What's with the fraction of oz measurements in recipes?

[seefish]

It's either a conversion or a scale from a larger recipe. Most people with scales will tend to use metric because its easier. On the pro brewer scale...do you think they will measure out 49 pounds of grain? Of course not, its going to be a 50 pound sack that goes in.

 

[LandoLincoln]

Its funny how different people think so differently. Everyone keeps saying all these little variations effect everything so what's the point in being so exact in measurements.

However, to me, in a hobby with so many variables and inconsistencies it just gives me that much more reason to be as exact on everything I can control.

And that's fine. But it's still like herding cats. Control what you can, and accept the fact that your beer is still going to vary. That's homebrewing for you.

I'm still anal about measuring out my hops to the hundredth of an ounce. I know it's not going to make a bit of a difference if I'm off by even two tenths. Maybe even more. But I still do it, because it makes me happy to see "1.00" on my little scale.

 

[funnycreature]

Couldn't help but think of this:
http://rocknoceros.com/ajax-reader/nojs/245/node

I wish we used the metric system
But we don’t, so ya gotta learn the other one
It’s easy with the metric system
But the other one’s the one we use

An ounce weighs the birthday card you got in the mail
One pound weighs sixteen ounces when it's put on a scale
A stone is fourteen pounds, a pennyweight less than one
And in the U.S.A. two thousand pounds are a ton

These numbers all fill up my head
And that is why I've always said
I wish we used the metric system
But we don’t, so ya gotta learn the other one
It’s easy with the metric system
But the other one’s the one we use

You can use the inch to measure just how long is a worm
If you have 12 inches then it’s called a foot, that’s the term
One yard is three feet, and it could take a while
To walk a thousand-seven-hundred-sixty, that's a mile
A league is three miles and you might be
Twenty thousand of them under the sea

I wish we used the metric system
But the other one’s the one we use

When you’re making cookies you might need a teaspoon of salt
A tablespoon’s three teaspoons, and it’s not your fault
If dont know that two tablespoons are called a fluid ounce
Because eight fluid ounces make a cup and that’s what counts
Two cups are a pint and two pints are a quart
Four quarts are a gallon or five fifths, if you’re that sort

We wish we used the metric system
But the other one’s the one we use
The other one’s the one we use
The other one’s the one we use

 

[boydster]

Its funny how different people think so differently. Everyone keeps saying all these little variations effect everything so what's the point in being so exact in measurements.

However, to me, in a hobby with so many variables and inconsistencies it just gives me that much more reason to be as exact on everything I can control.

I agree with this, to a point: control the controlables. I just don't see that measuring a base grain to the one-thousandth of a pound, or even one-tenth of an ounce, will have any impact. I control my controlables as best I can, but only to a resolution that will impact the final product for my tastes. Is higher resolution better? That's up to the brewer. Example: I wouldn't notice the difference between 1080 and 4k pixel resolution on my cell phone screen, so IMO it would be a waste to spend any energy or money to achieve that.

 

[Weezy]

And that's fine. But it's still like herding cats. Control what you can, and accept the fact that your beer is still going to vary. That's homebrewing for you.

Well said. And that's how science works. Control what you can, be precise where you can, because of all the variables that you can't control. If you don't control the variables that you can control, things can only get worse. Nobody is wrong here.

Can we try a simple exercise?

Let me post this generic recipe that i just made up now and please take 5 minutes, throw it into your software, and post back your version of the recipe, with weights, that you'd actually brew including full specs. I'll post mine later too.

Mild Ale
OG 1.038

Grain bill
80% U.K. Pale Ale malt
7% Flaked Barley
5% Chocolate Malt
4% Cararye
4% Crystal 120

Hops
Fuggles - 20 IBUs@45 min.

Go!

 

[geoffm33]

Can we try a simple exercise?

Let me post this generic recipe that i just made up now and please take 5 minutes, throw it into your software, and post back your version of the recipe, with weights, that you'd actually brew including full specs. I'll post mine later too.

