What Brew House Efficiency to strive for?

[Morrey]

I have taken the path of many home brewers going from extract to partial mash to all grain BIAB. I mill my own grains and have now completed close to 50 BIAB AG batches.

I don't want to prejudice your answers, but what I am asking for is a general consensus for a typical Brew House or overall efficiency that is good? In other words...what % are you getting...real world answers. I know Beer Smith uses 72% as a rule of thumb, so if you can suggest what is the number I can look for to "know I am doing a decent job".

After I get a few responses, I'll post what my % was yesterday when I did a Brickwarmer Holiday Red. Interesting my numbers are lining up about the same regardless of the style or grain bill, so the number I got yesterday has been quite consistent for multiple brews.

Thanks everyone!

 

[mongoose33]

I don't calculate mine. It's ok I'm sure. I don't do BIAB, I do a mash tun, but I'll have probably 9-12 pounds of grain, produce an ABV for 5 gallons of between 5.5 and 7.0.

The beer is good. What this will probably do is encourage me to calculate it, but then what? If not high enough, maybe I'll feel bad. If it's really high, maybe I'll feel smug. But in the end, I think i should judge my beer by how it tastes.

If I were running a brewery where excess grain usage was a cost I could reduce, I'd be very concerned with this. As a homebrewer, not so much.

 

[dmtaylor]

Consistency is more important than the exact number. If you get 65% efficiency consistently and are happy with the beers that come out, then you've succeeded. Same goes for 75% or 85%. Most efficiencies are in about that range from 65-85%, with few exceptions.

In my OPINION, anywhere in the 70s is "good enough", and about 82% is very good indeed. Many experienced homebrewers quit striving for more when they hit the 80s and just stay there. In the past I hit an average >90% just to prove that I could do it if I wanted to, but now I keep my average efficiency at about 82% on purpose just because it seems right to me and very rarely experience a stuck sparge.

There are no right or wrong answers. It's all good, but consistency and predictability are best, and way more important than your particular number, whether it's 72 or 76 or 81 or anything else. Just get it steady so you can be predictable and brew any recipe at all and know how much grains to use ahead of time and not be surprised when your gravity is off by 15 points. Know what I mean?

 

[Morrey]

I don't calculate mine. It's ok I'm sure. I don't do BIAB, I do a mash tun, but I'll have probably 9-12 pounds of grain, produce an ABV for 5 gallons of between 5.5 and 7.0.

The beer is good. What this will probably do is encourage me to calculate it, but then what? If not high enough, maybe I'll feel bad. If it's really high, maybe I'll feel smug. But in the end, I think i should judge my beer by how it tastes.

If I were running a brewery where excess grain usage was a cost I could reduce, I'd be very concerned with this. As a homebrewer, not so much.

I agree, my friend, I agree. I used to think all along there is no reason to get hung up on a number as an arbitrary goal. If the beer tastes good...drink it. Now, look at the post I just made...LOL.

 

[singybrue]

I don't think the actual efficiency matters most on the homebrew scale, as much a repeatability. I'd rather have a system that gets 65% everytime rather than one that goes from 65% to 80% to 75%.
That being said, I think 70-80% is a reasonable number.

 

[Morrey]

Consistency is more important than the exact number. If you get 65% efficiency consistently and are happy with the beers that come out, then you've succeeded. Same goes for 75% or 85%. Most efficiencies are in about that range from 65-85%, with few exceptions.

In my OPINION, anywhere in the 70s is "good enough", and about 82% is very good indeed. Many experienced homebrewers quit striving for more when they hit the 80s and just stay there. In the past I hit an average >90% just to prove that I could do it if I wanted to, but now I keep my average efficiency at about 82% on purpose just because it seems right to me and very rarely experience a stuck sparge.

There are no right or wrong answers. It's all good, but consistency and predictability are best, and way more important than your particular number, whether it's 72 or 76 or 81 or anything else. Just get it steady so you can be predictable and brew any recipe at all and know how much grains to use ahead of time and not be surprised when your gravity is off by 15 points. Know what I mean?

Absolutely, Dave, I do know what you mean. You and I have exchanged multiple ideas and we have both agreed that consistency is more of a goal than is a number. The good thing about my percentages is they are very consistent. Like you said, that is far more important than a roller coaster of numbers.

