# Improving Effiency



## KHB (1/5/08)

I have always got 67-68% effiency. I batch sparge at 75 degrees and try to keep it slow. I use a braided stainless steel line for my mash tun.


How do you improve your effiency??


----------



## drsmurto (1/5/08)

Latest issue of BYO mag has a good article on it

The conclusion was that the crush plays the biggest role on the homebrewing scale.

IIRC you crush as fine as possible to still allow a decent runoff rate.


----------



## newguy (1/5/08)

A recirculating system (RIMS or HERMS) also yields high efficiencies. I got 70% before the HERMS, 85% after.


----------



## THE DRUNK ARAB (1/5/08)

Agree with Dr S, that's why I am getting a Monster Mill and retiring the PhilMill  

C&B
TDA


----------



## KHB (1/5/08)

I am using a barley crusher and have it on the original settings which seems a pretty fine crush


----------



## kabooby (1/5/08)

When batch sparging it is important to give the mash a good stir and a 10 min rest after adding the sparge water. That way you rinse the grain better and get most of the sugars out.

I rushed this one day and gave it a quick stir and then ran off and my efficiency dropped by about 10%

Kabooby


----------



## KHB (1/5/08)

i stir it and recurculate it back onto itself for 2 mins before sparging


----------



## crozdog (1/5/08)

KHB said:


> I am using a barley crusher and have it on the original settings which seems a pretty fine crush


I too use a barley crusher, but got a 10% increase when I closed the gap from the factory setting. From memory I use about 0.7mm now.


----------



## drsmurto (1/5/08)

Yup, the BYO article did suggest 0.7mm was the optimum gap. I should get myself a set of feeler gauges to check mine. 

I get a constant 70% so am happy with that at the moment, I'm trying to focus on improving my beers rather than save a few $ on grain.


----------



## Cortez The Killer (1/5/08)

Sheesh...

I though running mine at 0.8mm was fine

0.7mm here I come!

It's monster mill time!


----------



## geoffi (1/5/08)

I get 80-85% with batch sparging on most brews.

Previously it was 75-80% (still not bad).

My efficiency improved with finer crush (a few handfuls rice hulls in the mash to keep it flowin').

Also, adding gypsum and a little citric acid to lower PH. Not much, as my water is very soft anyway, but I was told that helps with extraction.

Anyway, it works well for me.


----------



## RobW (1/5/08)

I used to consistently get about 65% using grain crushed at the HBS and batch sparging.
First crush with the new Monster mill improved that to 82%.


----------



## warrenlw63 (1/5/08)

RobW said:


> I used to consistently get about 65% using grain crushed at the HBS and batch sparging.
> First crush with the new Monster mill improved that to 82%.



+1  

I'm getting similar figures to Rob.

FWIW My MM2 is gapped to 1.1mm... You 0.7 & 0.8mm guys are scarin' me.  

Warren -


----------



## KHB (1/5/08)

crozdog said:


> I too use a barley crusher, but got a 10% increase when I closed the gap from the factory setting. From memory I use about 0.7mm now.




I will borrow some feeler gauges and test this out!


----------



## lou (1/5/08)

Efficiency will be effected by your equipment, your crush, your technique and even the maths you use to calculate it. I used to batch sparge and with my system this was inefficient. I use SS braid - I had a small length of it in the mash tun and then upgraded to 1.5 metres looped. This upped my efficiency. Also I worked out how to put the numbers into promash properly and this upped my effiency. My crush is pretty good as I have a barley crusher but I found you can crush much finer with better lautering and mashing equipment - now I can crush finer without getting a stuck sparge. My efficiency is now around 85%+ but I have switched to flood and on the fly sparging. Is it all worth it? Money wise and time wise probably not but I understand what is happening in my mash tun now and how to adjust things

lou


----------



## AndrewQLD (1/5/08)

warrenlw63 said:


> +1
> 
> I'm getting similar figures to Rob.
> 
> ...



I'm with Warren on this, although I'm not as big a sook as he is  , mines gapped to 1.0mm, my efficiency is 82%.
I've found with the HERMS continuously recirculating the wort the crush doesn't need to be so fine, I get very little flour in my crush either.

