[duboman]

I typically sketch out my recipes on scratch paper with general calculations and ingredients and then input into BS to Refine and tweak. On brew day I just use my phone as a timer and paper to make any notes I need. Once evrythingnis done I'll log everything in when I get the chance

[HoosierBrew]

I typically sketch out my recipes on scratch paper with general calculations and ingredients and then input into BS to Refine and tweak. On brew day I just use my phone as a timer and paper to make any notes I need. Once evrythingnis done I'll log everything in when I get the chance

That's pretty much what I do. I'll come up with grist percentages and IBUs , enter it in BS and tweak if need be. Then it's the cell phone to time additions and I still like to write out notes as well.

[S. cerevisiae]

I have never used full-fledged brewing software, which is kind of weird given that my undergraduate and graduate (post-graduate in Brit terms) degrees are actually in the computer engineering side of computer science (let's say that I have slung my fair share of code during my career).  I find brewing software to be limiting, and the math encountered in brewing helps to keep my mind sharp.  Plus, I can start with my first brewing log from over twenty years ago, and see how I have progressed over the years.  From beer recipes to media recipes to fermentation observations,  dates, times, problems encountered, solutions to said problems, everything is my brewing logs.  I took Charlie P.'s recommendation to keep a brewing log to heart.

[tommymorris]

I wrote my own brewing spreadsheet. I have been updating it for several years. I think my spreadsheet compares favorably to many brew software programs.

I also own 3 brewing apps and Beersmith.

I am also a computer engineer. So I guess I go the other way from S. Cerevisiae.

I have spent lots of time puzzling out how the different programs make certain calculations in an effort to explain why the various software give different results for the same recipes. Dorky. But fun for me.

[S. cerevisiae]

I have spent lots of time puzzling out how the different programs make certain calculations in an effort to explain why the various software give different results for the same recipes. Dorky. But fun for me.

The problem you are experiencing is definitely not between the keyboard and the chair.  If the most popular brewing software package on the market does not compute apparent attenuation correctly, then there's little doubt in my mind that one or more of the remaining calculations leave something to be desired. 

The calculation that bothers me the most is extraction efficiency.  There's no way to know how efficient one's brew house actually is without knowing the exact dry basis, fine grind (DBFG) or hot water extract (HWE) values for every malt used in one's grist.  One cannot use a static table of theoretical maximums and expect the result to be more than a ballpark figure.  Furthermore, extraction efficiency as a percentage is of little practical use in a home brewing environment.  The only advantage that an extraction efficiency percentage offers over batch extraction rate in points per pound per gallon (PPG) is that an extraction efficiency percentage is a little more fine grained.  However, one pays a price for this increase in granularity; namely, extraction efficiency percentages are not directly useable when formulating recipes.  The only reason why they have become popular is because brewing software makes it easy to computes this value.

Let me give you an example.  If, over time, I determine that my average batch extraction rate is for the sake of simplicity 30 PPG, then all I need to do to determine how much grist I need per gallon of wort is to take the target gravity in points and divide by 30.  It's that simple.  If I want to make a 1.060 beer, I know that I need to use two pounds of grist per gallon of finished wort (i.e., 60 / 30 = 2).  One does not even need to resort to using paper and pencil for that calculation.

Another area where extraction rates in PPG blow efficiency percentages out of the water is adapting a recipe to one's brew house.  For example, SNPA has an O.G. of 1.053.  If we keep the brew house extraction rate of 30 PPG, we need to use 53 / 30 = 1.77lbs of grist per gallon of finished wort.  If we want to produce 6-gallons of finished wort, then our total grist weight will be 6 * 1.77 = ~10.6lbs.  Professional brewers like to quote recipes as percentages; hence, we simply need to apply the percentages to the total grist.  Let's say that SNPA is 95% 2-Row/5% C60.

pounds_of_2row = 10.6 * 0.95 = ~10.1lbs
pounds_of_C60 = 10.6 * 0.05 =  ~0.5lbs

I hope that forum members noticed that I never actually worked with a grist bill to derive this recipe.  I merely started with an O.G., a brew house extraction rate, a desired post-boil volume, and the percentage breakdown of the grist.  It's all simple arithmetic. 

Granted, there are more difficult calculations than the one I demonstrated above. However, there are rules of thumb that make determining these values fairly easy.  For example, one rule of thumb is that if one is mashing in a non-preheated typical cooler setup with a hot liquor to grist ratio of 1.25:1 (1.25 quarts per pound), then a good strike temperature is 19 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the desired rest temperature.  For those who are curious about how to calculate this value, I wrote a comprehensive post on how to calculate infusions in this thread: https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=19664.msg250406#msg250406

[JT]

I have spent lots of time puzzling out how the different programs make certain calculations in an effort to explain why the various software give different results for the same recipes. Dorky. But fun for me.