I am just looking for an idea of what others are getting to see if I am on track or off track. If I am getting 65 and you are getting 85, then I'd be picking your brain to see how I could improve.

All this is helping me. 50 BIAB batches sounds like a lot but it really isn't in the big scheme of things.

 

[dmtaylor]

I would say 50 batches kind of is a lot. Personally I'm not even to the 150 mark yet I don't believe. Getting close though. I still feel like I have enough experience to form an opinion, and probably had nearly the same level of experience at batch 50 as I do now.

 

[Morrey]

I would say 50 batches kind of is a lot. Personally I'm not even to the 150 mark yet I don't believe. Getting close though. I still feel like I have enough experience to form an opinion, and probably had nearly the same level of experience at batch 50 as I do now.

Back at around batch 20 - 25, I really dug into water chemistry and ph. I learned a ton, had my water analyzed by Wards and started using programs such as Bru'n Water. This turned the worm for me, plus I bought a 3 roller mill and started grinding my own grist.

Dave, before this revelation, I was struggling to hit BeerSmiths default 72%. Even into the high 60's at times. But now things seem to have come together. You were a source of information in a big way. On my last several beers my percentage has been less than 1% spread across all of them. To me, that is very important. Yesterday was 81.05, the week before was 81.02. Consistency is there for sure. I simply wasn't sure what you or mongoose33 (guys that share with me often) would be getting. I had no clue. Now I feel confident to the point I probably will only spot check occasionally. All good!

 

[zapbampow]

I've only measured efficiency for a few batches now, but I've gotten around 80% for each of those batches. I only do small batches though. I'm not sure if that has any effect.

 

[mongoose33]

OK, measured the brewhouse efficiency of my most recent Funky Rye. It's 77.84 percent.

My most recent Black Pearl Porter: 78.19 percent.

My most recent California Common: 80.54 percent.

I guess it's good enough for government work.. But more important, as so many have said above, is how is the beer?

 

[Morrey]

OK, measured the brewhouse efficiency of my most recent Funky Rye. It's 77.84 percent.

My most recent Black Pearl Porter: 78.19 percent.

My most recent California Common: 80.54 percent.

I guess it's good enough for government work.. But more important, as so many have said above, is how is the beer?

True...what's a number if the beer is dump material? I doubt that's the case, so I suppose we are hitting strong numbers to get the most out of our efforts. If most of us are in the higher 70's to lower 80's, I think that tells our process is solid. I am doing all I know to do and I'm hitting at least 80 every brew now. So, like you say, I'll relax and enjoy the fruits of my labor.

 

[TX_Brewing]

I consistently hit 74-75%, and I am happy with it there. Recipes can be scaled, being able to repeat the process is the important part.

I should also probably mention that I use a breweasy setup, if I batch of fly sparged I would probably get a few more percentage points.

 

[Morrey]

I've only measured efficiency for a few batches now, but I've gotten around 80% for each of those batches. I only do small batches though. I'm not sure if that has any effect.

I'm just guessing, but I wouldn't think that efficiency would necessarily be batch size related. I may be wrong so someone please correct me. Since you are proportionately scaling down amounts/volumes for a small batch, and scaling up for larger batches, the ratio is the same which directly equals a percentage.

If you have only done a few batches of all grain, and are getting 80%, you are doing a splendid job. I think my biggest break thru with efficiency was when I bought my own 3 roller mill. I'll occasionally compare my grind to a LHBS grind, and quickly see the difference in mine and theirs.

 

[mongoose33]

One of the interesting elements of this for me is the saga of Potosi's Cave Ale. Formerly my favorite beer of all time, all places.

But in summer of 2015 they changed the recipe. Sour finish, lost some of the maltiness I loved....just a real soul-crusher.

The old recipe had an ABV of 6.5 percent. The new one has 5.5 percent. They claimed they didn't change anything with the new recipe, though I know better--they must have reduced the grain bill as their new ABV is down a percent.

They also told me they changed the yeast, but we all know that has nothing whatsoever to do with flavor....right?

I'd guess they saved perhaps 15 percent of their grain bill which, at the scale they're brewing, is likely a significant savings. I just don't like what they did to the beer. Now, this doesn't necessarily explain anything about their brewhouse efficiency, but if they were able to increase that without increasing the grain bill, they'd be closer to the old Cave Ale.

