![]() ![]() and like I said I usually get an ansorbtion rate of about 0.9! I have a 20L, I sparge, and I let my malt pipe drip into a pot until the boil is about to start. I'm really interested as to how we are getting such different absorbtion rates! This is my method to achieve my set of figures in the software. I allow my malt pipe to drain after sparging until the boil is about to commence and I start the brew with 25 litre in the BM and sparge the balance of the volume as indicated by the BS software. I know that some people just remove the pipe from the system without draining while some allow the malt pipe to drain right up until the boil is about to start. It will all go to giving you a different set of figures. I have made adjustments on my software in this area over 40 odd brews and I have found that 0.6600 is pretty close to what I achieve.Īllowing the malt pipe to drain exactly the same each time is paramount in gaining the same result each brew. Simple fact is, people are using too much water to allow for grain absorption. ![]() I think this anomaly goes a long way in peoples claims that the BM loses efficiency as the grain bill gets bigger. I found that 0.9600 was way out for my system and it wasn't until I selected "BIAB in the BS software that I achieved anywhere near accurate figures. I'd suggest that lifting the malt pipe and letting it drain compacts/squeezes the grain to a lesser degree than a lifting a bag would and therefore would guess that the BM absorption ratio would be somewhere between the two figures. The reason for the difference is that when the bag is lifted out of the pot it squeezes the grain and returns more water to the mash tun. In Beersmith grain absorption is set to 0.9600 fluid oz per oz of grain for normal sparging methods and 0.5860 fluid oz per oz of grain for BIAB. I was wondering what figures everyone was using for grain absorption? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |