Help with water and scaled mash

I'm at the point where I want to hone in on my water chemistry. I have a new Hanna phep 5 and am jonesing to try it out. I am looking to refine a recipe for a session pale ale that I really like. I'll start with my water profile:
Ca 32
Mg 8
Na 16.3
Cl 30
SO4 60.3
Alkalinity as CaCO3 27 (~33 as HCO3)
Ph 7.8
Non-carbonate hardness as 81 and total hardness at 108

Recipe is as follows:
16 lbs Pale Malt (2 Row) US (2.0 SRM) Grain 1 78.3 %
2 lbs 8.0 oz Vienna Malt (3.5 SRM) Grain 2 10.9 %
1 lbs 8.0 oz Caramel/Crystal Malt - 40L (40.0 SRM) 6.5%
1 lbs Carafoam (2.0 SRM) Grain 4 4.3 %

OG 1.048

The recipe is first wort hopped and all other hops are 20 mins to flameout.

Tomorrow I plan to do a scaled down mash.

I have read the Water Primer sticky and am a little unsure how I should proceed. I like the bitterness of this beer, so I'm assuming the sulfates in my water are of the appropriate levels. I'd love some feedback.

Since you like the bitterness of the beer and seem to generally like what you are brewing, the question is what are you trying to accomplish? I'd plug your numbers into EZwater or one of the other programs and see what it shows. Then do some adjustments based upon your goals and see what happens.

I would start with RO(Reversed Osmosis) water and make your adjustments from scratch.
RO water may be expensive and hard to find. Otherwise just run your current water source trough activated carbon and don't risk any adjustments on insufficent data.

I do like it but then again I've never tried any water or ph adjustments. I'm kinda curious what people think of my water and if they do anything different with it. The goal of this beer is to really showcase the hop aroma and flavor that come from the hop burst additions.

Revrin - I Am currently filtering the water through a charcoal filter. I'm not sure if you mean insufficient data regarding the water analysis, my goal, or the recipe?

I thinking that I should try the baseline water from the primer. I'll dilute 2:1 to get the sulfate and chloride below 20 mg/L. Make baseline water and add 1 tsp CaSO4 and 1 tsp CaCl2 per 5 gallons of water used. I think i should make the scaled mash without sauermalz addition to get an idea of where my ph is. I suppose it should be made with diluted water, but does it need to be treated with calcium and gypsum?

Well I made the scaled mash and got a ph 5.66 at 65F. I decided to try it with my unaltered tap water as a baseline. I will also brew with this water on Friday but will possibly lower my ph with sauermalz. Does this test seem valid? Now im wondering if 2% sauermaltz would be appropriate?

That water looks fine. The calcium is a little low and should be supplemented to bring it up to the 50 to 60 ppm range. The sulfate content is not ridiculous, so adding the calcium via a gypsum addition will be suitable, especially since the brewer wants a hoppy beer. Since the alkalinity is relatively low, it may be possible that acid malt may not be needed. Plug the info into Bru'n Water for an idea of how the water and grain are going to 'play together'. Adding the gypsum will also help depress the mash pH. If the indication from the program is in the 5.4 to 5.5 range, it will be fine.

It does not appear that RO or distilled water dilution is necessary for this brew, but may be warranted if a lighter or more delicate style is brewed. If a more malt focused perception is desired, then the dilution is probably needed.

Hmm, I plugged my info into Bru'n Water and it gives me a pH of 5.2 with existing water. If I adjust the water with 0.5g of gypsum the Ca goes up to 63 and Sulfate up to 134, however, the pH stays at 5.2. Also, it indicates that my Ion Balance is 1.12, unbalanced. I wonder if I did something incorrectly?

Hmm...I see that the report does produce an imbalance in the cations and anions. It is off more than desirable. But without better data (another test result), you pretty much have to go with it.

I see that you're from Columbus. Which Columbus? There are probably only about 50 in the US. If there are water utilities in the vicinity, possibly you could compare your results to their results and come to a conclusion where the error may lie. Clearly there is an error in the results shown above.

The mash pH should tend to drop from adding gypsum or CaCl. That indicated pH is already pretty low and should be avoided if possible. That water report indicates fairly low alkalinity, so the excessive pH drop is not a surprise. Another option to control the pH drop is to suppliment the calcium with chalk instead of gypsum. Chalk is tricky though. If you're using chalk without dissolving it into the water with CO2, then just add twice as much chalk as Bru'n Water indicates to add. That chalk only goes into the mash, not the sparge water.

The options are wide, so there are many ways to achieve an acceptable and desirable mash performance.

PS: The other option to the poor water profile results is to switch to EZ Water. Then you wouldn't know that there was anything wrong with the report. Ignorance is bliss!

I'm in Columbus Ohio. The mash pH calculated by Bru'n Water is much lower than the actual test mash I did. Im gonna trust that my test mash ph of 5.66 is accurate and assume my #'s from the city water dept are wrong and are skewing the calculated results. Ill send a sample to Ward Labs next week and see what I get.

pickles said:

The mash pH calculated by Bru'n Water is much lower than the actual test mash I did. Im gonna trust that my test mash ph of 5.66 is accurate and assume my #'s from the city water dept are wrong and are skewing the calculated results. .

Click to expand...

Your test mash result and apparent water report error suggest that most of the error is probably in the alkalinity and/or bicarbonate result. Assuming its all from the bicarbonate, the bicarbonate concentration would be more like 53 ppm instead of the indicated 33 ppm to get a balance in the cations and anions. That would move the mash pH up some.

It will be interesting to hear what Ward says. Given that its hearty Midwest water, I wouldn't be surprised if the alkalinity is higher.

Thanks Martin! I will report back with my Ward Labs report. I want to brew this morning, I'm gonna add 0.5g of gypsum per gallon of mash and sparge water. See anything wrong with that amount? This is my first adjustment ever and am a bit nervous.

