I posted this in my help topic a few weeks ago, but since somewhat "hidden" didn't get any response. So I decided to make a dedicated topic for this question as I believe it could help others in the future as well. So I completed my first brew this past weekend (all grain, right away!). My grain efficiency ended up at about 64% but my brewhouse efficiency ended up at just 56% (which I have a question below). My gravity pre-boil was around 6-gallons at 1.035 (which gives me around a 64% efficiency from what I calculated). My OG ended up being only 1.043 after a 60min boil, in which I had about 4.25 gal transfer into the ferment bucket. I would say maybe another .25 gallon I left behind in the kettle because it was all hop sludge and the strainer started to clog up. Now using some calculators online, I should have ended at around 1.047-1.049 on gravity. Why would I only read 1.043 if I did reduce down from the 6-gal at 1.035 to even say 4.5gal with what I had leftover at 1.043? I did correct for temperature at both stages. My only theory is that I forgot to get my sample as I was transferring from the kettle to the ferment bucket, so at the end, I just collected some of the leftover sludgy wort left in the kettle and used that (I did filter it and let it rest, but still had quite a bit of sediment in it). Could that have skewed my hydrometer result? I will still end up with around 5% ABV if all goes well, which is a little less than I had hoped for (target was 6%), but next time I will correct my little mistakes and get that efficiency up! I have hope it will be really delicious... Tasting the final product going into the ferment bucket, it tastes quite good (aside from the sweet, lack of carbonation and alcohol...) but the aroma coming out of the ferment bucket lately has been amazing! Really excited to see how the end result is. Thanks for the help!
Accuracy in volume measurement is probably the single most important thing if you want to nail your gravity and your efficiency calculations. You say your pre-boil was "around 6 gallons" at 1.035. Well, was it 5.8 gallons, perhaps? Then you say you ended up with "about 4.25 gal transfer" with "maybe another .25 gallon left behind". Could this have been a total of maybe 4.7 gallons? If that were the case, then I would expect "maybe" 4.4 gallons of the 1.043 wort that you ended up with. It's good that you corrected gravity readings for temperature. Sludge should not affect hydrometer readings at all. As such I trust your gravity readings more than your volume measurements. If you really want to understand your process, then you need to totally nail all your volume measurements. Some people mark the sides of their kettle or fermenters with quart measurement lines. Some people mark a spoon or stick and dunk it into the wort to get a measurement. With respect to efficiency concerns beyond volume measurements... How did you crush the malt? 9 times out of 10, it's about the crush. If you crush hard enough, and nail your volume measurements, then your efficiency concerns will go bye-bye. Crush is the next most important variable for meddling with efficiency. With an excellent crush of the grains, all you really need is a really terrible half-assed sparge and you'll still get awesome efficiency close to 75-80%, and with an excellent sparge as well as crush, you can get up to 90%. That said, I have my doubts as to whether anything more than 75-80% is really good for beer flavor and mouthfeel (i.e., I think it's actually bad -- more experiments are needed). If you get to the high 70s, be happy and stay there, as there might be no advantage to pushing the limits farther unless it is a learning experience for you. Cheers.
The brew shop crushed all my grains for me... It looked like a nice quality crush, grain size and everything. I appreciate your advice. I thought of marking some type of measuring device that I can use in my kettle for accurate measurements... Looks like I will do that for sure! Efficiency wise, I learned one of my mistakes was sparging too quickly. That will be corrected for next time to raise efficiency more, at least from what I read.
Homebrew shops are notoriously very very BAD at crushing malt. I mean, what's in it for them? Complaints of stuck sparge? Less grains sold? They need to make a buck and keep customers happy. So, try a double crush next time if you don't have your own mill yet. I can virtually guarantee your efficiency will increase by 10 points overnight. How did you sparge? What you said about speed only has an effect for fly sparging. If you batch sparged, then speed has nothing to do with it at all.
Well being a brew shop owned/operated by a brewery here in Cleveland, I was hoping they would be able to crush it properly for me... I will ask them to double crush next time though to see if it improves my efficiency. I did batch sparging.
It could be a mash pH issue. There are other possible causes that I'll leave for others to bring up as I need to run off to work now.
My LHBS crushes my grain and I have never had an issue with their crush. My efficiency jumped immensely when I slowed my sparge down considerably and began double batch sparging. It adds time to my brew day but I'm not really trying to set any time records there anyway. I get about 85% efficiency with worts under 1.050 og and get mid to high 70s up to 1.070.
I have to respectfully disagree with this sentiment. I have read it in books and online as well but my personal experience has been that slowing down my sparge has given me a little under a 10% jump in efficiency while batch sparging.
Same here, but not quite 10% for me. I used the same grain bill, mash pH, mash temp, minerals and water volume four times in a row. Two were fast sparge, two were slow. The slow sparge made a higher gravity both times. Not a big difference. 2-3 gravity points. It was enough to adjust my software. Double batch sparging can improve efficiency by 5%. I still use a single batch sparge.
Appreciate the advice everyone! I look forward to my next batch to see how much I could improve. Also excited to try out my first, which is an American Pale Ale at 5% ABV and 60 IBU. Citra, Simcoe and Chinook hops during the boil and Citra/Simcoe will be used to dry hop in a few days.
Good crush + good sparge + good pH control + accurate volume and temperature measurements = good efficiency. Those are the really big variables. You and I can achieve efficiency in the mid-90s based on those variables alone. Batch sparge speed? Sorry, I have never played with that variable. Maybe it has some effect, I wouldn't know what or why. Sparging involves rinsing of the grains. When sparging, either batch or fly style, the sugars are already fully dissolved in the wort. In a fly sparge scenario, you could get channeling of the grain bed, which allows water to be sucked directly through; in this case, it makes sense to sparge slowly to avoid channeling. But with batch sparging, add sparge water, stir well, and drain off. What am I missing? I certainly agree that double batch sparging can have significant impact on efficiency. How much, I'm not certain. Could be up to 10% maybe. You mention hopping...... personally I don't usually brew heavily hopped beers, so I don't often think about this. But if you often use a ton of hops, those hops soak up wort that can never be recovered. This is especially true if you use any whole hops, which are like big ugly sponges. Bottom line is, if you prevent a lot of hops from getting into your fermenter, this can cut into your efficiency slightly. Probably not a huge effect, unless you use a huge amount, especially of whole hops, then it could be.
What you are missing is a basis for comparison since you have only sparged quickly. If you are happy with your current method and efficiency, there isn't much of a reason to try a slower sparge. I prefer to crush relatively coarse, so I wasn't getting great efficiency. I tried the slower sparge and it made small improvement that has remained constant since then. I could get better efficiency by crushing finer, but maximizing efficiency isn't something that will make my beer taste better.
Bravo! I don't think efficiency is nearly the big deal that people make it out to be. If you can get it consistent, that's really the key. Doesn't matter if it's 65%, 75%, 85%. If you can get it consistent, you're golden. Cheers.
