Need help diagnosing lower than expected efficiency

[doug293cz]

Ok, I think I mixed up numbers of the two sessions I did this weekend. For this batch, I actually didn't get a post mash SG. Just a pre-boil SG of 1.056. So, I think that'll explain the numbers mixup.

For my the batch Sunday, I was more focused on SG throughout the mash, and also did a no sparge. Just added 8.9 gal of strike water to the MT and did it no sparge. Much easier, and probably only lost a pt or two. However, I also did direct fire recirculation for that batch, and could've denatured the enzymes too. Got the same brewhouse eff of 57% w/ no sparge.

OK, with a pre-boil of 1.056 things look better efficiency wise, and the pre and post-boil SG are a lot more self consistent, but still not matching up quite as well as they should.

The predicted post-boil for your measured pre-boil SG & volume and post-boil volume is coming in a bit below your measured OG - 1.070 vs. 1.074. This indicates that there are some unidentified measurement errors. The most likely error is your pre-boil SG being somewhat lower that actual due to incomplete mixing of the first runnings wort and the sparged wort. It this in indeed the case, then your actual conversion efficiency was higher than 84%.

Brew on

 

[gifty74]

OK, with a pre-boil of 1.056 things look better efficiency wise, and the pre and post-boil SG are a lot more self consistent, but still not matching up quite as well as they should.

View attachment 874394

The predicted post-boil for your measured pre-boil SG & volume and post-boil volume is coming in a bit below your measured OG - 1.070 vs. 1.074. This indicates that there are some unidentified measurement errors. The most likely error is your pre-boil SG being somewhat lower that actual due to incomplete mixing of the first runnings wort and the sparged wort. It this in indeed the case, then your actual conversion efficiency was higher than 84%.

Brew on

Wow, ok, thank you for this analysis. So Beersmith is saying I have 63.3% mash efficiency, and 57.4% brewhouse eff. Not great, seems like a lot of grain to get 7 gal post boil of 1.074 wort, no?

 

[JohnDBrewer]

Deleted, sorry posted on wrong thread.

 

[micraftbeer]

You can check your volumes, too. I had a brewing unit with stamped volume markings on it. I just assumed they were right, never occurred to me to check them. I was doing some controlled experiment so I was specific about the volume of water I put in. I found the markings were off by 0.75 gallons. I reached out to the manufacturer, and they said their early units they had some welding issues and units were put together wrong.

Another volume problem I used to have in my early brew days with pots without volume markings, is I put marks on my mash paddle at the volume increments. I stick the mash paddle in to the bottom and read off the volume based on how far it came up against my volume marks on the paddle. But then I got a bigger pot, so I had to re-do the volume markings on the same paddle. Occasionally, I'd catch myself using the wrong markings for the pot I was using.

None of these stories may be the exact issue you're having. But you're double-checking everything else. Do a check on your volumes. Maybe buy a gallon jug of water from the store and refill it a bunch of times to see if your markings seem close.

 

[gifty74]

Ok, so another horrible day efficiency wise in my brewery. Just cannot figure out what is going wrong, and after 20 years of brewing, it's really bothering me. I don't know what else to try at this point to figure it out. Nothing I did was a major change, where i started to notice the efficiency issues. I feel i have a good handle on most of the factors that affect efficiency.

This time I was going for a simple DIPA recipe, and have my brewhouse efficiency set at 58% now, as bad as that sounds, and came up way short of even that. I'm not sure if it's easier to just attach my beersmith recipe with the session data in it, or try to summarize it here.

23.4 lbs of grain total, for a freaking 5.5 gal batch. Unreal, and still ended up with only 1.072 OG

Added 1lb of DME just to get the gravity to 1.080 so I could get into the DIPA realm.

23 lbs of grain for 1.072 OG. Basic freaking recipe, 60 min mash, 60 min boil. Nothing fancy. Tons of whirlpool hops.

But again, just keep coming up so short. This session's efficiency was 48%. What in the world is going on.

