So, often I hear cited “I get efficiency” or “I get efficiency”, and it just occurred to me that individuals in question may be discussing mash efficiency or brewhouse efficiency.
Is there a commonly accepted practice? I.e, unless said otherwise, if someone makes the statement, “I’m getting 85” efficiency", to what do we assume that refers?
Unless otherwise stated, when I say “efficiency” I mean brewhouse efficiency and assume that’s what everyone else means, too.
+1.060
Well, crap. Not that it’s going to make me better beer, but that means I gotta figure out why my brewhouse efficiency is 70-75% when others are 10% higher at 80-85%. I was hoping it was a “measurement discrepancy.”
Don’t feel bad, up until this past Saturday’s brew session, my brewhouse efficience was estimated at 65%. Saturday’s batch proved to be ~ 78% and I haven’t pinpointed exactly why just yet.
Well, crap. Not that it’s going to make me better beer, but that means I gotta figure out why my brewhouse efficiency is 70-75% when others are 10% higher at 80-85%. I was hoping it was a “measurement discrepancy.”[/quote]
For me it was a series of incremental increases. I started by crushing finer. Sparging with 185-200F water got me a bit more. Increasing my mash ratio helped a bit. Adjusting my water helped more.
Well, crap. Not that it’s going to make me better beer, but that means I gotta figure out why my brewhouse efficiency is 70-75% when others are 10% higher at 80-85%. I was hoping it was a “measurement discrepancy.”[/quote]
Consistency is more important, I think. I get 70-75% brew house efficiency and that’s perfectly fine by me as long as I can count on consistency. But the only efficiency I care about is brew house efficiency. As long as I’m a couple points +/- my expect OG, I’m happy.
[quote=“Beersk”]
Consistency is more important, I think. I get 70-75% brew house efficiency and that’s perfectly fine by me as long as I can count on consistency. But the only efficiency I care about is brew house efficiency. As long as I’m a couple points +/- my expect OG, I’m happy.[/quote]
I don’t disagree, but part of the hobby (and obsession) for me, is better understanding my own process and equipment, including all the technical details. So, if 85% brewhouse efficiency is regularly achievable, that means there’s something in my process which I can readily explore further.
:cheers:
I wish we could have combined your post and mine. I think you stated the question alot better than I did. It’s not the number itself it’s just that there must be a fault in the process if I’m 15 to 18 points below what others are getting. Maybe It’s best to accept consistancy at 66-68% and not have number envy?
PS Thanks for the link to BrauKaiser. I’ve been using that to get on top of my water chemistry. Thanks again flytyer
I agree with the small adjustments. I had a bad experience recently and took my processes back to the drawing board. After accepting the criticism and finding a middle-ground of what sounded right, I have been getting much better efficiency…the grain crush for me made a difference, the sparge water at 190-200 degrees helped (I fly sparge) and extending the length of the initial rest by fifteen minutes allowed me to hit my target numbers perfectly on my last batch.
I agree with the small adjustments. I had a bad experience recently and took my processes back to the drawing board. After accepting the criticism and finding a middle-ground of what sounded right, I have been getting much better efficiency…the grain crush for me made a difference, the sparge water at 190-200 degrees helped (I fly sparge) and extending the length of the initial rest by fifteen minutes allowed me to hit my target numbers perfectly on my last batch.
I knowingly give up some efficiency by not sparging because I like the maltier flavor that gives me.
I’d be interested in the impact of other efficiencies on flavor. Of course one way to learn is to try various improvements and judge them myself, but I’d be glad to profit from others’ experiences first.
[quote=“Old_Dawg”]I knowingly give up some efficiency by not sparging because I like the maltier flavor that gives me.
I’d be interested in the impact of other efficiencies on flavor. Of course one way to learn is to try various improvements and judge them myself, but I’d be glad to profit from others’ experiences first.[/quote]
I’ve found that the flavor difference between no sparge and batch sparge is so negligible that I choose to batch sarge and gain the extra efficiency. Only takes about 5-10 more min. than no sparge.
I would suggest trying a double crush as your first, simple incremental change. Sparge with a higher ratio of water, as well and you might be very pleased with the results. FWIW, my set up (3 keg) typically runs around 72%, whereas if I use my marine cooler as my mash tun, I typically improve that by a few, negligible points to 75%.? I was happy to get out of the 60’s, so I haven’t tweaked it further (I don’t own a gapper to adjust the crush - but that would be my next change, if I did).
Good luck with your tweaks, but don’t sweat it if you improvement is only minimal!
:cheers:
First, let me say that talking about real brewhouse efficiency is a bit complicated and very recipe- and equipment-dependent.
Forget about the mash and lauter, here are the other variables we’ve got to deal with:
Hop absorbtion:
Brewing an IPA with several oz of leaf hops and you are losing a good bit. A simple lager with 20 or so IBU’s of pellets is a completely different story. Hop bag or free-floating? This makes a big difference in my experience as well.
Transfer losses:
Some people like to avoid getting sludge in the primary, so they get a fair amount of loss in the transfer from kettle to primary. Others dump it all in, but it’s got to get left behind at some point, so those losses will hit you to some extent when transferring to secondary, keg, or bottling vessel.
What kind of yeast are you using? Does it floc well? Are you anal about getting rid of all you can before serving? Are you in a rush, or will you wait until everything falls out of suspension?
How do you chill your wort? If you’re using a counterflow chiller, I’ve always found that you lose some wort that is held in the tubing and chiller. Also, if you like to leave sanitizer in your chiller and dump the first little bit of wort to avoid getting much in the primary, you’re losing more there.
So, in effect, you may be trading sanitation risk for a little better efficiency.
Take a few hydro readings and you’re losing a little more.
Dry-hop in the keg or secondary? Again, hope you’re not losing leaf hops!
Long story short, I suspect it’s borderline impossible to get true brewhouse efficiency of 85% in some cases, even if you get maximum mash efficiency…
[quote=“rustyhoover”]First, let me say that talking about real brewhouse efficiency is a bit complicated and very recipe- and equipment-dependent.
Forget about the mash and lauter, here are the other variables we’ve got to deal with:
Hop absorbtion:
Brewing an IPA with several oz of leaf hops and you are losing a good bit. A simple lager with 20 or so IBU’s of pellets is a completely different story. Hop bag or free-floating? This makes a big difference in my experience as well.
Transfer losses:
Some people like to avoid getting sludge in the primary, so they get a fair amount of loss in the transfer from kettle to primary. Others dump it all in, but it’s got to get left behind at some point, so those losses will hit you to some extent when transferring to secondary, keg, or bottling vessel.
What kind of yeast are you using? Does it floc well? Are you anal about getting rid of all you can before serving? Are you in a rush, or will you wait until everything falls out of suspension?
How do you chill your wort? If you’re using a counterflow chiller, I’ve always found that you lose some wort that is held in the tubing and chiller. Also, if you like to leave sanitizer in your chiller and dump the first little bit of wort to avoid getting much in the primary, you’re losing more there.
So, in effect, you may be trading sanitation risk for a little better efficiency.
Take a few hydro readings and you’re losing a little more.
Dry-hop in the keg or secondary? Again, hope you’re not losing leaf hops!
Long story short, I suspect it’s borderline impossible to get true brewhouse efficiency of 85% in some cases, even if you get maximum mash efficiency…[/quote]
Interesting comments. When I usually measure my brewhouse efficiency, it’s “beer volume & gravity as it is in the fermenter, before yeast is added.” That said, I usually have in the range of 4.9-5.2 gallons into the keg. Rarely do I underfill my kegs.
Just out of curiosity, what’s your volume into the primary that lands you at ~5G in the keg?
One reason I drone on about this is that I’m always amazed when I see recipes that are written for 5.0G. For instance, many people share Promash recipes including all the data, and the volume for which efficiency is calculated is 5G. Unless I’m missing something, what Promash is giving you is simple post-boil volume, as it has no knobs to turn to adjust for losses in efficiency calculation.
Like you, what I care about is volume into the keg, and in order to get a roughly full keg I write all my recipes for a post-boil volume of 5.25-5.75G depending on the particulars. I don’t remember ever having had too much volume to get it all in the keg doing it this way.
If it’s dry-hopped in the secondary, it’s closer to 5.5 gallons; if it’s not, the primary volume is close to 5.25 gallons. Depending on the gravity and the amount of dry hopping, I may end up with some extra liquid in the fermenter. I used to sweat about saving that last bit, but I don’t worry about it too much anymore.
[quote=“Silentknyght”][quote=“Beersk”]
Consistency is more important, I think. I get 70-75% brew house efficiency and that’s perfectly fine by me as long as I can count on consistency. But the only efficiency I care about is brew house efficiency. As long as I’m a couple points +/- my expect OG, I’m happy.[/quote]
I don’t disagree, but part of the hobby (and obsession) for me, is better understanding my own process and equipment, including all the technical details. So, if 85% brewhouse efficiency is regularly achievable, that means there’s something in my process which I can readily explore further.
:cheers: [/quote]
I dont think brewers are on average getting that high, yes some do, but for the most part I would say 65 to 75 is the average.
Or they do not understand what they are looking at under the program and reporting mash efficiency for brewhouse efficiency. Or just want to brag?
Consistency is better than anything
[quote=“Silentknyght”][quote=“rustyhoover”]
Just out of curiosity, what’s your volume into the primary that lands you at ~5G in the keg?
[/quote]
If it’s dry-hopped in the secondary, it’s closer to 5.5 gallons; if it’s not, the primary volume is close to 5.25 gallons. Depending on the gravity and the amount of dry hopping, I may end up with some extra liquid in the fermenter. I used to sweat about saving that last bit, but I don’t worry about it too much anymore.[/quote]
Makes sense. For me, the losses decrease with each transfer, the biggest by far being from the kettle to primary. Also, I started to go 100% pellet hops (and always in a hop bag) a year or two ago, so for me those losses are pretty insignificant.
