Water chemistry Primer questions/advice

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
All right, I gotta ask because all this contradictory information is confusing me.

If getting soft enough water, adding a little bit of CaCl2, adding some gypsum if the style calls for it, and adding sauermalz or lactic acid to correct the mash pH is all that is necessary for proper brewing chemistry, why do we have so many people on HBT still advocating the use of complicated math, treatment spreadsheets, and exact mineral profiles?

Is this just one of those things (e.g. HSA, Autolysis, Liquid Yeast is "better") that's "old information" that comes from commercial brewery knowledge, and we're just now learning to do it better? Or is it something (e.g. Extract vs. AG) where one is recommended to beginners over the other?
You left out one of the most important parts: acquire and use a pH meter.

In the case of sauermalz, I want to know how much I will need to hit proper mash pH. That's a big reason I use one of the spreadsheets (sometimes three spreadsheets) for every brew, so I'll know how much sauermalz to crush. Or to get a ballpark figure for lactic acid. People also like to make sure they have enough Calcium after any diluting although the primer takes care of that.

And IMO, "the use of complicated math, treatment spreadsheets, and exact mineral profiles?" is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the effort we go through to make an AG batch. It only takes a few minutes to 'enter' a brew in a spreadsheet.
 
All right, I gotta ask because all this contradictory information is confusing me.

If getting soft enough water, adding a little bit of CaCl2, adding some gypsum if the style calls for it, and adding sauermalz or lactic acid to correct the mash pH is all that is necessary for proper brewing chemistry, why do we have so many people on HBT still advocating the use of complicated math, treatment spreadsheets, and exact mineral profiles?

Because they are engineers and engineers just can't help themselves (full disclosure: I'm one too and that's how I know). The potential problem with the creator is found in the old saw "If you have a hammer, everything in the world looks like a nail". The problem with the user is that he is working at a level of sophistication well below that of the guy that developed the spreadsheet. When the IPCC says that the world is going to turn into desert in X years based on a model developed by climate scientists of renown the person that reads it in the paper says "Omigosh. The sky is falling in. Renowned scientists' computers say so." When a spreadsheet says add 10 tablespoonsful of chalk to a stout because it is dark its users, having no more knowledge of water chemistry than of principal components analysis (how the Mann curve became a joke) accept that it must be true. The computer said so.

Is this just one of those things (e.g. HSA, Autolysis, Liquid Yeast is "better") that's "old information" that comes from commercial brewery knowledge, and we're just now learning to do it better? Or is it something (e.g. Extract vs. AG) where one is recommended to beginners over the other?

Is which? In the old days brewers brewed with what they had - they didn't have much choice. They adapted the beer to the water. Now we can do it the other way - adapt the water to the beer. I believe there is a trend towards the use of lower mineral content water with highish chloride and low sulfate. It makes smoother beer with good mouthfeel and lets the hops shine without being overly intrusive. You are giving up an element of authenticity when you do this but the beer will most probably be better than you would get trying to emulate a particular water profile down to the microval. This gets around to the question of what you are trying to accomplish. If you want the most authentic Burton ale you can get then you must emulate Burton water. See Martin's post today in another thread about what a Burton profile is (I have 6 in my collection). Burton water from a balanced (that means electrically - not Cl/SO4) can be emulated very closely but it requires the use of a spreadsheet that models carbonic/bicarbonate/carbonate chemistry in greater detail than the ones out there today do, the used of carbon dioxide gas to dissolve chalk and a pH meter to make sure that there isn't too much CO2 left in solution. If you want ultimate authenticity (or if you are an engineer) you do all that. But probably not more than once or twice.
 
Because they are engineers and engineers just can't help themselves (full disclosure: I'm one too and that's how I know). The potential problem with the creator is found in the old saw "If you have a hammer, everything in the world looks like a nail". The problem with the user is that he is working at a level of sophistication well below that of the guy that developed the spreadsheet. When the IPCC says that the world is going to turn into desert in X years based on a model developed by climate scientists of renown the person that reads it in the paper says "Omigosh. The sky is falling in. Renowned scientists' computers say so." When a spreadsheet says add 10 tablespoonsful of chalk to a stout because it is dark its users, having no more knowledge of water chemistry than of principal components analysis (how the Mann curve became a joke) accept that it must be true. The computer said so.