Andrew


----------



## KHB (1/5/08)

I also feel when i upgrade to my SS mash tun with a SS false bottom and bottom drainage that my efficiency will improve as i didnt do the best job drilling the hole in my esky



I also find i get a decent amount of flour in my crush


----------



## warrenlw63 (1/5/08)

AndrewQLD said:


> I'm with Warren on this, although I'm not as big a sook as he is  , mines gapped to 1.0mm, my efficiency is 82%.



I live for conservatism Andrew... I even drive a Camry. :lol: 

Warren -


----------



## Steve Lacey (1/5/08)

With my Crankandstein (much like a MonsterMill) I was noticing that while all grains were getting cracked, a lot of them stayed whole. So last brew I ran the whole grist through twice (hand cranked I might add!). The quality of the crush was visibly much better after the second pass and the efficiency picked up from 70% to 77-78%. My batch sparge technique may have been better as well, but I think the crush was the main contributior to the better yield. A pump sure would be nice ...


----------



## devo (1/5/08)

can someone remind me of the basic equation for working out efficiency again?


----------



## KHB (1/5/08)

Pumps sure are handy


----------



## newguy (1/5/08)

devo said:


> can someone remind me of the basic equation for working out efficiency again?



efficiency = your actual gravity/max gravity possible from your malt

In NA, the measure of a malt's extract potential is its points/lb/gallon. Ordinary pale 2 row is 36 or 37. So that means that if you mash exactly one pound of that malt and gather exactly one gallon of wort, the maximum OG you can expect is 1.037.

Let's say you made a beer with 100% pale 2 row, say 8 lbs for a 5 gallon batch. (8 x 37)/5 = 59.2. In other words, if you had a perfect 100% efficiency, you'd get an OG of 1.059. Now let's assume that your actual OG was 1.050. Your system efficiency is 50/59.2 = .845 = 84.5%.

Once you know your efficiency, you use that to formulate your grain bill like this:

Choose a target OG and multiply this gravity by the finished volume to calculate the required gravity units of extract (GU). [Example: 1.050 target OG, 50 points x 5 gallon = 250 GU]

Next, take your grist and break it up into percentages. For instance, a dunkelweizen would be 50% munich malt and 50% wheat malt.

So,
50% wheat x 250 GU = 125 GU. Required qty of wheat = 125/(your efficiency x 38 pts/lb/gal for wheat) = x lbs wheat. Convert to kg if you wish.
50% munich x 250 GU = 125 GU. Required qty of munich = 125/(your efficiency x 34 pts/lb/gal for munich) = y lbs munich.

Sorry for the imperial units. They're the ones in use here, even though Canada is metric. Hope this clears it up for you.


----------



## pb unleaded (1/5/08)

devo said:


> can someone remind me of the basic equation for working out efficiency again?



EFF=OG*LT*100/307/KG


----------



## gerald (1/5/08)

and how do i do this in promash??


----------



## 3G (1/5/08)

Out of interest how fast do you sparge when batch sparging? Ive always done it for maybe 10 mins each time but remember reading somewhere to sparge as fast as possible with batch sparging.


----------



## newguy (2/5/08)

When I first got my HERMS together, I'd drain very slowly. My efficiency was 85%. Then I got annoyed with the amount of time it was taking and started doing my drains quickly. And my efficiency stayed at 85%. Makes sense now that I think about it - since I recirculate even with the 2nd addition/lauter, the sugars dissolve into the water during the recirculation. Drain speed then doesn't matter.


----------



## Cortez The Killer (2/5/08)

If batch sparging give it a good stir and drain as fast as the system will allow

Cheers


----------



## Screwtop (2/5/08)

newguy said:


> When I first got my HERMS together, I'd drain very slowly. My efficiency was 85%. Then I got annoyed with the amount of time it was taking and started doing my drains quickly. And my efficiency stayed at 85%. Makes sense now that I think about it - since I recirculate even with the 2nd addition/lauter, the sugars dissolve into the water during the recirculation. Drain speed then doesn't matter.




Changing to HERMS increased my efficiency a couple of points, fly sparging gives me a higher efficiency over batch sparging on my system. For both batch sparging and fly sparging, slow draining provides higher efficiency than fast draining. On my system, draining over 1 hour gives higher efficiency than draining over 30 min, but longer than 1 hour does not increase efficiency further. My efficiency is generally around 87% into the boiler.