A friend of mine works on the bottling line at the Potosi Brewery. I'm hoping I can get her to introduce me to the brewmaster and find out what yeast they used in the old version. I've also learned that they used US Goldings as the hops; if I can get the right yeast, I might be able to clone it. I've been trying, and while it's close, it's not quite there.

 

[Morrey]

I consistently hit 74-75%, and I am happy with it there. Recipes can be scaled, being able to repeat the process is the important part.

I should also probably mention that I use a breweasy setup, if I batch of fly sparged I would probably get a few more percentage points.

Yes, and BIAB is sort of unique in the sparging category which may account for some difference in various 3V systems. I use an Arbor Fab grain basket for mashing. I'll pulley the basket and press down on the grain bed with a press plate. Even when I expect the wort to be fully extracted, I can always get a bit more if I wait a minute before pressing a final time. This system has contributed to my eff% increases with no detectable astringency or related issues.

 

[dmtaylor]

I'm just guessing, but I wouldn't think that efficiency would necessarily be batch size related. I may be wrong so someone please correct me. Since you are proportionately scaling down amounts/volumes for a small batch, and scaling up for larger batches, the ratio is the same which directly equals a percentage.

If you have only done a few batches of all grain, and are getting 80%, you are doing a splendid job. I think my biggest break thru with efficiency was when I bought my own 3 roller mill. I'll occasionally compare my grind to a LHBS grind, and quickly see the difference in mine and theirs.

It is actually easier to hit awesome efficiencies with smaller batches, because of boiloff rate. Example: If you only brew 1 gallon, you'll still boil off about 1 gallon during a 60-minute boil, which is a 50% boiloff rate. Thus you have the ability to sparge a LOT more compared to a "normal" brewer who only boils off 15-20%. More sparging and more concentration will lead to higher efficiency. I've gotten around 95% efficiency a couple times with small batches like this (actually about 2 gallons post-boil but you get the picture). Things to think about.

 

[Yooper]

It is actually easier to hit awesome efficiencies with smaller batches, because of boiloff rate. Example: If you only brew 1 gallon, you'll still boil off about 1 gallon during a 60-minute boil, which is a 50% boiloff rate. Thus you have the ability to sparge a LOT more compared to a "normal" brewer who only boils off 15-20%. More sparging and more concentration will lead to higher efficiency. I've gotten around 95% efficiency a couple times with small batches like this (actually about 2 gallons post-boil but you get the picture). Things to think about.

Right- and the reverse is true for super high OG batches. If you are using, say, 10 pounds of grain you can generally sparge up to your boil volume (or full volume mash at a reasonable volume) and get a good efficiency.

But say your grainbill is 23 pounds- you would use far less volume per pound of grain to reach your boil volume, hence reducing your efficiency.

When I use an extra-large grainbill, my efficiency may drop to 65% and I account for that in the recipe.

The other day I made a beer that I wanted to hit 1.037 on, a session low ABV beer. Because of the very small grainbill, I hit 1.040, a higher efficiency than typical for me.

 

[dmtaylor]

Yooper is absolutely right. Big beers hurt efficiency. For monster beers (like >1.090) I usually shoot for about 55% efficiency and can achieve good results that way. Either that, or go ahead and sparge a lot and just plan to boil for 2-3 hours instead of just 1 hour, then you can still get efficiency in the 70s if you want.

 

[Morrey]

One of the interesting elements of this for me is the saga of Potosi's Cave Ale. Formerly my favorite beer of all time, all places.

But in summer of 2015 they changed the recipe. Sour finish, lost some of the maltiness I loved....just a real soul-crusher.

The old recipe had an ABV of 6.5 percent. The new one has 5.5 percent. They claimed they didn't change anything with the new recipe, though I know better--they must have reduced the grain bill as their new ABV is down a percent.

They also told me they changed the yeast, but we all know that has nothing whatsoever to do with flavor....right?

I'd guess they saved perhaps 15 percent of their grain bill which, at the scale they're brewing, is likely a significant savings. I just don't like what they did to the beer. Now, this doesn't necessarily explain anything about their brewhouse efficiency, but if they were able to increase that without increasing the grain bill, they'd be closer to the old Cave Ale.

