Hi to all

I've been trying to get to the bottom of the low integrity recipes on byo.com which has loads of impressive clone recipes I'd like to brew.

I wanted to let the forum know my findings and see if anyone has any suggestions or revisions.

So I want to brew these Fullers recipes here https://byo.com/aging/item/2318-fuller% ... -of-london

Scouring this and other forums, and the BYO site, the most credible evidence I can find to get close to determining water volumes is the answer from Jamil Zainasheff to Bundy in post #19 of this thread here: http://www.biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=3061 wherein Jamil (who posts a few recipes to BYO) tells us "BYO insisted that each recipe be for 5 gallons at end of boil and 65% efficiency."

So my conclusion is Jamil is telling us all BYO recipes are 19L (5 Gallons) VFO (Volume at Flame Out).

Now we have VFO we can calculate the VAW of all BYO recipes at 18.27L (assuming that what BYO insists Jamil does with his recipe submissions is consistent for all other recipes they publish).

Anyone else brewing byo recipes that is doing differently and if so why?

cheers
Nick

Hi Nick,

Just for clarification for other readers...

Use 21.82 L at the top of Section C D for VAW when doing BCS recipes. Edited as per PP 2 posts down

However, that is not Nick's question. He's asking about recipes published in the BYO magazine.

Nick, BYO "forcing" the recipe authors to use the defaults of "5 gallons" at flame-out and "65% efficiency," is an example of the mess out there. I have to go and do a job now but on my return, I'll examine the BYO recipes, however, I can see that "forcing" these restrictions will be distorting what the original author really intends.

I'll explain more later.

PistolPatch wrote: ↑

8 years ago

Hi Nick,

Just for clarification for other readers...

Use 21.82 L at the top of Section C for VAW when doing BCS recipes.

However, that is not Nick's question. He's asking about recipes published in the BYO magazine.

Nick, BYO "forcing" the recipe authors to use the defaults of "5 gallons" at flame-out and "65% efficiency," is an example of the mess out there. I have to go and do a job now but on my return, I'll examine the BYO recipes, however, I can see that "forcing" these restrictions will be distorting what the original author really intends.

I'll explain more later.

Thanks for the interest and for agreeing to check this out. It'd be great to have a solid rule to use with BYO.

I did indeed pick up the 21.82L VAW tip in the other thread for Brewing Classic Styles (BCS) recipes which was good to know, since I've been not getting that right before when using that book.

I think you mean Section D though right? My section C is about OG and priming :-)

You are right on the typo - should have been Section D. (I'll edit that above if I remember!)

Sorry Nik - got waylaid yesterday however I was thinking on this during the day and I don't think we can find any accurate solution to the byo recipes because of this forcing of the "65% efficiency" number.

I'm in a bit of a rush so it's going to be quicker for me to "think aloud" which unfortunately might mean a longer post than is desirable...

The Grain Bill - No problem.

The grain bill is never a problem as all you need are the OG and ratios of the malts. Of course, if weights for each malt are given, then the ratios are inherent in them.

The Hop Bill - A Problem

For external recipes (non-BIABacus recipes) this is almost always a problem as the critical volume number is almost always missing - VAW (Volume of Ambient Wort).

VAW = VIF (Volume into Fermenter) + KFL (Kettle to Fermenter Loss)
This is the same as VFO once it is chilled (Volume at Flame-Out x 0.96)

Think of the hop bill as being tea leaves. Two heaped teaspoons of tea in a 500 ml full teapot will be making stronger tea than a 750 ml full teapot. The VAW tells us how much wort the hop bill has been 'diluted with. That is why it is the essential number.

For the BYO recipes, this becomes a much bigger problem. To me it also indicates a lack of understanding of how recipes work.

Although they haven't defined what they mean by "65% efficiecny" I've looked at their numbers and they mean EIK (Efficiency into Kettle). That 65% that 65% EIK is extremely low for an average gravity brew (say 1.050 OG). In fact, even if they meant EIF (Efficiency into Fermenter) which is always lower than EIK, it's still ridiculously low.

