BruNWater vs Mash Made Easy, different PH outcome

[beervoid]

Hello everyone I've been trying to wrap my head around BruNwater as I noticed that my PH calculations are off as compared to the Mash Made Easy spreadsheet.
Also checked with brewersfriend.

Anyone here that could shed some light on this topic as to why BruNwater which I always believed to be the most accurate doesn't calculate the same PH?

Made Easy sheet which calculated that I should have a PH of 5.53
Brewersfriend gave me a PH of 5.45
While BruNwater gives me a PH of 5.27

I'm not sure what im doing wrong here. My water is RO and I add calcium chloride and sulfate additions to get about 150ppm calcium, 100ppm sulfate and 200ppm chloride.

I've currently input the following data in both brunwater and mash made easy.

Mash water: 6.33 gallon
Sparge water: 1.64 gallon

Chloride: 7.5grams (for BruNwater)
Chloride: 10 grams (for mash made easy)

Sulfate: 4.5 grams for both

Grain Bill:
10.5 lbs Golden Promise 5.9EBC
2.75 lbs Flaked Oats 2EBC
0.75 lbs Munich 25EBC
0.75 lbs Chit Malt 2.5EBC

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I don't think you are doing anything wrong. Different software merely makes myriads of different internal math model assumptions. And take such software for what it's worth. It's merely making assumptions (educated guesses), and they are certainly not going to match reality with respect to your particular individual lots of malts/grains, and/or with your particular process.

One clearly different assumption is that BW presumes that your Calcium Chloride is anhydrous, whereas MME presumes it is in the dihydrate state. Dihydrate has ~75% CaCl2 and 25% water. It is almost impossible to find CaCl2 in the 100% anhydrite state. CaCl2 aggressively and continuously absorbs moisture from the humidity in the air. The most fresh CaCl2 I ever tested came in at 94% CaCl2 and 6% water. If you heat it in an oven at about 450 degrees F. for an hour or so it will be anhydrous for a few seconds, but as it cools it will be absorbing water from the air. Every time you open a container it absorbs more water. It can and will go well beyond the dihydrate (CaCl2-2H2O) state at some juncture. It will at some juncture turn into a liquid goo.

Flaked Oats have an extremely high DI mash pH of 6.2, whereas barley base malts are not nearly as caustic with respect to the typically selected mash target. And you are adding a whopper load of this very high pH form of oats to your recipe. How does BW account for this? Ditto Brewers Friend?

I get 5.54 as the mash pH predicted by MME, but I'm not complaining if you got 5.6. You may simply not have changed (selected) your particular primary base malts nominal expected DI_pH range via the 'drop-down' selector cell in the lower right hand corner. Here is how I see it using MME:

The only way to determine which software lucked out and mirrored reality the closest for this particular grist and water to grist ratio (among millions) will be to mash it and measure a room temperature sample pulled at the 30 to 60 minute mark of the mash for its pH via a respectable and well calibrated and stabilized pH meter. And when you are done you will only know which software did best for your particular lots of grist components, your water to grist ratio, your water, your minerals, your methods, and your pH meter. Another jumbling of these (or other) grist components and water and other factors may point to a different software mirroring reality better. But it will only at best ever be a mirror.

 

[beervoid]

I don't think you are doing anything wrong. Different software merely makes myriads of different internal math model assumptions. And take such software for what it's worth. It's merely making assumptions (educated guesses), and they are certainly not going to match reality with respect to your particular individual lots of malts/grains, and/or with your particular process.

One clearly different assumption is that BW presumes that your Calcium Chloride is anhydrous, whereas MME presumes it is in the dihydrate state. Dihydrate has ~75% CaCl2 and 25% water. It is almost impossible to find CaCl2 in the 100% anhydrite state. CaCl2 aggressively and continuously absorbs moisture from the humidity in the air. The most fresh CaCl2 I ever tested came in at 94% CaCl2 and 6% water. If you heat it in an oven at about 450 degrees F. for an hour or so it will be anhydrous for a few seconds, but as it cools it will be absorbing water from the air. Every time you open a container it absorbs more water. It can and will go well beyond the dihydrate (CaCl2-2H2O) state at some juncture. It will at some juncture turn into a liquid goo.

