Scaling recipe in Beersmith - confused

[Mothman]

I'm scaling the recipe here: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=470698 to my own batch size and equipment, using the Scale function in Beersmith2, and I don't really understand what's going on, or if I'm doing it right.

What I did was enter the grain bill, hops, etc, into Beersmith, with the recipe set to a 5 gallon batch, using a basic all-grain equipment profile from Beersmiths included profiles. I think I chose a 5 gallon cooler + kettle AG profile.

I found I had to adjust the efficiency to 76% (I think... I'm at work right now, Beersmith is at home) to get the OG to match the recipe.

I then used the Scale function, choosing my own equipment profile (with my own set losses, my own batch size of 3.5 gallons, and my own set efficiency, 70%).

I enabled the option to have Beersmith match color, IBU, etc.

What I found is that, for example, the grains went from 4 lbs each of 2-row and wheat to something like 3.4 lbs of each (again, from memory).

I would have though that they would have scaled down closer to 3 lbs each...

4 X 3.5/5 = 2.8.... then scaled up for my lower efficiency ... approx 3 lbs.

The Honey malt scaled in a similar fashion... giving me somewhat higher than a linear scale.

Can someone explain what is going on here, or if I am not using the scale function correctly?

 

[Oginme]

I've found that trying to make a profile for someone else's system can be tedious and is often a hard way to go about scaling in BeerSmith. It is really hard to match their losses and actual mash/lauter efficiency without knowing those targets.

So here is what i do:

I open up a new recipe with my preferred equipment profile. Enter the recipe EXACTLY as it appears in the thread referenced. Don't change any of your target batch size or anything else related to your equipment or process, just enter the ingredients and the amounts as printed.

Now, go to the sliders below the recipe ingredient box on the design page. Click on the OG slider and enter the target from the printed recipe. Now do the same with the color slider and the IBU slider. Note that dry hopping will need to be adjusted manually, and I will ratio them based strictly on the ratio of batch sizes.

This may (or may not) give you answers close to what you got using the 'scale recipe' feature but it will be pretty close and will save you time trying to develop a new equipment profile that you will most likely not use again.

One of the reasons that the scaling is not linear will have to do with the volume losses in your process and where they occur. The Honey malt most likely was a bit higher than a linear scaling would have given you due to adjustments to reach the color aim since that is the only color malt in the recipe.

 

[Mothman]

Hmm, ok that's interesting... I actually never knew Beersmith had that slider edit function. Thanks for that!

I kind of thought the differences might have to do with losses... but my own losses are all fermenter losses... everything in the kettle goes to the primary, so I would have thought if anything, that might reduce the grain bill... but I'm a noob and easily confused. lol

Anyway, now I have a dilemma... doing it that way resulted in different values for grains and hops, which isn't a shock.

The grains came in fairly close between the two methods.

The hop schedule with the manual scale (as per Oginme's method) is consistently about 25% lower than the auto-scaled version.

So, which would you go with?

Perhaps the differences aren't significant at these small amounts (eg. hop schedules are different by amounts like 1/10th of an ounce).

 

[Sammy86]

I'm scaling the recipe here: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=470698 to my own batch size and equipment, using the Scale function in Beersmith2, and I don't really understand what's going on, or if I'm doing it right.



What I did was enter the grain bill, hops, etc, into Beersmith, with the recipe set to a 5 gallon batch, using a basic all-grain equipment profile from Beersmiths included profiles. I think I chose a 5 gallon cooler + kettle AG profile.



I found I had to adjust the efficiency to 76% (I think... I'm at work right now, Beersmith is at home) to get the OG to match the recipe.



I then used the Scale function, choosing my own equipment profile (with my own set losses, my own batch size of 3.5 gallons, and my own set efficiency, 70%).



I enabled the option to have Beersmith match color, IBU, etc.



What I found is that, for example, the grains went from 4 lbs each of 2-row and wheat to something like 3.4 lbs of each (again, from memory).



I would have though that they would have scaled down closer to 3 lbs each...



4 X 3.5/5 = 2.8.... then scaled up for my lower efficiency ... approx 3 lbs.



The Honey malt scaled in a similar fashion... giving me somewhat higher than a linear scale.



Can someone explain what is going on here, or if I am not using the scale function correctly?

When I'm trying to scale a recipe (which isn't very often mine you) I try to work with percentages in beersmith. I find this to work better with my equipment profile and I get better scaling numbers.

For the recipe you linked to it appears the percentages are as follows:

GW-2Row 45%
Wheat 45%
Honey 11%.

Once you have the percentages down you can adjust your hops accordingly.

 

[Oginme]

Hmm, ok that's interesting... I actually never knew Beersmith had that slider edit function. Thanks for that!

I kind of thought the differences might have to do with losses... but my own losses are all fermenter losses... everything in the kettle goes to the primary, so I would have thought if anything, that might reduce the grain bill... but I'm a noob and easily confused. lol

Anyway, now I have a dilemma... doing it that way resulted in different values for grains and hops, which isn't a shock.

The grains came in fairly close between the two methods.

The hop schedule with the manual scale (as per Oginme's method) is consistently about 25% lower than the auto-scaled version.

So, which would you go with?

Perhaps the differences aren't significant at these small amounts (eg. hop schedules are different by amounts like 1/10th of an ounce).

Here's the issue with trying to scale a recipe when you don't really know the original process: the original recipe may have been brewed on a system that has 99% mash lauter efficiency, but large volume losses post mash or may have very poor mash efficiency but no process losses at all. These will give vastly different outcomes when scaling the recipe.

Just to make sure, the FWH and the boil hops would have been scaled using the IBU slider, the only scaling of hops you would need to do is the flame out hops.

Since you are talking about 'tenths of an ounce', I would not sweat it. The IBU calculation is very imperfect as it is and trying to fine tune that is seldom worth the effort. Brew, taste, adjust, and brew again!

 

[pricelessbrewing]

Here's the issue with trying to scale a recipe when you don't really know the original process: the original recipe may have been brewed on a system that has 99% mash lauter efficiency, but large volume losses post mash or may have very poor mash efficiency but no process losses at all. These will give vastly different outcomes when scaling the recipe.

Just to make sure, the FWH and the boil hops would have been scaled using the IBU slider, the only scaling of hops you would need to do is the flame out hops.

Since you are talking about 'tenths of an ounce', I would not sweat it. The IBU calculation is very imperfect as it is and trying to fine tune that is seldom worth the effort. Brew, taste, adjust, and brew again!

Even worse, they may have had 85% brewhouse efficiency, and large mashtun losses, but before publishing they "standardized" their recipe to the standard 70% mash efficiency. But who knows how they scaled their recipe before publishing.

 

[Mothman]

Thanks everyone!