For example on the recipes that you're looking at are around 1.050 OG and I'd be expecting over 80% EIK and over 70% EIF.

If a magazine asked me to submit a recipe with 65% EIK, I'd knock it back as there's just too much room for distortion and misinterpretation. (I think the quote from Jamil at the bottom of this post indicates he may have been struggling as well.)

I think you are right

Nick, I think what you are proposing is the right way to go though - Use about 18.2 L for VAW (5/6 x 21.82 or 19 L * 0.96 or 5 gal * 0.96)

Numbers versus Principles

I think when looking at external recipes, an understanding of the common weaknesses and errors in the numbers and terminology is very helpful to have as it removes the blind faith we tend to put into non-BIABacus recipes. If we remove the blind faith, then we can instead look at the principles the recipe is trying to convey. For example we look at the malt ratios rather than the weights. For the hops, we look more at the varieties being used and when they are being used.

Of course, even if we are off on the numbers, the great thing about all-grain is that it is very hard to brew a crappy beer so you're always pretty safe.


Pat

Thanks for the thoughtful answer Pat. I think in the absence of anything else I'll go with 18.27L VAW if I'm really determined to try one of their recipes

It occurred to me BYO must be able to tell us more so I've kept hunting

I tracked out their 'recipe standardisation' information for what little it is worth and have attached it to this post. As we'll see they do indeed post based on 65% efficiency and they explain a bit on this. They also talk about their hop utilisation calculation here too.

Not satisfied to rest I've also just emailed them the below which I hope will shed some more light:

" Hello

I've searched a lot and couldn't get a clear answer. Could you please provide a few more specifics about the clone recipes published in BYO. The recipe standardization info did not make it clear.

For example in this Fullers recipe linked below (and most others) it says 5 gallons.

https://byo.com/aging/item/2318-fuller% ... -of-london

But is that 5 gallons of wort at flame out? or when the wort has cooled to ambient temperature? (which would be a little less volume since it shrinks when cooled) Or is that into the keg after fermentation?

Secondly what method is used to calculate the IBUs: Tinseth or Rager or??

thank you
"

PistolPatch wrote: ↑

8 years ago

For the BYO recipes, this becomes a much bigger problem. To me it also indicates a lack of understanding of how recipes work.

Although they haven't defined what they mean by "65% efficiecny" I've looked at their numbers and they mean EIK (Efficiency into Kettle). That 65% that 65% EIK is extremely low for an average gravity brew (say 1.050 OG). In fact, even if they meant EIF (Efficiency into Fermenter) which is always lower than EIK, it's still ridiculously low.

Hi Pat

I've been pondering your reaction to the 65% and have played around a bit in Biabacus, Brewers Friend online efficiency tool, and Beersmith2. Now I have a question; why would you think if BYO is citing EIF that 65% is "ridiculously low" ?

After poring over about 7 x of my last batches in Biabacus files I can see that Biabacus section P usually scores my EIF at between 67-71% so why is BYO so out of the ball park? My actual EIF on some batches was worse than estimated (mashed too high) and I'd scrape in around or below 65%.

Presumably I'm missing something but based on a lot of my recent BiaB brews and my use of Biabacus, 65% EIF sounds acceptable

cheers
Nick

Had a few random things pop up yesterday so am running a day behind now. In other words, I'll just race this answer off

Have a search of my posts here that contain the term, "poor cousin." There will be one there that should explain in detail the relationship between EIF and EIK (Efficiency into Fermenter and Efficiency into Kettle).

The byo recipes "Volume", we've determined as best we can, refers to VFO - Volume at Flame-Out (or maybe VAW - Volume of Ambient Wort = VFO x 0.96). Their "efficiency of 65% is not EIF, it is EIK. If they were quoting EIF, then their "Volume" would have to mean VIF (Volume into Fermenter).

VAW + EIF makes no sense
VIF + EIK makes no sense
VIF + EIF makes some sense but is very vague (see "poor cousin")
VAW + EIK is totally unambiguous

External brewing software (non-BIABacus) is so poorly termed and ambiguous that it can make sense on the surface. (It took several years in fact for some of us to see that there even was a major problem.)