Flaked Oats have an extremely high DI mash pH of 6.2, whereas barley base malts are not nearly as caustic with respect to the typically selected mash target. And you are adding a whopper load of this very high pH form of oats to your recipe. How does BW account for this? Ditto Brewers Friend?

I get 5.54 as the mash pH predicted by MME, but I'm not complaining if you got 5.6. You may simply not have changed (selected) your particular primary base malts nominal expected DI_pH range via the 'drop-down' selector cell in the lower right hand corner. Here is how I see it using MME:

View attachment 591986

The only way to determine which software lucked out and mirrored reality the closest for this particular grist and water to grist ratio (among millions) will be to mash it and measure a room temperature sample pulled at the 30 to 60 minute mark of the mash for its pH via a respectable and well calibrated and stabilized pH meter. And when you are done you will only know which software did best for your particular lots of grist components, your water to grist ratio, your water, your minerals, your methods, and your pH meter. Another jumbling of these (or other) grist components and water and other factors may point to a different software mirroring reality better. But it will only at best ever be a mirror.

Hello thank you for your elaborate answer. I've actually got a PH of 5.53 with Mash Made Easy. I think it's a matter of EBC vs Luvibond perhaps cause the rest is exactly the same.

For your information I did adjust the mineral additions in BruNwater to match the water profile in PPM for the Chloride so roughly 7.6grams (25% less).
It's quiet surprising how big of a difference there is with BrunWater and Mash Made Easy.
I'm inclined to go for Mash Made Easy results as from the times I've measured my Mash (although with a cheap but calibrated PH meter) i've always had to add some acid to bring it down to my liking and i've been brewing roughly the same recipe all the time....
I rather assume it's a bit higher and adjust down then ending up too high of a PH.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Thank you! Might I ask if you ever experience stuck mashes with such a high percentage of Flaked Oats in your grist?

 

[beervoid]

Thank you! Might I ask if you ever experience stuck mashes with such a high percentage of Flaked Oats in your grist?

No I haven't. I'm using a grainfather like system and can recirculate the wort. Sparging seems to be going well too.
I've done up to 30% which was half flaked wheat and half flaked oats.

I actually wanna try 45% and i'm happy you mentioned the DI PH of oats cause it seems I will definitely will be needing to acidify my mash somehow if going that high.

How do you look up the DI PH rate of grains? I couldn't find any specs on the website of Castle Malting so far.. Is that information not regularly available and does one have to inquire at every maltster for it?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

How do you look up the DI PH rate of grains? I couldn't find any specs on the website of Castle Malting so far.. Is that information not regularly available and does one have to inquire at every maltster for it?

Most maltsters don't publish deionized water mash pH's. I was fortunate enough to have Briess provide me with a nice set of this data for their various malted and unmalted grains. Plus I've picked up bits and pieces of DI_pH information here and there, with the latest windfall being a paper by DM Riffe.

Sometimes you simply need to do it yourself. Mash 50 grams of finely ground (to pulverized) malt or grain in 100 to 150 mL of distilled or deionized water at 150-156 degrees F. for 30 minutes, cool to room temperature, and take the pH. If your RO water weighs in at a TDS reading of 6 ppm or less, you can use that. Some popular distilled water is terrible, so measure the TDS for that also. Deionized (or DI) water should measure zero to not more than 1 ppm on a TDS meter. Actual DI pH values are specific to individual lots. Software like MME nominalizes it to math model approximations by classification, but if you know the actual measured value, simply place it in the manual override column, and MME will automatically use that value instead of its default calculated value.

I believe I once saw a comment by Martin on this forum whereby he indicated that BW does not use or utilize DI mash pH values at all.

 

[beervoid]

Most maltsters don't publish deionized water mash pH's. I was fortunate enough to have Briess provide me with a nice set of this data for their various malted and unmalted grains. Plus I've picked up bits and pieces of DI_pH information here and there, with the latest windfall being a paper by DM Riffe.

