# What's your best mash efficiency?



## rockeye84 (23/1/16)

Nothing shits me more than way undershooting ya forecast efficiency. 

Was banking on 90%, pulled a 89% on today's bohemian lager. 

Pretty happy today.


----------



## manticle (23/1/16)

I made beer that tasted like I wanted and was packed up by 1pm.


----------



## rockeye84 (23/1/16)

Nice, I started at 5.30am and am mid boil. What u make?


----------



## manticle (23/1/16)

Today I'm making a leftovers apa but that one I'm still brewing.

Quick brew is my dark mild - 30 min hot mash speeds that one along.


----------



## nala (23/1/16)

rockeye84 said:


> Nothing shits me more than way undershooting ya forecast efficiency.
> Was banking on 90%, pulled a 89% on today's bohemian lager.
> Pretty happy today.


Please tell us how you did it so that we can all learn.


----------



## seamad (23/1/16)

Nothing shits me more than getting stuck recirculation ( have a RIMS 3V ) . Last saison I must have run the grain through the mill 3X instead of the usual 2 because the fucker got stuck at least a million times, despite a whole flock of rice gulls being added along the way.Absolute shitload of flour on top of the grain bed when draining the MT. Did hit 94% mash efficiency , but never again.
Wasn't even sure what my mash eff was, use 75% brewhouse, looked up my brewsmith and it says 78.6 %... I value hitting gravity/volume when I brew, and with 75% brewhouse eff in beersmith I get consistent results. I could probably get better eff if I sparged differently, but 1 batch sparge is nice and simple, and gives me nice beer.


----------



## thylacine (23/1/16)

manticle said:


> I made beer that tasted like I wanted and was packed up by 1pm.


Ahh, I was at 1.20pm. But then I was also up the ladder picking hops for five additions starting with mash-in. 

"I made beer that tasted like I wanted" in my 'processes' means add or subtract grain for the next batch according to my taste buds. The latter is what counts to me.

Aside: Hats off to your consistent and positive contributions


----------



## rockeye84 (23/1/16)

Start by grind my grain reasonably fine. Not to dust but so there is still a decent amount of husk. So the kernels are broken into 8ths or more. Usually put a hand full thru the mill 1st to check if I'm on a new sack or have change variety.

Start ro water, add minimal CaCl & caso4 + some lactic acid, to give some more insight, today's 100l batch I used 12g CaCl & 6g caso4 + 5ml 88% lactic acid straight in the mash. Didn't take mash ph but assume it was in range. 

I always run approx 3/1 water grain ratio.

Didn't fool around with protein rests, infused straight to mash temp. 60min @ 67c, 10min @ 70c then 76c mash out.

Fly sparge slowly. Try not to over sparge, I always end up sparging about 30-35l less than what bs2 recommends. Not sure why, mash tun setup maby.

take a hydro sample of what's in the kettle and use a dilution tool to top up with water to reach desired volume and or gravity. 

I rather get my specific gravity on target an sacrifice or gain a bit of volume if need be.

I've given up on my refractometer, it's perfectly calibrated but always reads 3-4 points less than my hydro sample, it's an eBay job so probably a cheap piece of shit.

Lastly I not meaning to bag out good ole Joe white but I find my mash eff is always slightly lower when using their malts. 

Hope u were wanting the extended version lol.


----------



## nala (23/1/16)

rockeye84 said:


> Start by grind my grain reasonably fine. Not to dust but so there is still a decent amount of husk. So the kernels are broken into 8ths or more. Usually put a hand full thru the mill 1st to check if I'm on a new sack or have change variety.
> Start ro water, add minimal CaCl & caso4 + some lactic acid, to give some more insight, today's 100l batch I used 12g CaCl & 6g caso4 + 5ml 88% lactic acid straight in the mash. Didn't take mash ph but assume it was in range.
> I always run approx 3/1 water grain ratio.
> Didn't fool around with protein rests, infused straight to mash temp. 60min @ 67c, 10min @ 70c then 76c mash out.
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## bradsbrew (23/1/16)

Brewhouse efficiency is way more important than mash efficiency. Whilst it is essential to check mash eff, BHE gives the best indicator.
Currently on target for a 89% mash eff and will be happy if i get 80% eff into the fermenter.