Clear Your Mind

The funny thing is, if no brewing software existed before the BIABacus, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Extract efficiency is quite repeatable and the BIABacus estimates it for you. (The only time we would need to even mention "efficiency" would be in the case where a brewer was having a problem and we would use EIK and EIF as indicators.)

Let's go further...

Imagine that the first brewing software that ever came out did the following:

- Asked you to type in your kettle dimensions, desired VIF, desired OG and IBU
- Could handle any variation you threw at it
- Then, it auto-estimated everything for you

Imagine after using that you came across new brewing software that:

- Asked you to input evaporation rates, losses, extract efficiencies and VIF
- Assumed that the above would be the same for every brew
- Asked you to then fiddle weights of ingredients to match desired OG and IBU's
- Had vague terminology that could mean anything
- Took four time longer to use
- Had inaccurate formulas
- Could not handle variations from the normal
- etc

RULES

Efficiency into Kettle (and any other "efficiency figure) is a VARIABLE not a constant.

Normal brewing software cannot handle that fact (the maths/IT are just too hard). This has resulted in homebrewers believing "efficiency" is a constant. Terminology has led to a much bigger mess - EIK versus EIF.

Your Numbers Nick

Above you mentioned that you have been getting 67-71% EIF. That could be a perfectly acceptable number or it could be appalling. It depends on what you are brewing.

But, EIF is (looks like I am going to tell you) the poor cousin to EIK. It's a stupid number. It strays the brewer from reality. Why?

Because, the only thing that changes EIK into EIF is KFL (Kettle to Fermenter Losses). Okay, let me draw a table...

... Just spent 20 minutes on this table and it's going to be a goodie but might take me an hour or so. As I'm running way behind on stuff, finding that hour or so might take me a few days.

Hope there is enough above though for browsers, readers to absorb.

More later

Hey there

BYO replied; below is the email chain. I fear it will set Pat off But it is insightful for us all.

Dave at BYO seems like a nice guy but obviously is a bit RDWHAHB when it comes to recipe exactitude. He indicates their recipes are more for Extract and so their 5 gallons is VAW. They use Rager for IBUs.

I guess for me the morale of the story is take BYO recipes with a pinch of salt and understand their areas of low integrity.

*** Here's the first reply to my question above, then my reply, then his reply ***

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Dave Green wrote:

Hi Nick,
This is a great question and one I can partially fill you in with, but maybe not able to answer fully. First off I will say you that our recipes are standardized so that you can take a recipe that runs in the magazine and easily convert it to your system and what numbers you get on average when brewing.

Now I’m mainly an all-grain brewer, I always try to get end up with about 6.25 gallons in my kettle at the end of the boil (once the rolling boil has stopped). I don’t want the trub in my fermenter and want to get 5.5 gallons in my fermenter. You lose 4% volume to thermal compression during cooling...so I’m now down to ~ 6 gallons of wort & trub. I leave roughly 2 quarts between the trub and my chiller...so that gets me my 5.5 gallons in the fermenter and hopefully 5 gallons when the beer is finished.

Now oddly I find that my efficiency for my system works out nicely with those quantities found in the BYO recipes since BYO all-grain recipe standards are set at 65% extract efficiency and I typically achieve 75-85% efficiency (depending on starting gravity typically). So despite the discrepancies, those grain quantities work out surprisingly well for me to hit starting gravities.

Now for extract brewing...those numbers are meant to be a cold 5 gallons of wort. That means there should be roughly 5.2 gallons at the end of the boil or should be topped up to 5 gallons with water after chilling.

We use Rager formula. Hope that helps somewhat. Brewhouse efficiency though is something that is every brewer should eventually start to calculate on their own.