Sometimes you simply need to do it yourself. Mash 50 grams of finely ground (to pulverized) malt or grain in 100 to 150 mL of distilled or deionized water at 150-156 degrees F. for 30 minutes, cool to room temperature, and take the pH. If your RO water weighs in at a TDS reading of 6 ppm or less, you can use that. Some popular distilled water is terrible, so measure the TDS for that also. Deionized (or DI) water should measure zero to not more than 1 ppm on a TDS meter. Actual DI pH values are specific to individual lots. Software like MME nominalizes it to math model approximations by classification, but if you know the actual measured value, simply place it in the manual override column, and MME will automatically use that value instead of its default calculated value.

I believe I once saw a comment by Martin on this forum whereby he indicated that BW does not use or utilize DI mash pH values at all.

Great info, I will keep that in mind for when I get a decent PH meter! I'm hoping that MME will at least get me in the ballpark for now..

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I'm hoping that MME will at least get me in the ballpark for now..

I try hard, but never lend your outright trust to software, including mine. Trust but verify. And when it comes down to it always trust yourself and your own careful measurements over mere software predictions. Do not fall into the ever so common trap of thinking that software is superior to your own ability to measure.

 

[beervoid]

I try hard, but never lend your outright trust to software, including mine. Trust but verify. And when it comes down to it always trust yourself and your own careful measurements over mere software predictions. Do not fall into the ever so common trap of thinking that software is superior to your own ability to measure.

I agree with you but a good PH meter is not for the poor.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I agree with you but a good PH meter is not for the poor.

This is the one I use.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ENFOIQE/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

 

[Aristoi]

Great topic, BW has been pretty reliable for me on predicted to actual for most lighter to amber color brews, my last one I missed by -0.1 below BW predicted but I was using more darker specialty grains I have never used before.

I have noticed a similar difference on what you found on MME vs BW. My comparison was with BS3 being higher +0.16 predicted vs BW, +0.26 vs actual. Curious if you made this brew and where your actual came in. BTW I use the same Apera pH meter posted above and it is working great for me.

 

[beervoid]

Great topic, BW has been pretty reliable for me on predicted to actual for most lighter to amber color brews, my last one I missed by -0.1 below BW predicted but I was using more darker specialty grains I have never used before.

I have noticed a similar difference on what you found on MME vs BW. My comparison was with BS3 being higher +0.16 predicted vs BW, +0.26 vs actual. Curious if you made this brew and where your actual came in. BTW I use the same Apera pH meter posted above and it is working great for me.

I have brewed with this grain bill several times but stopped using my PH meter as it's a cheap and noticed it was only accurate for the first brews even after calibrating... After reading a bit more about PH meters and their usage, I decided to stop using it till I get a good one.

I went through my notes and my first brews where I assume my PH meter was most accurate I was more in the 5.5 - 5.4 range then anywhere close to 5.27

 

[beervoid]

This is the one I use.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ENFOIQE/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

Thanks for the link, i'm actually saving up for a Milwaukee MW102.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I could easily be wrong here, but I initially presume that BW assigns the same relative acidity to all barley base malts of the same Lovibond color.

In actuality 2-row barley base malt is highly variable as to its 'generally' inherent acidity both by growth region and by type, with available base malt types (different methods of kilning and processing) being commonly given such names such as Brewers, Pale, Vienna, Maris Otter, and Pilsner. Seasonality, soil conditions, malt genetics, and climate also come into play with regard to actual base malt acidity. Base malt color indeed has some, but in reality relatively very little to do with overall base malt acidity. The statistical correlation of base malt acidity to base malt Lovibond (or EBC) color is generally classified as weak.

