Very Low Efficiency. Please Help!

[Clonefan94]

I'm with those who would look for a better crush. It's ok to find a few whole kernels here or there, but by your pic, looks like too many to me.

Think about it, even if only 10% are left whole, that's still about 10% of the sugar you can't get at. Yours looks very similar to what I was getting before I got my own grain mill.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[sky4meplease]

With BIAB you can afford a finer crush to help with efficiencies also because you don't have to worry about stuck sparges.
Otherwise I don't think your too far off.
I run the numbers for my set up and get 1.026 preboil and OG of 1.042 using 1.5 pounds of base malt at 75% efficiency.
Keep at it your almost there.

 

[Gerry_P]

I have the 5 gallon cooler/bazooka setup. Be sure to drain your mash slowly...that was the rookie mistake I made. When I fixed it I went from 63% to 73%. (brewhouse.)

Edit: Btw, those grains need a bit more crushin'.

 

[LymeKiln]

Gerry just how slow do you sparge? I've kind of got it timed to about 45 minutes for 5 gallons.

 

[Bobby_M]

First batch primary problem was too big of a cooler for such a small batch. You can't use a tun where infusion volume = dead space. Also, you really shouldn't fly sparge with a braid as they are not compatible.
The batch in the 3 gallon cooler fixed that problem but you are still mashing a grist with unmalted adjucts, under 150F, for only 60 minutes. You either have to go warmer or mash longer ESPECIALLY with that coarse crush. It's not borderline either, that mill needs adjusting.

 

[MagicMatt]

It's not borderline either, that mill needs adjusting.

Hear, hear! After only 2 brews I decided I was not satisfied with my LHBS's consistency of crush, so I bought a Cereal Killer and haven't looked back. I condition my grains (per Kai's website) and it allows for an even finer crush. I've hit near 85% several times.

 

[peterj]

Dude, for a 1 gallon batch, you should try stovetop BIAB. I think trying 1 g batches with a 10 g cooler may be stretching it.

He did.

 

[Gerry_P]

Gerry just how slow do you sparge? I've kind of got it timed to about 45 minutes for 5 gallons.

Hmm...pretty close to that. Kind of a steady trickle, if that makes sense. I'm pretty new to ag so I'm still figuring this stuff out, and I saw a big jump when I slowed things down a bit.

BTW, OP: I hear that putting a sheet of tin foil on top of your wort before you put the lid on the cooler can help keep the temperature up, but I haven't tried it yet. Pre-heating my cooler and sealing the lid with duct tape helped a lot though, plus I wrap mine in towels. I lose 1 or 2 degrees during a 90 minute mash.

 

[peterj]

If you're batch sparging it shouldn't matter how fast you drain the mash tun. You should mix the sparge water in really well and then all of the sugars left in the tun will be evenly distributed and dissolved in the water. So as long as you get all of the wort out, it doesn't matter if it comes out fast or slow. That's one of the big advantages of batch sparging.

Maybe you're talking about fly sparging though, in which case the flow rate does matter.

 

[sboyajian]

Just for piece of mind, consider picking up some iodine so you can check to make sure you mash is complete... but I would agree the grains look like they could be crushed a bit better. It's possible time has allowed the mill to not be as efficient and the LHBS just hasn't noticed. Let them know.

 

[Gerry_P]

If you're batch sparging it shouldn't matter how fast you drain the mash tun. You should mix the sparge water in really well and then all of the sugars left in the tun will be evenly distributed and dissolved in the water. So as long as you get all of the wort out, it doesn't matter if it comes out fast or slow. That's one of the big advantages of batch sparging.

Maybe you're talking about fly sparging though, in which case the flow rate does matter.

My understanding is that batch sparging should be drained slowly because it allows for more sugars to be extracted from the grain bed as the liquid passes through it on the way out. Or maybe it was to avoid stuck sparges. Idk, I might be wrong but it seemed like a good idea and it didn't cost extra.

Anyway, here's what I did: the previous batch was either "no sparge" or "batch sparged", depending on who you listen to. Mashed, recirculated, didn't drain anything, added hot sparge water, stirred, let settle, and drained pretty fast. It took maybe 10 minutes to drain, maybe a little more, and my brewhouse effciency was 61% (I thought it was 63% but I had confused it with a previous BIAB batch.)