Mild Ale
OG 1.038

Grain bill
80% U.K. Pale Ale malt
7% Flaked Barley
5% Chocolate Malt
4% Cararye
4% Crystal 120

Hops
Fuggles - 20 IBUs@45 min.

Go!

HOMEWORK

BeerSmith 2 Recipe Printout - http://www.beersmith.com
Recipe: One Mild Weezy
Brewer: Geoff Manning
Asst Brewer: 
Style: Mild
TYPE: All Grain
Taste: (30.0) 

Recipe Specifications
--------------------------
Boil Size: 6.86 gal
Post Boil Volume: 5.86 gal
Batch Size (fermenter): 5.50 gal   
Bottling Volume: 5.00 gal
Estimated OG: 1.038 SG
Estimated Color: 18.6 SRM
Estimated IBU: 20.0 IBUs
Brewhouse Efficiency: 80.00 %
Est Mash Efficiency: 81.9 %
Boil Time: 60 Minutes

Ingredients:
------------
Amt                   Name                                     Type          #        %/IBU         
5 lbs 15.2 oz         Pale Malt (2 Row) UK (3.0 SRM)           Grain         1        80.0 %        
8.3 oz                Barley, Flaked (1.7 SRM)                 Grain         2        7.0 %         
6.0 oz                Chocolate Malt (450.0 SRM)               Grain         3        5.0 %         
4.8 oz                Caramel/Crystal Malt -120L (120.0 SRM)   Grain         4        4.0 %         
4.8 oz                Rye Malt (4.7 SRM)                       Grain         5        4.0 %         
1.22 oz               Fuggles [4.50 %] - Boil 45.0 min         Hop           6        20.0 IBUs

 

[bob1852]

So if this is what I was targeting...

Amt Name Type # %/IBU
5 lbs 15.2 oz Pale Malt (2 Row) UK (3.0 SRM) Grain 1 80.0 %
8.3 oz Barley, Flaked (1.7 SRM) Grain 2 7.0 %
6.0 oz Chocolate Malt (450.0 SRM) Grain 3 5.0 %
4.8 oz Caramel/Crystal Malt -120L (120.0 SRM) Grain 4 4.0 %
4.8 oz Rye Malt (4.7 SRM) Grain 5 4.0 %
1.22 oz Fuggles [4.50 %] - Boil 45.0 min Hop 6 20.0 IBUs

I'd honestly do this:

6lbs 2 row
8oz flaked barley
6oz chocolate
5oz 120L
5oz Rye malt

1.5oz Fuggles (though I'd use EKG since I hate fuggles )

I buy my specialty grains by the ounce, and I'm not going to bother storing and planning how to use an extra 0.7 or 0.2 here or there...

And, I'd pay more attention to water treatment, yeast pitch rates, and fermentation temperature.

It may not be the same beer, but it would be better.

 

[dobe12]

To hit your numbers perfectly, I'd have to do something like this:

1.038
20IBU
80% efficiency

5.4lbs pale
0.5lb flaked barley
0.35lbs chocolate
0.25lbs cararye
0.25lbs crystal 120

1.20oz of Fuggles at 45min

BUT if I were to make up MY recipe, I'd do something like this.

Same specs except IBUs go to 21
5.5 pale
0.5 flaked barley
0.25 chocolate
0.25 cararye
0.25 crystal 120

1.25oz fuggles at 45min

It's just easier for me to measure to 1/4, 1/2, 1lb increments on my scale. And more importantly, this is me assuming 80% efficiency. What if I get higher, like 85% which is very possible. Now all those precise numbers are right out the window.

 

[widsith]

Well said. And that's how science works. Control what you can, be precise where you can, because of all the variables that you can't control. If you don't control the variables that you can control, things can only get worse. Nobody is wrong here.

Can we try a simple exercise?