In an attempt to improve upon this weakness of correlation, MME provides for 6 easily user selectable narrow "ranges" of DI_pH which can be assigned to your grists primary base malt. So in effect MME provides 6 'default' output solutions for every recipe. If you find that for your particular lot and type of base malt that MME is giving high or low mash pH readings vs. those carefully measured at 30 minutes into the mash, it is a simple matter to select a different base malt DI_pH range from among the 6 narrow DI_pH ranges provided, in order to (in effect) dial in MME to match your measured mash pH results for a given lot of base malt. A broad degree of additional dialing in and refinement of MME can be easily achieved by varying the percentage of correlation to Kolbach (the man who first observed and attempted to quantify Ca++ and Mg++ impact upon pH shift, but did so for "knock out", and not for "mash") that your mash water mineralization has upon downward pH shift. Thus to say definitively that for all cases MME yields higher mash pH values than some other (and likely far less flexible) software solution is technically quite incorrect.

It should however go without saying that the use of such ability to dial in MME must only be done in an attempt to bring its merely calculated and in effect educated guess output in line with actual measured reality. Such tweaking and dialing in must never be done in an effort to bring MME arbitrarily more in line with some other software based merely upon end user whim, as without hard measurement there is no logical benefit or justification in so doing.

 

[Aristoi]

That is what I figured it was more with the "material characterization" vs the spreadsheet itself. BW has been very accurate for me predicated to actual in the last 30+ brews I have been paying attention to water chemistry and measuring pH. In the end actual is what really matters, and assumes you have good calibrated measuring instrument and measuring technique (method, time, temp, other variables etc..). The spreadsheets and calculator tools are awesome to get you in the ballpark and the remaining difference is likely from grain variability.

I was hopeful BS3 Beersmith 3 improved water tool was the be all end all in one solution but it looks like I will continue to supplement with spreadsheet tools for a while longer. I did not know MME had a fine tuning feature. I thought I would have to manually offset target pH with subsequent brews of this recipe in BW but I may have to give MME a try or at least compare. Thank you for the information and help.

 

[beervoid]

That is what I figured it was more with the "material characterization" vs the spreadsheet itself. BW has been very accurate for me predicated to actual in the last 30+ brews I have been paying attention to water chemistry and measuring pH. In the end actual is what really matters, and assumes you have good calibrated measuring instrument and measuring technique (method, time, temp, other variables etc..). The spreadsheets and calculator tools are awesome to get you in the ballpark and the remaining difference is likely from grain variability.

I was hopeful BS3 Beersmith 3 improved water tool was the be all end all in one solution but it looks like I will continue to supplement with spreadsheet tools for a while longer. I did not know MME had a fine tuning feature. I thought I would have to manually offset target pH with subsequent brews of this recipe in BW but I may have to give MME a try or at least compare. Thank you for the information and help.

May I ask which PH meter you use? and how you use it?

 

[Aristoi]

May I ask which PH meter you use? and how you use it?

BTW I use the same Apera pH meter posted above and it is working great for me.

This is the one I use.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ENFOIQE/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

My process is no different from what has been recommended on this forum by people that know a lot more about this stuff than I do. Basically mash in, wait at least 30 mins, pull sample, allow sample to cool to room temp, take reading. Sometimes I pull at end of mash during transfer to BK.

I don't take reading to adjust pH real time, it is more for documentation purposes to make adjustments next time I brew this recipe. If you over or undershoot pH from predicted I think its too late for this session. By the time minimum time to pull sample has passed, plus time to cool sample to room temp, mashing is done. This sticky explains how to on "measuring mash pH" in the first part better than I can, and then some.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/ph-meter-calibration.302256/

 

[beervoid]

My process is no different from what has been recommended on this forum by people that know a lot more about this stuff than I do. Basically mash in, wait at least 30 mins, pull sample, allow sample to cool to room temp, take reading. Sometimes I pull at end of mash during transfer to BK.

I don't take reading to adjust pH real time, it is more for documentation purposes to make adjustments next time I brew this recipe. If you over or undershoot pH from predicted I think its too late for this session. By the time minimum time to pull sample has passed, plus time to cool sample to room temp, mashing is done. This sticky explains how to on "measuring mash pH" in the first part better than I can, and then some.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/ph-meter-calibration.302256/

Ok thanks for the info, will look..