[Iliff Ave]

(Quick note to anyone who might still be milling at their local homebrew shop...... it's time to get your own mill.)

That made a big difference for me

[denny]

Per recommendations, I adjusted the brewhouse efficiency up to 90% in my recipe calculator. After making this adjustment, it did show an OG of 1.071.

Not saying my system is that efficient, because it is not. But thought it is interesting.

What are normal efficiency ranges for those of us here? 75, 80, or 85%?

The other factor is my mash time can easily run 2 1/2 or more hours. Triple step infusion mash.

Brewing on the G70, I get around 85% for beers up to about 1.075.  Goes down a bit for bigger beers.

[RC]

I used to get around 70% efficiency until I got my own mill. Now I get around 90% efficiency when I fly sparge and about 80% when I batch sparge. I just made a Mexican lager with 25% corn in the grist and got 95% efficiency, a new record for me. I have never been one to chase high efficiency but I do brew a LOT, and 90% vs 70% efficiency has saved me a meaningful amount of money.

Sparge method is also important. Even with a good crush, batch sparging has a ceiling of around 80% efficiency (IME). With a slow fly sparge, you can get into the 90s with even a coarse crush.

[ScallyWag]

(Quick note to anyone who might still be milling at their local homebrew shop...... it's time to get your own mill.)

That made a big difference for me

For me as well.  And worth paying money for a good quality mill too.  First mill I bought was a cheapo one (not specifically for brewing but primarily for baking, I am guessing); I was trying to pinch pennies, and it had a horribly inconsistent crush, and took forever to do the job badly.  But it made me appreciate the quality of the 2nd mill I bought, which was explicitly for malted grains.

I started out my homebrewing by ordering pre-milled grains from the suppliers, and the crush was all over the place.  Efficiencies were often disappointing.  I am so glad to not deal with that anymore.  I suppose the coarsest grind possible was safest for them, but I BIAB anyway so I like the ability to get a finer crush than I was getting with pre-milled.

[Megary]

Assuming we are talking about pre-boil here, I get between 70-75% like clockwork, BIAB, using my Kitchen Aid grain mill.  More of a shred than a crush I suppose, but all I care about is consistency and I’m getting that.  I chased efficiency for a good while until I realized my time was best spent elsewhere.  I did learn a lot of information about my “system” though, some of it was even useful.

[Bel Air Brewing]

Forgot to mention, the mash is fly sparged.  I guess that impacts efficiency?

[denny]

Forgot to mention, the mash is fly sparged.  I guess that impacts efficiency?

Yes, but it's hard to say whether it would make it higher or lower.  When I was using my batch sparge cooler system, my efficiency was often higher than those who fly sparged.  There are a number of variables involved.

[RC]

Forgot to mention, the mash is fly sparged.  I guess that impacts efficiency?

Yes, but it's hard to say whether it would make it higher or lower.  When I was using my batch sparge cooler system, my efficiency was often higher than those who fly sparged.  There are a number of variables involved.

It is certainly possible to have higher efficiency with batch sparging than with fly sparging if you have a finer crush than the fly sparger. All else being equal, though (e.g. same crush), fly sparging will always extract more sugar than batch sparging.

[denny]

Forgot to mention, the mash is fly sparged.  I guess that impacts efficiency?

Yes, but it's hard to say whether it would make it higher or lower.  When I was using my batch sparge cooler system, my efficiency was often higher than those who fly sparged.  There are a number of variables involved.

It is certainly possible to have higher efficiency with batch sparging than with fly sparging if you have a finer crush than the fly sparger. All else being equal, though (e.g. same crush), fly sparging will always extract more sugar than batch sparging.

No, that's not the case.  A less than perfect lauter system will reduce fly sparging efficiency.  And I know few people who have a perfect lauter system.  Batch sparging eliminates that from the equation.

[ynotbrusum]

Forgot to mention, the mash is fly sparged.  I guess that impacts efficiency?

Yes, but it's hard to say whether it would make it higher or lower.  When I was using my batch sparge cooler system, my efficiency was often higher than those who fly sparged.  There are a number of variables involved.

It is certainly possible to have higher efficiency with batch sparging than with fly sparging if you have a finer crush than the fly sparger. All else being equal, though (e.g. same crush), fly sparging will always extract more sugar than batch sparging.

No, that's not the case.  A less than perfect lauter system will reduce fly sparging efficiency.  And I know few people who have a perfect lauter system.  Batch sparging eliminates that from the equation.

