Pros and Cons of my Process

I've been getting some through the roof efficiency numbers lately (pretty consistently between 85-90%) and although I'm happy about that, I've been talking it over with some people and they are in disbelief about how good the efficiency is.  To be honest, I don't blame them as a batch sparger those numbers are just hard to accept.

After thinking about it a lot I've come to the conclusion that my numbers are indeed right but perhaps I've drifted into the area of too much of a good thing and I might be entering the realm of tannin extraction.  I thought I might outline some of my process and ask if anyone sees any potential problems with how I do it.  I'll also explain the logic behind some of these steps.  Of course its not a complete outline of my process, just the steps that I think might push me past the good and into the area of tannin extraction.

1st - after conversion is complete instead of adding out a mash out volume of water I take some of the mash liquid and bring it up to near boiling and put that back onto the grist to bring it up to mash out temps.  I got the idea for this from the instructions the Annapolis Homebrew shot has on their website.  I can't think of a downside to this practice, the enzymes will be denatured but its at the end of the mash anyway and the liquid is wort after all so it was eventually going to get boiled anyway, so I'm not sure if there is a problem or potential problem with this method?  The reason I do this is because it leaves more water to sparge

2nd - Even though my MLT can hold it all I do not do two runnings with an added mash out volume at the end of the mash and then one round of sparge water.  I like to drain the mash tun as mentioned above and then have two rounds of sparging.  My concern here is during the third runnings the Ph might dip too low and tannin extraction might occur.  Having said this, I've taken gravity readings of not only the last runnings but the last of the last runnings (the last few drops before I turn the valve off) just to check.  On occasion it has dipped just below 1.010 (as I understand it, this is the gravity that corresponds to a ph where tannin extraction might occur) but with the temp correction it is always at least 1.022 so this helps with my fears a bit.

3rd.  My crush, I bought a barley crush and adjusted it every so slightly in a bit.  Its a fine grind to be sure but its far from powder or flour.  I don't think I've ever had a problem with a stuck or slow sparge either so again, even though I narrowed the gap ever so slightly, I don't think the grind is to the point of tannin extraction.

Having said all this, I haven't really tasted any real issues with the beer, actually, right now I'm making the best beer of my life but I wanted to run my process by some people to see if there might be some problems and so far I'm just getting lucky by not having astringent beer? 

thanks for the input

WR 

Let's see.  Hmmm.  You are drinking the best beer of your life and you seed us out to convince you to change your procedures?

Anybody else see something wrong with this?

LOL - Sorry, I am having a pint, after a pint and well, a couple of pints at dinner.  So, I am no help to you at the moment.  Brew on with no changes my friend.

Pros, or well-meaning hopefully helpful comments:
1) a relatively fine crush and three complete sparges constitute a mighty thorough rinsing of those grains, probably making the EE% that high.  My very efficient batch-sparge friend is low 80's with two equal batches.

Cons, or snide unhelpful comments:
1) what Rep said
2) if it ain't broke.....
3) you can't taste efficiency
4) time to sell everything and master some new hobby
5) you may have just jinxed your next batch to oblivion. 

Well,

Thanks I guess  :, I guess I've just had the doubt because the numbers are so good and some doubting thomases in my world make convincing arguments to me that there must be something wrong or worse, that I might be hurting my beer.  I don't think I've ever heard anyone else say they pull the mash liquor off to mash out either and seems like such a helpful tool I have to wonder why no one else does it?  Nagging doubt I guess but with your supportive comments    I guess I'll march on as is 

Great job!  I am still figuring out how to even measure my effeciency and get enough time to brew more all grain so that I can tweak and improve.  I am still planning on keggle upgrades so this set up is purely and interim training solution anyway.

As long as it makes good beer!

Wildrover said:

I don't think I've ever heard anyone else say they pull the mash liquor off to mash out either and seems like such a helpful tool I have to wonder why no one else does it?

Click to expand...

Blaze a trail and we will follow!  ;D It must be one of those cases where you heard it, filed it, and forgot it. I got the idea from another forum. I had so much grain in the MT that pulling the wort off the grist (Modified Decoction) was the only way to get it done. They also suggested a Decoction mash.

Tannins? I believe that there is a little truth in everything. Just remember that there are still people doing Decoction mashing and have not had any hint of tannins come through their beer.

Cheers
Preston

Preston,

I actually know exactly where I got it. It was the Annapolis Homebrew shop website.  I remember reading it obviously online one day and it seemed like such a basic stroke of genius, mash out volume without sacrificing sparge volume, what a great idea. 

