How do you guys calculate for trub loss?

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.

FuzzeWuzze

I Love DIY
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
3,144
Reaction score
460
Location
Newberg
Just curious, is it just trial and error knowing your going to lose like 1/4th to 1/2 gallon due to trub, or is there some other way to know based on the AG Ingredients/recipe/yeast?

Wondering if i should just start entering in 5.5g for my final volume in Beersmith so i use the right amount of water...
 
Wondering if i should just start entering in 5.5g for my final volume in Beersmith so i use the right amount of water...

This is what I do - i.e. I set my 10g batches to 11.5 in Beersmith rather than trying to plug in the 1.5 gal kettle/trub losses (which I have determined by trial and error). I find it's much easier to hit my numbers this way. There was a useful PDF I found in the Beersmith forums that detailed the different ways to set this up, I'll post if I can find it again.
 
FuzzeWuzze said:
Just curious, is it just trial and error knowing your going to lose like 1/4th to 1/2 gallon due to trub, or is there some other way to know based on the AG Ingredients/recipe/yeast?

Wondering if i should just start entering in 5.5g for my final volume in Beersmith so i use the right amount of water...

Next time you rack make a mark on your primary. When you clean it then add water up to the mark and pour it back into a graduated vessel and there you go, or, conversely use a graduated vessel to add the water:)
 
Thread I was talking about is here. PDF file is in 3rd post down. I guess this is the "Est. Mash Efficiency" method rather than "Total Efficiency" method.
 
If you want to save yourself a bunch of headaches, do NOT use the trub/chiller loss field. Set it to 0, then increase your batch size (use the 'scale recipe' tool with the 'keep OG, SRM, IBU the same' box checked), like mentioned above, to account for post-boil losses.

The root of the problem is that BeerSmith uses 'to the fermenter' for brewhouse efficiency, instead of the more common (and useful) 'in the kettle' BH eff.

If you use the trub loss field for losses, you would have to adjust your 'to the fermenter' BHE to account for it. There isn't a correct formula for this, but it can be approximated. Same goes for if you ever mod your equipment, switch from leaf to pellet, use a high trub grainbill, etc.

It is best to not use the trub loss field at all, and notate in your recipes how much of the batch size was for losses. Some even say to set the lauter dead space to 0, since making MLT changes cause the same issues with BeerSmith.
 
This is a 100% trial and error variable. It also depends on the style. eg a dry hopped IPA is going to soak up some extra liquid.
 
With the yeast strains I use, and my processes, I factor on leaving 3 quarts of volume behind in the fermenter for each batch. This means, I typically put 6-3/4 to 7 gallons into primary so that I get a solid 6 gallons out (into two 3 gallon kegs). I don't mind leaving a bit more behind, if it comes down to it. I also have how much will be left behind in the boil keggle, plate chiller, etc. factored into my post-boil volume.

Once you calibrate your system, you won't need to worry about it moving forward. I do have these items entered into BeerSmith, so it's easy to hit my goals.
 
I also have how much will be left behind in the boil keggle, plate chiller, etc. factored into my post-boil volume.

Once you calibrate your system, you won't need to worry about it moving forward. I do have these items entered into BeerSmith, so it's easy to hit my goals.
Except for it being a lot harder to adapt to changes regarding losses if you enter those trub and lauter losses into the BeerSmith fields. It is much easier to simply increase/decrease the batch size by the known amount of an equipment change, or the amount of hop absorption when switching from pellet to leaf, or a hoppy brew. It is more work (you need to do a new efficiency calc/tune), and bit of a crap shoot the first time, if you enter them into BeerSmith.
 
Except for it being a lot harder to adapt to changes regarding losses if you enter those trub and lauter losses into the BeerSmith fields. It is much easier to simply increase/decrease the batch size by the known amount of an equipment change, or the amount of hop absorption when switching from pellet to leaf, or a hoppy brew. It is more work (you need to do a new efficiency calc/tune), and bit of a crap shoot the first time, if you enter them into BeerSmith.

The current version of BeerSmith does a solid job of all the computations. I've not had any issue using it's figures for my batches. I use pellet hops for the boil, but whole for dry hopping (currently at least). I also use a hop spider to help keep the hop matter out of my plate chiller and fermenter. Or at least most of it out.
 
The current version of BeerSmith does a solid job of all the computations.
No matter how deep you bury your head in the sand, or how much wishful thinking you do, the design choice of BeerSmith to use 'to the fermenter' efficiency is not appropriate, and it is not calculating things correctly. The slop just gets accounted for with all the other corrections and losses. If needed, I can provide a link to a BrauKaiser essay on the issue that backs me up.

I've not had any issue using it's figures for my batches. I use pellet hops for the boil, but whole for dry hopping (currently at least). I also use a hop spider to help keep the hop matter out of my plate chiller and fermenter. Or at least most of it out.
Use whole hops for a hoppy beer using your standard batch size in BeerSmith, then you would have the cred to comment on this.

If you want to account for the hop absorption using 'trub/chiller loss' in BeerSmith, I can tell you exactly what steps you would have to take to do it that way, but all involve having to either track down a 3rd party calc tool, or do some moderately tedious hand calcs. This is because BeerSmith, the 'Why do the calcs yourself' software, makes you do yourself the one calc only BeerSmith seems to use. And those just get you close.

Or, you could just increase you batch size (use the scaling tool) by the exact amount of your expected increased trub losses provided by your preferred hop absorption calc tool. This is also the easiest way to deal with BeerSmith right from the start- set trub losses to 0, and scale the batch to account for losses.
 
cwi, who pissed in your corn flakes?? Seriously, if you're so against BeerSmith, fine. Just seems like you're more full of hate for the software than you need to be. Instead of venting in the forums, how about communicating with them and doing something constructive about it?

Seems like you're one of those people that are not at all happy unless they have something to complain about. Nothing is ever good enough because it's not 100% perfect from the very first release. Guess what, we don't need fractional ounce accuracy when it comes to volume into fermenter.

Somethings that could really contribute to YOUR volume issues...
Hop matter into primary. I use a hop spider so very little goes from keggle to primary.
Yeast flocculation. I typically use yeast rated at least 'high' in flocculation. I also give it enough time to become compact enough to not matter.
Fermenter shape/size. I'm fermenting in tall 1/4 bbl kegs. With the cone on the bottom, the yeast settles there. Typically far enough under the 3 quart level to make it a non-issue for me.

I've had a few batches where I've filled my two 3 gallon kegs, and there's been some beer left in there. I just give it to the beer gods and don't worry about it.
 
Lol didnt want to start a Pro vs Con thread on Beersmith...honestly i love the software.

Ive only really used it twice as I didnt see a need for it until i was AG brewing, but its been almost spot on the #'s for me for MLT/sparge amounts to get in the boil kettle....

Just wasnt sure if there was a good way to go about trub stuff in the software. It sounds like my solution to just set 5.5gallon batch sizes and not mess with the other settings is the best bet.
 
If you want to save yourself a bunch of headaches, do NOT use the trub/chiller loss field. Set it to 0, then increase your batch size (use the 'scale recipe' tool with the 'keep OG, SRM, IBU the same' box checked), like mentioned above, to account for post-boil losses.

The root of the problem is that BeerSmith uses 'to the fermenter' for brewhouse efficiency, instead of the more common (and useful) 'in the kettle' BH eff.

If you use the trub loss field for losses, you would have to adjust your 'to the fermenter' BHE to account for it. There isn't a correct formula for this, but it can be approximated. Same goes for if you ever mod your equipment, switch from leaf to pellet, use a high trub grainbill, etc.

It is best to not use the trub loss field at all, and notate in your recipes how much of the batch size was for losses. Some even say to set the lauter dead space to 0, since making MLT changes cause the same issues with BeerSmith.

I use the LT deadspace setting and check the "adjust mash volume for deadspace" in order to get the proper H20 to Grain ratios for my mash. Why shouldn't I do that again?

I confess I don't understand all of your post, but I don't understand this specifically:
The root of the problem is that BeerSmith uses 'to the fermenter' for brewhouse efficiency, instead of the more common (and useful) 'in the kettle' BH eff.

Before I start changing up a bunch of settings in my equipment profile, is there anything else you can point me too to read about this, or can you elaborate? Thanks in advance.
 
I've had a few batches where I've filled my two 3 gallon kegs, and there's been some beer left in there. I just give it to the beer gods and don't worry about it.

I put it into a PET bottle and force carb it with a carbonator cap. No sacrifices necessary. The beer gods want you to DRINK that beer ;-)
 
cwi, who pissed in your corn flakes?? Seriously, if you're so against BeerSmith, fine. Just seems like you're more full of hate for the software than you need to be.
I am not against BeerSmith, I am against the fanboys who, when I state a fact about the software not doing something correctly, they claim it gives them good numbers, why I am bitching?- which is exactly what I stated, and you replied with.