Screwy


----------



## Thirsty Boy (3/5/08)

KHB said:


> i stir it and recurculate it back onto itself for 2 mins before sparging



I think you might have just named your reason for relatively low efficiency in your batch sparge system.

You - 

Stir - recirculate - sparge

You should - 

Add sparge water - stir - rest - recirculate - drain 

You can drain it as fast as it will go without getting stuck, I disagree with Screwtop, in a batch sparge I think it will make no difference to the efficiency. It certainly will in a fly sparge though.


Unless I have misinterpreted what you were saying??

TB


----------



## newguy (3/5/08)

Screwtop said:


> Changing to HERMS increased my efficiency a couple of points, fly sparging gives me a higher efficiency over batch sparging on my system. For both batch sparging and fly sparging, slow draining provides higher efficiency than fast draining. On my system, draining over 1 hour gives higher efficiency than draining over 30 min, but longer than 1 hour does not increase efficiency further. My efficiency is generally around 87% into the boiler.



Before the HERMS I mashed in two separate coolers. Basically I made 2 separate 5 gallon batches, then collected everything in one kettle. I did this because I couldn't find a cheap cooler which was large enough to mash everything at once. Anyway, my efficiency was 70% on that system. I batch sparged on that system as well. Drain speed made no difference to efficiency back then either. My biggest efficiency gain is definitely due to the HERMS.


----------



## Maxt (3/5/08)

Why would you want to stir the grain bed? Seems to make no sense to mess up the very thing you are trying to achieve, a filter through the grain bed.

Also an above comment about 'run off as fast as your system allows'. That goes against common sense (Unless you _want _channeling)

I reckon that if you are going to dump all your sparge water in at once, do it slowly and gently, disturbing the grain bed as little as possible (ie run it through a colander). Or even better, just run it through a colander at the same rate as it is running into your kettle. Watch your efficiency rise then as you enter the realm of (modified) fly sparging. You don't even need a march pump etc, you can just jug the water in every few minutes. 
I think anyone who is sparging faster that 1L/min is on the wrong track.
Just my 10c.


----------



## KHB (6/5/08)

Just wondering if doing a mash out-lifting mash temp to 75 degrees for 10mins will make any diff to my efficiency??


----------



## Stuster (6/5/08)

It might, KHB. It'll certainly make the wort less viscous which can release more sugars into solution. I do a quick n dirty mash out, just adding hotter water and not waiting any time. Works to avoid any stuck mashes (if my braid doesn't come loose  ). Only one way to tell on your system really.  

Maxt, that's just batch sparging for you. Works well for me and many others. Usual efficiency is in the 80s.


----------



## KHB (6/5/08)

Yeah i think im gonna give it a go


----------



## devo (6/5/08)

Maxt said:


> Why would you want to stir the grain bed? Seems to make no sense to mess up the very thing you are trying to achieve, a filter through the grain bed.



yes, I was thinking the very same thing.


----------



## Adamt (6/5/08)

Stuster said:


> It might, KHB. It'll certainly make the wort less viscous which can release more sugars into solution. I do a quick n dirty mash out, just adding hotter water and not waiting any time. Works to avoid any stuck mashes (if my braid doesn't come loose  ). Only one way to tell on your system really.
> 
> Maxt, that's just batch sparging for you. Works well for me and many others. Usual efficiency is in the 80s.



Actually it will allow more sugars to dissolve in the solution... the water will be less viscous but the higher sugar concentration in solution will counteract the decrease. Sorry to be anal retentive


----------



## Darren (6/5/08)

Adamt said:


> Actually it will allow more sugars to dissolve in the solution... the water will be less viscous but the higher sugar concentration in solution will counteract the decrease. Sorry to be anal retentive



Hey Adam,

Anal retention or not I am unsure I understand.

Agree that more sugar dissolves in the solution. Water must become more viscous with the addition of sugar??. Counteraction of the decrease in what?


PS: Stirring the mash may seem counterintuitive but in theory it will help. Once stirred, the larger particles will settle first and at the bottom of the tun. The lighter/smaller (mash sticking) particles will settle on top of the bed helping a clearer faster run-off.


cheers

Darren


----------



## Screwtop (6/5/08)

Thirsty Boy said:


> You can drain it as fast as it will go without getting stuck, I disagree with Screwtop, in a batch sparge I think it will make no difference to the efficiency. It certainly will in a fly sparge though.
> 
> 
> Unless I have misinterpreted what you were saying??
> ...