My concern stems from the fact that though I saw this on a homebrew stores website and they are supposed to be experts, my experience from my own local homebrew store (great people but the beer is a side thing, their hearts are in wine) is that owning a homebrew store doesn't mean everything you say is...well...correct.  On top of that, I've watched a lot of youtube and lurked on a lot of boards and talked to some people and I've never heard anyone employ this practice.  That got me thinking that if it were really that helpful and a good tool more people would be using it.  I've been getting some really good numbers lately like I mentioned before and I attribute a lot of that to being able to get the mash up to mash out temp but still have all that water left over to sparge, gives the grains a good thorough rinse to be sure, more so than if I sacrificed sparge water to mash out with. 

So to sum up, with really good numbers and what seems to be a really straight forward and easy but seemingly unused process my mind started to drift from "Wow this is great" to "Wait, something must be wrong"  add on top of that the doubters among me and it prompted this question and thread

so thats the entire train of thought and I'm spent 

Admittedly I was/am a doubting Thomas. But curiosity has the best of me. So I have some question's: What is your water to grain ratio in BS? What is your mill set at? Have you done Light, Medium, and Full body mashes with the same efficiency's? How long do you normally boil?

Your process are very similar to my own, so The above answers could help me. Granted Most of my efficiencies are in the 70's. But we are all looking for that one thing that puts us above average!

Cheers!
Preston

Preston,

all fair questions to be sure, I'd rather find out I'm doing something/calculating something incorrectly than act like I'm bragging about my efficiency numbers (sort of like a fish story, it was sooooooooooooo big)

Anyway, I usually shoot for 1.25 though at times I've fudged up to around 1.3 - 1.35.  I've heard that a looser mash can help with efficiency but I haven't noticed a difference with that.  I made a wheat beer two weeks ago and my efficiency numbers were around the same but the ratio, during the sach rest was around 1.7 (I did a protein rest first, hence the reasons for the larger ratio).

My grind is somewhat fine I think.  I do not have a feeler gauge but I will admit to making the gap tighter than the factory pre-set.  I'm somewhat positive this has had a significant influence on my efficiency.

I have not done a full bodied mash but have done both a medium and light bodied mash.   The efficiencies have all been pretty close regardless.  I also generally boil for an hour.  Having said that, I shoot for 6 gallons of wort at the end but at times end up with significantly more (Perhaps over sparging?) Sometimes I'll have 6.5 or even 6.8-6.9 gallons at the end of the boil.  Of course I account for this in Beer Smith. 

Something else I do is pour all of the kettle into my primary.  There is no loss to trub so some might say I'm inflating my batch size but I see it more as me not deflating my batch size as someone who measures their batch after they've put their wort into their primary and may have lost a significant amount of wort to trub.  I'm not sure what the convention on this is but it seems like if I pour everything from the kettle into the primary and it comes to 6.5 gallons then I should say my batch size is 6.5 gallons, trub and all. 

I also use the 5.2 stabilizer, not sure how much this influences things but every little bit right? 

I have also, many times actually, mashed over an hour, 1.5 - 2 hours isn't unheard for me, not sure this makes a difference and there are various reasons for me doing that, for example, I don't think my Briess malts are fully converted after an hour when doing a light bodied mash, it really needs the extra time according to the idodine test. 

Finally, I got to thinking about this last night when walking my dog, the size of mash tun is pretty big.  Its a grey rubbermaid cooler with the spigot in the middle and a lid that allows you to lift only half of it at a time.  I could easily hold the grains for 10 gallon batches in that thing but I usually shoot for only 6 gallons.  I've heard on the basic brewing podcasts that a looser mash will produce greater efficiency.  I got the feeling they came up with this based on the experiments of one of their guests but they tried it and it supported that hypothesis.  I'm wondering if the size of your mash tun might also have an influence on efficiency (not sure if this has ever been discussed or not).  Specifically, it makes sense, in my minds eye anyway, that a smaller mash tun will really cram the grains in there making a tight fit regardless of water/grain ratio as compared to a bigger tun which will allow for a looser fit, again, regardless of water/grain ratio.  Maybe, the bigger tun allows more "room to move" for the sugars as the runnings are happening and the sparge water is being put over the grains. Given that I often will sparge with over 2.5 gallons twice, and given the extra space for the grains maybe the sugars are being afforded the space they need to get out of the tun after they are dissolved into solution where in a more cramped tun though the sugars get dissolved there just isn't enough space for them to get through. 