Instead of venting in the forums,
Did you bother to look at the title of this thread? How is it venting when I give knowledge that is directly relevant to the OP's request, while your first post gave nothing but a bunch of nonsense about how much cake volume your yeast leave in the fermenter- which he never asked about. Oh, and the fanboy stuff about how BeerSmith gets everything right for you when you enter you trub loss values- which was what the OP was asking about details on.

I was venting when I responded to your post. I try to pass on some knowledge that is more in depth than yours, and you try to downplay it based on your anecdotal use of the product. I understand how the software is written and functions, not just how my beer tastes based on using it.

If you are not having any problems with it, that is your good luck. Stating that doesn't pass that luck on to someone who is having problems, like the OP.

how about communicating with them and doing something constructive about it?
I have contacted them about the issues I have found, and received the same fanboy treatment you doled out. The act like a cult over there, and you are insulting their leader.

As a matter of fact, I found a serious bug in the software while trying to investigate my issue with the software, which is more of a design choice issue that I feel is an improper one. The funny thing is I still got berated, even after the creator of BeerSmith admitted I found an error. That's some strong kool-aid they serve over there.

There is a known user UNfriendly feature in BeerSmith, which I explained. Your response just discounts my statement, and could possibly cause another reader seeking information to think - 2 sides to everything, so nothing to be learned here.

If you do not care to know the intricacies of configuring BeerSmith, and instead prefer to fly blind in its hands, that is your choice. It doesn't make BeerSmith magically work differently for you, or fix other peoples issues with it.

Seems like you're one of those people that are not at all happy unless they have something to complain about. Nothing is ever good enough because it's not 100% perfect from the very first release. Guess what, we don't need fractional ounce accuracy when it comes to volume into fermenter.
Again, you're one of those people that doesn't know what you are talking about, and are just adding noise. My issue is that that the BeerSmith clan seems reticent to even admit there is an issue, even in the face of mounds of evidence to the contrary.

I just give it to the beer gods and don't worry about it.

Again, you do not get it. Read my previous post thoroughly. This is not about how much beer makes it into my belly, it is about using BeerSmith and having it play some tricks on you if you are not aware.

Using the trub/chiller loss field is a pit fall with BeerSmith. If you do not fully understand that when you do use it, you must adjust your efficiency in BeerSmith, your brew day will be majorly hosed. Most people are used to calculating brewhouse efficiency as 'in the kettle' post boil. This is not how BeerSmith does it, and it is a major source of confusion when dialing recipes and systems in.
 
i bottle, so i calculate all my recipes for 6 gallons out of my kettle. if i get 5 gallons i'm happy, if i end up closer to 6 then i'm even happier
 
Lol didnt want to start a Pro vs Con thread on Beersmith...honestly i love the software.

Ive only really used it twice as I didnt see a need for it until i was AG brewing,
It is a good thing you avoided it until you went AG. The bug I found was related to extract brewing when trub loss was used, and would result in some serious OG issues when you actually brewed.

but its been almost spot on the #'s for me for MLT/sparge amounts to get in the boil kettle....

The software works well, but there are some booby traps in it that you have to watch out for. The water calculators are very handy for getting mash volumes.

Just wasnt sure if there was a good way to go about trub stuff in the software. It sounds like my solution to just set 5.5gallon batch sizes and not mess with the other settings is the best bet.
The easiest way to use it, even according to some of the fanboys who don't see it as an issue that the trub loss field is a pitfall, is to set trub loss to 0. You need to check the setting, because it is defaulted to .5g for some pre-made profiles used for templates.

Account for you trub losses in the 'batch size', which is 'to the fermenter' in BeerSmith, so your batch size will be fermenter volume + trub loss. This way when you swap out leaf for pellet hops for a recipe, or improve your equipment regarding trub loss, all you have to do is scale your batch size accordingly using the scale tool. The alternative requires some tedious calcs by hand or 3rd party calculators, as well as some iterative tuning over the next few batches.

This method of using BeerSmith also makes recipe sharing, and importing into BeerSmith, much easier- and I have Braukaiser backing me up on that one.
 
i bottle, so i calculate all my recipes for 6 gallons out of my kettle. if i get 5 gallons i'm happy, if i end up closer to 6 then i'm even happier
Yes, getting the qualitative numbers right (OG, IBU, SRM) in the kettle, regardless of the volume lost to trub, is the most important thing. BeerSmith complicates that by its 'to the fermenter' efficiency number as the only control input.
 