A friend of mine works on the bottling line at the Potosi Brewery. I'm hoping I can get her to introduce me to the brewmaster and find out what yeast they used in the old version. I've also learned that they used US Goldings as the hops; if I can get the right yeast, I might be able to clone it. I've been trying, and while it's close, it's not quite there.

When I visited the Sierra Nevada brewery in Ashville NC this fall, I took a half day beer geek tour. It was very involved and a brew master included a short classroom presentation. One thing he stressed was CONSISTENCY of their products. I mean every little detail of the process has to be replicated time after time in an exact fashion. They have 6 figure pHd chemists on staff to ensure consistency. They were analyzing the AA content of a bale of leaf hops to get the precise AA content. It seems Potosi brewery has broken the cardinal rule of consistency. And looking at our conversation just on this one thread, the word consistency has come up multiple times. And we are just home brewers!!

 

[Morrey]

Yooper is absolutely right. Big beers hurt efficiency. For monster beers (like >1.090) I usually shoot for about 55% efficiency and can achieve good results that way. Either that, or go ahead and sparge a lot and just plan to boil for 2-3 hours instead of just 1 hour, then you can still get efficiency in the 70s if you want.

Good points Yooper and Dave. This post is a learning experience for me. Since I rarely do beers in that gravity range, this is new information that I'll use in the future. Glad to know this.

 

[dstockwell]

I use Brewers Friend and set brew house efficiency at 65% and roll with it. Could I do better, sure, but it would require either run grains quickly through the food processor for better crush or get a mill and mill my own. But since LHBS is 1.5 hours away I just order crushed on-line and seems to work fine for me.

 

[Morrey]

While we are on the subject of efficiency, may I ask if my losses fall in the range of normal compared to what you typically see in yours?

I mashed 11 pounds of grains with 7.25 gallons of full volume, no sparge strike water in my 10G Blichmann kettle. Temp was cool and around 55F, and I am close to sea level here in SC.

My grain absorption loss was .70 gallons. After a 60 minute boil I had lost an additional 1.25 gallons with 5.30G into fermenter.

Is .70G absorption with 11# grains average?
Is 1.25G boil off about normal?

 

[mongoose33]

While we are on the subject of efficiency, may I ask if my losses fall in the range of normal compared to what you typically see in yours?

I mashed 11 pounds of grains with 7.25 gallons of full volume, no sparge strike water in my 10G Blichmann kettle. Temp was cool and around 55F, and I am close to sea level here in SC.

My grain absorption loss was .70 gallons. After a 60 minute boil I had lost an additional 1.25 gallons with 5.30G into fermenter.

Is .70G absorption with 11# grains average?
Is 1.25G boil off about normal?

Are you squeezing the bag?

I run in a mash tun. With about 11-12 pounds of grist, I'd add from 4-4.5 gallons of strike water. What I draw off typically is about 2.75 gallons, for an absorption of over a gallon. Now, if i were willing to wait and wait and wait for those first runnings to trickle out, I'd probably hit 3 gallons....but that's still more absorption than your .7 gallons. So I'm guessing you're squeezing?

Of course, when I sparge w/ 4 gallons I get all of that out, as the grain is saturated. I end up w/ about 6.75 gallons. I end up with 5.5 gallons or thereabouts, which I'm fine with, as can easily draw off 5 gallons for the fermenter.

 

[Yooper]

While we are on the subject of efficiency, may I ask if my losses fall in the range of normal compared to what you typically see in yours?

I mashed 11 pounds of grains with 7.25 gallons of full volume, no sparge strike water in my 10G Blichmann kettle. Temp was cool and around 55F, and I am close to sea level here in SC.

My grain absorption loss was .70 gallons. After a 60 minute boil I had lost an additional 1.25 gallons with 5.30G into fermenter.

Is .70G absorption with 11# grains average?
Is 1.25G boil off about normal?

Yes, you're right in there. If you don't squeeze the bag or use a pulley to constrict it after the mash, you may get losses of .125 gallon per pound of grain ( more like 1.3 gallons), but if you do, yes, .70 gallon seems about right. You can squeeze the bag with more oomph to get a little more out.

I get a boil off of about 1.25-1.5 gallons per hour, depending on the humidity. In the winter, in my dry winter climate, I can even get more boil off. In the summer, it's often at 1.25 gallon/hour.

 

[mashinary]

I don't use a bag, but when I sparge, I get a consistent 75%, when I do a no-sparge mash, I get 70%.