I have to think my grain bed is only a couple of inches thick which means the sugars don't have a lot to get through as compared to a smaller tun where the grain bed is perhaps 7-8 inches thick?  Makes sense to me anyway.

Finally (this time I mean it) I will also let the runnings run for a long time.  In other words I don't turn the knob to close the tun as soon as it slows or even starts to trickle, in my opinion there is still more sweet goodness in there and with some patience it will come. It is not uncommon for me to let each of the three runnings go for 20 maybe even 30 minutes in an attempt to get every last bit.  This of course means a lot of time listening to the very slow flow and then drops (you'll have to pee several times if standing in this room listening to this) but I don't mind the extra time and if it gets me a little more than why not? 

If I can think of anything else I post it  thanks for the interest

Thanks for your thoughts. Recap: Good grind (Setting Please); Long/Thin mash; shallow Grain Bed (Solid Idea IMO!); Hybrid Decoction Mash Out; Patient Sparging; Dump the Kettle= High efficiency

I also listened to the basic brewing podcast that talked about the looser mash, I usually went the other way with a ticker mash allowing me to have more sparge water... May have to rethink that, and use hybrid Decoction mashing for Mash out along with a thinner mash to begin with. You know you hear it, but it just does not sink in... LOL, Live and learn!

In my mind's eye, you have a point about the depth of the grain bed. I have two MT's one for a 10G batch and one for the 5.5G batches. I plan to brew in two weeks for The Aleuminati "Inoculator" ESB and will have to switch MT's and processes to see how it works out for me.

Please!!!! I beg of you, Go to SEARS and buy a $5 feeler gauge set (http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_00999008000P). I really would like to know what your settings are on your grain mill.

I also don't mind the trub in primary. I like to think of it as food for the yeast (note: Hot break proteins only, I do use a 5G paint strainer for a Hop bag) I also leave the beer on the yeast cake for a minimum of 14 days and most of the time longer because I only have one secondary

+1 on 5.2! On that thought. Do you know what your water is like? I have semi hard water that I run through a double filter (charcoal/microfiber) to remove the bad stuff. I found a water report from about 5 years ago that confirmed my suspicions. It occur's to me that softer water would be more apt to absorb the sugars better. But then I really don't want to go down the path of adjusting my water for every beer. So strike that thought! Never Mind! Ok tell me anyway! LOL

I raise a glass to you!
Cheers!
Preston

UselessBrewing said:

+1 on 5.2!  I have semi hard water that I run through a double filter (charcoal/microfiber) to remove the bad stuff. But then I really don't want to go down the path of adjusting my water for every beer. So strike that thought! Never Mind! Ok tell me anyway! LOL.  Preston

Click to expand...

+1 on at least considering your water profile.  And it's really not that hard.  I started adjusting water chemistry last fall and got big improvements in efficiency and beer quality and style characteristics.  I'm fortunate to have low-mineral, Pilsen-type water so I'm only adding a small amount of a few things, but it does help get the most from the mash if the proper chemistry is there and the mash pH is in the 5.2 to 5.5 range.  Palmer has a good spreadsheet online that does all the math for you.  I add minerals and use a smaller amount of 5.2 to stabilize the mash.  (The biggest help is having a small pocket scale that measures grams.) 

Messing with your water is not required to make good beer, but if you're looking for more efficiency, or you struggle to make a good "blank" (insert style), then water chemistry would be one thing to look into.  Historically, many beer styles from the famous brewing cities came about as brewers adapted to the local water, so if you "want to brew like Gustav" it may help to have Gustav's water profile. 

UselessBrewing said:

Please!!!! I beg of you, Go to SEARS and buy a $5 feeler gauge set (http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_00999008000P). I really would like to know what your settings are on your grain mill.


+1 on 5.2! On that thought. Do you know what your water is like? I have semi hard water that I run through a double filter (charcoal/microfiber) to remove the bad stuff. I found a water report from about 5 years ago that confirmed my suspicions. It occur's to me that softer water would be more apt to absorb the sugars better. But then I really don't want to go down the path of adjusting my water for every beer. So strike that thought! Never Mind! Ok tell me anyway! LOL

I raise a glass to you!
Cheers!
Preston

Click to expand...

Preston, thanks for the nice words, as far as the water goes thats not something I spend too much time worrying about.  My belief is that since I use the 5.2 and for the most part I don't make any thing all that light, I don't worry about it.  I generally buy the drinking water for the local wal mart or grocery store whatever is most convenient at the time.  I might start to dive a little deeper if I ever start lagering things. 

