brew_darrymore
Well-Known Member
I think the accepted convention when measuring mash pH is at room temperature. The acceptable range of mash pH at room temperature is 5.2-5.5.
A Brewing Water Chemistry Primer
- Thread starter Yooper
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
- Status
I think the accepted convention when measuring mash pH is at room temperature. The acceptable range of mash pH at room temperature is 5.2-5.5.
MagicMatt
Brewmathemagician
I believe that range (5.2-5.5) is in the middle of the mash temps/room temps range. Due to the possibility of ruining your pH meter, the mash pH shouldn't be taken at mash temps. Therefore, the whole idea of "pH at mash temps" is fruitless, because no one should be measuring at that temp. The only pH measurement we're worried about is the one we read, which should be at room temps. Yes, it is true that for best conversion, etc, the mash pH (at mash temps) should be around 5.1-5.4. This equates to a room temp pH of about 5.3-5.6. As such, the range we are looking for when measuring a room temp sample is generally 5.3-5.6, which would indicate a mash pH of 5.1-5.4.
Here's one very detailed article regarding this dilemma:
Source: http://braukaiser.com/blog/blog/2011/03/02/about-ph-targets-and-temperature/
brew_darrymore
Well-Known Member
I trust Martin Brungard who says the opposite that mash ph is measured at room temperarure:
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showpost.php?p=5043533&postcount=2
From the same thread above:
Last edited:
MagicMatt
Brewmathemagician
Perhaps AJ can chime in. I think we're on the same page, but you contradicted yourself. Also the link you posted is completely in line with what I said.
From the link:
Adding the ~0.3 correction factor for a room temp sample, this would indicate a room temp pH range of 5.3 - 5.7.
I said:
You said:
Newbie here when it comes to water treatment. Interested in trying to nail down my mash efficiencies.
Thanks for an informative thread.. I am admittedly not all the way through the many replies, so please forgive if clarification on the above is buried in a post somewhere.
Does one add 2% sauermalz (acidified grain) to the overall grain bill, or does one replace 2% of the grain by weight?
If it's "replace", my assumption would be that you replace whatever is considered the base grain (2-row, etc..), correct?
Finally, I don't yet have a pH meter.. are the strips accurate enough that aiming for a 5.2-5.5 range should be measurable?
Thanks.
As you are not a commercial operation (I assume) your first concern should be for the quality of the beer rather than the efficiency. How much does an extra pound of malt cost?
It probably is but no matter.
Let's try it both ways:
1) Add: 100 lbs grist + 2% sauermalt means the sauermalz is 2/102 = 1.96%
2) Replace: 100 lbs grist, replace 2 lbs with sauermalz. Sauermalz is 2/100 = 2.00%
Sauermalz isn't just lactic acid. It is also fairly lightly kilned malt and adds, therefore, its own malt flavors (which is one of the reasons for using it). So you can replace either some of the base malts or some of the lighter colored crystal/caramel malts. Personally, I formulate the beer without consideration of the sauermalt, then figure out how much I need and add it.
No, not really.
brewski09
Well-Known Member
Repeatability. If the OP can nail down the efficiency and make it repeatable then they can repeat the process and make the same beer or tweak a specific part and get comparable results to previous brews. Also, OP didn't say higher efficiency, just "nail it down". To me repeatability leads to quality.
Well, I'm not necessarily trying to improve my efficiency to some insane level, I'm trying to get it nailed down... that is: repeatable.
At the same time, my understanding of this thread is that the water quality affects the overall quality of the beer (as evidenced by different treatments for different styles of beer), no?
So, if I can do that, I'm happy. If I also improve my mash efficiency along the way, that would be a bonus.
Thanks for the replies.
MongoloidMormon
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabrungard View Post
I guess my recommendation for non-minerally and non-British ale styles would be to add only a 1/2 tsp of each salt and you will still have about 50 ppm Ca. For lagers, you are probably better off with only a 1/2 tsp of calcium chloride in 5 gal.
I've been using the primer for years, and while my beers are good, I always thought there was an odd mineral taste. I just tried brewing with the Bru'n water spreadsheet and adding a tsp each of CaCl and Magnesium Sulfate put my numbers into the red for a pale ale profile. I just read through 120 pages of this primer to see if this was addressed, and finally, here it is. Please, please, please have Yooper update the primer so that others can avoid this problem.