Cheers


----------



## Danscraftbeer (23/1/16)

I have never been able to get an accurate pre boil gravity reading with either refractometer or hydrometer. Take 3 or whatever tests and get 3 different readings. High readings that say 105% efficiency which is impossible etc. You must need a recirculating mash system or something to get an accurate reading. I gave up but the efficiency calculations don't seem to make sense on beersmith either. I always overshoot on OG with default settings on the grains so I upped the potential gravity of them all to match what I get and the Brew House Efficiency always comes out at 73%. :unsure:
Still I never undershoot expectations so I must be doing ok on mash efficiency.


----------



## Rocker1986 (23/1/16)

I brew BIAB in an urn and always get accurate pre boil and post boil SG readings. No re-circulation systems or anything. Not sure what your issue is as to why your readings are all different.

If you overshoot the Beersmith OG readings simply increase the brewhouse efficiency to match what you get, not the grain potentials. I've been having to re-calculate mine lately after I discovered my hydrometer is readings 2 points lower than the actual SG.


----------



## danestead (23/1/16)

86%


----------



## fletcher (23/1/16)

i don't remember


----------



## lael (23/1/16)

Highest Mash efficiency using the Brauduino controller on a 1V recirc system has been as high as 93%, based on the calculations out of Beersmith. I usually expect/calculate for 89-91% unless I'm running very high gravity.


----------



## TheWiggman (23/1/16)

bradsbrew said:


> Whilst it is essential to check mash eff


Strange you said that, I have never checked mash efficiency. Recorded pre-boil yes, checked efficiency no.


----------



## bradsbrew (23/1/16)

TheWiggman said:


> Strange you said that, I have never checked mash efficiency. Recorded pre-boil yes, checked efficiency no.


yeah you are right checkk
ing sg is more important than eff. You can adjust hops if its off.


----------



## Adr_0 (23/1/16)

100 goddamn % every time, no sparge.


----------



## bradsbrew (23/1/16)

Adr_0 said:


> 100 goddamn % every time, no sparge.


Well i didn't want to big note but i get 105% brewhouse eff and that is using already spent grain. Poor.....you think you were poor.....


----------



## Danscraftbeer (23/1/16)

> If you overshoot the Beersmith OG readings simply increase the brewhouse efficiency to match what you get, not the grain potentials.


ah, never thought of that ha! Took it as a default thing, oh, Duh! :lol:
Cheers.
I'm still confused. It doesn't matter other than the end result that always seems to hit the mark.


----------



## Rocker1986 (24/1/16)

Danscraftbeer said:


> ah, never thought of that ha! Took it as a default thing, oh, Duh! :lol:
> Cheers.
> I'm still confused. It doesn't matter other than the end result that always seems to hit the mark.


 :lol: Nah it's adjustable. I used to have mine set to 75%, but then I started regularly getting less than that, so I changed it to 72.5%, and was still getting less. Then I tested my hydrometer and found it was reading .998 in 20C water, which was obviously part of the cause. The other thing I changed recently was the gap on my mill. I widened it to try to get the grain to go through faster (having issues as per a couple of threads on the Mashmaster mills), which in turn obviously resulted in a coarser crush. I also began stirring the mash regularly. Since then, I've ended up with about the 75% brew house efficiency again, provided I hit 25 litres volume. I'll do another 2-3 batches before I change the Beersmith settings, but it's good to be getting these numbers again.


----------



## Eagleburger (24/1/16)

I have a beersmith problem. How do I enter the 2 dozen eggs I get from the chooks that eat the spent grain?


----------



## seamad (24/1/16)

That's in the add on button


----------



## warra48 (24/1/16)

Eagleburger said:


> I have a beersmith problem. How do I enter the 2 dozen eggs I get from the chooks that eat the spent grain?


For white eggs, you add nothing, they're useless, so don't use them.
For spotted eggs, brew according to the Old Speckled Hen recipe, and add 3% to your brewhouse efficiency.
For brown eggs, add 5 points to your OG for Stouts and Porters only. Do not use these in lighter beers.

Remember to hard boil your eggs first, then crush with your grains. The shells will provide all your brewing minerals without needing extra additions.