TB, details were from experimentation and experience using my system. Another observation is that the less the mash bed is disturbed the higher the efficiency *on my system* when fly sparging.

To Clarify:



> Changing to HERMS increased my efficiency a couple of points, fly sparging gives me a higher efficiency over batch sparging *on my system*. For both batch sparging and fly sparging, slow draining provides higher efficiency than fast draining *on my system*. *On my system*, draining over 1 hour gives higher efficiency than draining over 30 min, but longer than 1 hour does not increase efficiency further. My efficiency is generally around 87% into the boiler.



Cheers,

Screwy


----------



## Adamt (6/5/08)

Darren said:


> Hey Adam,
> 
> Anal retention or not I am unsure I understand.
> 
> ...



The decrease i was referring to was the viscosity decrease of water due to rising temperature.


----------



## Screwtop (6/5/08)

Darren said:


> PS: Stirring the mash may seem counterintuitive but in theory it will help. Once stirred, the larger particles will settle first and at the bottom of the tun. The lighter/smaller (mash sticking) particles will settle on top of the bed helping a clearer faster run-off.



Darren, *On my system* it's the small/fine/flour particles settling on top of the grainbed that create a somewhat impervious layer which results in channeling around the sides of the grainbed and lower efficiency. The more I stir the mash the worse this muddy layer seems to be. Guess it's the stirring that brings the fine particles into solution and naturally they settle last on top of the grainbed forming a sticky covering and preventing sparge water from filtering down through the surface of the grainbed evenly.

Cheers,

Screwy


----------



## justsomeguy (7/5/08)

Screwtop said:


> Darren, *On my system* it's the small/fine/flour particles settling on top of the grainbed that create a somewhat impervious layer which results in channeling around the sides of the grainbed and lower efficiency. The more I stir the mash the worse this muddy layer seems to be. Guess it's the stirring that brings the fine particles into solution and naturally they settle last on top of the grainbed forming a sticky covering and preventing sparge water from filtering down through the surface of the grainbed evenly.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Screwy



I find the same particles sit on the top of my grain bed when batch sparging as well.

Screwy, when fly sparging on your system all of those small particles are probably distributed throughout the grain bed. When batch sparging the particles are probably moving to the top of the bed as Darren described above. I think that may be why there is a recommendation NOT to disturb the grain bed when fly sparging, otherwise the small particles will start to congregate to the top of the bed.

I'd definitely stir, and do, when refilling the mash tun when batch sparging though to help release more sugars. I also cut the top of the grain bed to help the water move through the bed rather than down the sides of the mash tun. Dunno if it makes any difference though.

Consider this scenario...

You put dirty cloths in a bucket, fill it with water and give it a stir. Drain the water to get rid of some of the dirt. Refill it again but don't stir it up. Drain again and you will have removed some more of the dirt. If you had filled the bucket and given it a bit of a stir before the second draining then you will have removed even more dirt. I think the same principle applies to sparging. I think that washing machines work in the same way. When they get to a rinse cycle they don't just sit there do they. They stir all the clothes around to try to remove as much soap as possible. Same thing should apply to batch sparging.

Maybe we should all sparge in our washing machines to get better efficiency.  

gary


----------



## Thirsty Boy (7/5/08)

Screwtop - I didn't argue with the results you get on your system. But you are the only one brewing on your system - if I disagree about the speed of draining in a batch sparge system making a difference, then I am talking about what I think will be the general case, not what results you get.

You did I notice insert an extra "on my system" in your self quote. That addition changes the sentence it is inserted into and makes it an observation rather than leaving it open to be interpreted as a general statement... which is what I did, and what I disagreed with.

Maxt, Devo etc - the stirring and fast draining I referred to, only counts when you are talking about batch sparging, when the speed of draining and channeling make no difference. You still circulate and get a grain bed in precisely the way you do in a fly sparge, its just that channeling doesn't matter because the sugar is homogenously distributed in the tun rather than vertically layered as in a fly sparge.

If you are talking about fly sparging, then of course everything that you say is spot on.

Sorry for not being more clear in my post.

Thirsty


----------

