Getting Frustrated with Beersmith

[Oginme]

What red circled section? Did you mean to attach something?

I'll take not to continue to track my grain absorption and boil off rate to monitor the changes. I brew inside with a door open, so the ambient temp is usually about the same. I assume my numbers won't fluctuate as much as brewers who brew outdoors.

Um, yeah. That'll teach me to respond before work in the morning

 

[Gustatorian]

Um, yeah. That'll teach me to respond before work in the morning

Thanks for that! When I look under my sessions tab, and input my measured post-mash/pre-boil gravity and measured pre-boil volume, it tells me that my Mash Efficiency is 84.6%, this can't be correct? Can your mash efficiency be higher than your BHE? Isn't BHE dependent upon ME?

 

[laredo7mm]

...What math are you using to figure out the 1.067 OG with the previous values mentioned?

You have to figure out how many points of sugar you have in your pre-boil volume. Since your pre-boil gravity was 1.044 you would just use the .044 times the pre-boil volume.

If you had 9.51 gallons in your boil kettle that is 9.144 gallons when cold.

9.144 * 0.044 = 0.402 then divide by your final volume... 0.402/6 = 0.067 or 1.067.

 

[laredo7mm]

Thanks for that! When I look under my sessions tab, and input my measured post-mash/pre-boil gravity and measured pre-boil volume, it tells me that my Mash Efficiency is 84.6%, this can't be correct? Can your mash efficiency be higher than your BHE? Isn't BHE dependent upon ME?

How did you measure your pre-boil gravity? Hydrometer or refractometer? Is the measurement device calibrated?

From looking at your numbers in your last post, BeerSmith is calculating it correctly. The only thing that can be wrong is your measured volumes or your measured gravities.

9.87 gallons cold would be 9.49 gallons. 9.49 x .038 = 0.36. Then divide by final volume of six gallons gives you 1.060. If your pre-boil gravity was, as you measured, 1.044 then your post boil gravity would be 9.49 x .044 = 0.4176, then divide by 6 to get a finished gravity of 1.070.

 

[Gustatorian]

How did you measure your pre-boil gravity? Hydrometer or refractometer? Is the measurement device calibrated?

From looking at your numbers in your last post, BeerSmith is calculating it correctly. The only thing that can be wrong is your measured volumes or your measured gravities.

9.87 gallons cold would be 9.49 gallons. 9.49 x .038 = 0.36. Then divide by final volume of six gallons gives you 1.060. If your pre-boil gravity was, as you measured, 1.044 then your post boil gravity would be 9.49 x .044 = 0.4176, then divide by 6 to get a finished gravity of 1.070.

With both Hydro and Refrac, both confirmed 1.043/44.

Maybe I should just run an efficiency test again. It could be a possibility that I didn't measure something correctly.

Not sure if this would alter anything, but with the total volume of 11.34 G added to system, after treating the water with minerals, I pulled off approximately 1.45 G to "batch sparge" with. The initial volume cycling was approximately 9.89 G. I ran those 9.89 G through a circulation mash and collected 8.5 G in the BK (that gravity was 1.044). I then poured the 1.45 G onto the grains, let sit for 15 minutes, and then drained to get the total of 9.87 G (post sparge, pre-boil gravity was 1.043/44). (FWIW, I took the initial gravity of the run-off from the sparge water and it was 1.045). Would this information need to be plugged into the BeerSmith software in order for it to get me accurate numbers?

 

[jmark]

Your mash efficiency should always be >= brew house efficiency as the BHE is taking into account other losses in your system post-mash (e.g. trub loss etc.). My BHE is around 75-76% but my mash efficiency for most beers is in the mid-80s. I usually collect more wort than needed in the kettle so I'm transferring mostly trub-free wort from the BK at the end; that has a direct effect on my BHE, but grain is cheap, so doesn't bother me.

 

[Gustatorian]

Does anyone have any idea why my pre-boil VOLUME is not being calculated incorrectly?

Here's my current situtation: Mash efficiency, BHE, Starting volume, and final volume in fermentor are NAILED!

