Efficiency skyrockets in larger batches

[SixFoFalcon]

Does anyone else see their efficiency shoot up like 20% when doing 10-gallon batches vs. 5-gallon batches? I'm thinking it has something to do with lautering efficiency.

I'm regularly getting 90-95% efficiency numbers out of BeerSmith on my 10-gallon batches, and often that's after dumping the last gallon or so of wort before the boil to get my pre-boil gravity and volume correct. Similar beers in 5-gallon batches would usually have me at about 75% efficiency, give or take a few %.

 

[CarlLBC]

I also get crazy high numbers when I do 20 gallon batches. Weird, not that i'm complaining, I just need to do some adjustments during the brew day according to what I get.

 

[SixFoFalcon]

Yeah, I'm not complaining either... it is a good motivator to do more 10g batches because I'm spending less money on grain in the long run.

It was a little puzzling for a while there, because I was alternating between 5- and 10-gallon batches and the numbers kept throwing me for a loop. I actually had to start drinking less on brew day so I was sure I wasn't botching the math.

Lately I've been plugging in 75% for my expected efficiency in 5g batches, and 90% for my 10g batches and I've been close enough that I could just skim off some wort here and there and replace with water if necessary to hit my expected gravities.

 

[jagg]

The bigger batch I do, the less effecient I am, 90-95% effeciency is off the charts good dude, I have never came close to those kind of numbers, 10 gallon batches = 75%, 15 gallon batches and Im down to 71%, Im not complaining with that though,

 

[Bernie Brewer]

Not me. I get 75% and can set my watch by it. I like it that way- makes it easier to hit my numbers.

 

[evwoller]

I am pretty sure that a large batch size theoretically would do nothing to your efficiency. thin grain water ratios would increase efficiency as would meticulous technique...

Do you usually shoot for 'bigger beers' when doing a 5 gallon batch vs when you are doing 10 gallons? By bigger of course i am implying higher desired og.

 

[mattd2]

I am pretty sure that a large batch size theoretically would do nothing to your efficiency. thin grain water ratios would increase efficiency as would meticulous technique...

Do you usually shoot for 'bigger beers' when doing a 5 gallon batch vs when you are doing 10 gallons? By bigger of course i am implying higher desired og.

For brewhouse efficiency a bigger batch would mean less % of dead space/loss. i.e. if you loss 0.5 gallons between transfering from you mlt-kettle/kettle-fementer thats 10% loass on a 5 gallon batch but only 5% loss on a 10 gallon batch

 

[ajf]

thin grain water ratios would increase efficiency as would meticulous technique...

According to Greg Noonan (New Brewing Lager Beer)
"A thick mash (less than three-tenths of a gallon of water per pound of malt) induces the greatest overall extraction."

-a.

 

[evwoller]

According to Greg Noonan (New Brewing Lager Beer)
"A thick mash (less than three-tenths of a gallon of water per pound of malt) induces the greatest overall extraction."

-a.

My chemistry book tends to disagree, a super thick mash with no sparge should not induce any good efficiency. Although i could see how keeping the enzyme reaction as dense as possible could result in a better conversion. At this point i would like to point out that i did not say a thin mash would lead to ultimate efficiency but the total grain to water ratio (possibly pre boil volume to total lbs of grain)

If you have a 10 gallon gas tank, and try to fill it with 15 gallons, it simply is not going to work. The same would be true with how much stuff you can dissolve in any liquid.

More liquid allows for more extraction.

 

[mattd2]

My chemistry book tends to disagree, a super thick mash with no sparge should not induce any good efficiency. Although i could see how keeping the enzyme reaction as dense as possible could result in a better conversion. At this point i would like to point out that i did not say a thin mash would lead to ultimate efficiency but the total grain to water ratio (possibly pre boil volume to total lbs of grain)
If you have a 10 gallon gas tank, and try to fill it with 15 gallons, it simply is not going to work. The same would be true with how much stuff you can dissolve in any liquid.

More liquid allows for more extraction.

I think most people would what you said as saying a thin mash as you didn't mention you meant total water (strike + sparge). Only problem with your point though is the issues with oversparging and the need to boil down more if you sparge more.
A thick mash will give you more sparge water to use so you can do 2 sparge (if batch) or a longer sparge (if fly)

 

[SixFoFalcon]

I've been using the same mash tun and manifold for about 4 years now, for all sorts of recipes from 1.040-ish session beers, all the way up to 1.100 Imperial Stouts. In 5-gallon batches, the efficiency has only ranged from the high 60s on odd occasion, to maybe the low 80s. The vast majority of times it's been between 72% and 75%.

Regardless of gravity or batch size, I'm always using a water-grain ratio of .31 gals/lb, so mash "thickness" is not the main factor. And on the whole, the heavy (1.080-1.100) 5g batches I've done were no more efficient than the lighter ones.

 

[ajf]

My chemistry book tends to disagree, a super thick mash with no sparge should not induce any good efficiency. Although i could see how keeping the enzyme reaction as dense as possible could result in a better conversion. At this point i would like to point out that i did not say a thin mash would lead to ultimate efficiency but the total grain to water ratio (possibly pre boil volume to total lbs of grain)

If you have a 10 gallon gas tank, and try to fill it with 15 gallons, it simply is not going to work. The same would be true with how much stuff you can dissolve in any liquid.

More liquid allows for more extraction.

Who said anything about a super thick mash? I'd hardly consider 1.2 qt / lb to be super thick.

Who said anything about no sparge? Obviously if you are going to do a thick mash, you will need to sparge

-a.

 

[mattd2]

Who said anything about a super thick mash? I'd hardly consider 1.2 qt / lb to be super thick.

Who said anything about no sparge? Obviously if you are going to do a thick mash, you will need to sparge

-a.

Yeah, I thought normal was between 1 - 1.5 qt/#

 

[SixFoFalcon]

I don't think conversion is the issue. Good water + good malt + good crush + good temperature = good conversion. I think I'm hitting all those parameters every time.

I'm leaning towards this being a lautering efficiency issue. My tun and manifold are probably just more effective at extracting wort when lots of grain and lots of sparge water are involved.