gifty74
Well-Known Member
No. Guess need to do this next time. Ugh. I can easily do that, just didn’t.Did you monitor the SG of the wort during your mash, as recommended in post #12 above? If so, what were the times and SGs measured?
Brew on
Need help diagnosing lower than expected efficiency
- Thread starter gifty74
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk:
Quit throwing away wort as I mentioned in #22. Collecting every little drop of sweet wort is critical for efficiency, especially with high gravity beers. Efficiency is always crappy with high gravity beers, unless you: (1) sparge a LOT extra AND (2) plan to boil for a good 2-3 hours. You need to collect all the sugars in the huge 20+ pound grist if you want them to show up in the finished wort. OR, (3) plan to partigyle making a smaller batch with the first runnings and a smaller beer with the second runnings, or similar.
Which is why throwing more and more grain at your problem is only making it worse.
An Ankoù
Well-Known Member
This would be my choice. Boiling for hours on end is wasteful of energy in an already energy-hungry hobby.
There's a 4th option, which is to make up the difference with malt extract. You probably won't need much.
Could you explain?
As noted, bigger grain bills entail greater losses, and it seems like OP keeps trying to make up for those losses by making the grain bill ever bigger. Maybe I'm off base here, but I'd be interested to see what kind of efficiency he'd get with a smaller beer and a thinner mash.
![Craft A Brew - Safale S-04 Dry Yeast - Fermentis - English Ale Dry Yeast - For English and American Ales and Hard Apple Ciders - Ingredients for Home Brewing - Beer Making Supplies - [1 Pack]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41fVGNh6JfL._SL500_.jpg)
An Ankoù
Well-Known Member
Yes. I understand. Efficiency drops off with grain weight. So to get the required OG we either oversparge and boil for hours or we go for an inefficient sparge with more grain.
Both are inefficient: the first of energy and the second of grain. The partigyle method seeks to find a fair compromise.
Both are inefficient: the first of energy and the second of grain. The partigyle method seeks to find a fair compromise.
Are you using LD carlson branded Phosphoric acid to acidify the mash?
BrewnWKopperKat
ʘ‿ʘ
Would you be willing to start a new topic (or series of topics) that present your ideas on "How To Brew: Doing More with Less in the Late 2020s"?
An Ankoù
Well-Known Member
No.
You go ahead if you want to.
BrewnWKopperKat
ʘ‿ʘ
Thanks for the offer to represent your ideas on how to brew with less, but I'll respectfully decline.
I wonder about the OP stating they are obsessed over the crush and specifically their super-fine crush, and the statement that their efficiencies have been dropping, to wonder if those 2 are linked.
You state that the crush isn't the problem, but I think that statement comes from your idea that your inefficiencies aren't being caused because the crush is too coarse, but have you considered the opposite, that it could be because you're getting stuck mashes and gummed up bag/basket because your flour content is too high?
You state that the crush isn't the problem, but I think that statement comes from your idea that your inefficiencies aren't being caused because the crush is too coarse, but have you considered the opposite, that it could be because you're getting stuck mashes and gummed up bag/basket because your flour content is too high?
I don't believe OP has mentioned any indications of stuck mash/lauter, or grain absorption being much higher than expected.
Rather than speculating whether it is a conversion efficiency, or lauter efficiency problem, it is better to collect the necessary data to definitively determine which it is. The required data has been listed twice in this thread already. There is really no need for guessing if you have the data.
Brew on
Just adding a possibility that I hadn't seen anyone else consider.
OP hasn't mentioned any trouble draining his wort and says he's hitting his target pre-boil volume. I BIAB so I wouldn't really know, but ISTM that it would be pretty hard not to notice a stuck mash.
gifty74
Well-Known Member
Ok. Well, got a little pissed after last weekend's eff mess and changed too much. It ended up solving the problem, but changed a good bit. Did a step mash, but first rest was at 148F and didn't recirc or any direct heat. Put a blanket over it and it only lost one degree over the 40 min rest. Was right around 1.090 gravity from the mash. Then raised to 158F and rested there for 25 min. Then the big switch was fly sparging. Not an ideal setup, but good enough. Used the pump to feed the MT with sparge water on the top, and had the BK on the floor gravity fed into that. Sparge took about 20 min, not much longer than a batch sparge when you factor in transferring and stirring and letting it rest to settle the bed and then recirculating to clear it. And the eff gain was substantial. Here are the numbers:
16 lbs of grain total
1.051 preboil OG
8.2 gal collected, total water to get that into mash & sparge was 10.5 gal
added 2 lbs of sugar to boil
90 min boil. Boiled off 2.2 gal, so right at 6 before cooling and transfer to fermenter
OG was 1.090
Volume into fermenter was 5.5 gal
Beersmith is saying 68.6% BH efficiency, and 71.5% mash eff
Much more respectable, and might now be a converter to fly sparging.
16 lbs of grain total
1.051 preboil OG
8.2 gal collected, total water to get that into mash & sparge was 10.5 gal
added 2 lbs of sugar to boil
90 min boil. Boiled off 2.2 gal, so right at 6 before cooling and transfer to fermenter
OG was 1.090
Volume into fermenter was 5.5 gal
Beersmith is saying 68.6% BH efficiency, and 71.5% mash eff
Much more respectable, and might now be a converter to fly sparging.
Last edited:
