Increased Efficiency - What was the reason?

[barry44]

Guys,

i had a brewday today and brewed this:

http://beersmithrecipes.com/viewrecipe/610368/60-forty4

it was based on the 60 minute IPA recipe in the Greg Hughes 'Home Brew Beer' book but revised to reflect OG and IBU of my recent brews.

As you can see from the recipe, i have been planning around 63.5% efficiency based on my last 4 or 5 brews so today i decided to do things differently.

First of all i mashed in at 3 litres per kg of grain, usually i do 2.5l/kg.

Secondly, i had a 2 hour mash, this was unplanned and was due to walking the dog and having to nip into the shops on the way home. I planned a 90 minute mash.

Third, i changed my batch sparge to draining and then 2 sparges of equal volume.

My pre boil and post boil og was up 4 points on my expected value so i had an efficiency of 67.8% today.

As much as i am made up about the efficiency increase, i would like to try and establish what has made my efficiency increase as the brewday increased in time to achieve this and, unfortunately, time is at a premium to me at this time.

So, i put it to you, my learned colleagues, what do you think has contributed to my success, is it a single change or is it a combination of all three?

one other thing ive established is that i am done with pellets in the boil, absolute nightmare draining the boiler, ended up with some amount of rubbish in the fermenter.

I look forward to your thoughts.

[Rov'rumBrewhouse]

Possibly a combination of all three. If time is more important than efficiency then try another thinner mash. When I was BIABing I'm sure I mashed thinner than 3l/kg without issues but you might want to read a bit into mash thickness before going too mad.

[Martin G]

How exactly did you sparge before and after?

[Eadweard]

In my experience wetter mashes and slower sparges increase efficiency.

[seymour]

In my experience wetter mashes and slower sparges increase efficiency.

+1

Additional things to try:
a lower temperature single step mash, or dual-step mash
fresher base malt, wait to crush until brewday

[scuppeteer]

All of the above, but also is your grain the same as previous brews and was it supplied crushed? A finer crush will improve your efficiency and even the big maltsters vary somewhat.

[vacant]

Looking at sparging, BIAB is least efficient while fly sparging is most efficient. The more "rinses" you do, the closer you approach maximum efficiency (though flying sparging is a flushing of the sugars rather than an infinite number of mix/rinses).

I posted this some time ago and it hasn't been shot down yet.

[barry44]

How exactly did you sparge before and after?

Sorry, i should have described my previous method.

I normally mash for an hour at 2.5l/kg, top up the mash to half the volume of my boil, 14.5l, drain and then sparge it with the remaining 14.5l.

I normally let the sparges settle for 10 minutes or so before vorlaufing and sparging.

All of the above, but also is your grain the same as previous brews and was it supplied crushed? A finer crush will improve your efficiency and even the big maltsters vary somewhat.

My grain is from the maltmiller and i get it crushed upon order. i should also state that the majority of other brews contain maris otter, munich, vienna, crystal and wheat in varying degrees, whereas this brew was only maris otter. Would this also contribute to the increased efficiency?

In my experience wetter mashes and slower sparges increase efficiency.

I think that this is the way forward, i shall retain the 3l/kg mash and carry out the drain/sparge/sparge routine again and see what i get.

Looking at sparging, BIAB is least efficient while fly sparging is most efficient. The more "rinses" you do, the closer you approach maximum efficiency (though flying sparging is a flushing of the sugars rather than an infinite number of mix/rinses).

This certainly ties in with my thinking. The 2no sparges after the drain definitely appear to have helped, going over 2 sparges may be difficult because, due to the thinner mash, i was just covering the grain!

So, how do you think i should approach my next brew in terms of efficiency? Should i aim for the increased efficiency of 67% and hope for the best or should i keep at the 63.5% until i get some form of consistency? I note from altering the efficiency in the beersmith recipe that, although my OG was 4 points higher, the IBU was not affected too much, i think it's only a couple of points from where the theoretical value should have been.

One last thing. I pitched a single sachet of US-05 into this brew at 1.062 and 22.5 litres. It is fermenting away nicely but i am wondering if i should have pitched 2no sachets instead.

Any thoughts on that?

Many thanks guys.

[Martin G]

I have always fly sparged, plenty on here claim to get better efficiency from batch sparging though. Fly is prone to it's own problems, the important thing is consistency really and that may be where batch can really win. I guess it is easier to error towards having to dilute rather than boil for longer or add extract, assuming that it is not preferable just to live with the difference.

If you rehydrate the yeast then you are effectively adding two sachets worth of unstressed yeast.

[barry44]

Hi all,

i made a brew today with a similar size of grainbill and carried out all the steps as per above with the exception of the longer mash and it appears to be consistent.

The 3l/kg and drain/sparge/sparge routine has increased my efficiency from 63.5% to 68%.

Still not great but a lot better than what i was getting.

I will do the next brew using the 68% quantities and report back.

[Eadweard]

How much dead space have you got in your mash tun? And do you treat your liquor?

[barry44]

How much dead space have you got in your mash tun? And do you treat your liquor?

I've very little dead space in the mash tun, i reckon half a litre at most.

I treat my water to the pale Ale profile in bru n water

[Eadweard]

OK, there were just another couple of things that popped into my head when I re-read the thread.

[barry44]

Thanks for that.

I'm happier with 68 then I was with 63 for sure.