PS: I always get between 90 to 95% mash efficiency, and can get higher if I add an extra small batch sparge, but I don't bother with that these days.
I mill with an original MillMaster set at 1.1 mm, hand cranked, and mash in an el cheapo 25 litre Willow cooler with a manifold to drain it.


----------



## dblunn (24/1/16)

I'm lucky to get 75% mash efficiency. :angry2: But at least my beer tastes nice


----------



## Rocker1986 (26/1/16)

Just got 84.5% mash efficiency on a BIAB I'm doing today. Higher than the 78% predicted based on my old 72.5% brewhouse number. I might have to increase this figure now. Looks like the coarser crush I've moved to recently as a result of the milling fiasco has helped increase efficiency, as the last few batches have exceeded expectations.


----------



## Frothy1 (5/5/16)

Oh wow, this post just came back to life.

If anyone didn't find this with google, here's a link for how to adjust efficiency in beersmith.

I adjusted my mash and brewhouse like this and get nearly bang on every time.



not bragging or anything but 93.2 is a lovely number.


----------



## Rocker1986 (5/5/16)

I hit 89.7% on my last brew day. I don't really care that much about it, as long as it's consistent and not stupidly low or something.


----------



## boybrewer (5/5/16)

Efficiency this and efficiency that it really doesn't matter as long as you hit the OG and Fg and I rarely did . Although since dailing in my brew system I am now hitting all the pre boil and post boil numbers only because I now have a refractometer and still making great beer .


PS Brewhouse efficiency 80.5% .
That just means I am getting better extraction out of the malts .Still make good beer though .


----------



## Rocker1986 (6/5/16)

That would have everything to do with dialling in your system and nothing to do with having a refractometer. I only use a hydrometer but because my system is dialled into Beersmith properly, I always hit my targets, or sometimes go above them.

That said, I'm not worried about trying to get sky high efficiency. Brewhouse ranges between 75% and 80% on standard brews (varies due to batch volume rather than SG), so it's at least consistent enough to be able to easily design recipes and have them turn out as intended. That's really all I'm worried about.


----------



## Weizguy (6/5/16)

Eagleburger said:


> I have a beersmith problem. How do I enter the 2 dozen eggs I get from the chooks that eat the spent grain?


I find "Break and Enter" to be the only option.

I usually range around 90%. Always good when I get better, and some head-scratching and feeling like an under-achiever when lesser efficiency is encountered.

I was always happy with 75% or better, but with consistency came higher numbers.


----------



## Dan Pratt (6/5/16)

we may achieve 90% mash efficiency however that is 90% of the brewhouse efficiency of say 70-75%.

when you adjust beersmith to 100% your mash is still 90% but the OG and targets all increase which which that 90% mash would not achieve.

So the efficiency of mashing is purely based on brewhouse efficiency or in laments terms, final volume after losses is calculated?


----------



## Frothy1 (6/5/16)

I got an extra 10% when I started conditioning my malt.

My Brewhouse efficiency is terrible though.


----------



## Rocker1986 (6/5/16)

If I hit my intended batch volume, my brewhouse efficiency is usually very close to 10% lower than my mash efficiency. I use a nominal figure of 75% brewhouse efficiency currently for recipe design but if I keep going over it like I have been lately then I might have to change it.


----------



## welly2 (6/5/16)

I've been getting consistent 90% mash efficiencies and consistent 75% brew house efficiencies for the past three - four batches. I'm not going to touch or change a single thing.


----------



## MHB (6/5/16)

Pratty1 said:


> we may achieve 90% mash efficiency however that is 90% of the brewhouse efficiency of say 70-75%.
> 
> when you adjust beersmith to 100% your mash is still 90% but the OG and targets all increase which which that 90% mash would not achieve.
> 
> So the efficiency of mashing is purely based on brewhouse efficiency or in laments terms, final volume after losses is calculated?


Actually it think you have that backwards, Mash Efficiency is a component Brewhouse Efficiency.
Mash Efficiency is when you compare what you got to the results of the congress mash test.
Brewhouse Efficiency includes all the other losses in the process, but as mash efficiency goes down Brewhouse Efficiency must go down too.
Mash Efficiency is reported as compared to the test result, the test is conducted in distilled water, with no minerals added, using a set mash regime. It is possible to get more extract than the test, i.e. more than 100% yield!
I can't guarantee that the resulting beer would taste too good.