I was hyper focused on crush, have it very fine. Is too fine a thing?? I thoroughly inspected the crush and see no whole kernels. Tons of flour. I have a direct fired mash and was really careful about over heating as i'm recirculating, and the temp probe that reads the mash temp and kicks the burner on and off is right in the tee at the pump, so I know the wort i'm pulling from the bottom of the kettle, the hottest wort, is not being overheated by that much. Sure the wort under the false bottom gets a little warmer, but not enough to turn off enzymes i wouldn't think. And i've done it this way for many years, even when i did get decent efficiency. I mean i'd be so happy just to get 65% at this point. No way you should have to put 23 lbs of grain in to get 1.072 OG of 5.5 gal of wort. This is just crazy.

 

[RM-MN]

Stop with the recirculating and heating. Your mash doesn't need it.

 

[jerrylotto]

Chemistry? What is the salt profile snd pH?

 

[doug293cz]

Ok, so another horrible day efficiency wise in my brewery. Just cannot figure out what is going wrong, and after 20 years of brewing, it's really bothering me. I don't know what else to try at this point to figure it out. Nothing I did was a major change, where i started to notice the efficiency issues. I feel i have a good handle on most of the factors that affect efficiency.

This time I was going for a simple DIPA recipe, and have my brewhouse efficiency set at 58% now, as bad as that sounds, and came up way short of even that. I'm not sure if it's easier to just attach my beersmith recipe with the session data in it, or try to summarize it here.

23.4 lbs of grain total, for a freaking 5.5 gal batch. Unreal, and still ended up with only 1.072 OG

Added 1lb of DME just to get the gravity to 1.080 so I could get into the DIPA realm.

23 lbs of grain for 1.072 OG. Basic freaking recipe, 60 min mash, 60 min boil. Nothing fancy. Tons of whirlpool hops.

But again, just keep coming up so short. This session's efficiency was 48%. What in the world is going on.

I was hyper focused on crush, have it very fine. Is too fine a thing?? I thoroughly inspected the crush and see no whole kernels. Tons of flour. I have a direct fired mash and was really careful about over heating as i'm recirculating, and the temp probe that reads the mash temp and kicks the burner on and off is right in the tee at the pump, so I know the wort i'm pulling from the bottom of the kettle, the hottest wort, is not being overheated by that much. Sure the wort under the false bottom gets a little warmer, but not enough to turn off enzymes i wouldn't think. And i've done it this way for many years, even when i did get decent efficiency. I mean i'd be so happy just to get 65% at this point. No way you should have to put 23 lbs of grain in to get 1.072 OG of 5.5 gal of wort. This is just crazy.

What were your?:

• Strike volume
• SG at end of mash, before any sparge
• Sparge volume
• Sparge method
• Pre-boil volume
• Pre-boil SG
• Post-boil volume
• Volume to fermenter

These are the data points needed to isolate where your problem originated.

Brew on

 

[doug293cz]

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

 

[gifty74]

Stop with the recirculating and heating. Your mash doesn't need it.

Did that 2 batches ago, no change. No recirc and no direct heating.

 

[gifty74]

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

No. Guess need to do this next time. Ugh. I can easily do that, just didn’t.

 

[dmtaylor]

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.

 

[mac_1103]

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.

Which is why throwing more and more grain at your problem is only making it worse.

 

[An Ankoù]

OR, (3) plan to partigyle making a smaller batch with the first runnings and a smaller beer with the second runnings, or similar.

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.

Which is why throwing more and more grain at your problem is only making it worse.

Could you explain?

 

[mac_1103]

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.

 

[doug293cz]

Could you explain?

Once you understand the chart below, it explains it all.

Brew on

 

[An Ankoù]

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.

 

[Bobby_M]

Are you using LD carlson branded Phosphoric acid to acidify the mash?

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

is wasteful of energy in an already energy-hungry hobby

Both are inefficient: the first of energy and the second of grain.

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]

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"?

No.
You go ahead if you want to.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

is wasteful of energy in an already energy-hungry hobby

Both are inefficient: the first of energy and the second of grain.

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"?

No.
You go ahead if you want to.

Thanks for the offer to represent your ideas on how to brew with less, but I'll respectfully decline.

 

[Zadkiel]

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?

 

[doug293cz]

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?

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

 

[Zadkiel]

Just adding a possibility that I hadn't seen anyone else consider.

 

[mac_1103]

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]

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.

 

[gifty74]

Just to update here, I found the cause of my efficiency inconsistency. In a nutshell it was my 3 roller grain mill, and the inherent design issues that come along with this, and most style, 3 roller adjustable mills.

