Was considering the below recipe for my second all-grain. Anyone tried this?
If the recipe states 6.25 gallons, is that the assumed post-boil, pre-fermenter volume?
Was considering the below recipe for my second all-grain. Anyone tried this?
If the recipe states 6.25 gallons, is that the assumed post-boil, pre-fermenter volume?
I think (hope!) the 4 week dry hop is a misprint.
HAHA, yeah saw that and assumed 4 days.
yeah that’s 6.25 into the fermenter. that leaves room for losses to trub and dry hops with 5-5.5 going into a keg.
looks like a good one!
I write all of my recipes to leave .5+ gallons in the kettle and 5.5 in the fermenter. Allows me to leave a majority of the trub and hop material behind, and allows me to leave a bit of liquid above the yeast after racking.
+1 same here
You can use the “scale recipe” function as well. Plug all this in and the scale it to the volume you want. The program should keep all your specs the same, just a different size batch. Specs being OG, IBUs, SRM, and projected ABV
Looks like it’s a 6.25 gallon recipe using 16 lbs of grain to get to 1.060 – that’s around 65% efficiency if my math is right. If you’re getting to 1.070 with your system, that means your efficiency is higher (75%?) and you’ll need dial back some of the base malt. Probably reduce the pale by a couple of pounds.
If you’ve already crushed and your grain is mixed, then try the “no sparge” method to drop a few points.
Personally, I’d just make the 7% beer and enjoy it!
You’ve got a good point…I may just give it a go. I really don’t know what my efficiency is yet because this will be my first time with my own mill. I started playing around with a smaller grain bill but then didn’t want to start adjusting hops.
Also, you’re spot-on with the 65% efficiency number. Beersmith was set to 75%. Once I changed it I got the 6.1% ABV.
flbrewer, if it helps, you can bypass efficiency percentages and work directly in points per pound per gallon. I prefer to use extraction rates in points per pound per gallon because it is a directly applicable value. Extraction efficiency is an indirect value that requires an additional weighted computation to be performed.
total_gravity_points = 6.25 * 60 (1.060 in gravity points) = 375
points_per_pound_per_gallon = total_gravity_points / grist_weight
points_per_pound_per_gallon = 375 / 16 = 23.44
What this value means in layman’s terms is that the original recipe was formulated to achieve an extraction rate of 23.44 gravity points per pound of grain, that is, the extract from one pound grain dissolved in a one gallon solution has a specific gravity of 1.02344 That’s a value that can be easily applied in one brew house. Working the other way yields:
original_gravity = points_per_pound_per_gallon * grist_weight / batch_volume / 1000 + 1.0
original_gravity = 23.44 * 16 / 6.25 / 1000 + 1.0 = 1.060
The way to determine one’s brew house extraction rate in points per pound per gallon is to simply track the original gravity and total final boil volume minus the break and hops for each batch. For each batch in the sample, calculate a batch extraction rate using the following formula:
batch_extraction_rate = original_gravity_in_points * batch_total_volume / grist_weight
I calculate this value when I take my original gravity reading. After a few batches have been brewed, it’s time to calculate an average batch extraction by summing the batch extraction rates and dividing by the number of batch extraction rates.
Batch Extraction Rates
Batch #1 - 28 points per pound per gallon
Batch #2 - 27 points per pound per gallon
Batch #3 - 29 points per pound per gallon
Batch #4 - 30 points per pound per gallon
Batch #5 - 29 points per pound per gallon
average_batch_extraction_rate = 28 + 27 + 29 + 30 + 29 / 5 = 28.6
Now, we can convert the recipe to our brew house by calculating a grist scaling factor. Our extraction rate is higher than the original extraction rate; therefore, this value will be less than one.
grist_scaling_factor = 23.44 / 28.6 = 0.82
All we need to do from this point forward is to multiply every quantity in the grist by 0.88 to scale the grist to our brew house. We do not need to adjust the hop bill because the bitterness unit to gravity unit ratio will remain the same.
While what I just wrote seems like a lot of work, what you will find over time is that these calculations become automatic, and you will no longer have to compute an average batch extraction rate because your extraction rates will converge within a close enough range that you can ball park it without actually performing the calculation. When that happens, you will be able to look at a recipe for 6.25 gallons 1.060 wort, and think I need to use 60 / 28.6 = 2.1 pounds of malt per gallon to hit that gravity. At that point, you will prefer to look at recipes as percentages, which is the way that professional brewers state recipes. For example, we are making a bigger version of SNPA, which is often quoted as having a grist that is 95% 2-Row and 5% C60.
total_grist_weight = 2.1 * 6.25 = 13.125 pounds
pounds_of_2Row = 13.125 * 0.95 = ~12.5
pounds_of_C60 = 13.125 * 0.05 = ~0.65
As you have more than likely already ascertained, the values add up to more than 13.125 pounds. I rounded to make measuring a little easier.
With the above said, why should anyone learn how to perform these calculations when brewing software will shield one from having to learn this information? Well, learning how to brew using brewing software is not the same thing as learning how to brew. Learning how to brew means mastering all of the brewing fundamentals that are encapsulated in brewing software.
