are these water amounts correct?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

RMS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
125
Reaction score
5
Location
New Bedford
I have read 1.5 quarts per pound of grain and I assume this is if you don't squeeze the grain bag. But I have also read 0.7 or 0.8 gallon per pound of grain and I suppose this if if you are really squeezing the grain bag well.

Is the above statements correct?

I am going to start a small batch soon and not sure what to call it, but it will be an amber ale style with some of my own hops that I have grown and these are Hallertau and Tettnang. I was going to try three 1 gallon batches one with each hop type alone then one with a 50/50 blend. Not sure on the yeast yet if it was not so hot I would order the Wyeast 2112 California Lager Yeast but I may get Safale Ale S-04.
 
Are you asking about mash thickness (qt/lb)? Or grain absorption (gal/lb)?

Mash thickness for a traditional 3vessel set up is often around 1.25 qt/lb but 1.5 isn't unheard of.
My almost-full-volume BIAB is more like 2.5-3 qt/lb depending on the size of the grain bill

For the water absorbed by the grain, you looking at more like 0.08 gallons/lb (not 0.8)

Have a look at Priceless' BIAB calculator:
http://pricelessbrewing.github.io/BiabCalc/
 
For traditional mash tuns, the grain absorption is about 0.12 gal/lb. BIAB can be from 0.05 gal/lb with an aggressive squeeze protocol, or up to 0.1 gal/lb if you just drain the bag for a few minutes. You'll need to measure it on your own system.
(Strike_Volume - Wort_Volume) / Grain_Weight​
Wort volume needs to be measured before sparge (if one is done.) 0.08 gal/lb is a good estimate to use until you collect your own data.

Brew on :mug:
 
If BIAB'ing you should totally disregard any water to grist ratio. You should concern yourself with the total volume of water needed for your brew

An rough example on my setup. Your numbers will not be the same.

5.5 gallon batch
60 minute boil
9lb grain bill

7.4 gallons of strike water

I lose 0.045 gallons/pound of grain to absorption

-0.4 gallons lost to absorption
7 gallon preboil
-1 gallon boil off

=6 gallons in kettle after boil.

-0.25 lost to trub, hops absorption, and plate chiller

-0.25 gallons of shrinkage (4% is a constant value for shrinkage)

=5.5 gallons into the fermentor

-0.5 gallons after fermentation to trub in the fermentor

=5 gallons into the keg/bottles

I work off
0.96 gallon/hour boil off
0.045 gallons lost to absorption
0.25 gallons trub loss (kettle, chiller hops)

I squeeze the bag to get this low absorption number. Not hard to do.

I don't sparge so all my water goes in at the start of the process
 
It has been two years since my last extract brew and I think I got a little confused. I guess basically if I properly scale down a recipe say from a 5 gallon batch to say a 3 gallon batch in the end at pitch time I need to add water to make up any loss in grain absorption or evaporation.
 
It has been two years since my last extract brew and I think I got a little confused. I guess basically if I properly scale down a recipe say from a 5 gallon batch to say a 3 gallon batch in the end at pitch time I need to add water to make up any loss in grain absorption or evaporation.

For the most part BIABers (and all-grain brewers in general) don't "add back" at pitch time. BIABers may or may not add back by sparging at the end of the mash. 3-vessel brewers usually sparge. But all that's done before the boil.

Traditional BIAB adds all the water to the kettle to start with:

Desired package amount +
Grain and hops absorption +
Boil-off +
Trub loss in the kettle +
Trub loss in the fermenter

For a 5-gallon batch I typically start with about 8.5 gallons of water, depending on my grain bill.
 
It has been two years since my last extract brew and I think I got a little confused. I guess basically if I properly scale down a recipe say from a 5 gallon batch to say a 3 gallon batch in the end at pitch time I need to add water to make up any loss in grain absorption or evaporation.

No, you want to end with a total of 3 gals post boil for your 3 small batches, correct? So you would take the 5 gal recipe, multiply the ingredients by 3/5th, and use enough water to end up with 3 gal in your kettle, no topping off. I do 3 gal BIAB batches and start with about 4.25-4.5 gals of water.
 
Strike water volume = Gallons for batch size + Gallons lost due to boil + Gallons lost due to grain absorption

So if I had a recipe with 11# of grain for a 5 gallon batch, 60 minute boil:

Strike water volume = 5G + 1G (my boil off for 1 hour) + 1.1G (grain absorption of .1G per #)
Strike water volume = 7.1G

And just for fun...

Strike Temperature = .05 * (#/G) * (Target Temp - Grain Temp) + Target Temp
Strike Temp = .05 * 11# / 7.1G * (150F - 70F) + 150 = 156.1F
 
It was mentioned, but worth mentioning again, trub and yeast cake losses in the fermenter can be substantial. I ferment all the wort, and typically don't cold crash or ferment all that long, my fermented losses are painful....just kidding, but they are substantial.
 
It was mentioned, but worth mentioning again, trub and yeast cake losses in the fermenter can be substantial. I ferment all the wort, and typically don't cold crash or ferment all that long, my fermented losses are painful....just kidding, but they are substantial.

yup I missed this part, so I need to double check this.
 
I am wondering now If an all gran recipe calls for x amount of water then one would assume that evaporation and grain absorption is already accounted for?
 
Any volumes in a recipe other than batch size should be viewed only as a guide. They are unique to the recipe creator's setup and can be largely ignored as they will needlessly overcomplicate things.

When starting out it useful to have some idea how much water to mash/sparge with but it is highly unlikely these amounts will be correct for another system. Close perhaps, but correct..unlikely.
 
Back
Top