Not sure I want to drop the five bones on the feeler gauge but I have a buddy of mine who also brews who has some.  The next time he comes over I'll ask him if he can bring the over so I can take a look at the gap, I'm a little curious now myself. 

Update: Just brewed a ESB on Sunday for the Aleuminati. I made a few Changes to my Settings/Processes. Those changes were as follows: No change on my Mill, Thinner Mash(1.45qt/LB), Decoction Mashout, and long slow Sparge (almost 1 hour Sparging). I used the same MT as before, because I could not find all my pieces to my larger MT at 7am... Well my Exact Brewhaus Efficiency (BHE) was 85.45%, from a normal low 70's. I do attribute this to the changes I made and hope to repeat this processes in the future if time permits. I was pleasantly surprised when my expected OG was 1.065 and I was almost 10 points over it at 1.074.

Cheers
Preston

I truly believe the largest gain in efficiency is from the sparge time, a slow sparge is far more efficient. I have been brewing with a new brew partner since moving to Astoria, OR and he regularly runs low 80's and the #1 thing he has done with me is slow down my sparge time.
Using the initial wort back across the grainbed to set it and then averaging some where around 2 minutes per quart is my average now and I have moved to averaging just around 80%.

Preston,

Thats awesome news!!! i'd be lying if I said I didn't feel at least a little vindication, as well as relief that it worked!

Having said that though, I will say that I'm not sure if there is a difference in effect from a slow sparge and a long sparge.  In other words, I don't control the flow rate, I open it all up but I leave it open for a long time in an effort to get as much as possible. 

I went back and looked at my notes and I didn't start getting mid to upper 80's until one day I had my wife help out.  I thought I gave good instructions but she misunderstood something.  I let her handle the 3rd runnings why I took the first and second runnings out to the kettle to start heating it up.  This was in an effort to reduce the amount of time to bring everything up to a boil.  Anyway, I was out there for a long time, so long the wort started to boil.  I peaked inside and she was still collecting the third runnings.  I should have told her she didn't need to get every last drop but in an effort to do her best she was determined.  Well, she brought out a ton of wort and the beer didn't really turn out all that good but I was somewhere between 85-86% for that particular batch.  That beer didn't make it, but the lesson learned has since been integrated into my process, a nice long sparge in an effort to get every last drop!!

I'd say the most important thing that one can do to get high efficiency is the mash out.
That's not to minimize any other part of your process, but raising the porridge up to 160-170 (I also remove half and bring it to a boil) before washing off the sugars added 25% to my efficiency.

25 pts  Wow!!,

I don't think I'm ready to declare any one thing as the biggest contributor.  I know I used to only get in the 60's for efficiency and it was really frustrating.  In fact, one of, if not they reason I started to post on this board was to ask questions about how I can improve my efficiency.  I think a very fine grind.  The mash out, 5.2, the long sparge as well as doing the mash out with mash liquor instead of sparge water and finally having that extra sparge water at the right temp is what has really lifted my efficiency numbers.  Alot of these variables were all changed at once so I guess it is impossible to say which is the biggest contributor or if any of them aren't contributing anything at all?  So long as I'm getting good numbers but more importantly good beer, I'll keep my process the way it is, if it's not broke don't fix it right? 

Wildrover said:

Having said that though, I will say that I'm not sure if there is a difference in effect from a slow sparge and a long sparge.  In other words, I don't control the flow rate, I open it all up but I leave it open for a long time in an effort to get as much as possible.

Click to expand...

That is not what I did, I closed the valve off so that the flow was a trickle. It occurs to me that it may be the time the grains are wet, they are still giving off sugars. So By opening up the valve all the way and the time between adding the next round of sparge, may have in-fact done the same thing. Different process, same result which is purely Speculation on my part.

As for the mash out, I can say I use one on "almost" all my beers. So I cant attribute the gain in efficiency there.

Cheers
Preston

My efficiency was in the low 60s until a chat with the guy at the local shop convinced me to raise the mash to 170 or so before sparging, and efficiency immediately went into the high 80s.
My last couple batches had poor yields.  The variable there would be the grain, I've been experimenting with lagers.  I let the guy at the shop grind it, and for some reason the grain looks more coarse than before.  Perhaps the kernels are smaller, I don't know.  Either way I need my own mill.
I'd also agree that sparge time makes a difference, the slower I go the higher the yield.
As far as PH goes, I've never checked.