Plus, if we loose all technology in the zombie apocalypse, and you dont know the math, you’ll be forced to drink store bought beer, which at the rate we are going will all be owned by Bud
ROTFLMBO! ;D
I hand calculate my recipes. I use points but my formula is different. I do batch points the same. Final volume x gravity points. But that’s where it ends. I determine the percentages of each grain in the bill. Let’s say 80% two row. We’ll just use your example. 80% x 375 = 300. Now I need to know the potential extract of the malt. With two row, it’s 38. And I need to know the brewhouse efficiency. In my case, it’s 75%. So, I divide my points by potential extract x brewhouse efficiency.
300/(38x.75) = 10.53
So, This recipes calls for 10.5 lbs of two row. I’ll do the same process for the rest of the malts.
This method is from Daniels “Designing Great Beers”
It’s simple and works for me. It’s pretty automatic for me at this point.
I guess we’ll both be drinking with the zombies
This thread is giving me an idea that I should brew a couple batches each year with just pencil and paper, just so I don’t forget my math. Maybe grab a good commercial example of a style I dont normally brew and try to get close just using my taster and pencil n paper.
The Daniels method is basically extraction efficiency applied by hand. I too used to calculate extraction efficiency as a percentage, but realized that doing so was a waste of time. The beauty of using points per pound per gallon (PPG) as one’s brew house extraction metric is that it demonstrates that calculating brew house efficiency a percentage is a completely unnecessary step.
In practice, extraction efficiencies do not tell us anything more than batch-to-batch extraction rates in PPG, and they are much more complicated and error prone than PPG extraction rates. I guarantee that the stock maximum yield for any given malt that is encoded in any given software package does not match that of a bag of real world malt. Real world malt yields higher and lower maximum values than the stock values that are encoded in any given brewing software package. There are many reasons for this delta such as year-to-year variations in the crop, malting-to-malting variations in the malt, and water absorption during transit and storage. Extraction efficiencies that do not take into these variations in Dry Basis, Fine Grind (DBFG) and/or Hot Water Extract (HWE) into account are little more than works of fiction.
How many brewers have experienced a noticeable bump in efficiency with particular bags of base malt from a maltster or base malt from a different maltster? That bump is not a sign that one’s brew house has magically become more efficient. It’s a sign that the software does not take into account the higher maximum yield for the actual malt used in a recipe. Commercial brewers generally have access to the malt analysis sheets for any given batch of malt (yes, the maximum yield for any given malt can change from batch to batch). Macro and larger regional brewers have in-house quality laboratories that have the equipment and staff necessary to analyze every ingredient that they use on the day of use. Home brewers have access to analysis sheets that contain overall averages. Using extraction efficiencies that are based on theoretical maximum yield values is the grist equivalent of using yearly averages from a mixed-source public utility when performing adjustments to brewing liquor chemistry. So why are home brewers using a brew house metric that is really only accurate in a commercial setting?
Good stuff here, Mark. I’ll definetely be looking into this more. Thank you!
I guarantee that the stock maximum yield for any given malt that is encoded in any given software package does not match that of a bag of real world malt. Real world malt yields higher and lower maximum values than the stock values that are encoded in any given brewing software package. There are many reasons for this delta such as year-to-year variations in the crop, malting-to-malting variations in the malt, and water absorption during transit and storage. Extraction efficiencies that do not take into these variations in Dry Basis, Fine Grind (DBFG) and/or Hot Water Extract (HWE) into account are little more than works of fiction.
How many brewers have experienced a noticeable bump in efficiency with particular bags of base malt from a maltster or base malt from a different maltster? That bump is not a sign that one’s brew house has magically become more efficient. It’s a sign that the software does not take into account the higher maximum yield for the actual malt used in a recipe.
I guess I don’t see how looking at batch extraction rates in PPG solves any of these problems. You’re still going to overshoot your target if you end up with a sack of malt that has a higher maximum yield than the malt you used last time you brewed a particular beer.
Looking at batch extraction rates in PPG makes it easier to calculate recipes by hand (which is nice), but it’s easier to express it as a percentage when using brewing software. They both get you to the same place, and they both have their limitations.
I guess I don’t see how looking at batch extraction rates in PPG solves any of these problems. You’re still going to overshoot your target if you end up with a sack of malt that has a higher maximum yield than the malt you used last time you brewed a particular beer.
I use a sliding window when calculating my average extraction rate, which ensures that I am working with the most recent data points. I never attempt to kid myself that my process or brew house has become more or less efficient if my yield goes up or down for any given bag of malt. I merely track the changes in extraction rate and check for outliers.
Looking at batch extraction rates in PPG makes it easier to calculate recipes by hand (which is nice), but it’s easier to express it as a percentage when using brewing software. They both get you to the same place, and they both have their limitations.
The problem is that the home brewing community is treating extraction efficiency as an alternate, but more difficult to compute form of extraction rate. That’s not what the metric was created to address. Used correctly, extraction efficiency is measure of brew house/process efficiency, not expected yield. If the real world maximum yield for any given grain increases, then the actual yield should increase proportionately because extraction efficiency is actual yield divided by maximum possible yield. In order for the metric to work as designed, the table of maximum yield values has to reflect the actual maximum yield values of the malts being used in the grist. A PPG extraction rate is not a measure of brew house or process efficiency (although some home brewers treat extraction rates this way). It is merely a measure of how many gravity points per pound per gallon one can reasonably expect from a given grist. No attention whatsoever is paid to brew house or process efficiency. If my extraction rate goes up with a new bag of malt, I notate it. I do not treat the anomaly like my brew house or process has become more efficient because I know that my efficiency has more than likely remained the same. What has more than likely changed is the actual maximum yield for the malt.