Bru'n Water Pale Ale Profile

[skatz (Stevie)]

@denny

Using % for boiloff is a bad way to go.  That would mean you’d boil off twice as much for a 10 gal. batch as a 5, and at least for me, it doesn’t work that way.

not sure I follow Denny. If you boil off 13% for 5 gal, but say 10% for 10gal or 8% for 20gal, it would be relative to your batch size and % chosen, not necessarily double or triple that of a 5 gal boil off %.

or are you saying something different?

He has mentioned this before. Better to talk volume versus percentage at or sizes. This is especially important with small batches.

[wort-h.o.g]

@blatz

@mabrungard

A caution to any brewers using highly mineralized profiles like the Pale Ale profile: If your brewing system and practices are boiling off more than about 10% of the original wort volume, you could easily be over-concentrating the mineral content in the resulting wort and beer. Pro systems typically lose about 5% to 8% since they are more covered than the typical homebrewer’s setup, so be aware that this hazard of boiling off too much is there. This is especially true for brewers that make smaller batches.

It may not be the profile, it may be the boil-off rate!

interesting. I wonder if this is why some of us doing 5/10 gal batches have since lowered our sulfate content to around 150ppm on APA/AIPA and found it more appealing vs 200+PPM. my boil off exceeds 10%.

edit: Martin-any thoughts on adding boil off % as variable input in Bru.n Water that then adjusts mineral contents?

yeah my boil off is about 13%

I boil off about the same. But I always end up at the post boil batch volume I declare in Brunwater, given 5.5 gallons. Maybe I’m not thinking clearly but it seems that’s the bigger issue. If my volume came in under target I could see that I’m concentrating the mineral content. If it’s spot on I don’t see how I am.

well that’s what I presumed also until I read Martin comment about his mineral profiles in the software and boil off % grater than 10%. maybe I misread something and he can clarify.

I’m sure he’ll clarify. It just seems that if I have the right amount of minerals in the right final volume of liquid, I should be good. I can always be wrong.

the interesting thing is Jon, that in his software the final volume or batch size field only impacts the color, not the total mineral content. the total mineral content is driven by what you plug into mash and sparge volumes and that’s pre-boil. “If” what he says is accurate and post-boil is greater then 10% and results in concentrated mineral content, than there is what we would need to rectify. Again, I say “if”.

[skatz (Stevie)]

When it comes to bru’n water, I leave the batch size alone, but reduce my sparge volume by my boil off rate.

[wort-h.o.g]

When it comes to bru’n water, I leave the batch size alone, but reduce my sparge volume by my boil off rate.

that would take care of it if its an issue.

[skatz (Stevie)]

When it comes to bru’n water, I leave the batch size alone, but reduce my sparge volume by my boil off rate.

that would take care of it if its an issue.

For me it was an issue with a 1 gallon batch that had a 1 gallon boil off. It was awful.

[denny]

@denny

Using % for boiloff is a bad way to go.  That would mean you’d boil off twice as much for a 10 gal. batch as a 5, and at least for me, it doesn’t work that way.

not sure I follow Denny. If you boil off 13% for 5 gal, but say 10% for 10gal or 8% for 20gal, it would be relative to your batch size and % chosen, not necessarily double or triple that of a 5 gal boil off %.

or are you saying something different?

He has mentioned this before. Better to talk volume versus percentage at or sizes. This is especially important with small batches.

Exactly.  If I boil off 1 gal. in a 5 gal. batch, it doesn’t increase to 2 gal. for a 10 gal. batch.  It’s still 1 gal. (or whatever).

[wort-h.o.g]

@denny

Using % for boiloff is a bad way to go.  That would mean you’d boil off twice as much for a 10 gal. batch as a 5, and at least for me, it doesn’t work that way.

not sure I follow Denny. If you boil off 13% for 5 gal, but say 10% for 10gal or 8% for 20gal, it would be relative to your batch size and % chosen, not necessarily double or triple that of a 5 gal boil off %.

or are you saying something different?

He has mentioned this before. Better to talk volume versus percentage at or sizes. This is especially important with small batches.

Either way. If you know your consistent % or volume boil off for given batch size, you get to same result…whatever works for you.

[wort-h.o.g]

@denny

@denny

Using % for boiloff is a bad way to go.  That would mean you’d boil off twice as much for a 10 gal. batch as a 5, and at least for me, it doesn’t work that way.

not sure I follow Denny. If you boil off 13% for 5 gal, but say 10% for 10gal or 8% for 20gal, it would be relative to your batch size and % chosen, not necessarily double or triple that of a 5 gal boil off %.

or are you saying something different?

He has mentioned this before. Better to talk volume versus percentage at or sizes. This is especially important with small batches.

Exactly.  If I boil off 1 gal. in a 5 gal. batch, it doesn’t increase to 2 gal. for a 10 gal. batch.  It’s still 1 gal. (or whatever).

well of course not and agreed.

[jonhughey_att.net (HoosierBrew)]

When it comes to bru’n water, I leave the batch size alone, but reduce my sparge volume by my boil off rate.

That’s pretty a good idea. I may start doing that.