Mark
View attachment Congress Mash.PDF


----------



## JDW81 (6/5/16)

My best efficiency is consistency between my batches. Couldn't give a stuff about trying to get any higher than I get now. I hit my numbers and make good beer.

I've had my efficiency rant enough times on other threads, so won't start again here. Needless to say, efficiency isn't everything.

JD


----------



## MHB (8/5/16)

JD. I see your point, efficiency isn't everything but to me it is important.
I suppose to some extent it is going to depend on what you are looking for from your brewing, my main interest is in understanding the processes, having control of them and applying them to make exactly the beer I want. Much less about the brewing part, more about the recipe design and planning (not suggesting its right or wrong just personal motivations).
If I can get 10% better efficiency I will, not so much because every 10th brew comes with a free grain bill but because I enjoy the challenge.
The deciding factor for me is beer quality, if increasing the yield reduces the beer quality you have gone too far, same with every step in the process, adjust the water to suit the style, mash at the optimum temperatures and pH, don't over sparge, don't try to get too much out of the kettle (some should be left behind), pitch the right amount of yeast, manage the ferment properly...

Generally my brewhouse yield (efficiency to fermenter) is in the low to mid 80's%, From experience I know I can push that up to 90+% but at a price I'm not willing to pay.
Mark


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/5/16)

JDW81 said:


> My best efficiency is consistency between my batches. Couldn't give a stuff about trying to get any higher than I get now. I hit my numbers and make good beer.
> 
> I've had my efficiency rant enough times on other threads, so won't start again here. Needless to say, efficiency isn't everything.
> 
> JD



Yep. Effficiency is not everything. 

No point in getting high efficiency 1 batch and crap eff the next. *You need consistency between batches* otherwise it will change the resulting beer due to different SG's etc


----------



## JDW81 (8/5/16)

MHB said:


> JD. I see your point, efficiency isn't everything but to me it is important.
> I suppose to some extent it is going to depend on what you are looking for from your brewing, my main interest is in understanding the processes, having control of them and applying them to make exactly the beer I want.


I agree Mark, efficiency is important and my system also runs about 80% (brewhouse). The only reason I say it isn't the be all and end all is because there are a lot of less experienced brewers than yourself who get sucked into the efficiency pissing contest and feel that if they're not getting 90%+ then they're doing something wrong. They then try and eek every single point out of their system and end up with a lesser quality final product.

I also strive to understand my processes, and my system is dialled in to be consistent with pre-boil gravity based on how I brew, however I'm not willing to push it further as I know the final product will suffer (as will consistency).

I think the understanding of processes is a lesson that is often lost on some brewers. They get so bogged down in numbers that they lose perspective and forget about paying attention to each step of wort/beer production.

JD


----------



## Goose (8/5/16)

I take most people's reporting of absolute mash efficiency with a pinch of salt. 

Of course you have to know your mash efficiency only in order to plan the grain bill for the beer you are wanting to make.

The idea is to maximise it while being practical within the bounds of your equipment and process while avoiding false economy.

To calculate mash efficiency you accurate measurements, not just on SG but also on volume. I wonder how many people have calibrated their boilers by weighing water ? Who adjusts for water volume expansion (at 80 deg C, 50kg of water occupies 51.5 litres volume while at At 4 C, 50 kg of water occupies 50.0 litres) ? 

Play around with any mash efficiency calculator (like Beersmith) and see how small changes in collected wort volume and pre boil SG affect the calculated efficiency. By example, the difference between 1 litre of wort and a .01 SG reading (tricky if the refractomer interface is a tad fuzzy) can mean a difference an efficiency of 75% or 78%...  :blink:

Methinks there are alot of fisherman's rulers out there when it comes to volume and SG measurement.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/5/16)

JDW81 said:


> I agree Mark, efficiency is important and my system also runs about 80% (brewhouse). The only reason I say it isn't the be all and end all is because there are a lot of less experienced brewers than yourself who get sucked into the efficiency pissing contest and feel that if they're not getting 90%+ then they're doing something wrong. They then try and eek every single point out of their system and end up with a lesser quality final product.
> 
> 
> JD


+1

Getting that last little bit off efficiency is hard work and takes many brews to get it to that point with lots of fine tuning from everything like grain conditioning, milling, mashing and sparging. Going from 75% to 80% is hard as you need the planets to align everytime

We should be advocating *constsitancy*, not efficiency for the beginers


----------



## Goose (8/5/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> We should be advocating *constsitancy*, not efficiency for the beginers


I advocado consistent spelling too 

But agreed, even if your volume and SG is inaccurate, a consistent systematic error will still get you great beer!