I just always try to put one gallon over the amount of finished beer I want in to my fermentor. In my case I try to always bottle at least 5 gallons of finished beer per batch, so I put 6 gallons in the fermenter. With this said I design all of my batches at about 6.25 gallons, so I can leave most of the hot break in the kettle..

EDIT: For the record I don't use Beersmith, and..... I think some people in this thread might want to consider switching to decaf!
 
I set trub chiller loss to 1 gallon and set my brewhouse efficiency accordingly. I get about 78% mash efficiency and run 70% brewhouse efficiency for 10.5 gallon batches and 62% brewhouse efficiency for 5.25 gallon batches. This works for me and after several trial and error batches I now get extremely consistent results and 5.25 gallons in each fermenter every time. When building or scaling recipes you just have to make sure you add enough grain or hops to match your OG and IBUs.

In the end you're just going to have to find what works for you and hope you get it dialed in before you muck up too many batches. Luckily Beersmith has plenty of calculators to help you adjust and fix your mess ups.
 
When building or scaling recipes you just have to make sure you add enough grain or hops to match your OG and IBUs.
Are you aware of the 'recipe scale tool'? It will scale any recipe, and automatically match IBU, SRM, OG, etc.- exactly.

In the end you're just going to have to find what works for you and hope you get it dialed in before you muck up too many batches. Luckily Beersmith has plenty of calculators to help you adjust and fix your mess ups.
Strangley, the one calculator it doesn't have built in is the one to figure out BeerSmith's own version of brewhouse efficiency. Even stranger is that all the numbers are available right there for it to do it for you automatically.
 
I use the LT deadspace setting and check the "adjust mash volume for deadspace" in order to get the proper H20 to Grain ratios for my mash. Why shouldn't I do that again?
It is best to not use the trub loss field at all, and notate in your recipes how much of the batch size was for losses. Some even say to set the lauter dead space to 0, since making MLT changes cause the same issues with BeerSmith.
I think setting trub losses to 0 is a good idea. Above, I think I said that other people even recommend setting lauter loss to 0, but they must have OCD, or expect major lauter changes. In another post, I may have edited out where I had a copy/paste error that may have had me including it with trub loss. I haven't fully investigated what setting lauter space to 0 would entail. I posted somewhere, maybe not here, that setting lauter losses to 0 doesn't gain you that much in convenience if your equipment changes. Not using the trub loss field, however, has some major convenience advantages.

It is related to how all the losses into the fermenter are rolled up into one efficiency number. It can be difficult to arrive at a new efficiency number that gets all your other numbers in BeerSmith, that were not actually affected by the equipment/trub change, back to where they were previously.

I think the guys who do the '0 lauter dead space' method increase their batch size to include the lauter loss, and adjust their efficiency down, along with some other compensatory stuff. Sounds like a pain to me, especially since the lauter dead space doesn't change that often.

BK transfer losses, however, change all the time, at least for me- Pellet or leaf, hoppy or not hoppy, extra trubby grain bill or not. Plus, I constantly tinker with my dip tube setup, but it is always just a straight volume change. If you have to change those in the equipment profile for every recipe, along with hand calcing the new 'to the fermenter' efficiency, it becomes a pain. Especially when all the information you need to account for the changes is just a volume increase to the batch size which you would already know anyway because it's the same number you would put in the 'trub chiller loss' field if you did it the other way.

I confess I don't understand all of your post, but I don't understand this specifically:
The root of the problem is that BeerSmith uses 'to the fermenter' for brewhouse efficiency, instead of the more common (and useful) 'in the kettle' BH eff.
The issue I have with the 'to the fermenter' eff number, is that it has too much crap rolled into it, and makes using the trub loss field on a per recipe basis entirely too cumbersome. It also does not accurately calculate some other numbers, though the error is small for normal situations, and there is no need to go into that here.

The main issue goes something like this:
If you adjust the 'trub loss' field to account for either a permanent gear change, or one specific to an extra loss in a recipe like extra trub, leaf vs. pellet hops, very hoppy beer, whatever; you will also have to adjust the BeerSmith efficiency number because that number includes losses to the fermenter. If you don't, all BeerSmith will do is add water to your mash, and increase your mash efficiency (a number you don't control), to make the OG still come out right (your OG in BeerSmith will not change). This is because you told it you are losing wort (sugars), but aren't experiencing a decrease in the sugars delivered to the fermenter. It is like you told it your trub loss is pure water. That is all it has to go on, so it proceeds to make the numbers work.