[stpug]

@denny

Using % for boiloff is a bad way to go.  That would mean you’d boil off twice as much for a 10 gal. batch as a 5, and at least for me, it doesn’t work that way.

not sure I follow Denny. If you boil off 13% for 5 gal, but say 10% for 10gal or 8% for 20gal, it would be relative to your batch size and % chosen, not necessarily double or triple that of a 5 gal boil off %.

or are you saying something different?

Perhaps Denny means that a 10 gallon batch would require boiling off twice as much liquid as a 5 gallon batch, which is unlikely. In other words, if 10% is 1 gal/hr at 5 gallons then you would be required to boil off 2 gal/hr at 10 gallons, and 3 gal/hr at 15 gallons to maintain that “10% boiloff rate”.

I agree that boiloff rate as percentage is a poor way of describing that particular loss. Volume per hour is much better, IMO.

[wort-h.o.g]

@stpug

@denny

Using % for boiloff is a bad way to go.  That would mean you’d boil off twice as much for a 10 gal. batch as a 5, and at least for me, it doesn’t work that way.

not sure I follow Denny. If you boil off 13% for 5 gal, but say 10% for 10gal or 8% for 20gal, it would be relative to your batch size and % chosen, not necessarily double or triple that of a 5 gal boil off %.

or are you saying something different?

Perhaps Denny means that a 10 gallon batch would require boiling off twice as much liquid as a 5 gallon batch, which is unlikely. In other words, if 10% is 1 gal/hr at 5 gallons then you would be required to boil off 2 gal/hr at 10 gallons, and 3 gal/hr at 15 gallons to maintain that “10% boiloff rate”.

I agree that boiloff rate as percentage is a poor way of describing that particular loss. Volume per hour is much better, IMO.

Understood and agreed as I mentioned.
I know what volume and % I boil off for the batches I make, irrespective of it being 7,8,9,10 pre boil gallons. Each is a known % and known volume of boil off.

I’m just curious on the statement that greater than 10% boil off ( understanding that is relative to volumes) can result in greater concentrations of minerals than you may want or target.

[denny]

@stpug

@denny

Using % for boiloff is a bad way to go.  That would mean you’d boil off twice as much for a 10 gal. batch as a 5, and at least for me, it doesn’t work that way.

not sure I follow Denny. If you boil off 13% for 5 gal, but say 10% for 10gal or 8% for 20gal, it would be relative to your batch size and % chosen, not necessarily double or triple that of a 5 gal boil off %.

or are you saying something different?

Perhaps Denny means that a 10 gallon batch would require boiling off twice as much liquid as a 5 gallon batch, which is unlikely. In other words, if 10% is 1 gal/hr at 5 gallons then you would be required to boil off 2 gal/hr at 10 gallons, and 3 gal/hr at 15 gallons to maintain that “10% boiloff rate”.

I agree that boiloff rate as percentage is a poor way of describing that particular loss. Volume per hour is much better, IMO.

Yep, that’s exactly what I was getting at.

[skatz (Stevie)]

^^^ this is why I omit the boil off from my sparge volume. This allows me to accommodate different batch sizes and have a fairly consistent mineral profile.

[mabrungard]

Those boil off percentages were in terms of total loss. Don’t get that confused with percent loss per hour, which is a rate.

While the rate is important in figuring out the total loss, rate is almost meaningless with respect to the concentration effect on the ionic content. Loss Rate x Time = Total Loss. Loss Rate can be expressed as a percentage, but as Denny points out, that can get you into trouble when the batch size differs.

[wort-h.o.g]

@mabrungard

Those boil off percentages were in terms of total loss. Don’t get that confused with percent loss per hour, which is a rate.

While the rate is important in figuring out the total loss, rate is almost meaningless with respect to the concentration effect on the ionic content. Loss Rate x Time = Total Loss. Loss Rate can be expressed as a percentage, but as Denny points out, that can get you into trouble when the batch size differs.

so is there concern with 5 gal batches if over xx% or xx volume (fill in for me)? do you recommend as Steve said, removing boil volume lost from sparge water to get optimal mineral content?

[jonhughey_att.net (HoosierBrew)]

so is there concern with 5 gal batches if over xx% or xx volume (fill in for me)? do you recommend as Steve said, removing boil volume lost from sparge water to get optimal mineral content?

I wonder that, too. At least what Steve does takes into account the volume lost to boil off. With the variability of boil off rates to various factors (burner setting, wind, humidity,etc.), I wish the mineral concentration could be shown directly tied to a given volume of post boil wort, independent of boil off rate. As I posted earlier, I hit the same volume pretty accurately for most every batch, so I’m most interested in the concentration in my 5.5 gallons.

[mabrungard]

I’m not quite sure if there is an ideal or proper way to account for the effect of over-concentration, but the approach Steve mentions should be as good as any.

[skatz (Stevie)]

I am “The Steve”

Sorry.

[wort-h.o.g]

I am “The Steve”

Sorry.

you are dude! 8)  “The Don” Donald Trump has nothing on you.

[jonhughey_att.net (HoosierBrew)]

Yeah, kinda like ‘The Ohio State University’. Sorry Ken, not a Buckeye fan.