Originally Posted by mabrungard View Post
I guess my recommendation for non-minerally and non-British ale styles would be to add only a 1/2 tsp of each salt and you will still have about 50 ppm Ca. For lagers, you are probably better off with only a 1/2 tsp of calcium chloride in 5 gal.
I've been using the primer for years, and while my beers are good, I always thought there was an odd mineral taste. I just tried brewing with the Bru'n water spreadsheet and adding a tsp each of CaCl and Magnesium Sulfate put my numbers into the red for a pale ale profile. I just read through 120 pages of this primer to see if this was addressed, and finally, here it is. Please, please, please have Yooper update the primer so that others can avoid this problem.
While I personally agree that 1 tsp gypsum per 5 gal is way too much it is, at the same time, about half of what a lot of people want so I'm not sure I would edit it if I could. The Primer is and always has been intended to serve as a stepping off point. As such you should have tried tasting the finished beers with additions of CacCl2 and CaSO4 from which you should have concluded that more sulfate is not the direction you wanted to go and tried some brews going in the other direction. Could I edit I would probably emphasize this point more strongly.
copper2hopper
Well-Known Member
Why is it that every time I build a water profile with Brun Water I ALWAYS end up with negative RA. I know I'm plugging everything in right but I guess I just want to know is having a negative RA in my final water profile ok or a concern I should be worried about? Having a negative RA is the ONLY way I can compromise to bring my ph within range. Please let me know! Thanks!
The Primer thread deals with a KISS approach to preparing brewing water which does not consider RA or spreadsheets and calculators. So the proper answer here is that RA does not have relevance when using the Primer's approach. Don't pay any attention to it.
I see you posted the same question in another thread. That is more appropriate and I'll address the question there.
I see you posted the same question in another thread. That is more appropriate and I'll address the question there.
I also get negative RA values when using Bru'n Water and EZ Watercalculator and my beers taste just fine so it's something I don't concern myself with. But thank you for sharing the question, I wonder the same thing maybe someone can explain it to us.
I explain it (or try to) at https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=577997&page=4
I like the kiss principle to water treatment advocated in this thread. I live in Denver and have spoken to many of the local craft brewers. Few to none treat their water. By treatment I mean adding minerals or acids (to reduce HCO3). Maybe we have "perfect water". So I'm wondering about the need to create water profiles that match famous brewing regions or accent say hops.
However, in the interest of experimenting does the following make sense?
Obtain a sample of a local ale (or use my own) and dose that sample with CaCl2 and/or CaSO4 to varying levels and seeing at what point I can detect an effect. Or if I even like the effect.
My measurements of Denver system water is Ca=30, Na=20, Cl=30, SO4=40, HCO3 (as CaCO3)=50. It varies somewhat over the year (mostly the Cl and SO4), but not much. Our water is mostly collected snow melt and rain off the front range.
I have a scale that can measure to within 0.01 grams so knowing what I added to say an 8 oz sample should allow fairly high accuracy. Does the mashing/fermentation process remove significant levels of minerals so that if I treat mash/sparge to one level the finished level(s) are much different causing errors in my proposed experiment?
Separately, say I wish to add Ca, but don't want the Cl or SO4. Could I add CaCO3 then knock back the increased HCO3 via the addition of a neutral flavor acid like phosphoric? I may wish to only add only 70 ppm Ca. I have pipettes as small as 1 ml and a pH meter.
However, in the interest of experimenting does the following make sense?
Obtain a sample of a local ale (or use my own) and dose that sample with CaCl2 and/or CaSO4 to varying levels and seeing at what point I can detect an effect. Or if I even like the effect.
My measurements of Denver system water is Ca=30, Na=20, Cl=30, SO4=40, HCO3 (as CaCO3)=50. It varies somewhat over the year (mostly the Cl and SO4), but not much. Our water is mostly collected snow melt and rain off the front range.
I have a scale that can measure to within 0.01 grams so knowing what I added to say an 8 oz sample should allow fairly high accuracy. Does the mashing/fermentation process remove significant levels of minerals so that if I treat mash/sparge to one level the finished level(s) are much different causing errors in my proposed experiment?
Separately, say I wish to add Ca, but don't want the Cl or SO4. Could I add CaCO3 then knock back the increased HCO3 via the addition of a neutral flavor acid like phosphoric? I may wish to only add only 70 ppm Ca. I have pipettes as small as 1 ml and a pH meter.
