[Steve L]

I was sitting here plugging numbers into brewers friend water calc and a thought hit me. I figure my water adjustments based on total mash volume including the water lost from absorption to make sure my RA and PH are correct. But what about after sparging. Will my overall water adjustment be flawed due to the grain absorption water loss and should I be adjusting for this? (or am I splitting hairs). I typically do 2.5 gallon batches and my water loss to absorption is about 1/2 quart per pound of grain. so with my current brew that equates to about 3.25 quarts lost. Any suggestions are appreciated!

Thanks

[duboman]

I don't account for the grain absorption or losses but there is a difference between the water profile of the mash and the sparge. During the mash the grain will affect the pH of the strike water and that water will be adjusted to account for this. During the sparge, the water should be adjusted as well so the pH is in the proper range but the adjustment might be different to get the desired level.

I use Bru'n water and note that it allows for both mash and sparge adjustments and typically they are slightly different in what needs to be added.

Take my comments lightly as this is my basic understanding with a lot of learning to come, perhaps Martin or someone with a greater understanding can chime in:)

[Jimmy K]

Grain that absorbs water will also absorb dissolved minerals, so you don't need to worry that you are concentrating the minerals. 

Boiling would concentrate minerals. But I also think you can be confident that any recommended mineral levels are for total water volume and account for any loses during brewing.

[Steve L]

Grain that absorbs water will also absorb dissolved minerals, so you don't need to worry that you are concentrating the minerals. 

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

 Should I worry about calcium loss affecting fermentation/yeast health. I typically use the profile ranges from the Water book and go towards the high side of calcium for the style I'm brewing. I guess my biggest worry was enough minerals for proper fermentation.

[duboman]

IIRC, calcium should be at minimum 50ppm for yeast health. Yeast nutrient is also beneficial particularly for zinc.

[HoosierBrew]

+1 to all the above. ~ 50ppm Ca for ales, but often less works fine for lagers. I'm pretty sure I've seen Martin answer the question about grain absorption with a no. If you use Bru'nWater you'll estimate your pH very accurately.

[Steve L]

+1 to all the above. ~ 50ppm Ca for ales, but often less works fine for lagers. I'm pretty sure I've seen Martin answer the question about grain absorption with a no.

This may be why Brewers friend states that Total water volume may be more than mash and sparge volumes. cool. I'm gonna check out Martin's site.

[Jimmy K]

Grain that absorbs water will also absorb dissolved minerals, so you don't need to worry that you are concentrating the minerals. 

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

 Should I worry about calcium loss affecting fermentation/yeast health. I typically use the profile ranges from the Water book and go towards the high side of calcium for the style I'm brewing. I guess my biggest worry was enough minerals for proper fermentation.

Explained another way, if you start with 8 gallons of 50ppm calcium water and grain absorbs 1.5 gallons, you wind up with 6.5 gallons of 50ppm calcium water, so the mineral concentration status the same.

[HoosierBrew]

Grain that absorbs water will also absorb dissolved minerals, so you don't need to worry that you are concentrating the minerals. 

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

 Should I worry about calcium loss affecting fermentation/yeast health. I typically use the profile ranges from the Water book and go towards the high side of calcium for the style I'm brewing. I guess my biggest worry was enough minerals for proper fermentation.

Explained another way, if you start with 8 gallons of 50ppm calcium water and grain absorbs 1.5 gallons, you wind up with 6.5 gallons of 50ppm calcium water, so the mineral concentration status the same.

That was the explanation Martin gave IIRC. Pretty helpful.

[Steve L]

excellent. that's what I needed.