90% mash efficiency

[JimRausch]

I think I know the answer, but I'm going to post this Q anyways.
I've been mashing with the same setup for 3.5 years, have done the same recipe(RyeCentennial Pale ale) at least 4 times over that period, and keep extensive notes about my brewing process. Got the grain bill (crushed) from the same source.
My typical mash efficiency runs 75-80%. This past Saturday I was amazed to get a M.E. of 90%. Means I didn't need to add the planned 1 lb. honey.
The only difference? I threw in 3 handfuls of rice hulls. Connection? Or did the stars just align perfectly?

 

[dmtaylor]

Seriously doubt the rice hulls had anything to do with it. To be honest and brief, I'd probably have to look over your shoulder cradle to grave to know for sure what happened, as there's so many variables. I'd look at the crush first of all. Did you do anything different with your crush? Or your method for measuring temperatures or gravity? Something else must have changed.

 

[mongoose33]

Suggests to me that in the past you had a partially stuck mash/sparge that was relieved by the addition of the rice hulls.

 

[JimRausch]

Both valid points.
The grain bill was bought crushed from Northern Brewer. I suppose it's possible they changed their setting, or maybe double crushed, even though I didn't ask.
And no, I haven't previously had a stuck sparge, but decide to be proactive. To be honest, the rice hulls were a spur-of-the-moment purchase.
I'm pleasantly perplexed and have decided to chalk it up to gremlins.

 

[mongoose33]

Both valid points.
The grain bill was bought crushed from Northern Brewer. I suppose it's possible they changed their setting, or maybe double crushed, even though I didn't ask.
And no, I haven't previously had a stuck sparge, but decide to be proactive. To be honest, the rice hulls were a spur-of-the-moment purchase.
I'm pleasantly perplexed and have decided to chalk it up to gremlins.

No, not a completely stuck sparge but perhaps you have sticky clumps that are not completely rinsed and the rice hulls break up that kind of thing enough that you're getting a complete or nearly complete rinse.

 

[JimRausch]

Ah, I see, quite possible Mongoose. Thanks for the thought.
I'm going to be doing a couple of BM clones that include 40% wheat malt and 10% flaked oats over the next month or so. I think I'll do one regular style, and add some rice hulls to the other. Just to see.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Crush is a possibility. Water chemistry is another- mash pH out of range can impact efficiency. If your water source changed, that may be it.

Although for a sudden jump like that, barring any major changes in process, I'm guessing that you were simply given more grain than you thought. Were your grains premixed and did you weigh them out?

 

[schematix]

did you double check their weights? maybe they threw in an extra lb of base malt on accident?

 

[Kampenken]

My two guesses are amount of grains are more than expected / previous batches, or simply error in hydro reading, or even hydro insides "moved"- I'd calibrate the hydro to rule that out.

 

[JimRausch]

Nope, I didn't weigh the grain bill from NB. Maybe they like me and treat me special? Good thought on the hydrometer being out of wack- I did check it and she reads 1.000 with plain H20.
I used the same water treatment I have done in the past(I dilute 50:50 with DH20 and add a little CaSO4 and MgSO4 for this recipe). I suppose my well water could be different than it was 2 years ago. In fact I'd be amazed if it wasn't. Time to send a new sample in to Wards. But I would doubt a small change in solutes would make that kind of efficiency change.
Thanks for the good thoughts guys!!

 

[JimRausch]

Ok- brewed two batches of BM clone this morning. One batch without rice hulls came in at 68% mash efficiency. Second batch with rice hulls came in at 72%. Sample size of one makes it statistically impossible to tell, but 4 points difference is not that much.
So, my new theory is what Qhrumphf suggested. Maybe they gave me more grain than ordered.
It's all Good!

 

[VladOfTrub]

Extract efficiency performed in a Lab by using precision equipment, 78 to 81%. The malt had magical power and it is full moon. Perhaps, rice hulls increased run off efficiency and extra sludge was flushed into the wort and after fermentation and when the sludge dropped out the hydrometer sunk.

 

[doug293cz]

Extract efficiency performed in a Lab by using precision equipment, 78 to 81%. The malt had magical power and it is full moon. Perhaps, rice hulls increased run off efficiency and extra sludge was flushed into the wort and after fermentation and when the sludge dropped out the hydrometer sunk.

90% mash efficiency means the brewer got 90% as much extract into their BK as the lab got with their procedure. Doesn't mean that the brewer got more than the lab. 100% mash efficiency means you achieved the same extract recovery as the lab did.

Brew on

 

[JimRausch]

By the way, I bottled the RyeCentennial that started this whole discussion, on Friday 4/21. FG sample tasted pretty darn good.