This is an almost philosophical question. In general you do want a profile but the needed profiles are not anywhere like as narrow as some would have you believe. The usual examples are Bohemian Pils and Burton ales. The former are made with very soft water that is also very low in sulfate. The latter with very hard water that is very high in sulfate. If you try to brew a Pils with Burton water you will be very disappointed in the result as the high sulfate will destroy the fine bitterness of the hops varieties used for these beers. If you try to brew a Burton Ale with Pisen-like water you may not be equally repulsed but you are likely to be disappointed in the was the East Anglian hops used in those beers present in the final product. That said, you have wide flexibility in how hard the water you use to brew a Pilsner beer is and what it chloride content may be. The traditional Pilsner has a very low mineral quality. Personally, I like what a bit of extra chloride does to it. The beer becomes richer and fuller but at the same time less traditional.
If you have been reading here you will see exactly that recommended frequently.
Not sure what you mean by HCO3 (as CaCO3)=50. Strictly speaking that means you have 1 mEq/L bicarbonate which means 61 mg/L implying, if your pH is in the mid range that you measured alkalinity of 50 (which is, I'm guessing) what you really mean here that it took 5 drops from a drop count kit to turn your sample color. Also curious as to how, given that the water is mostly snow melt, you got such high sulfate and how you measured it (which I suspect may be how it got so high).
Some calcium and magnesium are precipitated but more is added (from the malt).
It is perhaps because of the added minerals that taste tests in the glass can only be used as a guideline. E.G., you like what you taste when calcium sulfate is added to the taste sample and you like it even better when more is added. This is an indication that your beer will be better when brewed with a higher sulfate water. It is tempting to assume that if the beer tasted best with and additional 100 mg/L SO4 that you should simply add the 100 mg/L sulfate to both mash and sparge water. Same for chloride. It is those two ions that provide most of the flavor effects. In such a case augmenting sulfate with 100 mg/L in mash and sparge is probably a reasonable thing to do for the next beer but a more conservative approach would be to increment by 50 mg/L and repeat the taste tests on this new beer.
Yes, you can do that. You are, in such a case, really adding calcium biphosphate. If you get into the profile chasing thing you should be aware that the popular brewing programs which offer profiles usually have quite a few that require you to do exactly this in order to realize the calcium and sodium levels they think you should have for some beers. However you arrive at the conclusion you should use calcium biphosphate or calcium lactate be aware that the anion comes with the calcium. Given that you will probably require more acid for your malt you may wind up with quite a bit of the anion in the beer.
Water chemistry has many old holdovers. One is referencing ions to "as CaCO3" allowing easy calculations. A value for HCO3 of 50 (as CaCO3) is the same as a value of 61.
I have several LaMotte test kits. One measures Na, but provides intermediate measurements yielding Total Alkalinity, SO4 combined with CL, and Ca combined with Mg. An additional kit measures Ca, allowing me to disentangle Mg. A third kit measures Cl, allowing disentanglement of SO4. The kits like to speak in "as CaCO3" terms. Thus my use.
The kits use titration and color change indicators. Using a hypodermic needle to significantly reduce added "droplet" size my accuracy is limited only by my ability to say the color changed the correct amount. Adding a few droplets more confirms the color change and bounds the resulting value.
I don't know why SO4 is as high as it is. It may be do to the subtraction of intermediate numbers or the water collection system. We can't hold all the snow melt, so much is stored in reservoirs for use throughout the year.
I like the idea of walking the minerals in slowly, like 100 ppm after the fact, so add only 50ppm in the mash/sparge.
I see your point about the anion. Typically my water has HCO3 of 61. Via titration with 0.1N Sulfuric Acid I can develop a curve mapping pH to remaining HCO3 (down to ~0). I then add phosphoric or lactic acid (dependent on beer style) to mash and sparge water to hit the pH for the desired HCO3 I wish to leave. Typically for phosphoric (10%) it may be 10ml and lactic (88%) 2ml per 5 gals.
I take it your point is that I may need to add much more acid (thus the high anion) to overcome the additional HCO3 resulting from the added CaCO3.
I may do the experiment. But given my Ca levels, ~30 ppm as is, aren't causing poor mashes (I'm hitting my mash pH, mash conversion eff is low 90%, yeast att is were it should be, etc.) I may just stay with the Kiss principle here.
I have several LaMotte test kits. One measures Na, but provides intermediate measurements yielding Total Alkalinity, SO4 combined with CL, and Ca combined with Mg. An additional kit measures Ca, allowing me to disentangle Mg. A third kit measures Cl, allowing disentanglement of SO4. The kits like to speak in "as CaCO3" terms. Thus my use.