However, my trub loss and pre-boil volume are both off. I don't really care about nailing the trub loss (mainly because this will fluctuate with whirlpool hop additions) but the pre-boil volume thing is bugging me. Any idea how to alter the pre-boil volume without smudging any of the other numbers?

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

Does anyone have any idea why my pre-boil gravity is not being calculated correctly?

Come to think of it I never bother taking a preboil gravity reading, only concentrate on preboil volume and post boil volume. The fermentors being full and having an OG very close to what I needed.

 

[Gustatorian]

Come to think of it I never bother taking a preboil gravity reading, only concentrate on preboil volume and post boil volume. The fermentors being full and having an OG very close to what I needed.

Geez, I need to proofread. Edited! (see above)

 

[day_trippr]

If your strike and sparge volumes are per plan then the only unaccounted factor is lautering loss as BS automatically accounts for loss to grain.

I run a 3V dual pumped herms rig and I had to add up the pump/plumbing and MLT dead loss volumes to plug into the Lauter Tun Losses setting for the Equipment Profile for this system.

I run three different HLT/MLT/BK configurations depending on batch size and each has a different Profile and that loss setting (along with others) is different for each.

It's curious how so many factors appear "NAILED" when there's something amiss right at the start...

Cheers!

 

[Gustatorian]

If your strike and sparge volumes are per plan then the only unaccounted factor is lautering loss as BS automatically accounts for loss to grain.

I run a 3V dual pumped herms rig and I had to add up the pump/plumbing and MLT dead loss volumes to plug into the Lauter Tun Losses setting for the Equipment Profile for this system.

I run three different HLT/MLT/BK configurations depending on batch size and each has a different Profile and that loss setting (along with others) is different for each.

It's curious how so many factors appear "NAILED" when there's something amiss right at the start...

Cheers!

I think it's odd too. I totally understand the multiple configs necessary depending on batch size/ABV/etc., but I'm recording every value along the way. Feels like no ounce of water or wort goes unmeasured.

Altering loss to grain and lauter tun loss both change the total volume necessary to brew. If I were to do that, the next time I brewed that exact recipe, I would end up with a higher final volume and a lower original gravity...

 

[pricelessbrewing]

Please provide a complete list of your strike, first runnings, sparge (if applicable), 2nd runnings, preboil, boil off rate, and postboil volume.

Then we can help figure it out.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

Altering loss to grain and lauter tun loss both change the total volume necessary to brew. If I were to do that, the next time I brewed that exact recipe, I would end up with a higher final volume and a lower original gravity...

Three things that come to mind affecting post boil volume are boil off rate, pump/tubing losses, trub/wort left in the kettle. For a 10 gallon batch my setup starts will 13.25 gallons preboil and 11.25 gallons post boil volume. Experience tells me the post boil volume provides the 10.50 gallons of wort that goes into the fermentors. Not familiar with BS though.

 

[Gustatorian]

Please provide a complete list of your strike, first runnings, sparge (if applicable), 2nd runnings, preboil, boil off rate, and postboil volume.

Then we can help figure it out.

I brew in a no-sparge system (however, I allocate a small amount of water subtracted from the total water to cold-sparge). Total water was 10.75G added to system. 1.5 gallons removed from this to cold-sparge (single batch sparge. Since it's removed from the total amount, I'm making my calculations based on not sparging at all). After mash and drain into BK, then cold-sparge, I collected a total of 9.52 G into BK. Per my math, grain absorption rate is at 1.0874 (this is based off of 10.75G used with 10.75 pounds of grain and a deadspace loss of 0.125 gallons). Boil off rate is 1.69 GPH (I boiled 90 minutes) to lose 2.53 Gallons total. Post boil volume (cold) was 6 gallons into fermentor and .625 gallons left in BK (cold).

 

[pricelessbrewing]

If you're sparging, then you're sparging.