Let me post this generic recipe that i just made up now and please take 5 minutes, throw it into your software, and post back your version of the recipe, with weights, that you'd actually brew including full specs. I'll post mine later too.

Mild Ale
OG 1.038

Grain bill
80% U.K. Pale Ale malt
7% Flaked Barley
5% Chocolate Malt
4% Cararye
4% Crystal 120

Hops
Fuggles - 20 IBUs@45 min.

Go!

Mild Ale
5 Gallon Batch, 75% efficiency
OG 1.038
18.8SRM
20.4IBU

Grain bill
80% U.K. Pale Ale malt -- 6.0lb
7% Flaked Barley -- 8.0oz
5% Chocolate Malt -- 6.0oz
4% Cararye -- 5.0oz
4% Crystal 120 --5.0oz

Hops
Fuggles - 20.4 IBUs .75oz@40min, .75oz@20min
(Yes, I know I changed the schedule on you.)

 

[boydster]

The starting point for the recipe has 2 significant digits (80%...). That defines our resolution, no?

 

[Weezy]

No. A percentage itself doesn't prescribe sig figs. 80%=80.000%
Its the raw data you apply the ratio to that will dictate the sig figs.

This ain't a test! Its just going to be numbers we can look at and compare, for interests sake.

 

[boydster]

20 IBUs, then. Your hops calc is limited to 2 sig figs.

I agree on the grain bill, but to what resolution can you taste base malt?

 

[boydster]

Your starting gravity will determine the theoretical resolution for your grain bill. How much base grain does it take to adjust the gravity by 1 point? That number is the limit to which you can measure your base grain against the recipe.

Your taste buds provide the actual resolution, but good luck measuring that.

 

[LandoLincoln]

Well said. And that's how science works. Control what you can, be precise where you can, because of all the variables that you can't control. If you don't control the variables that you can control, things can only get worse. Nobody is wrong here.

Can we try a simple exercise?

Let me post this generic recipe that i just made up now and please take 5 minutes, throw it into your software, and post back your version of the recipe, with weights, that you'd actually brew including full specs. I'll post mine later too.

Mild Ale
OG 1.038

Grain bill
80% U.K. Pale Ale malt
7% Flaked Barley
5% Chocolate Malt
4% Cararye
4% Crystal 120

Hops
Fuggles - 20 IBUs@45 min.

Go!

You emphasized the wrong part. Try as you might, your beer is still going to vary. And things can indeed get better with that variance. So be as precise as it makes you happy, but understand that you're still not in as control of your final product as commercial breweries are. And for God's sake, don't criticize others for not being as precise as you.

Anyway...on to the experiment...

Well...I learned today that BeerSmith Mobile is totally lacking in recipe formulation. Just awful. Let me try Brewer's Friend web-based recipe maker instead...

Brewer's Friend didn't have Cararye in their grain list, so I had to do some online looking up of the grain and came up with 34 PPG and an average of 67 lovibond.

So for a 5.5 gallon batch assuming 75% efficiency and a 60-minute boil, I had the following:

6 lb UK Pale 2-row (82.8%)
.5 lb Flaked Barley (6.9%)
.25 lb UK - Chocolate (3.4%)
.25 lb American - Caramel / Crystal 120L (3.4%)
.25 lb Cararye (3.4%)

1.25 oz Fuggles @ 45 minutes (AA 4.5%)

1 pkg Wyeast British Ale 1335

OG 1.037
FG 1.009
IBU 21.95
SRM 15.64
ABV 3.59%

So now what?

 

[AnOldUR]

Can we try a simple exercise?

Let me post this generic recipe that i just made up now and please take 5 minutes, throw it into your software, and post back your version of the recipe, with weights, that you'd actually brew including full specs. I'll post mine later too.

The trouble is that the exercise is flawed (for me anyway.) I might write down the conversion to pounds out to a couple of decimal places, but when it comes time to weigh the grain I don't worry about them. If my brew sheet says 6.05 lbs of pale malt and my scale says 6.15 lbs after putting some grain on it, I'm not taking any off. It's going into the mill as is.