 

[Morrey]

Yes, you're right in there. If you don't squeeze the bag or use a pulley to constrict it after the mash, you may get losses of .125 gallon per pound of grain ( more like 1.3 gallons), but if you do, yes, .70 gallon seems about right. You can squeeze the bag with more oomph to get a little more out.

I get a boil off of about 1.25-1.5 gallons per hour, depending on the humidity. In the winter, in my dry winter climate, I can even get more boil off. In the summer, it's often at 1.25 gallon/hour.

Yooper and mongoose33: I use an Arbor Fab 400 micron screen mesh grain basket with a chain lift from my celling rafter. I'll lift the basket above the wort level and press down on the grain bed with a press plate that Arbor Fab machined to fit into this basket. What I seem to be getting is close to what others get with similar methods which is what I was hoping to find out from y'all.

Yooper, I noted my boil off rate is changing some now that we are cooler and less humid. Good tips which will help me adjust season to season.

 

[dmtaylor]

One of the interesting elements of this for me is the saga of Potosi's Cave Ale. Formerly my favorite beer of all time, all places.

But in summer of 2015 they changed the recipe. Sour finish, lost some of the maltiness I loved....just a real soul-crusher.

The old recipe had an ABV of 6.5 percent. The new one has 5.5 percent. They claimed they didn't change anything with the new recipe, though I know better--they must have reduced the grain bill as their new ABV is down a percent.

They also told me they changed the yeast, but we all know that has nothing whatsoever to do with flavor....right?

I'd guess they saved perhaps 15 percent of their grain bill which, at the scale they're brewing, is likely a significant savings. I just don't like what they did to the beer. Now, this doesn't necessarily explain anything about their brewhouse efficiency, but if they were able to increase that without increasing the grain bill, they'd be closer to the old Cave Ale.

A friend of mine works on the bottling line at the Potosi Brewery. I'm hoping I can get her to introduce me to the brewmaster and find out what yeast they used in the old version. I've also learned that they used US Goldings as the hops; if I can get the right yeast, I might be able to clone it. I've been trying, and while it's close, it's not quite there.

Something as simple as a change in yeast from US-05 to WLP001 could change the attenuation enough to make this difference, even with exactly the same grain bill, hop schedule, and OG. They might have selected a less attenuative yeast to reduce alcohol without reducing flavor. I'm not a fan of the Cave Ale so I cannot say for sure, but a scenario such as this could help put all the puzzle pieces together.

 

[dmtaylor]

Is .70G absorption with 11# grains average?
Is 1.25G boil off about normal?

Yes, totally normal.

 

[stever1000]

In the past I hit an average >90% just to prove that I could do it if I wanted to, but now I keep my average efficiency at about 82% on purpose just because it seems right to me and very rarely experience a stuck sparge.

How did you get above >90%? I would be interested to hear what you did as far as process and sparging...

 

[dmtaylor]

How did you get above >90%? I would be interested to hear what you did as far as process and sparging...

It's really not terribly complicated...

1) Crush like mad. Crush dang near into flour.

2) Ensure mash and sparge pH is 5.2-5.5. If not, adjust with salts or acid to get there. Learn and understand exactly what you need to do to get there.

3a) Know and understand and measure all volumes with perfection. Know how much gallons per pound of water your grains will permanently soak up (should be close to 0.1 gal/lb). Know how much volume will be lost in your equipment. Know and understand your exact boiloff rate. Account for volume losses due to cold break, shrinkage in post-boil cooling, trub losses, sample losses, etc., and sparge extra if necessary to account for every loss.

3b) Batch sparge with perfection. Waste nothing. Single infuse with enough water to get exactly half the pre-boil volume, and let every dang drop of wort out of the grains before sparging. Add sparge water to get the second half of your pre-boil, stir well, then drain every dang drop of wort out of the grains. Once the boil begins (many minutes later), check for any more wort dripping out of the mash tun / grain bag, and WHEN found (not "IF" but "WHEN"), add it to the boil as well. Like I said, waste nothing.

And that..... that's about all I have to say about that. Good luck.

P.S. Yes, sparging is absolutely necessary to hit the grail of 90%+. No amount of squeezing the bag will equate with sparging. If you sparge right, you don't need to squeeze the bag at all.