Thats exactly the intent of my original question! I feel more water upfront, in the kettle/MLT/whatever, with the grains at the beginning of the mash, is simply going to lead to better efficiency.
It must be very system and process dependent. I tried that on my system with disastrous results. Completely stuck mash and the longest most frustrating brewdays I’ve ever had. Definitely not least amount of work possible while having the most fun possible for me. LOL.
My solution was to widen the mill gap for more grits than flour, increase liquor to grist ratio to 1.75:1, and slow down the pump flow. All that was to loosen up the grain bed and increase flow thru it which works great now.
Since I’ve made these changes, I get very predictable results, routinely get high 80(s)% mash efficiency and mid to high 70(s)% Brewhouse efficiency (using BeerSmith calculations). I’d get higher BH efficiency if I simply dumped my boiled wort into the fermenter but I separate the wort from the trub to (attempt) to get clear wort into the fermenter. By doing that I leave behind BH efficiency points in the BK.
Yep, completely system and process related. “Scared” is relative for each person. For me, using a braid to lauter and batch sparging, I can go as fine as my mill will go. I’m at 550 batches these days and have never had a stuck runoff.
It’s interesting to hear someone say that these days. The common practice today is to crush, crush, crush but I remember reading on Ron Pattinson’s blog where he quoted a section from an 1800’s brewing manual where the brewer wrote almost the exact same thing. He said you only need to mill enough to crack each grain into a couple of pieces then let the water do the work.
But back then they held the mash for a very long time. The compromise was probably helpful because more air would be entrained in the coarser, unstirred mash, which they wanted to float, facilitating underletting and preventing compaction during the sparge, as I recall from reading such old books. Again, crush, timing, etc. are all parts of a whole, and the optimum for each is dependent on the rest of the system.
Fortunately, we are no longer in the 1800s! We don’t use a horse and buggy, and there have been advances in brewing knowledge as well. 
That is interesting. When I had so much trouble due to following the advice to crush as fine as the mill will go, I began searching for answers. I came across an MBAA presentation by Van Havig.
He made it a point to say his message was for the small brewer on 19th century English single infusion breweries not the ultra modern high tech German engineered systems. Specifically, he measured Rock Bottom breweries’ performance and compared them to each other. He found trends.
The data led him to a mill gap setting for a more permeable grain bed, a slower lauter time, limited stirring, etc. …anything to keep the bed from compacting which was my exact problem. He also correlated out of spec pH parameters to efficiency hits.
He explained the science behind what he was saying that seems counterintuitive but he made great points and presented data to show the results of the changes. In my opinion the basis was sound so I tried it on a batch and it absolutely worked like a charm.
I widened my mill gap, slowed my pump, thinned my mash, stir very little, monitor pH, etc. It is night and day on my system. YMMV.
I know Van well. Keep in mind that he’s talking about commercial brewing and the equipment they use, which doesn’t always translate to home brewing. At any rate, you’ve found what works for you, which is all that really matters. And if I was making a WAG, I’d say it was slowing the pump that made the biggest contribution.
I agree commercial practices won’t always translate. I tried slowing the pump first but until I opened the mill gap I still had issues. …so he really helped me. Thank him for me the next time you see him. Like Robert, I think it’s a combination of variables that makes it work.
Agreed. I may see Van this weekend at Hop and Brew School.
And thus as Denny indicated, “till you’re scared” is relative. I was glad to see this clarification, Denny, as I was always a little skeptical of what seemed like a blanket statement that “finer is better.” Finer crush will in fact always get you better efficiency, right up until it doesn’t. I also find that I get virtually the same efficiency over a range of crushes, within which fine adjustments have a far more significant impact on other practical things, procedural adjustments I have to make, than on the theoretical things regularly attributed to crush, like efficiency and pH. Dialing in your system – and all our systems are pretty idiosyncratic on the homebrew scale, especially given the hugely significant, bipedal variable involved – is a matter of trial and error. Once you find the right balance, you’ll be happy, but someone else might not benefit much from your experience.
Agreed that each system has its sweet spot. I opened my gap to .040”, use a 400 micron bag as a filter in a 20 gallon mash tun (10 gallon batches - some full mash BIAB HERMS, some single infusion), and use a butterfly valve cracked at two clicks. Yes, I can crush finer, but this works for me and no stuck mash (I had experienced occasional slow runoff on mashes using .020” crush mill gap setting and 200 micron bag). Definitely a YMMV thing.
[/quote]
Since I’ve made these changes, I get very predictable results, routinely get high 80(s)% mash efficiency and mid to high 70(s)% Brewhouse efficiency (using BeerSmith calculations). I’d get higher BH efficiency if I simply dumped my boiled wort into the fermenter but I separate the wort from the trub to (attempt) to get clear wort into the fermenter. By doing that I leave behind BH efficiency points in the BK.
[/quote]
Here is a question for you, Brewbama. I also use BeerSmith and have always had really funky measured mash efficiency numbers (in excess of 100%, obviously impossible) from what the software predicts. I used to have this issue with the venerable ProMash software as well. My BH efficiency is always pretty much right on with the software. For some reason I have not figured out how to correct this problem so I just ignore the mash efficiency number when I am brewing since I always have good repeatable OG numbers. Any ideas on how to remedy this? If anyone else has ideas on how to fix this, please chime in.
When this happens, there are generally two causes. The first and most often that I run across is that your equipment profile has assumptions which are not representative of your actual process. This can come as either extraction (Brew house efficiency) estimation or in the volume losses in the process.
The second is having poorly defined ingredients. I have seen this more where people add ingredients and under or over estimate the extract potential of their materials.
Without an example recipe and results (not sure if this forum supports uploading .bsmx files), I would have problems being more specific.
Yeah, that’s why I like to say something like ‘based on BeerSmith’ when I give those because I’ve also heard hokey numbers. It’s a disclaimer of sorts. It’s also why I like to ask how a person’s calculations were derived. I often hear differences. Apples to Apples is tough when the conversation turns to efficiency.
How to fix it — I have no idea except to calculate it myself for each batch. I don’t see how BeerSmith knows the Coarse grind as is extract % for each malt in a recipe. There had to be compromises made without the malt analysis sheet available from the maltsters.
Here’s how BeerSmith calculates it: Brewhouse Efficiency vs Mash Efficiency in All Grain Beer Brewing – BeerSmith™ Home Brewing Blog
That’s where my sweet spot landed: .040”
Your crush and system are not independent. The BIAB bag people go to flour, so do big breweries with a mashfilter, they have hammer Mills that turn the grain to flour. I mostly use a false bottom, and am between 35 and 40 thousandths.
I use a false bottom and have found that to be the right range for me as well.
+1
Maybe off topic a bit, but I found this interesting. I was talking to a pro brewer recently who was having problems with stuck, compacted mashes in a 30 BBL system. He was using standard malt sieves to get the perfect crush with his mill on each kind of malt, but still had issues. It turned out that the auger that lifted and pushed the grain to the kettle was additionally pulverizing the grain due to poor Chinese design. He instructed the brewers to back off on the crush until the stuck mashes stopped and efficiency improved.
So every system is different, even the big ones.
My last homebrew was a particularly thick mash because I was worried about space in the tun for a higher gravity beer and I am pretty sure that was the only variable that lead to a decrease in mash efficiency. I usually mash in at 1.5 quarts per pound.
In “Malt” John Mallett talks of how various grain transportation systems will be tough on the grains. I think they have chain an buckets at Bell’s, to transport from the bunkers to the grist case. Then it drops down to a wet Mill.