Strike: 9.25 gallons (10.75 lbs)
Deadspace:0.125 gallons
First run off: 9.25-0.125-(10.75*0.0874)=8.185 gallons
Sparge:1.5
Second run off: 1.5
Preboil (first + second run off) = ~9.7 (does not match your listed 9.2, grain absorption would have to be a bit higher, or different temps may account for the small discrepancy, last I checked BS does not account for variable temps, it's either room temp or boil @ 4% expansion.)
boil off rate: 1.69 (90 min)
Postboil volume 6 (cold)

So those numbers are fairly consistent (ignoring the 0.2 preboil difference, which may be due to grain absorption or temperatures). What is beersmith calculating based on your settings? Please use the format I have here, it's easier and quicker to use.

 

[Gustatorian]

If you're sparging, then you're sparging.

Strike: 9.25 gallons (10.75 lbs)
Deadspace:0.125 gallons
First run off: 9.25-0.125-(10.75*0.0874)=8.185 gallons
Sparge:1.5
Second run off: 1.5
Preboil (first + second run off) = ~9.7 (does not match your listed 9.2, grain absorption would have to be a bit higher, or different temps may account for the small discrepancy, last I checked BS does not account for variable temps, it's either room temp or boil @ 4% expansion.)
boil off rate: 1.69 (90 min)
Postboil volume 6 (cold)

So those numbers are fairly consistent (ignoring the 0.2 preboil difference, which may be due to grain absorption or temperatures). What is beersmith calculating based on your settings? Please use the format I have here, it's easier and quicker to use.

Just so we're on the same page. Pre-boil is 9.52 (so about .18 difference than what you're calculating at 9.7). Not sure exactly what you mean by following the format you provided, but I think this is what you mean...

Strike: 9.25 gallons (10.75 lbs) - CORRECT
Deadspace:0.125 gallons - CORRECT
First run off: 9.25-0.125-(10.75*0.0874)=8.185 gallons - CORRECT
Sparge:1.5 - CORRECT
Second run off: 1.5 - CORRECT
Preboil (first + second run off) = ~9.7 (does not match your listed 9.2, grain absorption would have to be a bit higher, or different temps may account for the small discrepancy, last I checked BS does not account for variable temps, it's either room temp or boil @ 4% expansion.) - INCORRECT, Pre-boil that BS is feeding me = 9.16G
boil off rate: 1.69 (90 min) - CORRECT
Postboil volume 6 (cold) - This is the amount collected into fermentor. I have 0.37 G plugged into the "loss to trub/chiller" for the other numbers to work correctly. In reality, the trub loss was 0.625 G

 

[pricelessbrewing]

Sanity check, Use my calculator to get this all correct first, then you can setup beersmith. https://pricelessbrewing.github.io/BiabCalc/#Simple


Not sure how I missed it last reply, but while your listed measurements are consistent with each other, the variables used to calculate them are not. There's no way to get a total water needed of 10.75 gallons from 6 gal batch size, 0.625 kettle loss, 0.125 mashtun loss, 90 min boil, 1.69 gal/hour, and 0.0874 gal/lb absorption rate. That would give 10.22 gallons total (not 10.75 gallons).

https://pricelessbrewing.github.io/BiabCalc/#Simple

Note I found a bug just now in my boil off rate, it's treating it as a cold volume during the total water needed calculation, then treating it as a boil volume during the boil. So total water needed is about 0.10 gallons low atm, sending a patch through in a bit.

I think there's some information that's incorrect, setting beersmith aside. (check your BS equipment profiles "cooling shrinkage" setting, it should be 4.0-4.4%.)

 

[TheMadKing]

EDIT.. responded to an old post.. whoops

 

[Gustatorian]

Sanity check, Use my calculator to get this all correct first, then you can setup beersmith. https://pricelessbrewing.github.io/BiabCalc/#Simple


Not sure how I missed it last reply, but while your listed measurements are consistent with each other, the variables used to calculate them are not. There's no way to get a total water needed of 10.75 gallons from 6 gal batch size, 0.625 kettle loss, 0.125 mashtun loss, 90 min boil, 1.69 gal/hour, and 0.0874 gal/lb absorption rate. That would give 10.22 gallons total (not 10.75 gallons).

https://pricelessbrewing.github.io/BiabCalc/#Simple

Note I found a bug just now in my boil off rate, it's treating it as a cold volume during the total water needed calculation, then treating it as a boil volume during the boil. So total water needed is about 0.10 gallons low atm, sending a patch through in a bit.