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/5/16)

Could be worse...could be constipated from avaocado's


----------



## Weizguy (8/5/16)

The guy at my lhbs, during my grain brewing journey, encouraged repeatability over chasing efficiency, and often warned of efficiency dividends vs flavour offset/losses.
Thanks MHB, for your guidance.


----------



## Kingy (8/5/16)

I used to get 70% all the time then I upgraded my mash tun from an 80litre aluminum pot to a taller skinnier 100litre staino pot. Changed nothing else and now I get 75%efficency. I don't care about it one bit. But staino is Definately better for efficency


----------



## Goose (8/5/16)

Kingy said:


> I used to get 70% all the time then I upgraded my mash tun from an 80litre aluminum pot to a taller skinnier 100litre staino pot. Changed nothing else and now I get 75%efficency. I don't care about it one bit. But staino is Definately better for efficency



so stainless steel improves efficiency of the mash.

I learn something every day.


----------



## Weizguy (8/5/16)

Kingy said:


> I used to get 70% all the time then I upgraded my mash tun from an 80litre aluminum pot to a taller skinnier 100litre staino pot. Changed nothing else and now I get 75%efficency. I don't care about it one bit. But staino is Definately better for efficency


or perhaps it's the tun geometry...
Naaah, who am I trying to fool? Of course it's the stainless.
That explains how my efficiency increased by adding a stainless outlet to my Techni-Ice mash tun.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/5/16)

My ugly old eksy with brass outlet gave 78-80%


Nothing to do with stainless, you need brass fittings all the way


----------



## pist (8/5/16)

Most brews i hit about 83% full volume biab on both my keggle and double batch rig. I'm pretty happy with that using the basic gas fired rigs im running with no recirculation


----------



## stewy (11/5/16)

Best mash efficiency?

One that can be replicated every time


----------



## Goose (11/5/16)

stewy said:


> Best mash efficiency?
> One that can be replicated every time


Necessary but not sufficient....


----------



## GABBA110360 (13/5/16)

I must be doing things wrong I think ?'
I use brewmate software and i'm battling to get better than about 71 % according to sg/ fg from said ingredients what ever'
I do a full volume biab wring the living jesus outta the thing but I get the numbers within a point
I could probably slightly change bottled numbers but not by much
it's a dreamland I think i'll just keep paddling away


----------



## Rocker1986 (13/5/16)

FG has nothing to do with efficiency. Mash efficiency is basically the percentage of extracted sugars achieved during the mash compared to the potential that could be extracted. It is calculated via the pre boil volume and SG. Brewhouse efficiency takes it further by accounting for all the losses to boil off, trub etc. It is calculated via fermenter volume and SG (OG). I don't know the actual formulas used, I just input these figures into Beersmith for the recipe I'm doing on any given brew day and it calculates it for me.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (14/5/16)

Brewers often get the 2 confused


----------



## Dave70 (14/5/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> +1
> 
> Getting that last little bit off efficiency is hard work and takes many brews to get it to that point with lots of fine tuning from everything like grain conditioning, milling, mashing and sparging. Going from 75% to 80% is hard as you need the planets to align everytime
> 
> We should be advocating *constsitancy*, not efficiency for the beginers


Yep. Pretty chuffed with a consistent 50%. 
Took me ages to repair my broken hydrometer with Araldite but shes fuckin bang on, brew after brew.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (14/5/16)

Hydrometer....thats a Galaxy isnt it ?


----------



## Dave70 (14/5/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Hydrometer....thats a Galaxy isnt it ?


I dont **** around when it comes to batch size mate.