I suppose if you run enough water through the fly sparging approach, you are bound to extract a greater amount of sugars eventually, but then again, it may have the potential to create a less than ideal pH and also increase necessary boil time to get to intended finished wort volume levels post-boil.  I never really liked fly sparging, because of the extra water needed to maintain a level of water above the grain bed (I used RO and didn't like to use unnecessary extra amounts for a batch - it seemed like such a waste - but I suppose for those able to use tap water straight away or tap water only modestly treated, the wasted water isn't an issue).  Batch sparging just seemed easier - adding the second amount based on volume runoff of the first runnings to get to a set pre-boil volume became second nature to me.  But as always - YMMV.  Cheers.

[goose]

In my system, I fly sparge and get between 80% and 85% brewhouse efficiency with the lighter beers and5%-78% with the heavier ones.   My crush at about 0.040 seems about perfect for my system.

[RC]

Forgot to mention, the mash is fly sparged.  I guess that impacts efficiency?

Yes, but it's hard to say whether it would make it higher or lower.  When I was using my batch sparge cooler system, my efficiency was often higher than those who fly sparged.  There are a number of variables involved.

It is certainly possible to have higher efficiency with batch sparging than with fly sparging if you have a finer crush than the fly sparger. All else being equal, though (e.g. same crush), fly sparging will always extract more sugar than batch sparging.

No, that's not the case.  A less than perfect lauter system will reduce fly sparging efficiency.  And I know few people who have a perfect lauter system.  Batch sparging eliminates that from the equation.

Fair enough. I hadn't thought about that because I have never used or heard of a homebrew lauter "system" that is so imperfect that batch sparging actually becomes the more efficient method. Just curious, what type(s) of lauter system at the homebrew level is this inefficient?

FTR, I use coolers with either the standard round false bottom or a bazooka, depending on batch size, which dictates which cooler I use.

[RC]

Forgot to mention, the mash is fly sparged.  I guess that impacts efficiency?

Yes, but it's hard to say whether it would make it higher or lower.  When I was using my batch sparge cooler system, my efficiency was often higher than those who fly sparged.  There are a number of variables involved.

It is certainly possible to have higher efficiency with batch sparging than with fly sparging if you have a finer crush than the fly sparger. All else being equal, though (e.g. same crush), fly sparging will always extract more sugar than batch sparging.

No, that's not the case.  A less than perfect lauter system will reduce fly sparging efficiency.  And I know few people who have a perfect lauter system.  Batch sparging eliminates that from the equation.

I suppose if you run enough water through the fly sparging approach, you are bound to extract a greater amount of sugars eventually, but then again, it may have the potential to create a less than ideal pH and also increase necessary boil time to get to intended finished wort volume levels post-boil.  I never really liked fly sparging, because of the extra water needed to maintain a level of water above the grain bed (I used RO and didn't like to use unnecessary extra amounts for a batch - it seemed like such a waste - but I suppose for those able to use tap water straight away or tap water only modestly treated, the wasted water isn't an issue).  Batch sparging just seemed easier - adding the second amount based on volume runoff of the first runnings to get to a set pre-boil volume became second nature to me.  But as always - YMMV.  Cheers.

The same volume of water is used for both methods. Fly sparging does not use more water than batch sparging.

[tommymorris]

Forgot to mention, the mash is fly sparged.  I guess that impacts efficiency?

Yes, but it's hard to say whether it would make it higher or lower.  When I was using my batch sparge cooler system, my efficiency was often higher than those who fly sparged.  There are a number of variables involved.

It is certainly possible to have higher efficiency with batch sparging than with fly sparging if you have a finer crush than the fly sparger. All else being equal, though (e.g. same crush), fly sparging will always extract more sugar than batch sparging.

No, that's not the case.  A less than perfect lauter system will reduce fly sparging efficiency.  And I know few people who have a perfect lauter system.  Batch sparging eliminates that from the equation.

Fair enough. I hadn't thought about that because I have never used or heard of a homebrew lauter "system" that is so imperfect that batch sparging actually becomes the more efficient method. Just curious, what type(s) of lauter system at the homebrew level is this inefficient?

FTR, I use coolers with either the standard round false bottom or a bazooka, depending on batch size, which dictates which cooler I use.

One that has channels that pass sparge water through the grain bed without properly rinsing (one that doesn’t pass over all of the grain surfaces continuously). Batch sparge thoroughly rinses the grains because you pour the warm water in, stir, let it sit a few minutes so the sugars dissolve into solution, and then drain. That’s a very effective process to collect sugars.

[Bel Air Brewing]

My fly sparge method runs the HLT water over and through a "false top" which evenly distributes the water into the grain bed.
Prior to installing the false top, we had issues with water seeking channels, or "tunneling" through the grain.
This has made sparging a simple task, and it is gravity feed.

My thought is this helps to increase efficiency.

The other technique employed is the continuous recirculation of the mash for the entire 2 to 3 hours of the steps.