Cheers!
Dave Green
Advertising/Sales Manager/Assistant Editor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brew Your Own and WineMaker magazines
5515 Main St.
Manchester Center, VT 05255 USA

***
Hi Dave

thank you for the response. I brew All Grain via Brew in a Bag (BiaB) and have been puzzling over the BYO recipes with some more experienced brewers on the http://www.biabrewer.info/ forum

The reason we're especially keen to understand the Volume of Ambient temperature Wort (VAW) after the boil in BYO recipes is more to do with the hop bill than the grain bill. As you said knowing the OG and grain ratios you can convert a recipe to your own system no problem.... But for the hop bill, to reproduce someones recipe you really want to know at least the IBU method (Rager/ Tinseth) and more preferably the VAW as obviously 6 gallon VAW would dilute the hop flavour and bitterness differently to say 5 gallon VAW (which would have more pronounced flavour & bitterness).

I've seen Jamil Zainasheff reply to a member in a forum where he indicated he always submitted his recipes to BYO in the format of "...each recipe be for 5 gallons at end of boil and 65% efficiency."
So I was a bit surprised in your reply above where you mentioned for AG you tend to get 5 gallons Volume into Packaging (VIP) but for extract it's 5 gallon VAW, with the same OG and hop bill (which means extract brewers would end up with less beer into packaging and presumably more hop bitterness & flavour)!

I appreciate you taking the time to answer but I'm afraid I'm still a bit puzzled about the best interpretation of BYO recipes with regards to hops.... If there isn't a more clear answer from the people submitting the recipes(?) then I suppose the anecdotal evidence of your own brewing of these recipes which equates to 5 gallons VIP is something. I take it your beer hopping tastes right? :-)

The Biabrewer community takes a lot of pride in spelling out all aspects of a recipe clearly. If you're interested take a quick glance here where VAW and other terminology at every stage of a brew is defined. http://biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2685

Point taken on calculating your own Brewhouse efficiency. Your 75% is better than mine incidentally!

best regards and cheers
Nick Grunseit

**** Dave's last reply ****
Well as to the fitting pieces in the puzzle...I’ve been brewing for 18 years, at Brew Your Own magazine for 10 years now, and Recipe Editor for 3 years...and the BYO recipe standards were handed to me.
The only pieces I was allowed to move was to add whirlpool hopping IBU calculations and a correction on our SRM calculation. We’ve got over 1,000 recipes in our archives and to change standards now would be a monumental task. I’ve got my own system and calculations which is based on my reality when in the brewhouse and not on a recipe standard that was established 16 years ago. Personally when I post my recipes in online forums, I use percentages for my grain bill and IBUs per addition from my boil additions.

That said...I know how to take those numbers from the BYO recipe and convert them to my system. So the crux is to use the recipe specs found at the top of each recipe. Then it’s time to de-construct the recipe by using a calculator you trust (I have a few favorites including BeerSmith & BrewCipher, but we have in-house calculator here at BYO), and find the percentages in the grain bill and IBUs. Now it’s time to convert to your efficiencies and intended VAW. The step-by-step found in the BYO recipes, including volumes are really just rough guidance since every brewer has their own techniques and efficiencies. Unless otherwise stated I’ve always assumed it should be 5 gallons VAW since that is the way we calculate the extract recipes, but honestly we have not really focused on this aspect for all-grain brewers.

Finally, I hate to say it, but hopping is actually one of those areas I don’t get hung up by. I feel like there are so many variables that go into the bitterness of the beer like water chemistry, grain bill, yeast effects on the iso-alpha acids, etc...that when it comes to watching my IBUs, I more have an ‘acceptable range’. To be quite honest these days, I don’t even enter my hop additions into a calculator unless I’m posting it in the magazine or online. I just eyeball it. Personally feel like the IBU thing was been blown way out of proportion back 15-20 years ago when all the IBU calculations wars began (Rager v Tinseth v Garetz) and homebrewers are still feeling that ripple effect. Sure the difference between 1/2 oz of Warrior hops vs. an 1 oz at 60 minutes will make a difference in a 5 gallon batch, but 14 g vs 12 g...that one I’ll shrug at. That’s my personal take anyway. I tend to focus my efforts elsewhere in the brewing process including water calculations, volume control, yeast health and fermentation.