The problem you are experiencing is definitely not between the keyboard and the chair.  If the most popular brewing software package on the market does not compute apparent attenuation correctly, then there's little doubt in my mind that one or more of the remaining calculations leave something to be desired. 

The calculation that bothers me the most is extraction efficiency.  There's no way to know how efficient one's brew house actually is without knowing the exact dry basis, fine grind (DBFG) or hot water extract (HWE) values for every malt used in one's grist.  One cannot use a static table of theoretical maximums and expect the result to be more than a ballpark figure.  Furthermore, extraction efficiency as a percentage is of little practical use in a home brewing environment.  The only advantage that an extraction efficiency percentage offers over batch extraction rate in points per pound per gallon (PPG) is that an extraction efficiency percentage is a little more fine grained.  However, one pays a price for this increase in granularity; namely, extraction efficiency percentages are not directly useable when formulating recipes.  The only reason why they have become popular is because brewing software makes it easy to computes this value.

Let me give you an example.  If, over time, I determine that my average batch extraction rate is for the sake of simplicity 30 PPG, then all I need to do to determine how much grist I need per gallon of wort is to take the target gravity in points and divide by 30.  It's that simple.  If I want to make a 1.060 beer, I know that I need to use two pounds of grist per gallon of finished wort (i.e., 60 / 30 = 2).  One does not even need to resort to using paper and pencil for that calculation.

Another area where extraction rates in PPG blow efficiency percentages out of the water is adapting a recipe to one's brew house.  For example, SNPA has an O.G. of 1.053.  If we keep the brew house extraction rate of 30 PPG, we need to use 53 / 30 = 1.77lbs of grist per gallon of finished wort.  If we want to produce 6-gallons of finished wort, then our total grist weight will be 6 * 1.77 = ~10.6lbs.  Professional brewers like to quote recipes as percentages; hence, we simply need to apply the percentages to the total grist.  Let's say that SNPA is 95% 2-Row/5% C60.

pounds_of_2row = 10.6 * 0.95 = ~10.1lbs
pounds_of_C60 = 10.6 * 0.05 =  ~0.5lbs

I hope that forum members noticed that I never actually worked with a grist bill to derive this recipe.  I merely started with an O.G., a brew house extraction rate, a desired post-boil volume, and the percentage breakdown of the grist.  It's all simple arithmetic. 

Granted, there are more difficult calculations than the one I demonstrated above. However, there are rules of thumb that make determining these values fairly easy.  For example, one rule of thumb is that if one is mashing in a non-preheated typical cooler setup with a hot liquor to grist ratio of 1.25:1 (1.25 quarts per pound), then a good strike temperature is 19 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the desired rest temperature.  For those who are curious about how to calculate this value, I wrote a comprehensive post on how to calculate infusions in this thread: https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=19664.msg250406#msg250406

Good post.  Sometimes it is too easy to lean on software without understanding the logic beneath - I'm as guilty as the next guy.  That underlying logic often helps with on the fly decisions. 

[tommymorris]

I have spent lots of time puzzling out how the different programs make certain calculations in an effort to explain why the various software give different results for the same recipes. Dorky. But fun for me.

The problem you are experiencing is definitely not between the keyboard and the chair.  If the most popular brewing software package on the market does not compute apparent attenuation correctly, then there's little doubt in my mind that one or more of the remaining calculations leave something to be desired. 

The calculation that bothers me the most is extraction efficiency.  There's no way to know how efficient one's brew house actually is without knowing the exact dry basis, fine grind (DBFG) or hot water extract (HWE) values for every malt used in one's grist.  One cannot use a static table of theoretical maximums and expect the result to be more than a ballpark figure.  Furthermore, extraction efficiency as a percentage is of little practical use in a home brewing environment.  The only advantage that an extraction efficiency percentage offers over batch extraction rate in points per pound per gallon (PPG) is that an extraction efficiency percentage is a little more fine grained.  However, one pays a price for this increase in granularity; namely, extraction efficiency percentages are not directly useable when formulating recipes.  The only reason why they have become popular is because brewing software makes it easy to computes this value.

Let me give you an example.  If, over time, I determine that my average batch extraction rate is for the sake of simplicity 30 PPG, then all I need to do to determine how much grist I need per gallon of wort is to take the target gravity in points and divide by 30.  It's that simple.  If I want to make a 1.060 beer, I know that I need to use two pounds of grist per gallon of finished wort (i.e., 60 / 30 = 2).  One does not even need to resort to using paper and pencil for that calculation.

