisture content of the grain before mashing?

 

[rycov]

The grain can have an effect sure. But how can you trivialize the role of everything else when you said you did them exactly the same? If you tried different methods and came up with the same efficiency then sure. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that more testing is in order. So brew some more beer!

 

[Catt22]

Maybe yes and maybe no. How the malt was stored IMO is more important than how old it is. I've brewed excellent beer with base malt that was more than two years old, but it was stored cool and dry in sealed containers. IOW, I would not leap to the conclusion that the efficiency variation was due to old malt. Too many uncontrolled variables to make a call with any degree of certainty.

 

[samc]

It's different grain, therefore different PH, protein, diastatic power, etc. Do a back to back with old 2 row and fresh 2 row and then you can talk theory with some authority. So I think your theory at this point is all wet.

 

[Paymygasbill77]

To really test your theory I would buy a 55# sack of Maris Otter. I would split the grain up into 10 2.5 gallon SMaSH batches and make one every month for 10 months and record the results.

It would be important to try to keep as many variables consistent as possible.
-I wouldn't deviate from the recipe at all.
-I would use all the same equipment every time.
-I would find a way to brew indoors where I could keep the temperature and humidity consistent. With a 5.5# grain bill this could easily be done on the stove top.
-I would ferment it at the same temperature every time.
-I would use the same size and shaped bottles every time.
-I would keep an activity log during fermentation.

 

[bob1852]

It's different grain, therefore different PH, protein, diastatic power, etc. Do a back to back with old 2 row and fresh 2 row and then you can talk theory with some authority. So I think your theory at this point is all wet.

This ^^

 

[Scooby_Brew]

I agree this was not a controlled study, but I have a feeling that for the remainder of this 50 lbs. bag I will be stuck with a bad efficiency. I better get some DME to make up for the lost efficiency

 

[asterix404]

Deffinitly a different grain. If you think about why grain is malted in the first place it's to make sure that it keeps for a lot longer than regular barley. I have read reports from muntons that their pilsner malt is good for a year and a half so I don't buy that it's old so it's bad.

Grain crush has a HUGE impact on efficiency and if it's not done well, it will take a lot longer to convert and thus if you mash for the same amount of time, your efficiency is way down. I am actually surprised that you said that it down with pale 2 row, the enzymes in those are way more than Munich.

 

[wildwest450]

I have to agree with the masses, on my old system I hit the same numbers batch after batch, with new and "old" grain, and every different base grain. Now that I fly sparge.......


_

 

[bobbytuck]

It's different grain, therefore different PH, protein, diastatic power, etc. Do a back to back with old 2 row and fresh 2 row and then you can talk theory with some authority. So I think your theory at this point is all wet.

+1 on pH. Measure the pH for the two batches, then report back.

My guess is that the batch with the lower efficiency had a higher mash pH than 5.2.

See:

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/How_pH_affects_brewing

 

[C-Rider]

So I brewed yesterday and today. Yesterday's efficiency - 77%. Today's: 60%. Both days I used the same equipment, the same sparging method, etc. The amount of grain was almost the same, same water/grain ratio etc. The only difference was the base grain, yesterday I brewed Schwartz Ale with 1/2 Pilsner and 1/2 Munich as a base grain, today Amber Ale with 2-Row. I bought the 2-row on sale and now I'm thinking that my 2-row was old and that's why there is such a big difference in efficiency.
Now I'm starting to think that the sparging method, the milling process etc, all those things have very little to do with efficiency and it all depends on how lucky you get and how old the malt was when you bought it at your LHBS.
What do you think about my theory?

Off topic, sorry, but do you think you could post your Schwartz Ale recipe? I'm interested in dark brews which my SWMBO likes better that pale brews.