The kits use titration and color change indicators. Using a hypodermic needle to significantly reduce added "droplet" size my accuracy is limited only by my ability to say the color changed the correct amount. Adding a few droplets more confirms the color change and bounds the resulting value.
I don't know why SO4 is as high as it is. It may be do to the subtraction of intermediate numbers or the water collection system. We can't hold all the snow melt, so much is stored in reservoirs for use throughout the year.
I like the idea of walking the minerals in slowly, like 100 ppm after the fact, so add only 50ppm in the mash/sparge.
I see your point about the anion. Typically my water has HCO3 of 61. Via titration with 0.1N Sulfuric Acid I can develop a curve mapping pH to remaining HCO3 (down to ~0). I then add phosphoric or lactic acid (dependent on beer style) to mash and sparge water to hit the pH for the desired HCO3 I wish to leave. Typically for phosphoric (10%) it may be 10ml and lactic (88%) 2ml per 5 gals.
I take it your point is that I may need to add much more acid (thus the high anion) to overcome the additional HCO3 resulting from the added CaCO3.
I may do the experiment. But given my Ca levels, ~30 ppm as is, aren't causing poor mashes (I'm hitting my mash pH, mash conversion eff is low 90%, yeast att is were it should be, etc.) I may just stay with the Kiss principle here.
It actually makes calculations harder because it only makes them easier when calcium carbonate was dissolved by CO2 and that's usually not the case. Anyway, "as CaCO3" is applied to magnesium and calcium hardness and to alkalinity - not bicarbonate in general but popular spreadsheets often assume bicarbonate and alkalinity to be the same thing which they aren't except in a certain range of pH. I wanted to be sure what you meant (and I still am not).
Actually it is measuring the totality of the cations which, as they must be equal to the anions then call the totality of the sulfate and chloride which they are assuming is all the anions but there can be appreciable nitrate and some phosphate in there too. That wouldn't throw off the sodium reading because, as I said, they are going to subtract magnesium and calcium from the total cations and assume the only think left is sodium. The sodium reading will, thus, be off if potassium, iron or manganese are present of which only potassium is likely to make an appreciable difference. Strontium (of which there won't be much if any) will be picked up as 'hardness' and should not make much difference.
Yes. I see that. Sulfate "as CaCO3" is technically OK but just leads to so much confusion. So much clearer if they used mEq/L.
Lamotte also makes a kit for brewers in which chloride, sulfate, alkalinity and sulfate are measured ant the sodium assumed to be responsible for any charge imbalance (what it necessary to zero the sum of hardness - alkalinity - chloride - sulfate. In the test you describe it is assumed responsible for the cation charge not accounted for by hardness. This gets the sulfate (as read by the BaCl2 Secchi disk test of the brewer's kit) out of the equation and has got to give a much more accurate sodium reading. Pretty clever, actually.
As I mentioned above 'B' is actually the sum of chloride, sulfate, nitrate, nitrite, biphosphate, fluoride so what you are calling 'sulfate' is actually the sum of sulfate, nitrate, nitrite, biphosphate, and fluoride.
I like the idea of walking the minerals in slowly, like 100 ppm after the fact, so add only 50ppm in the mash/sparge.
I am taking that to mean that your water's alkalinity is 1 mEq/L (50 ppm as CaCO3).
Via titration with 0.1N Sulfuric Acid I can develop a curve mapping pH to remaining HCO3 (down to ~0).
See https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=473408
for formulas you can use to calculate the amount of carbo present in a liter, of your water, its titration curve and, thus, exactly how much acid it takes to get a volume of your water to a given pH. There is never any need to consider pH below mash pH as you wont ever be going to such a pH.
Jiffster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2015
- Messages
- 806
- Reaction score
- 109
ajdelange,
You had posted a response to another thread of mine a while back stating that you will be revising the primer at some point and suggested for now to cut the recommendations in half except for the sauermalz.
I failed to ask if the half is just from the baseline or if the deviation to the baseline states "1/2 teaspoon " then I should make that 1/4 teaspoon?
Baseline: Add 1 tsp of calcium chloride dihydrate (what your LHBS sells) to each 5 gallons of water treated. Add 2% sauermalz to the grist.
Deviate from the baseline as follows:
For soft water beers (i.e Pils, Helles). Use half the baseline amount of calcium chloride and increase the sauermalz to 3%
For beers that use roast malt (Stout, porter): Skip the sauermalz.