I think there's some information that's incorrect, setting beersmith aside. (check your BS equipment profiles "cooling shrinkage" setting, it should be 4.0-4.4%.)

Not sure exactly what you mean by having consistent measurements but incorrect variables...by using your calculator, I'm seeing 10.12 G needed, which is .63 G less than I used (and I would have noticed a 0.63 G loss/measurement discrepancy.)

 

[pricelessbrewing]

Not sure exactly what you mean by having consistent measurements but incorrect variables...by using your calculator, I'm seeing 10.12 G needed, which is .63 G less than I used (and I would have noticed a 0.63 G loss/measurement discrepancy.)

6 gallon (batch size, cold)
+0.63 gallon trub loss (kettle, cold)
+1.69*1.5 (boil off)
+0.125 (mashtun)
+ (10.75*0.0874=0.94)
= 10.22 gallons total water needed

Which is what I got from my calculator (after fixing the boil off rate error I mentioned above) and beersmith, when setting it up correctly based on the given information. One, or more, of your listed variables above does not match the measurements you're providing from the brewday.

The most likely variable to look at is grain absorption and mashtun loss. Luckily, mashtun losses can be determined using water. Go weigh out 8.345 lbs (4 kg), drain the mashtun, and weigh the result. If it comes out to 0.875 gallons (a little over 1 lb), and you're 100% confident in 10.75 lb, and 9.25 gallons strike volume, then we can calculate the grain absorption to be 0.1016 gal/lb (not 0.0874)

 

[Gustatorian]

6 gallon (batch size, cold)
+0.63 gallon trub loss (kettle, cold)
+1.69*1.5 (boil off)
+0.125 (mashtun)
+ (10.75*0.0874=0.94)
= 10.22 gallons total water needed

Which is what I got from my calculator (after fixing the boil off rate error I mentioned above) and beersmith, when setting it up correctly based on the given information. One, or more, of your listed variables above does not match the measurements you're providing from the brewday.

The most likely variable to look at is grain absorption and mashtun loss. Luckily, mashtun losses can be determined using water. Go weigh out 8.345 lbs (4 kg), drain the mashtun, and weigh the result. If it comes out to 0.875 gallons (a little over 1 lb), and you're 100% confident in 10.75 lb, and 9.25 gallons strike volume, then we can calculate the grain absorption to be 0.1016 gal/lb (not 0.0874)

I'm brewing tomorrow so I'll take detailed notes. First off, does grain absorption rate change with types of malt/grain used?

Not totally sure what you mean in the last paragraph. Weigh 8.345 lbs of what and where did you get that number? Do you mind rephrasing that last paragraph?

 

[day_trippr]

I'm brewing tomorrow so I'll take detailed notes. First off, does grain absorption rate change with types of malt/grain used?

Not totally sure what you mean in the last paragraph. Weigh 8.345 lbs of what and where did you get that number? Do you mind rephrasing that last paragraph?

The 8.345 is the weight of one gallon of water with an SG of 1.000.
The idea is to dump that in your MLT, drain what you can, weigh what remains to determine your MLT dead loss.

As for grain absorption, I've been using Beersmith for a couple years and accepting what it assigns for grain absorption without ever changing it and I usually hit pre-boil volume/gravity without issue, regardless of grain bill, which can range from all malt to 50% adjuncts (flaked oats/corn/rice). I don't think it varies all that much...

Cheers!

 

[pricelessbrewing]

What they said ^

 

[Gustatorian]

What they said ^

You guys are brilliant.

Ok, so my experiment yielded .122 Gallons (1.01875 lbs)

I changed my grain absorption rate back to the BeerSmith standard.

Numbers are all good EXCEPT ONE!

