The quest for efficiency: A survey

[Zepth]

So the question arises in that many of us are in it to hit those high efficiency numbers. What is the inspiration? Why do we do it? Also a huge topic for newcomers wanting to increase their own efficiency. I remember my first AG BIAB, one of the first things I did was run to the online calculator to find out. Now I checked hours afterwards just out of curiosity. Not so much of a deal anymore for me.

Please discuss the most difficult question:
Why?

 

[chickypad]

Consistency is the key for me, so I can formulate recipes and not worry about missing my OG. I started out at 77-79% and never really tried to increase it. I think as long as I was over 70 and consistent I would have been happy, needing a couple extra lbs of grain is not a deal breaker for me especially when buying in bulk.

 

[mikescooling]

A great brewer once told me grain is cheap, don't go for the super high efficiency. I'm at about 75%

 

[D-Train]

There's no option for wanting the precision to scale your ingredients to a gravity. Maybe the question is what is the desire for high efficiency. I guess that would be cost savings.

For those in the mid 70's, is that mash efficiency or brewhouse efficiency?

 

[mikescooling]

Mash efficiency, so if I do a finer crush it goes up. When I'm pushing the limits of my MLT and want to up the ABV, I do a better crush. I'd much rather just add a couple more pounds of 2 row.

 

[Hamaki]

I believe Palmer alludes to potential tannin extraction when targeting high efficiency. I get 80-82% every time and am very happy with that.

 

[RM-MN]

A great brewer once told me grain is cheap, don't go for the super high efficiency. I'm at about 75%

A great pennypincher once told me that costs count in the bottom line. I just made that up but the premise is real, in a big brewery with lots of competition they wouldn't be profitable at 75% efficiency. My normal is 85%.

 

[RM-MN]

I believe Palmer alludes to potential tannin extraction when targeting high efficiency. I get 80-82% every time and am very happy with that.

Multiple sparges can drive the pH high which can lead to tannin extraction, especially when coupled with higher temperature sparges when trying to increase the solubility of the sugars.

 

[Zepth]

I have given up on the high efficiency quest and decided to be happy where I'm at. I tend to get 75% most of the time with an average gravity batch. While my mother always told me "A dollar saved is a dollar earned" it just doesn't seem worthwhile to pursue the goal to save $0.75 on grain per batch.

I've been brewing almost a year now. This has given enough time to try out a few different methods and plenty of styles. I have only now just tried to re-create a previous batch that turned out perfectly. Being able to hit numbers and accomplish this without the emergency DME addition or leaving a gallon of wort behind (save it somehow) to add water to prevent overshooting the target is important.

 

[RLinNH]

I like to be able to accurately formulate a recipe with my given Efficiency numbers. I'm usually locked in right around 78%-82%. Been that way for 7-8 years.

 

[agrazela]

It was kind of "personal challenge" at first, but mostly the challenge of dialing in efficiencies so that I'd know what to expect and be able to repeat. So I voted for "capability to repeat batches."

BTW, I do BIAB no-sparge, and I typically get efficiency around 75% at about 2:1 water to grain (probably >75% of my brews, like typical pales and IPAs), around 67% at about 1.4:1 (maybe 20% of my brews, like DIPA's and strong ales), and around 60% at about 1:1 (probably <5% of my brews, barleywines, imperials). I am sure these numbers are not the best they could possibly be, but they are consistent for me and that is the most important thing at this point.

 

[LandoLincoln]

To be able to maintain a stable efficiency is good. To be able to achieve a high efficiency is also good. To be able to have a high and stable efficiency is the mark of a quality brewer. It is not an easy task at all. That's why I strive for it.

 

[soupfist]

Psychologically speaking, I think in most human endeavors there's a need to feel immediate accomplishment after doing something you've worked hard on and are passionate about. In beer brewing, obviously you get no immediate accomplishment out of enjoying a nice beer, because you don't have beer on the end of brew day...you have wort. It *might* be great beer, but you won't be spiking any footballs until at least 6 weeks later if not more.

Efficiency is a tempting candidate for this, because it's a "score" and it's directly representative of something going bad or good on your brew day. On one hand it's completely foolish to really care about it that much other than to make sure you hit your marks and plan your dilution/boil-off correctly if you didn't. On the other hand, I brewed a porter Saturday expecting 70% efficiency and when I measured it 79%, :rockin:

 

[dkevinb]

I'd be much happier with a stable average efficiency than to be unpredictably high one batch and low another. As long as my efficiency is reasonable and I know what to expect life is good.