I was digging into every possible cause, and finally decided to disassemble the grain mill down far enough that I could really see what was going on, and how the adjustment was actual versus what it was showing on the adjustment dials. The adjustment is made possible by the bottom roller (dummy, non driven roller) that has elliptical ends that sit in a pocket, and as you turn the knob, the ellipse turns in this pocket and moves the roller closer or further away. The issue is that depending on if you are adjusted tight (say .025" gap with the one top roller), the dummy or lower roller is then further away from the other top roller. So a .025" gap will be .035" or .038" gap with the other roller. So, as I was tightening it on the one side, the side that the adjustment is for, it actually opens up the other side wider. And, when you start the mill (mine is powered by a low RPM electric motor) the grain can go through either side, or can be crushed by either one of the top two rollers and the bottom roller. And its random, sometimes it'll go through the one side, and sometimes through the other. So, you never really know what you're getting, truly. There is an adjustment point, around .032", where both rollers are the same distance from the dummy roller (based on it's elliptical travel). So I've set it there, and for any other width gap, I'm going to have to watch and make sure the grain comes out that side roller so I know it's being crushed to that amount that I've set (with feeler gauges).

In a nutshell, it seems most all 3 roller mills have this same design flaw, and I'm not quite sure most know of this issue. It was one of the last things I looked at, but now I know after digging into it and how it functions.

Hope this helps others.

 

[BeerNsteadofH2O]

Just to update here, I found the cause of my efficiency inconsistency. In a nutshell it was my 3 roller grain mill, and the inherent design issues that come along with this, and most style, 3 roller adjustable mills.

I was digging into every possible cause, and finally decided to disassemble the grain mill down far enough that I could really see what was going on, and how the adjustment was actual versus what it was showing on the adjustment dials. The adjustment is made possible by the bottom roller (dummy, non driven roller) that has elliptical ends that sit in a pocket, and as you turn the knob, the ellipse turns in this pocket and moves the roller closer or further away. The issue is that depending on if you are adjusted tight (say .025" gap with the one top roller), the dummy or lower roller is then further away from the other top roller. So a .025" gap will be .035" or .038" gap with the other roller. So, as I was tightening it on the one side, the side that the adjustment is for, it actually opens up the other side wider. And, when you start the mill (mine is powered by a low RPM electric motor) the grain can go through either side, or can be crushed by either one of the top two rollers and the bottom roller. And its random, sometimes it'll go through the one side, and sometimes through the other. So, you never really know what you're getting, truly. There is an adjustment point, around .032", where both rollers are the same distance from the dummy roller (based on it's elliptical travel). So I've set it there, and for any other width gap, I'm going to have to watch and make sure the grain comes out that side roller so I know it's being crushed to that amount that I've set (with feeler gauges).

In a nutshell, it seems most all 3 roller mills have this same design flaw, and I'm not quite sure most know of this issue. It was one of the last things I looked at, but now I know after digging into it and how it functions.

Hope this helps others.

you need to rotate one dial clock wise, the other counter clockwise to adjust the driven roller - do that and it works just fine. .. seems folks get confused on how to adjust the roller, the video from Monster Mill isn't very clear.

 

[gifty74]

My Mighty Mill (morebeer) doesn't work that way. And in watching the Monster Mill video, theirs doesn't either. Unless the bottom dummy roller is somehow adjusted north/south (straight up and down, keeping the same distance from both rollers as it moves) I don't see how this is possible. My knobs do turn the opposite direction on each side, and I've been very particular about both sides being the same gap, end to end. The problem is the gap that it creates with the other roller.

 

[BeerNsteadofH2O]

My Mighty Mill (morebeer) doesn't work that way. And in watching the Monster Mill video, theirs doesn't either. Unless the bottom dummy roller is somehow adjusted north/south (straight up and down, keeping the same distance from both rollers as it moves) I don't see how this is possible. My knobs do turn the opposite direction on each side, and I've been very particular about both sides being the same gap, end to end. The problem is the gap that it creates with the other roller.

the roller is on an eccentric cam, one way moves it closer, the other moves it away, so you must turn each one opposite the other , the first time i adjusted my mill, I had the same exact problem you are having, it was a bit puzzling, and the darn thing kept jamming up, I was ready to send it back as defective, but with a little thought, it all came clear, it's rather simple and works very well once you understand it.