 

[boydster]

At 75% efficiency, it takes about 0.2 lbs of 2-row to change the gravity by one point. If you are within that margin of error, you essentially are making the same recipe.

 

[bob1852]

At 75% efficiency, it takes about 0.2 lbs of 2-row to change the gravity by one point. If you are within that margin of error, you essentially are making the same recipe.

Especially if you can accurately measure the gravity down to 0.01.

 

[boydster]

Especially if you can accurately measure the gravity down to 0.001.

Ftfy, and exactly. Now are you going to be able to taste the difference if this ends up being 1.036, 1.037, or even 1.040? Probably not, which means you have an even bigger margin of error when measuring grain before it causes a detectable change in the profile of the beer.

 

[bob1852]

Ftfy, and exactly. Now are you going to be able to taste the difference if this ends up being 1.036, 1.037, or even 1.040? Probably not, which means you have an even bigger margin of error when measuring grain before it causes a detectable change in the profile of the beer.

Yeah, and I measure OG with a refractometer and just take that *4, so I know my OG isn't totally accurate either. But, it works for me...

 

[dobe12]

If my brew sheet says 6.05 lbs of pale malt and my scale says 6.15 lbs after putting some grain on it, I'm not taking any off. It's going into the mill as is.

And hence the stupidity of going back and forth with the posts on this thread!

 

[Weezy]

I put together a table comparing the recipes. Interesting. I can't upload from my phone so I'll post later. On the 4% grains, there is a 18% variation between the low and high weights reported.

The trouble is that the exercise is flawed (for me anyway.) I might write down the conversion to pounds out to a couple of decimal places, but when it comes time to weigh the grain I don't worry about them. If my brew sheet says 6.05 lbs of pale malt and my scale says 6.15 lbs after putting some grain on it, I'm not taking any off. It's going into the mill as is.

Exactly right! This is what we all do, I'm sure. Nobody is going to reach down in that bucket and start picking out a couple grains. If my recipe says 3.83 pounds and i pour to 3.9 pounds, im fine too. GUYS, if you reread my posts, I'm NOT saying we should be weighing to 0.001 lbs! What I am saying is to be honest in your recipe formulation, leave the rounding to when your pouring the grain...DON'T round on your paper recipe. You're double rounding in the end...once on recipe formulation and once again when weighing. If the recipe calls for 3.85 oz? Round paper recipe to 4 oz? Then you pour grains on the scale and then overshoot to 4.1 oz? Its a compounding problem. Critical? Likely not but it just adds a lot of variability you don't need when trying to dial in a recipe. If you're working on a clone recipe that needs 0.5% black patent, it can be critical.

 

[bob1852]

I put together a table comparing the recipes. Interesting. I can't upload from my phone so I'll post later. On the 4% grains, there is a 18% variation between the low and high weights reported.




Exactly right! This is what we all do, I'm sure. Nobody is going to reach down in that bucket and start picking out a couple grains. If my recipe says 3.83 pounds and i pour to 3.9 pounds, im fine too. GUYS, if you reread my posts, I'm NOT saying we should be weighing to 0.001 lbs! What I am saying is to be honest in your recipe formulation, leave the rounding to when your pouring the grain...DON'T round on your paper recipe. You're double rounding in the end...once on recipe formulation and once again when weighing. If the recipe calls for 3.85 oz? Round paper recipe to 4 oz? Then you pour grains on the scale and then overshoot to 4.1 oz? Its a compounding problem. Critical? Likely not but it just adds a lot of variability you don't need when trying to dial in a recipe. If you're working on a clone recipe that needs 0.5% black patent, it can be critical.

I measure smaller amounts of grain by a ~12oz scoop from a bucket to the bowl I'm weighing in. If I'm shooting for 4oz. I hit 4oz.

