Avangard malz potential extract

[ziggy13]

I've been using Avangard malt for a while now and it's a fairly good price. I use their Pale Ale, their Pilsener and their Wheat. However my efficiency has not been coming out where I want it to. I can't seem to find any information regarding what to enter into Beersmith for the potential extract. I'm currently just entering it at US Pale 2 row malt but I don't think that's right. Beersmith has it as 1.036 SG.

Anyone know where I can figure this out at?

 

[motobrewer]

are you buying by the sack? if so, get your lot number and email the company for a lot analysis.

if not, email the company the general timeframe when you purchased and they might be able to get a ballpark lot for you.

 

[theheroguy]

I can't speak for those but I know I got great extract potential with their munich malt. Higher than I usually do.

 

[Qhrumphf]

A quick googling turned this up for Avangard Pilsner: http://onlinebeerscores.com/blog/avangard-pilsner-malt/

But the actually malt analysis for that particular lot will certainly be better. My LHBS subbed a lot of Avangard where they used to get Weyermann and I haven't been happy with the change. Fortunately they still stock full Weyermann sacks and most of their specialty grains, but no smaller bags of Weyermann base malts (which sucks when I only need a pound or two of Munich or Vienna).

 

[ziggy13]

Qhrumphf I actually have documents for my lot that list all of that information you linked to, however beersmith is asking for a number like an SG reading...right now it's 1.036 for US Pale 2 Row. I don't know how to get that number from the information on that link. Does that make sense?

 

[doug293cz]

Qhrumphf I actually have documents for my lot that list all of that information you linked to, however beersmith is asking for a number like an SG reading...right now it's 1.036 for US Pale 2 Row. I don't know how to get that number from the information on that link. Does that make sense?

The two numbers you need are the first two in the table.



The dry basis extract potential is 81%. Since the 100% point potential is 46.17, your dry basis potential is 0.81 * 46.17 = 37.4 ppg. But, you have a max moisture of 4.5%, so let's assume 4% typical. Then your as-is potential would be (1 - 0.04) * 37.4 = 35.9 ppg. Or, 1.0359 in SG form.

I'm not sure if BS expects (and its database numbers are) dry or as-is basis, or if it is even consistent with dry vs. as-is.

Brew on

 

[Qhrumphf]

The two numbers you need are the first two in the table.

View attachment 321569

The dry basis extract potential is 81%. Since the 100% point potential is 46.17, your dry basis potential is 0.81 * 46.17 = 37.4 ppg. But, you have a max moisture of 4.5%, so let's assume 4% typical. Then your as-is potential would be (1 - 0.04) * 37.4 = 35.9 ppg. Or, 1.0359 in SG form.

I'm not sure if BS expects (and its database numbers are) dry or as-is basis, or if it is even consistent with dry vs. as-is.

Brew on

I knew someone would come in and provide that info before I could respond.

I've always found this helpful when it comes to malt analysis sheets: http://morebeer.com/brewingtechniques/bmg/noonan.html

 

[ziggy13]

The two numbers you need are the first two in the table.

View attachment 321569

The dry basis extract potential is 81%. Since the 100% point potential is 46.17, your dry basis potential is 0.81 * 46.17 = 37.4 ppg. But, you have a max moisture of 4.5%, so let's assume 4% typical. Then your as-is potential would be (1 - 0.04) * 37.4 = 35.9 ppg. Or, 1.0359 in SG form.

I'm not sure if BS expects (and its database numbers are) dry or as-is basis, or if it is even consistent with dry vs. as-is.

Brew on

Thanks man! Only thing I don't understand is the 46.17. Where did that number come from?

 

[Qhrumphf]

Thanks man! Only thing I don't understand is the 46.17. Where did that number come from?

The link that I gave uses a slightly different constant (46.21). But I'm assuming that that's a constant used to convert to what would be present if the barley were pure sugar (makes sense in my mind knowing that pure sugar is usually ~1.045, figuring slight impurities would make it 1.046). Obviously, grain is not pure sugar, so if the max extract potential is 80%, you're taking 80% of that figure (minus moisture content and all the other stuff in there). Now, that's determined in a laboratory mash and you're highly unlikely to extract that much (and if you are, you're more than likely oversparging)

 

[ziggy13]

The link that I gave uses a slightly different constant (46.21). But I'm assuming that that's a constant used to convert to what would be present if the barley were pure sugar (makes sense in my mind knowing that pure sugar is usually ~1.045, figuring slight impurities would make it 1.046). Obviously, grain is not pure sugar, so if the max extract potential is 80%, you're taking 80% of that figure (minus moisture content and all the other stuff in there). Now, that's determined in a laboratory mash and you're highly unlikely to extract that much (and if you are, you're more than likely oversparging)

Got it, so that number is basically a constant value I can use to determine the extract potential for all types of malt?

 

[Qhrumphf]

Got it, so that number is basically a constant value I can use to determine the extract potential for all types of malt?

Key word there was assumption but yes I think so

 

[doug293cz]

Got it, so that number is basically a constant value I can use to determine the extract potential for all types of malt?

Yeah. It's the gravity potential of pure sucrose. All of our gravity measurements are based on sucrose equivalent. I think that's because all of the early detailed research on gravity vs. concentration (specifically by Brix and Plato) was done on sucrose, as maltose is very hygroscopic, and therefore difficult to precisely weigh. The number is usually just reported as 46, with no decimal places. I calculated 46.173 from the Plato (weight % sugar in solution) vs. SG relationship. Not sure where the 46.214 in the MoreBeer article came from. In any case, the difference is much smaller relatively than the errors involved in all of the other measurements.

Brew on