I brewed yesterday. Total water (10.84G cold) used 1.5 G cold to cold-sparge. Pre-boil volume was approximately 9.9 G (hot) (Beersmith is feeding me 9.88G), post boil was 6G (cold) into fermentor and approximately 0.83 G (cold) left in the BK (I had to approximate because I had some spillage, but that looks correct when I play around with the beersmith numbers).

My OG was spot on at 1.044 but it's giving me a pre-boil gravity of 1.030 (When I measure it, it was 1.033-1.034). Any clue on how to amend this?

 

[pricelessbrewing]

It's a bit late, and I'm on my phone, but preboil may be off due to two reasons.

1) preboil is hard to get accurate as the blending of different sugar solutions (wort from first runnings and second runnings) are difficult to mix evenly.

2) beersmith may not account for thermal expansion in it's preboil calculation correctly. I haven't double checked that one yet, @doug293cz have you ever checked that?

Lastly it's possible your measurements arent quite as accurate as you think. How're you measuring volume?

 

[Oginme]

BeerSmith applies the thermal expansion coefficient to any volume measured as hot. It does not scale the coefficient according to temperature, so setting the thermal expansion coefficient at the temperature you typically measure your volumes will give you a better accuracy in the software's prediction.

 

[Gustatorian]

It's a bit late, and I'm on my phone, but preboil may be off due to two reasons.

1) preboil is hard to get accurate as the blending of different sugar solutions (wort from first runnings and second runnings) are difficult to mix evenly.

2) beersmith may not account for thermal expansion in it's preboil calculation correctly. I haven't double checked that one yet, @doug293cz have you ever checked that?

Lastly it's possible your measurements arent quite as accurate as you think. How're you measuring volume?

1) Ah! This would make sense. I usually take the gravity reading post-sparge and from the top of the vessel. It would make sense that there would be some stratification within the entire volume of wort. I could live with a little variability in pre-boil gravity readings as along as I'm hitting my OG.

2) Total volume, volume into fermentor, MT/LT loss (from the experiment), trub loss are all measure cold. Pre-boil volume is the only one that is measured warm (140-150ºF). I assume Beersmith takes that into consideration. Nobodies pre-boil volume would ever be measure cold.

3) Everything is accurately measured except pre-boil gravity. I use a sight glass guage on the side of my BK (Blichmann), so it's estimated based on that. Furthermore, I have an electric could within, so I subtract 10 oz (0.08 G) from the reading.

 

[Gustatorian]

BeerSmith applies the thermal expansion coefficient to any volume measured as hot. It does not scale the coefficient according to temperature, so setting the thermal expansion coefficient at the temperature you typically measure your volumes will give you a better accuracy in the software's prediction.

Which volumes do they measure when applying the Thermal Expansion Coefficient? I assume Pre-boil, MT/LT loss, and Trub loss? Is there a way to put specific temperatures for each of these readings?

 

[Oginme]

From my calculations and working with BeerSmith, the following volumes are thermally expanded: Strike water, sparge water, post mash volume, pre- and post-boil volume. Everything else is at room temperature (volume to fermenter, trub loss). I learned several years ago that in order to balance the volumes in my system, I needed to discount the strike water by the thermal expansion coefficient. Otherwise, I would consistently be right around 4% high (on the average) in my final volume of chilled post boil wort [note: I do full volume BIAB, so the water I measure is near room temperature].

MT/LT loss, I cannot comment on, since everything I have is in one kettle.

There is no way to consistently apply a specific temperature to each measurement in the program. I use a thermal expansion or 2%, which is close to where it would be in the mid-150's F. I undershoot my initial water measurement by that 2% and almost always come out within a few 100 ml of my target post boil volume. It is inconvenient at times, but not that hard to compensate for.

 

[pricelessbrewing]

BeerSmith applies the thermal expansion coefficient to any volume measured as hot. It does not scale the coefficient according to temperature, so setting the thermal expansion coefficient at the temperature you typically measure your volumes will give you a better accuracy in the software's prediction.

I know the volume is adjusted, but the gravity should be unadjusted as gravities, like pH, are always done at a reference temperature.

