[flbrewer]

Not to start a debate, but the last time I mentioned this most people responded that in the final product you can't really tell the difference in the same recipe brewed with varying mash thickness. FWIW, I like to pick a number (normally around 1.5 or so) that gets me fairly even strike and sparge numbers. It's easier to measure 3 gallons of water vs. 3.13 for example.

[Iliff Ave]

Seems these aren't getting posted here anymore but had this in my inbox this morning:

http://brulosophy.com/2016/02/15/the-mash-standard-vs-thin-liquor-to-grist-ratio-exbeeriment-results/

I am normally about a 1.8 qt / lb kind of guy

[bierview]

I gave it a whirl using 1.70 qts. puts per pound.  Perhaps it's my system but I lost both Brewhouse efficiency and mash efficiency.  Typical Brewhouse is 80%.  Typical Mash 94-98% at 1.25/pound.  At 1.70 qts / pound I got Brewhouse of 72% and most disappointing mash at 77%.

BV

[Wort-H.O.G.]

I gave it a whirl using 1.70 qts. puts per pound.  Perhaps it's my system but I lost both Brewhouse efficiency and mash efficiency.  Typical Brewhouse is 80%.  Typical Mash 94-98% at 1.25/pound.  At 1.70 qts / pound I got Brewhouse of 72% and most disappointing mash at 77%.

BV

batch, fly, no sparge?  I batch sparge and at those ratios, high 80's to mid 90's on efficiency consistently.

edit: also- you checking PH? thinner mash will result in higher PH - 2qt could be 2-3 tenths higher vs 1.25qt

[HoosierBrew]

I got a bump of 3-4 points when I jumped from 1.2 to 1.75ish.

[bierview]

Wort,
Batch sparge

[Wort-H.O.G.]

Wort,
Batch sparge

ok. did you catch my edit on PH?

[coolman26]

My MT is usually filled to the max, so I'm usually pretty thick.  I now fly sparge and my numbers keep going up as I get better at this process change.  When I batch sparged, I found my sweet spot around 1.7qt.

[ynotbrusum]

For most lighter lagers, I press towards 2.0 quarts/lb.  usually just a pinch under, because I have a routine where I collect 15 gallons of RO and typically use about half of it in the mash for a typical 10 gallon lager that uses around 16-18 lbs. of grain...then I adjust with CaCl2 and some lactic based on the actual grains used.

[Pricelessbrewing]

You guys just rocked my world.  For 17 years I have been using 1.25 ratio and have been getting a mash efficiency between 94-98%. Then 5.5 gl of sparge water for a 5 gallon batch.  Ferment in a 6 gallon carboy.  Perhaps I'll bump up the mash water and lose some of the sparge water.

 
94-95% mash efficiency is insanely high. Conversion? Sure. Mash? Unlikely. Perhaps a difference of terminology is at play here?

[Wort-H.O.G.]

You guys just rocked my world.  For 17 years I have been using 1.25 ratio and have been getting a mash efficiency between 94-98%. Then 5.5 gl of sparge water for a 5 gallon batch.  Ferment in a 6 gallon carboy.  Perhaps I'll bump up the mash water and lose some of the sparge water.

 
94-95% mash efficiency is insanely high. Conversion? Sure. Mash? Unlikely. Perhaps a difference of terminology is at play here?

can you elaborate?

[denny]

You guys just rocked my world.  For 17 years I have been using 1.25 ratio and have been getting a mash efficiency between 94-98%. Then 5.5 gl of sparge water for a 5 gallon batch.  Ferment in a 6 gallon carboy.  Perhaps I'll bump up the mash water and lose some of the sparge water.

 
94-95% mash efficiency is insanely high. Conversion? Sure. Mash? Unlikely. Perhaps a difference of terminology is at play here?

can you elaborate?

I think he's saying that efficiency is normal for conversion efficiency, but seems high for mash efficiency (which includes the sparge).  I agree about conversion efficiency.  I have sometimes gotten that high on mash efficiency, but generally am in the low-mid 80s.

[Wort-H.O.G.]

You guys just rocked my world.  For 17 years I have been using 1.25 ratio and have been getting a mash efficiency between 94-98%. Then 5.5 gl of sparge water for a 5 gallon batch.  Ferment in a 6 gallon carboy.  Perhaps I'll bump up the mash water and lose some of the sparge water.

 
94-95% mash efficiency is insanely high. Conversion? Sure. Mash? Unlikely. Perhaps a difference of terminology is at play here?

can you elaborate?

I think he's saying that efficiency is normal for conversion efficiency, but seems high for mash efficiency (which includes the sparge).  I agree about conversion efficiency.  I have sometimes gotten that high on mash efficiency, but generally am in the low-mid 80s.

well here's a good explanation on the terms being used here in this thread:

http://beersmith.com/blog/2014/11/05/brewhouse-efficiency-vs-mash-efficiency-in-all-grain-beer-brewing/

[Wort-H.O.G.]

High conversion % of potential yield coupled with lower loss in mash process results in higher mash efficiency. High 80's low 90's is quite normal for me and my process/system.

Brewhouse efficiency is all this plus all the way to the end(bottling /kegging). This is typically much lower the other efficiency noted...high 70,s low 80's for me usually.


edit: today I realized 94.6% mash efficiency for example.

[Pricelessbrewing]

You guys just rocked my world.  For 17 years I have been using 1.25 ratio and have been getting a mash efficiency between 94-98%. Then 5.5 gl of sparge water for a 5 gallon batch.  Ferment in a 6 gallon carboy.  Perhaps I'll bump up the mash water and lose some of the sparge water.

 
94-95% mash efficiency is insanely high. Conversion? Sure. Mash? Unlikely. Perhaps a difference of terminology is at play here?

can you elaborate?

Yeah, basically what they said. a 94%+ mash efficiency is EXTREMELY rare in my experience, I've only seen it one other time using a very fine crush, a recirculating mash and a very effective fly sparge system.  How are you calculating this I wonder?

For definitions and such you can check out my blog post here http://pricelessbrewing.github.io/methods/Efficiency/. Typical values are conversion: 88-94%, lauter 85-94% depending on sparge method and run off ratios, mash is usually 70-85%, and brewhouse is usually 70-85% for zero apparent kettle losses.

 I go by Braukaisers definitions, so it may just be a difference of terminology. Some older texts for example use mash efficiency interchangably with conversion, and uses kettle efficiency to refer to mash efficiency etc etc.