Last batch I had my mash tun almost filled, so I recirculated, then started draining the mash slowly while adding sparge water. I didn't drain the mash down to a level just above the grain bed as you're supposed to do when fly sparging. Eventually all my sparge water was in the mash tun, and I just left it draining slowly. The whole thing took about 30-40 minutes, iirc. I ended up with 73% brewhouse. Idk what you'd call that..."fly batching", "flatch sparging", or maybe "lazy man's fly sparge"... I thought I made it up, but as it turns out this guy beat me to it almost 7 years ago: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=75454

 

[MagicMatt]

I thought I made it up, but as it turns out this guy beat me to it almost 7 years ago: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=75454

The only "problem" i see with his instructions is the last step, when he says to shut the valve while you refill your sparge bucket. If you close the valve during lautering you'll lose your suction effect and thus the grain you've just worked so hard to compact into a filter bed will tend to unsettle. I used to notice this during my vorlauf, because I would only use 1 vorlauf vessel and thus keep shutting my valve while I dump back into the MLT. Once I switched to 2 containers (and let the valve stay open continuously), no more issues losing the suction/siphon.

 

[Gerry_P]

The only "problem" i see with his instructions is the last step, when he says to shut the valve while you refill your sparge bucket. If you close the valve during lautering you'll lose your suction effect and thus the grain you've just worked so hard to compact into a filter bed will tend to unsettle. I used to notice this during my vorlauf, because I would only use 1 vorlauf vessel and thus keep shutting my valve while I dump back into the MLT. Once I switched to 2 containers (and let the valve stay open continuously), no more issues losing the suction/siphon.

I missed that part, I left mine on during lautering. That's a good idea with the vorlauf though, I'll try that next time. Thanks brah!

 

[doug293cz]

My understanding is that batch sparging should be drained slowly because it allows for more sugars to be extracted from the grain bed as the liquid passes through it on the way out. Or maybe it was to avoid stuck sparges. Idk, I might be wrong but it seemed like a good idea and it didn't cost extra.

This is incorrect. After stirring at the end of the mash, the sugar concentration should be uniform throughout the volume of wort, and in equilibrium with any sugar retained in the grain. Without adding more water, there is nothing you can do to extract any more sugar from the grain, so slow draining does nothing. Again, after adding batch sparge water and stirring sufficiently, the wort and grain are in equilibrium, and no more sugar can be extracted.

Things are completely different for fly sparging. Before sparging begins, sugar in wort and grain are in equilibrium. But, as soon as you add sparge water, things are no longer in equilibrium. You want to use the sparge water to sweep the wort out of the grain bed, and dissolve remaining sugar out of the grain (which can now happen because the sugar concentration in the grain is higher than that in the sparge water.) You want to go slowly for three reasons:

1. Sugar comes out of the grain by diffusion, which takes time. Going slower maximizes the amount of sugar each small volume of sparge water picks up.
2. To avoid channeling where the sparge water bypasses much of the grain bed, so doesn't extract the remaining sugar.
3. To minimize the mixing of the wort and sparge water, as mixing reduces the sugar concentration gradient between the grain and water, thus reducing the rate of diffusion of sugar out of the grain.

The above is just a more detailed explanation of what @peterj said above:

If you're batch sparging it shouldn't matter how fast you drain the mash tun. You should mix the sparge water in really well and then all of the sugars left in the tun will be evenly distributed and dissolved in the water. So as long as you get all of the wort out, it doesn't matter if it comes out fast or slow. That's one of the big advantages of batch sparging.

Maybe you're talking about fly sparging though, in which case the flow rate does matter.

Brew on

 

[Gerry_P]

This is incorrect. After stirring at the end of the mash, the sugar concentration should be uniform throughout the volume of wort, and in equilibrium with any sugar retained in the grain. Without adding more water, there is nothing you can do to extract any more sugar from the grain, so slow draining does nothing.

Thanks for the input. I hear what you're saying, and I'm certainly no (insert type of scientist here). However, consider that once you open the spigot, you are disrupting the state of equilibrium by applying force. The force of the liquid being pulled through the grain bed flushes some of the residual sugars from the grains. I might be using the wrong terminology, but we might be talking about 2 different processes (chemical vs. mechanical maybe? idk.) It shouldn't matter that there are already sugars in the liquid, asssuming you haven't extracted 100% of the sugars from the grains when you stirred in your sparge water. Also I don't know what happens as you approach the saturation point of sugars in the mash, but I don't think that's an issue for most homebrewers.

Edit: I noticed you said that you couldn't extract more sugars unless you add more water. Think what would happen if you used more grain, but the same amount of water. You would get a higher gravity wort, as more sugars have been added. That's not the same thing as saturation point.

Other edit: Never mind previous edit, I see what you're saying.