Another area where extraction rates in PPG blow efficiency percentages out of the water is adapting a recipe to one's brew house.  For example, SNPA has an O.G. of 1.053.  If we keep the brew house extraction rate of 30 PPG, we need to use 53 / 30 = 1.77lbs of grist per gallon of finished wort.  If we want to produce 6-gallons of finished wort, then our total grist weight will be 6 * 1.77 = ~10.6lbs.  Professional brewers like to quote recipes as percentages; hence, we simply need to apply the percentages to the total grist.  Let's say that SNPA is 95% 2-Row/5% C60.

pounds_of_2row = 10.6 * 0.95 = ~10.1lbs
pounds_of_C60 = 10.6 * 0.05 =  ~0.5lbs

I hope that forum members noticed that I never actually worked with a grist bill to derive this recipe.  I merely started with an O.G., a brew house extraction rate, a desired post-boil volume, and the percentage breakdown of the grist.  It's all simple arithmetic. 

Granted, there are more difficult calculations than the one I demonstrated above. However, there are rules of thumb that make determining these values fairly easy.  For example, one rule of thumb is that if one is mashing in a non-preheated typical cooler setup with a hot liquor to grist ratio of 1.25:1 (1.25 quarts per pound), then a good strike temperature is 19 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the desired rest temperature.  For those who are curious about how to calculate this value, I wrote a comprehensive post on how to calculate infusions in this thread: https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=19664.msg250406#msg250406

My biggest pet peeve on brewing software is water volumes. Water volume depends on the temperature of the water. Some softwares report water volumes at boiling temp, some at room temp, some mix it up. None of them tell you what temp the volume is calculated at.

[reverseapachemaster]

I feel confident I could do it without software if I had access to other resources that explained the formulas I needed to know but I would enjoy brewing a lot less for it. I know software is imperfect but I've used the same software for years and I know how its imperfections translate into beers and how to manipulate the software to give me the recipe that matches the idea for the beer.

[S. cerevisiae]

My biggest pet peeve on brewing software is water volumes. Water volume depends on the temperature of the water. Some softwares report water volumes at boiling temp, some at room temp, some mix it up. None of them tell you what temp the volume is calculated at.

Inconsistency in units of measure is a major problem with most brewing software.  It's one of the reasons why different brewing software packages produce different results for the same recipe and brewing process. Most of the popular brewing software packages started out as simple programs that performed one or more simple tasks.   Like most software, additional functionality has been grafted on with each new release.  Over time, brewing software authors end up with the brewing software equivalent of Microsoft Windows.  The market for brewing software, while larger than it once was, is not large enough to fund a complete redesign/rewrite that addresses poor choices that were made early in the software product life cycle; hence, most brewing software contains a lot of cruft.  While I am not a huge fan of Open Source Software (OSS) because I do believe that it negatively impacts entrepreneurship, there's something to be said about having many eyes reviewing a piece of source code.

[narcout]

I like using Beersmith 2, though it definitely has some features that to me seem superflous (which is fine, I just don't use them - for example, I know to heat my strike water 13 degrees higher than my desired mash temp regardless of what the software says).  It is nice to have everything in an electronic format that I can backup and access from anywhere, the unit conversions and hydrometer adjust tools are useful, and it makes it very easy to compare specs among various batches.  Also, my handwriting is terrible.

That said, I think I could brew just fine without it.  I always brew 6 gallon batches, so it's just a matter of looking at past batches to determine how many pounds of grain it takes to hit a particular OG.  You don't even need to bother with efficiency calculations, just look at how many pounds of grain it took you last time you brewed a 1.054 OG APA.

I also think I've brewed enough to look at a particular hop bill and know whether it's going to result in a beer with high, medium or low bitterness, hop flavor, and/or aroma. 

[S. cerevisiae]

I also think I've brewed enough to look at a particular hop bill and know whether it's going to result in a beer with high, medium or low bitterness, hop flavor, and/or aroma.

Exactly! 

[HoosierBrew]

I also think I've brewed enough to look at a particular hop bill and know whether it's going to result in a beer with high, medium or low bitterness, hop flavor, and/or aroma.

Exactly! 

+2.  Like the saying goes here, I tell the software what I want to do, not let it tell me what to do.

[homebrewgamecock]

I use ProMash and have been brewing for about 14 years.  I could do it without a PC, but I would need to reference my books.  Being that my brain is not all that math oriented, I prefer a brewing program to help my feeble brain work the calculations. 

[duboman]

I also think I've brewed enough to look at a particular hop bill and know whether it's going to result in a beer with high, medium or low bitterness, hop flavor, and/or aroma.

Exactly! 

+2.  Like the saying goes here, I tell the software what I want to do, not let it tell me what to do.

+3

[el_capitan]

I've been printing brewday sheets for the last 50 batches or so, along with online and hard drive storage.  A majority of these batches have been real winners to brew repeatedly, so I could easily go back through the logs and recreate something I've done before. 

But, if it was a new batch (and it often is) then I'd want all my tools to calculate water, etc.  Gotta keep on brewing my way through BCS, but Northern Brewer is rolling out some new kits that sound intriguing too.