 

[Oginme]

I know the volume is adjusted, but the gravity should be unadjusted as gravities, like pH, are always done at a reference temperature.

That is correct, the gravity readings are at reference temperature (60F or 68F/20C depending upon your hydrometer).

 

[pricelessbrewing]

That is correct, the gravity readings are at reference temperature (60F or 68F/20C depending upon your hydrometer).

This is not true, at least in the version that I have. Not sure if it's up to date, but you can confirm this by doing the following

Open a recipe,

note the Est Pre-Boil Gravity, and cooling shrinkage. (My example: 1.06621. 4.40%)

and then open the equipment profile, and change the cooling shrinkage to zero, you will see that the Est Pre-Boil Gravity goes up accordingly. (My example: 1.06868. 0.00%, which is ~3.73% higher)

If someone could confirm this, just to make sure I'm not crazy, or that it may be isolated to my installation.

 

[Oginme]

Priceless, you are correct. The reason for this is that BeerSmith tracks gravity points. Since it does NOT correct the volume for thermal expansion, it adjusts the gravity reading for the volume (uncorrected). This is NOT the gravity reading at that temperature, it is a miscalculation based upon the at temperature volume projection and not based upon the corrected volume as it should be.

 

[Gustatorian]

To me, running a recirculation system (Blichmann BrewEasy) makes figuring out the small details of efficiency a bit harder...especially with different strengths of beers brewed.

To complicate things, I switch between no-sparge and cold-sparge depending on BeerSmith's "total water needed" recommendation. If I have a sufficient amount of water added to cover the grains with a 1.25-1.5 qt/lb ratio and cover the electric coils in the BK, I'll remove some of the water to cold-sparge after I mash out and drain.

For now, I have my system's efficiency numbers geared into lower gravity beers. In my most recent batches, I've been hitting pre-boil gravity, pre-boil volume, post-boil volume and original gravity. These lower gravity beers use roughly 11-12 pounds of grain (pilsner malt) and give me a mash efficiency in the mid 70's. (74-75%).

Yesterday, I brewed with 16.5 pounds of grain (mostly Golden Promise) and saw a drop in Mash efficiency by 10 percentage points! I expected maybe a 2-3 point drop due to a decrease in efficiency while brewing stronger beers, but this is insane. This was a no-sparge, recirculation mash, but that is crazy low even for the Blichmann BrewEasy! Any idea what happened?

I've heard that GP and MO are smaller grains that need a finer crush, maybe that's what cause such a big efficiency gap?

 

[pricelessbrewing]

Not enough info to accurately troubleshoot. Use this https://pricelessbrewing.github.io/BiabCalc/#EfficiencyEvaluation to find out if the issue was conversion (grain/crush/mash), or lauter (nosparge, or recirculation chanelling), or simply a larger grain bill.

My efficiency prediction calculator, based on a typical brew of 11.5 @ 75% mash efficiency and a decent sparge efficiency, would put a 16.5 lb grain bill with no sparge @ ~64% mash efficiency. So it's not that odd. You're changing two things here, one being the grain bill being about 33% larger, and also switching to not sparging.

 

[Gustatorian]

Not enough info to accurately troubleshoot. Use this https://pricelessbrewing.github.io/BiabCalc/#EfficiencyEvaluation to find out if the issue was conversion (grain/crush/mash), or lauter (nosparge, or recirculation chanelling), or simply a larger grain bill.

My efficiency prediction calculator, based on a typical brew of 11.5 @ 75% mash efficiency and a decent sparge efficiency, would put a 16.5 lb grain bill with no sparge @ ~64% mash efficiency. So it's not that odd. You're changing two things here, one being the grain bill being about 33% larger, and also switching to not sparging.

Using your calculator, my Mash eff = 66.5% (BeerSmith measured = 65.4%) and BH eff = 55.3% (BeerSmith measured = 53.5%). Not sure if this is totally correct because I'm not too familiar with grain potential. Mind schooling me on that? Grain absorption, when calculated was .12 pounds/gallon, much more than the 0.08 you provided on your calculator. (my number was based off of 0.96 fl oz/oz grain provided by BeerSmith). This batch was a no-sparge recirculation. Regardless of me sparging or not, I always recirculate, so I don't think the efficiency loss would be due to channeling.