When you go to brew, you are in for a surprise, because even though BeerSmith magically increased your mash eff to 132% to make the numbers work, you won't be getting that.

Before I start changing up a bunch of settings in my equipment profile, is there anything else you can point me too to read about this, or can you elaborate? Thanks in advance.
Before you change anything, make copies of everything, and check your current actual mash efficiency numbers. that is what you will use for your new 'total efficiency' number- or is it 'brewhouse eff'. I think it is something differnent on each page, gotta love BeerSmith. Then you just add your old trub loss to the batch size, using the scaling tool to keep the numbers the same.

On brewday, check your SG and vol numbers in the kettle to verify that stage, and for the next brewday adjust your (now) 'in the kettle' brewhouse eff numbers if you were off. If you end up short on volume to the fermenter due to transfer losses, just up the batch size for that recipe. No having to redo efficiency, or even worry about that side of the house as long as the kettle numbers were good. The only inconvenience to this method, is having to keep track in the 'notes' field, what values you use for trub loss, hop absorption, etc. It would be nice if BeerSmith's trub field could be used for this with this method, but it is hardcoded to work the other way.

You can try to read the 'How to' written by some Aussies that explains the differnece and how to convert BeerSmith into using 'in the kettle' efficiency vs. 'in the fermenter' efficiency. I think it explains it correctly, but I am not entirely certain, since it is horribly formatted. It also tries to explain both ways in one document, but then mixes them together and reuses terms where the terms mean different things. The main thread also has an explanation of it.
http://www.beersmith.com/forum/index.php/topic,5140.msg21415.html#msg21415

You can also see a smarta$$ response I made where I lay out the different user experience for each style.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/small-batches-342569/#post4369165
 
You can try to read the 'How to' written by some Aussies that explains the differnece and how to convert BeerSmith into using 'in the kettle' efficiency vs. 'in the fermenter' efficiency. I think it explains it correctly, but I am not entirely certain, since it is horribly formatted. It also tries to explain both ways in one document, but then mixes them together and reuses terms where the terms mean different things. The main thread also has an explanation of it.
http://www.beersmith.com/forum/index.php/topic,5140.msg21415.html#msg21415

That's the same thread I referenced earlier. I thought the PDF in the third post explained it pretty well actually. I just don't agree with them that their "total efficiency" method is the best way.
 
That's the same thread I referenced earlier.
Yes, it is, and I didn't mean to co-opt your input, or steal your thunder. I knew I had seen that posted recently, but wasn't sure which thread that was in, and didn't feel like scrolling/searching while already in the posting editor. I had that thread in my browser history from earlier reading, and just linked straight to it. I have a number of threads going trying to warn extract guys about the serious flaw for extract recipes using trub loss. It is equivalent to forgetting to adjust efficiency when trub loss is adjusted, but there are absolutely no warning signs from BeerSmith that something is amiss. (This is when doing things "the BeerSmith way", and actually using the trub loss field.)

I thought the PDF in the third post explained it pretty well actually.
It isn't completely unreadable/unuseable, but after reading it a few times critically, especially from a newbie point of view (which is the audience), it is a bit confusing. They define the same term, 'total efficiency' differently twice in the 'definitions' section. I also think they have some confusing language regarding what 'tot eff' and 'brewhouse eff' actually do. Some of it may be due to BeerSmith reusing/changing field names in different places; but I can't remember, and am really over trying to decrypt BeerSmith. Regardless, I think there is a simpler way to explain both strategies.

I have come up with a way to simplify the user experience, without adding too much manual bookkeeping, and actually a lot less if you like to adjust for trub loss on a recipe by recipe basis, or mod your equipment. It is similar to the 'est mash eff' strategy in the 'how to'. Hopefully, those guys will come back from the dark side, and obviate the need to explain how to jerry rig BeerSmith to work how people expect it to work.

I just don't agree with them that their "total efficiency" method is the best way.
Amen, brother. And they even tell people to switch to the new 'tot eff' method, and quit using the old preferred workaround, even though nothing has changed regarding why it is the preferred method.

I am in an ongoing battle with those guys about the design choice to use 'to the fermenter' as 'brewhouse efficiency', and also as the only user input to lock down any stage's efficiency. They seem to want to stick with the Apple Computer method of dumbing everything down- A one button mouse, and one all inclusive user efficiency input to control everything.

The fact that they have to had to make user guides and videos to explain how to set up equipment, along with how to twist the program's intended strategy to get it to work the way most people are used to, is telling.
 
Back
Top