 

[Siberian]

My recipes consistently come out spot on if I tell BeerSmith I'm expecting 72% efficiency. I'm usually within +/-.01 of target OG and collect essentially my target wort volume at the end. I have no complaints and no surprises. (I picked 'Forget efficiency, I have homebrew to drink!' )

I'm doing no-spare eBIAB with a constantly recirculating RIMs during the batch, I always raise the mash to 168 at the end to make for quicker runoff. I only let the bag drain until I've collected what was my pre-boil target which is typically only 10-15 minutes elevated, no squeezing/bag pressing.

Sure, I could start messing with crush/drain my bag longer/squeeze every drop out of it etc to get it up, I've done that, but at this point I'd rather not play with it to save a few cents (if I wanted to save money I'd stop buying expensive brewing equipment), it's just not worth it to me. Particularly if that lead it to becoming less predictable or more time consuming. Instead I've accepted the easy to achieve efficiency on my system and I'm spending my time just trying to dial beersmith into being able to model it, rather then forcing my system/processes into slightly better efficiency.

As it stands now my brew days are predictable and getting to be more and more relaxing as I get more used to my particular system and address the things about it that annoy me and eliminate parts of the process that don't make enough difference to matter. So, sure I could strive for 80% efficiency but instead I'll just throw slightly more base malt at the problem instead.

Plus most recipes expect 70% efficiency so I figure I'm doing just fine.

 

[beersk]

As long as it's consistent and above 70% brewhouse efficiency, then I'd say you're doing good. Mine used to be around 70%, then I was able to bump it up to 78-80% with good water chemistry and a finer crush. I'm happy with it there.

I hear about some of my friends bragging about 86%, yeah, sweet! That's great! But is it consistent? How's the beer? Efficiency is a means to an end in homebrewing. It's crucial in the professional industry, but for us amateurs, there's more important things to worry about. Consistency is key.

 

[guitarguy6]

Since I'm new to AG brewing it's a personal challenge. Once I really get to know my equipment it will be more about capability of repeating batches.

 

[KPSquared]

Trying to get higher and higher efficiency is pointless. The cost savings are minimal and it has zero effect on your beer. The only thing I want it know regarding efficiency is where my system is at. It's hard to build a recipe if you don't know how your system performs. I mean, you get 40% then sure, hunt down the problem. Over 70%? Why worry about it?

If guys want to obsess, that's cool and all (and very much a part of this hobby) but it should never be presented in such a way that a new brewer would think its super important.

Worry about making solid, consistent beer. If you nail that down then feel free to start tweaking. Some guys will spend hundreds on new brewing toys in the hunt for high numbers all so they can save pennies on a grain bill... I just don't get it.


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew

 

[steveoatley]

For me its consistency

I have made some - poor tasting beers
I have made some - good tasting bears
I have made some - great tasting beers

My problem is repeating those Great tasting beers
Anything I can do to brew exactly the same beer three times in a row
Would be a win in my book

whether it is a good beer or a great beer, doing it exactly the same 3 times in a row.......

So many variables.....so very frustrating not to be able to duplicate a beer.

just my 2 cents

 

[beergolf]

For me it is consistency.

I hit 72% almost exactly every time. If I put 72% in my brew software I. am within a point or two every time. I am happy with that.

 

[barnaclebob]

The poll really is missing a lot of choices and some don't make sense. You don't need high effeciency for repeatability.

I personally tried to increase my efficiency so I can fit bigger batches in my current equipment.

 

[monkeyman1000]

I haven't been chasing anything, just letting my small system do it's thing. I have been getting high 80's to low 90's for my efficiency into boil though ( I stir every 10 minutes, have my mash pH within range and keep my temps pretty consistent). That is for an average gravity beer, no sparge BIAB. I am only making about 2 gallons at a time so not sure if that is why the efficiency comes out higher.

 

[Calichusetts]

While I had a rough year brewing (renovating the house and a decent leave, some poor outcomes from experimental beers, etc) the one saving grace is that I have my efficiency locked in this year. I either hit my numbers exactly or come 1-2 points higher on two brews.

Really helps with designing recipes.