I brewed this recipe Friday and I think it's gonna turn out well. I added 0.5 grams of gypsum to the mash and sparge water. I adjusted the mash to 5.33 with 3ml of lactic acid. It took me almost 20 min to get it dialed in cause I kept adjusting in increments til i got between 5.3 and 5.4 ph. I also adjusted the sparge ph but it was a disaster. I over adjusted the had to add back water and finally said screw it and went with 6.3 ph. My sparge water concentration of gypsum was diluted but oh well. Thanks for all the help!

Here is the Ward Labs report:

pH 7.7
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Est, ppm 167
Electrical Conductivity, mmho/cm 0.28
Cations / Anions, me/L 2.6 / 2.3

The following are reported in ppm:
Sodium, Na 13
Potassium, K 4
Calcium, Ca 29
Magnesium, Mg 7
Total Hardness, CaCO3 102
Nitrate, NO3-N 0.4
Sulfate, SO4-S 17 (SO4 51)
Chloride, Cl 21
Carbonate, CO3 < 1
Bicarbonate, HCO3 38
Total Alkalinity, CaCO3 31
Total Phosphorus, P 3.62
Total Iron, Fe < 0.01

I converted the SO4-S to SO4 not sure what else needs converted on a Ward Labs report.

The only other ion that would need conversion is nitrate. Considering how low the unconverted nitrate level is, you don't need to worry about it. That water should be pretty good for brewing.

In an earlier post I described the imbalance of cations and anions shown in Bru'n Water. You thought possibly the bicarbonate is actually higher than the city's reported level. It appears the level reported by Ward is slightly higher but not as high as you had expected. Do you have any thoughts on my earlier observations concerning the test mash and calculated values from Bru'n Water? I'm not at a computer right now so I can't it this new data into the program.

I don't see any inconsistencies here beyond what is normal. The difference between the sample analysis by Ward and the (doubtless) average values reported by the city are not large and typical of the differences between an ensemble and an ensemble member. The imbalance in the city report are typical and are a result of reporting average values and/or doing things like measuring alkalinity on Tuesdays and hardness on Thursdays. The imbalance in the Ward labs report is also typical for them. They do some strange things (like reporting sufate as sulfur though that's been accounted for). They also use an old approximation for bicarbonate which gives a fairly good result given that you don't know the sample pH but given that you do it is quite easy to calculate the bicarbonate accurately from the pH, the alkalinity and the end point pH used in the alkalinity titration. In this case they are reporting bicarbonate of 38 but their pH and alkalinity numbers say it is actually 34.9 (assuming an alkalinity end point titration pH of 4.3) to 36.7 (assuming an end point titration pH of 4.6).*

More to the point what you have seen with respect to mash pH is exactly what is to be expected for water like yours with a grist similar to the one you used. The test mash pH you observed is entirely normal and, as some acid is required for most beers to establish proper mash pH with the notable exception being those that use lots and lots of roast and/or dark crystal malts, your use of lactic acid was appropriate (as demonstrated by the fact that it brought your mash to the right pH). The discrepancy here between the spreadsheet and the measured pH is most probably a limitation of the spreadheet's model rather than an error in either the city's or Ward Lab's analyses (how likely is it that both would be wrong?). Always trust your pH meter before you trust any model but of course this requires that your pH meter is properly maintained, calibrated and operated.

*"Standard Methods", the water industry's analysis bible, says they may use any end point pH they like but that they must report which they use. They don't (and neither does anyone else).

Thanks guys, your knowledge is much appreciated! Ive sampled the hydro samples of the recipe above and it has a great hop flavor and a bit more bitterness than previous batches. I'm assuming the combination of pH control and more so adding sulfate have worked for me. I think this is gonna turn out well!

After plugging the new numbers into Bru'n Water I still see that my ions are unbalanced at a ratio of 1.17 and the estimated mash pH with the original grist is still 5.2 with no acid additions. Beats me

Anything you add is balanced as all salts have one unit of anion charge for every unit of cation charge. If you add balanced salts to an unbalanced profile then the result will be unbalanced. Example

Cations/Anions
Profile 5 6
Addition 4 4
Result 9 10

The imbalance will be less (as a percentage- i.e. the ratio will be smaller) the more you add but the imbalance will still be there.

I'm just wondering why the ions reported in my water are unbalanced. Its my understanding that they should be balanced, then again I could be way off.

They are pumping those tests out on a production basis. In addition, your water has only modest levels of ions. Minor testing and/or reporting errors will have a larger effect on the 'balance' for this water report. In addition, there may be other ions in this water that were not tested for by the lab. Rest assured, the water is balanced. Its just that we don't know what the true ionic content is.

In the case of brewing water, the primary concerns are the hardness (Ca, Mg) and the alkalinity (HCO3). If the rest of the ions are off, they only potentially affect the taste and not the mashing performance.

That Ward water report was off, but only by about 0.4 meq. Given that this is water with relatively modest ionic content, that error is OK. RDWHAHB.

pickles said:

I'm just wondering why the ions reported in my water are unbalanced.

Click to expand...

I answered that question in #17.

mabrungard - I am only concerned because I've tried to be diligent and not make assumptions. I clearly made an assumption in trusting Ward Labs report to be ironclad. I'm still reading and learning so bear with me. I really enjoy reading way you and ajdelange write and it all has been very helpful. The most recent beer (the one in the earlier conversations) is being kegged tomorrow and its terrific. In fact I seen better attenuation in this beer than in previous iterations of this recipe.

ajdelange - I remembered the part from your post regarding the city's report's shortcomings, but had forgotten you lumped Wards in the mix as well. Thanks again for your help, I know this wont be my last question. Sorry