Guessing not the answers you’re looking for, but hope it helps with the basic premise behind the recipes in the magazine. Focus on the recipe specs and percentages and you should be good.

Cheers!
Dave Green

Well done Nick for investigating that. I'll have a more detailed read in the next few days but short on time as I got hung up writing the following...
Efficiency into Kettle (EIK)
Decreases as the Grain Bill Increases

EIK (or “extract efficiency”) drops as the grain bill (i.e. gravity) of the brew increases. The grain bill is like a dirty sponge that the brewer wants to wash the dirt (sugar) out of. The larger the sponge, not only is less water available to wash the sponge, the larger sponge retains more dirty water (“sweet liquor”) than a smaller sponge.

The amount of hops used in a brew does not affect EIK.

Kettle to Fermenter Loss (KFL) is what causes
the difference between Efficiency into Kettle (EIK) and Efficiency into Fermenter (EIF)

Both the amount of grain and the amount of hops used in the boil affect KFL as both cause kettle trub (silty debris). Similar to the sponge effect described above, the more trub there is, the less wort can be drained from the kettle.


[center]What Does Efficiency into Kettle Tell Us?[/center]


EIK is, basically, the percentage of “sugars” contained in the grain that we were able to extract into our sweet liquor. We measure the amount of sugar extracted by multiplying the volume of the sweet liquor by the density of the sweet liquor. (The more sugar in the sweet liquor, the denser the liquor becomes.) We call this density, specific gravity, and, depending on what stage of the brew we measure it, it has different names. (See BIABrewer.info “Clear Brewing Terminology” thread.)

In the above table, we can see that on the very low gravity brew, of all the sugar contained in the grain bill, we were able to extract 90% of it while in the very high gravity brew, we were only able to extract 70%.

NOTE: How the amount of “sugar” contained in a grain bill comes from “malt specifications.” Unfortunately, there are many, many, different formats for how maltsters express the amount of sugar in the grain. Brewing software takes care of this. All the brewer needs to know is the above concept.


[center]What Does Efficiency into Fermenter Tell Us?[/center]


EIF is a very poor cousin to EIK. The difference between EIK and EIF is simply a reflection of our Kettle to Fermenter Loss. Look at the very low OG brew with few hops in the table above. The EIK is 90% and the EIF is 85%. Let’s say that the Volume of Ambient Wort in the kettle (Volume at Flame-Out after chilling) was 20 L. If the EIF is 85%, all that means is that we left 1.1 L of trub in the kettle (85/90*20=18.9).

Look at the very high OG brew with many hops in the table above. The EIK is 70% and the EIF is 51%. Once again, let’s say that the Volume of Ambient Wort (VAW) was 20 L. We must have left 5.4 L of trub in the kettle (51/70*20=14.6).
It is much more sensible to look at Kettle to Fermenter Losses directly than by having them disguised within EIF.


[center]Traditional Brewing Software Vs The BIABacus
(Static versus Dynamic Brewing Software)[/center]


As you can see from the table above, there is a very large range between “efficiencies.” EIK ranges from 70% to 90% and EIF from 51% to 85%. Lowest EIF to highest EIK is a massive 39% difference.

Whilst done with the best of intentions, the earliest homebrewing software was programmed so that all calculations derived from an EIF figure and the user had to estimate that figure (usually 75% was recommended). This model was then replicated in other brewing software and the myth began that “efficiency” varies from system to system. The above table shows that it is not so much the system but the recipe that affects “efficiency” figures.

The BIABacus does not ask the user to type in any “efficiency” figure. It looks at the recipe and then estimates the EIK and KFL (EIF is derived from these). [EDIT: BIABacus Version 1.4 has improved KFL estimates that consider the hop bill.]

Hopefully the above table shows why there is so much misinformation on “efficiency.”

From the latest edition of the BYO -- Does this give more integrity to their recipes?

Thanks, Zoner! I thought it was confusing but I was hoping someone else might understand. C'est la vie