For British beers: Add 1 tsp gypsum as well as 1 tsp calcium chloride
For very minerally beers (Export, Burton ale): Double the calcium chloride and the gypsum.
You had posted a response to another thread of mine a while back stating that you will be revising the primer at some point and suggested for now to cut the recommendations in half except for the sauermalz.
I failed to ask if the half is just from the baseline or if the deviation to the baseline states "1/2 teaspoon " then I should make that 1/4 teaspoon?
Baseline: Add 1 tsp of calcium chloride dihydrate (what your LHBS sells) to each 5 gallons of water treated. Add 2% sauermalz to the grist.
Deviate from the baseline as follows:
For soft water beers (i.e Pils, Helles). Use half the baseline amount of calcium chloride and increase the sauermalz to 3%
For beers that use roast malt (Stout, porter): Skip the sauermalz.
For British beers: Add 1 tsp gypsum as well as 1 tsp calcium chloride
For very minerally beers (Export, Burton ale): Double the calcium chloride and the gypsum.
All mineral amounts should be halved i.e. where the baseline calls for a tsp. use a half. For places where doubling the baseline is recommended double the new base line (1/2 * 2 = 1 tsp).
Is this meant to be an overall adjustment to the Primer? Or just an adjustment to a particular situation Jiffster posted??
If it's for an overall adjustment, hopefully the original post will be edited accordingly for posterity...
Yes, for the whole primer. I've been saying for quite a while that it should be redone as tastes seem to be for the less minerally now and Yooper has asked me to redo it. It will be the first of my projects when I get up north in a couple of weeks.
Wouldn't putting less of the salts bring the pH up? Should there be more of the acid malt added?
Not appreciably and, therefore, no.
How is it not applicable? We add gypsum and sodium chloride to the water and it brings the pH down. If you put less of the salts the pH will be higher.
appreciable
Not appreciably.
Do some calcs using one of the spreadsheets. How much calcium does it take to lower the pH of the mash by 0.05 pH according to the spreadsheet? Now double that number. Kohlbach's finding was for knockout wort and the effect, therefore, is less for the mash. As a fascinating illustration of not being able to see the forest for the trees I translated Kohlbach's paper and failed to notice that point!
Kohlbach found that each mEq Ca++ released 1/3.5 mEq of protons to knockout. I guess that in the mash it's probably half that. I you wan't to take this into account in your calculation then go ahead and do so but it is not consistent with the concept of the primer.
To be more concrete with an example I happen to have a beer with mostly base malt and some dark caramel in my spreadsheet at the moment. With 1 tsp CaCl2 in 5 gal the sauermalz requirement for mash pH 5.4 was 2.8%. With half that miich (1/2 tsp per 5 gal) it goes up to 3.1%. At the level of accuracy of the Primer that is 3% in either case.
It is a good question but the answer is that it doesn't matter enough to be worrying about at the Primer level.
Ah ok, I misunderstood or first response (I thought it was an autocorrect issue). Makes sense!
OP
OP
It's a light non-hoppy beer. Using calcium chloride and no gypsum would be great.
Jiffster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2015
- Messages
- 806
- Reaction score
- 109
I've been having a hard time understanding water additives. I use brewersfriend as my software, this will be for a cream ale found here on the site, using 100 ro water with the light and malty profile loaded. Does this seem correct?
I'd use less gypsum and more calcium chloride.
brewbama
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,737
- Reaction score
- 2,499
For British beers: Add .5 tsp gypsum as well as .5 tsp calcium chloride. Is this in addition to the base .5 tsp calcium chloride already in the baseline? Or is this .5 tsp gypsum + .5 tsp calcium chloride total?
What would be the benefit of doing that? i guess i need to do more reading so I have a better understanding of what those two things change
Gypsum (sulfate) aids in the accentuation of hops in hoppy beers. Since this is a cream ale, I assume you don't want it to be overly hoppy. Chloride aids in bring out slightly more malt flavors.
Ah ok, thank you very much for clearing that up for me!
Sulfate does not accentuate hops. It drys the beer's finish which can allow hopping and bittering to be more prominent in the flavor. If neither of those elements are really present in the recipe, the sulfate won't add them. Some sulfate in beers is helpful in clearing the palate and making the beer more drinkable.
How does it dry the beers finish? Allows the yeast to consume more sugar? Or is the drying just a perception?
It is due to the perception in your mouth. It does not alter the wort attenuation.
- Status