 

[doug293cz]

Thanks for the input. I hear what you're saying, and I'm certainly no (insert type of scientist here). However, consider that once you open the spigot, you are disrupting the state of equilibrium by applying force. The force of the liquid being pulled through the grain bed acts to flush some of the residual sugars from the grains. I might be using the wrong terminology, but we might be talking about 2 different processes (chemical vs. mechanical maybe? idk.) It shouldn't matter that there are already sugars in the liquid, asssuming you haven't extracted 100% of the sugars from the grains when you stirred in your sparge water. Also I don't know what happens as you approach the saturation point of sugars in the mash, but I don't think that's an issue for most homebrewers.

No, mechanical action will not disrupt a concentration equilibrium. Fluid shear (from flow or stirring) can get you to equilibrium faster, however, if you are not there already. It works by creating steeper concentration gradients by disturbing the natural diffusion gradient. This is why things dissolve faster if you stir.

If the sugar concentration in the grain is higher than that of the wort, then equilibrium has not been reached, and more time will allow more sugar to be extracted. If the concentrations are equal, then nothing you can do mechanically will extract more sugar.

Once you have reached equilibrium, the grain particles contain no more starch, and can be thought of as little sponges. The sugar remaining in the grain is in wort soaked into the sponges.

As you approach saturation, the concentration gradients are reduced, and the rates of diffusion are reduced, so additional sugar goes into solution slower. You are correct that we are no where near saturation in wort at mash temperatures.

Edit: I noticed you said that you couldn't extract more sugars unless you add more water. Think if you used more grain, but the same amount of water. You would get a higher gravity wort, as more sugars have been added. That's not the same as saturation point.

When it's time to sparge, you're past the point of adding more grain, and what I wrote only applies after the mash is complete and run off/sparging begins. The amount of grain mashed does determine the amount of sugar available in the mash.

Brew on

 

[Gerry_P]

No, mechanical action will not disrupt a concentration equilibrium.

Thank you! That does clear things up a bit, especially the part about the sugar in grain being wort that's absorbed after equilibrium is reached. That changes everything. (Well, not "everything", but you know...)

Btw, just for fun I did a little research on batch sparging, and came up with these definitive answers :

- "As with other sparge techniques, you do not want to drain the grain bed too quickly. You need to allow the sparge water to do its work. Drain slowly." - BYO, 1/97
- "Completely drain the mash tun as fast as your system will allow." BYO, 1/04
- "Because you do not have to wait for the water to slowly drain into/out of the mash tun, batch sparging can save you a half hour or more on this step alone." Brew365.com
- "Vorlauf and let it drain SLOW." - Some guy on BA.com
- "Open your tap as much as you are comfortable." Beersmith.com
- "With batch sparging and fly sparging (see below) it is imperative that the liquid is drained slowly." - Homebrewingandbeer.com

 

[Gerry_P]

Mashed, recirculated, didn't drain anything, added hot sparge water, stirred, let settle, and drained pretty fast. It took maybe 10 minutes to drain, maybe a little more, and my brewhouse effciency was 61%

I think it's pretty safe to say that this was a "no sparge" batch (the LHBS guy threw me off by calling it a batch sparge) and that I've never really done a normal batch sparge. The "Flatch sparge" or whatever you want to call it worked pretty well, plus it was fast and easy. We'll see what happens when I do my Belgian pale ale, hopefully tomorrow.

 

[MagicMatt]

I think it's pretty safe to say that this was a "no sparge" batch (the LHBS guy threw me off by calling it a batch sparge) and that I've never really done a normal batch sparge. The "Flatch sparge" or whatever you want to call it worked pretty well, plus it was fast and easy. We'll see what happens when I do my Belgian pale ale, hopefully tomorrow.

It sounds like you only mashed and then did a mash out step. So "no sparge" is correct. You just mashed out. Sparging (either batch or fly) would be any additional H2O added after the mash out.

 

[Gerry_P]

It sounds like you only mashed and then did a mash out step. So "no sparge" is correct. You just mashed out. Sparging (either batch or fly) would be any additional H2O added after the mash out.

Thanks Matt, that explains it. The other day I did my Belgian pale ale the same way (hybrid sparge, not no-sparge) and got 77%, with an OG of 1.059. My last batch with this "technique" was 1.105 and 73%. I'm pretty happy with it so far. (Side note: I used the Wyeast Belgian Ardennes with a starter and had a solid 1/2" of krausen 3 hrs. after pitching. Those little guys work fast!)

Btw, when I said the LHBS guy threw me off I wasn't badmouthing him. The guys at Brewstock are great and I chalked it up to a poor explanation of the process on my part.