Sparging never seemed to get extra points for me though. The amount of volume that I used to cold-spare was miminal (1.5 G max) and testing the wort gravity both pre-, during, and post-sparge always yielded the same numbers. I simply did it because it allowed me to boil for 90 minutes and yield 6 gallons post-boil.

 

[pricelessbrewing]

Using your calculator, my Mash eff = 66.5% (BeerSmith measured = 65.4%) and BH eff = 55.3% (BeerSmith measured = 53.5%). Not sure if this is totally correct because I'm not too familiar with grain potential. Mind schooling me on that? Grain absorption, when calculated was .12 pounds/gallon, much more than the 0.08 you provided on your calculator. (my number was based off of 0.96 fl oz/oz grain provided by BeerSmith). This batch was a no-sparge recirculation. Regardless of me sparging or not, I always recirculate, so I don't think the efficiency loss would be due to channeling.

Sparging never seemed to get extra points for me though. The amount of volume that I used to cold-spare was miminal (1.5 G max) and testing the wort gravity both pre-, during, and post-sparge always yielded the same numbers. I simply did it because it allowed me to boil for 90 minutes and yield 6 gallons post-boil.

If you're sparging isn't raising your efficiency, then you're doing it wrong or getting channeling.

Grain absorption is an equipment variable, and you will need to adjust it based on your equipment. 0.08 is typical for a BIABer, if you're using a mashtun with a false bottom or braid, then it's probably 0.12-0.125 gal/lb.

Grain potential (or yield) is given either in PPG, or as a percentage (of the potential of succrose ie 1.046 ppg). You'll need to get that from your recipe, the quickest way is to set beersmith to 100% brewhouse efficiency, and take the predicted OG and do the following. It's a measurement of how much sugar we can expect to extract and be converted during the mash.

OG * wort volume = Total points.

Total points / Total weight of grain = average potential.

 

[Gustatorian]

If you're sparging isn't raising your efficiency, then you're doing it wrong or getting channeling.

Grain absorption is an equipment variable, and you will need to adjust it based on your equipment. 0.08 is typical for a BIABer, if you're using a mashtun with a false bottom or braid, then it's probably 0.12-0.125 gal/lb.

Grain potential (or yield) is given either in PPG, or as a percentage (of the potential of succrose ie 1.046 ppg). You'll need to get that from your recipe, the quickest way is to set beersmith to 100% brewhouse efficiency, and take the predicted OG and do the following. It's a measurement of how much sugar we can expect to extract and be converted during the mash.

OG * wort volume = Total points.

Total points / Total weight of grain = average potential.

Even if you're only sparging with 1.5 gallons? Everytime I've done it, it's essentially just maintaining the gravity of my first runnings...same gravity. Sparge couldn't be channeling, I mix the grains and sparge water thoroughly prior to draining the second runnings.

Cool trick on the grain potential. Looks like my OG was 1.100. So 100 x 6G into fermentor, divided by 16.57 pounds of grain yields 36.2 ppg. Look correct?

 

[pricelessbrewing]

Sparging well will always increase lauter efficiency (and therefore mash/brewhouse, assuming conversion efficiency is unaffected). My predictions of 16.5 gallons, and sparging with 1.5 gallons, you would've gained ~5-6% mash efficiency.

 

[Gustatorian]

Sparging well will always increase lauter efficiency (and therefore mash/brewhouse, assuming conversion efficiency is unaffected). My predictions of 16.5 gallons, and sparging with 1.5 gallons, you would've gained ~5-6% mash efficiency.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong with the minimal amount of liquor I'm using, any suggestions? Would you measure this increase by measuring your first runnings from the boil kettle then measuring your collected wort after the second runnings? Probably needs to thoroughly mix the wort in the BK to get an accurate reading as well?