Again, I build my recipes and brew schedule so I don't have random left over grains that accumulate.

I do it for convenience, to avoid waste, and because the end result isn't going to be different enough to worry about.

 

[LandoLincoln]

If you're working on a clone recipe that needs 0.5% black patent, it can be critical.

That's assuming someone can taste a difference between 0.5% black patent malt or 1% black patent malt. I'd be willing to bet they can't.

 

[morticaixavier]

That's assuming someone can taste a difference between 0.5% black patent malt or 1% black patent malt. I'd be willing to bet they can't.

but can you SEE the difference between .5% and 1%? (just devils advocate here) an addition like that is almost certainly for color adjustment only.

Pretty minor but...

 

[Weezy]

Good point and it would depend. If it was a 3.5% mild, I know I could tell the difference.

I hope you guys see what I mean, anyways. I was working on recipe thus week where I was targeting 5% of 3 special grains. Once I built the recipe, they came out to like 0.261 pounds. I rounded to 1/4 pound each and the percentage went to like 4.31%. Common numbers are nice. I'll brew it and evaluate, nut I expect I'll want to tweak it after tasting. Some might go up, some might go down. I'll end up with goofy weights on each, I'm sure.

 

[bob1852]

Good point and it would depend. If it was a 3.5% mild, I know I could tell the difference.

I hope you guys see what I mean, anyways. I was working on recipe thus week where I was targeting 5% of 3 special grains. Once I built the recipe, they came out to like 0.261 pounds. I rounded to 1/4 pound each and the percentage went to like 4.31%. Common numbers are nice. I'll brew it and evaluate, nut I expect I'll want to tweak it after tasting. Some might go up, some might go down. I'll end up with goofy weights on each, I'm sure.

See, I do the opposite. If I'm building a recipe, it's for my system, so I don't really care about % just total weight.

If someone else wants the recipe, I'll usually give the total weight, efficiency, pre/post volume, and let them scale it out to their system.

I'd rather build a recipe on 2oz, 0.25, 0.5, and 1lb grain increments than 1%, 5%, 10%, or 15% grist percentages.

Like you said, common numbers are nice, and I prefer to use common numbers on my weights (not %) since that's how I'm buying grain.

 

[boydster]

I see what you mean, but to bring it back to the point of the thread:

Is it just me? It seems nuts to me to put fraction of oz's of base malt in a recipe.
...

The OP was referring only to base malt, not specialty grains, and his point remains valid IMHO.

 

[LandoLincoln]

but can you SEE the difference between .5% and 1%? (just devils advocate here) an addition like that is almost certainly for color adjustment only.

Pretty minor but...

Very minor. Beersmith tells me that the difference between .5% black patent malt addition and a 1% malt addition is about 1.4 SRM's. That might be noticeable. MIGHT be.

 

[Weezy]

Here's a summary of the recipes. The percentages in red are showing the spread of the percentages of each ingredient (except hops. Doesn't really work there). The last column shows what percentage that variation is in comparison to the original recipe percentage.

It was an interesting exercise, to see how different people approach recipes. A more complex recipe would have shown even more variation. My recipe would essentially be the same as Geoff's, except it spits out pounds in decimals (no ounces), and I measure hops in grams.

A lot of it is habit. AZ is buying grain by the ounce so that has a big factor in recipe formulation. Others said they can't really measure less than 1/4 pound. Lots of variables that we each deal with differently. Using percentages when posting a recipe works well as it lets each of it account for our own requirements and limitations more easily.

 

[masskrug]

Nearest half pound (8 oz) for me on specialty grain, but I usually just round up

 

[RCCOLA]

WRT the OP: When BeerCalculus migrated everyone's recipes to Brewtoad, many of the ingredient amount numbers ended up with strange amounts like
.31 lbs. I had to edit my recipes back to normal. It won't let me fix some of them, they revert back to the hundreth decimal when saved.

I think it converted ozs to lbs during the migration and didn't deal with it well.