 

[MagicMatt]

Btw, when I said the LHBS guy threw me off I wasn't badmouthing him. The guys at Brewstock are great and I chalked it up to a poor explanation of the process on my part.

Yeah they can be helpful but sometimes I feel like I know more than them (and I'm no expert on most of this stuff, though I strive to be!).

One other thing to consider; if you are adding water to bring temperature up, you are throwing off your water/grain ratio which will also have a negative impact on efficiency.

You've been lied to! This is actually inaccurate as I mentioned earlier in this thread (see this post). Thinner mashes can actually help efficiency.

 

[Gavin C]

Yeah I'm having them crushed. They look good to me... most of the grains are in multiple pieces. I'll try to get pic..

Attached. Thoughts?

This cush does not look acceptable. If your BIAB'ing use it to your advantage and crush fine. This is what my crush looks like for comparison. There are no whole kernel left. Some flour present.

My Crush

One other thing you can do with small batches is to place the mash in the oven (if its in a pot) on a hold warm setting. You can monitor the temps with a probe thermometer. My oven can go as low as 145F. It may not be an option. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[doug293cz]

One other thing to consider; if you are adding water to bring temperature up, you are throwing off your water/grain ratio which will also have a negative impact on efficiency.

I don't believe this is true. Can you back it up with something other than opinions and anecdotes? Kai has shown that thinner mashes have higher efficiency in a no sparge situation (http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.ph...e_infusion_mashing&redirect=no#Mash_thickness.) What happens when you include sparging gets more complex, but a simple statement that "thinner mashes lead to lower efficiency" is misleading at best.

Edit: I see @MagicMatt beat me to this point.

Brew on

 

[Gavin C]

@doug293cz

That is a spam post you replied to. It is an exact cut and paste of an earlier post (3rd or 4th in th thread)

I agree with you. Thin mashes will promote a higher efficiency. This has been well established. They are the norm in no-sparge full volume brewing of course.

 

[peterj]

Dude, for a 1 gallon batch, you should try stovetop BIAB. I think trying 1 g batches with a 10 g cooler may be stretching it.

What's with all this spam?

 

[chubby]

Just a bit of a follow up from the start of this thread....still looking for solution(s).

Summary:

1. 1 gal batch size
2. BIAB - 3 gal cooler to mash in and hold temps, Grain crush is fair, but not perfect
3. Built purified water to Pale profile ranges (see image)
4. 1.5 QT/Lb Grain minimum
5. Mashed for 1 hour 40 minutes
6. Mash temp held at 154
7. Soaked/Dipped grains in 1.25 gal water at 168
8. OG 1.038 (post boil), 1.25 gal, 51.5% Measured efficiency with refractometer.... (see images)

Yes, I am using the gravity scale on the ATC refractometer, but when I plug the Brix % into a calculator I'm getting a result not too far off from the scale. I've calibrated the refractometer with distilled water...I know they're not "made" for Wort, but adjustments can be made. The batch is already fermenting so it would only add complexity to compare to a hydrometer reading at this point. On the next batch I will compare to a hydrometer, which looking back I should have been doing all along. I guess I don't understand how I can verify the calibration and the tool be off this far....IF it is.?.? The refractometer is supposed to have ATC. I'm placing 3 drops on the lens, closing the cover, and waiting at least 30 seconds for the temp to settle. Or is there something still wrong with my process?

Below are some screenshots relevant to this batch.

I'm beyond frustrated at this point.

 

[MadHomebrewer]

Following, I'm also having efficiency issues with one gallon all grain batches in my 2 gallon mash tun.View attachment ImageUploadedByHome Brew1430846322.412988.jpg

 

[chubby]

I added 4 cups of hot water, first 2 and then another 2 to try to bring up the temp a little at the beginning of the mash. I've not found this too effective. The overall temp seems very resistant to increases.

If this water was too hot, could that cause inefficiency problems? Damage enzyme activity? I stirred slightly as I poured it in to keep it from creating hot spots. The overall temp wasn't really affected with each 2 cup addition.

Could this cause a 20% decrease in efficiency?

 

[chubby]

Following, I'm also having efficiency issues with one gallon all grain batches in my 2 gallon mash tun.View attachment 276028

Are you using a hydrometer? What efficiency numbers are you seeing?

 

[MadHomebrewer]

Are you using a hydrometer? What efficiency numbers are you seeing?

I quit using my hydrometer for my one gallon batches and got a refractometer. It was supposed to be a double IPA with a target OG of 1.075, but I ended up with an OG of 1.057. I ended up with an IPA instead, lol.