----------



## Bruer (15/5/16)

The best so far for was my last batch - an ordinary bitter (pretty small only 3.4kg grain): 93% mash efficiency. I thought I'd miscalculated, but I triple checked it. WTF!


----------



## MHB (15/5/16)

No WTF, there is no reason why mash efficiencies over 90% shouldn't be what you get all the time.
Naturally its easier with lower OG beers, good milling, slow sparging and a few other basics and be happy.
Mark


----------



## warra48 (15/5/16)

Milling, yeah, it's important.

I reckon too many brewers crashing through milling at top speed with a drill or other device suffer from lower efficiency than they should expect.

I tried milling with a drill for a couple of years, at the lowest speed I could get it to run, and my efficiency suffered and sparging slowed right down with frequent stuck mashes..

Since reverting to hand milling, I'm back to where I should be at never less than 90%, and my run off and batch sparge are all done and dusted in half an hour.

Geez, 5 minutes to hand mill about 5 kg of grain is no great sacrifice of my time.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (15/5/16)

Yes milling is almost the devils magic.

I condition and try to get 20-30% flour and lots of in tact husks

I gained a few decent eff points just getting the milling right


----------



## BrissyBrew (22/8/16)

I actually recommend a slower launtering process and a courser grist to improve efficiency. I know contary to intuition regarding finer crush higher efficiency, have a read of this paper, its all about channelling or reducing it, from about page 26 http://www.craftbrewersconference.com/wp-content/uploads/ImprovingBrewhouseEfficiency-Havig.pdf


----------



## dannymars (22/8/16)

I've finally got my mill gap and speed set up right. Took much trial and error though, from low numbers, to stuck mashes... I've had it all.

Never hit over 70%... now I'm pushing 85% +

SLLLLLOWWWWWW sparging really helped a lot too. I fly sparge, and resisting the temptation to get that kettle filled quickly is/was hard...

I usually try to run-off/sparge over at least an hour (sometimes longer) for a 50-60L batch.


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (22/8/16)

IMO milling and lautering are the hardest parts of the brewing process to get right. They are also the parts where the gap between professional and amateur equipment is widest.

I've yet to see an amateur mill that uses sieving and separation of roller passes, which is essential to accommodate the range of grain sizes in a typical malt*. I have also yet to see (commercially available) amateur equipment that measures differential pressure during lauter running, let alone one that controls it.

Correct me if I'm wrong and these actually exist, as I said I haven't seen them.


* The first brewery I worked in was built with a 2 roller mill and later upgraded to a proper malt mill (a 4 roller Kunzel IIRC). Nothing else changed, the difference was night and day. IMO 2 roller mills suck.


----------



## BrissyBrew (22/8/16)

Lyrebird_Cycles said:


> IMO milling and lautering are the hardest parts of the brewing process to get right. They are also the parts where the gap between professional and amateur equipment is widest.
> 
> I've yet to see an amateur mill that uses sieving and separation of roller passes, which is essential to accommodate the range of grain sizes in a typical malt*. I have also yet to see (commercially available) amateur equipment that measures differential pressure during lauter running, let alone one that controls it.
> 
> ...


Mash tun design is where the difference is night and day between professional brewing equipment and home brew equipment, the Van Havig the author of the above paper especially pointed out to me an email that he thinks there is a massive difference between a slotted false bottom that might only have 10% open area and most home brew false bottoms which might be manifolds/mesh slotted copper, perforated based with huge open areas etc and the requirement for underletting. 

I agree that 4 roller mills with shaker sieves can deliver greater efficiency, may I ask what type of / brand two roller mill you had before you upgraded.


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (22/8/16)

Sorry, I don't remember, this was almost 30 years ago. I think it was green if that helps.

BTW it wasn't just the efficiency, it also improved the lauter runs and had a noticeable effect on quality, presumably these are both due to better particle size distribution: smaller husk particles have a higher surface area to volume ratio so they contibute more polyphenols.

I assume by "mash tun" above you mean lauter tun?


----------



## Lindsay Dive (25/8/16)

It's a bloody long time since I checked my efficiency, however, the last Ale I made I wanted to check the efficiency and I was rather pleased and surprised to come up with 86%


----------



## RoneMac (27/8/16)

136.2%. In retrospect I may have messed up my equations.


----------