Is which? In the old days brewers brewed with what they had - they didn't have much choice. They adapted the beer to the water. Now we can do it the other way - adapt the water to the beer. I believe there is a trend towards the use of lower mineral content water with highish chloride and low sulfate. It makes smoother beer with good mouthfeel and lets the hops shine without being overly intrusive. You are giving up an element of authenticity when you do this but the beer will most probably be better than you would get trying to emulate a particular water profile down to the microval. This gets around to the question of what you are trying to accomplish. If you want the most authentic Burton ale you can get then you must emulate Burton water. See Martin's post today in another thread about what a Burton profile is (I have 6 in my collection). Burton water from a balanced (that means electrically - not Cl/SO4) can be emulated very closely but it requires the use of a spreadsheet that models carbonic/bicarbonate/carbonate chemistry in greater detail than the ones out there today do, the used of carbon dioxide gas to dissolve chalk and a pH meter to make sure that there isn't too much CO2 left in solution. If you want ultimate authenticity (or if you are an engineer) you do all that. But probably not more than once or twice.

OK, but I'm not looking to emulate a specific locality, I just want to make sure that my brewing water is properly balanced to make the best beer. I'm not looking for ultimate authenticity.

But the "spreadsheet way" -- enter in your local water mineral profile, enter a target profile for the style you intend to brew, then adjust salts and dilution ratio until you come within 10 PPM of the target numbers -- doesn't seem too much more complicated. You have a few more salts to deal with, but you still come up with clear amounts to add, and the whole "how did those brewers treat their water" question goes out the window if I just want to use profiles that other homebrewers have found work well for them in those styles.

People here seem to be saying that fussing about magnesium and sodium, chloride/sulfate ratio, bicarbonate levels, etc. is largely overkill and your main concerns are proper wort acidity, a baseline of calcium for yeast health, and chloride and sulfate to match the flavor of the beer style. If that's so, then why do we have people advocating spreadsheets and insisting that ion balance needs to be any more precise than that?

And you seem to be saying that spreadsheets are inherently flawed because they don't model the chemistry accurately enough. You also seem to be saying that anything more complex than keeping Calcium, Chloride, Sulfate, and pH within a reasonable range is reserved for sticklers trying to exactly duplicate some flavor and isn't going to make your beer any better. Again, if this is so why are spreadsheets so popular around here and why do some people on HBT ardently recommend their use? Just misinformation?
 
And IMO, "the use of complicated math, treatment spreadsheets, and exact mineral profiles?" is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the effort we go through to make an AG batch. It only takes a few minutes to 'enter' a brew in a spreadsheet.

Really? I usually just plug my grain weight, water volume, and target rest temperatures into a calculator to get my strike temps and infusion/decoction volumes. That doesn't seem like a ton of effort, unless you're referring to the 3-4 extra hours on the actual brew day.
 
Salt additions for ppm in your water is simple and easy (I mean its just inorganic aqueous chemistry). But how the interaction with the malt and the water profile effects mash pH is more complicated, depending on the malt itself, which is organic.

If you are interested in hitting pH values you must have a good pH meter (and take readings at the reference temp.). Only then can you tune in your system with your malts and your water. So, using sauermalt or lactic acid without a pH meter is shooting in the dark. Doesn't mean its going to make bad beer, but it doesn't mean its going to make good beer either.

If you are solely interested in salt additions to make hops pop or bring the malt forward stick with the spreadsheets. But know that salt additions have the potential to effect your mash pH, which can effect the quality of your beer in the end. If you think the salts may be messing with your pH, get a pH meter and use it every time you brew.

If you have soft water: dark beers (a lot of roasted malts) will be an issue in terms of pH being too low.

If you have high alkalinity water: light beers will tend to be a problem (too high pH)

***The last two lines are way over simplified***

Well, my light beers all tend to carry an unpleasant thinness to the mouthfeel and flavor, even when fully carbed. This is why I'm trying to grok water chemistry so I can know if I'm doing the right thing or not.

The OP seems to say distilled + CaCl2 for very light beer, and that's going to get you very good beer, and don't sweat it. And I get people telling me spreadsheets are no good if you don't know the science.

But then I get a couple people on here telling me the more precise salt additions and the spreadsheets are good but you don't need to be exact, and you do need to get a pH meter to get the proper wort acidity.

On the specific water chemistry thread for my brew next Saturday, I worked out a series of salt additions using the Bru'n Water sheet. Then I get people jumping on to tell me I'm overthinking it and to forget about everything except for the CaCl2 and sauermalz as predicted by BeerSmith. Then on this thread I get people telling me, variously, that the spreadsheet stuff isn't stuff I need to worry about, and it's flawed anyway, or that some spreadsheets are more or less flawed than others, and that it IS stuff I need to worry about, but not to the point of obsession.

And regarding pH, some of these spreadsheets and calculators will let you put in your grain bill and give you the resulting mash pH from the treated water, and tell you how much sauermalz to use to get into the ideal range. So those of you telling me a pH meter is absolutely vital to getting the right wort acidity, is it just because the spreadsheets aren't accurate enough to trust?

So yeah, my head is spinning in circles and I'm going to break for lunch.

And for the record, I'm going to take the distilled + CaCl2 + sauermalz approach this weekend unless someone tells me it's a bad idea.
 
Really? I usually just plug my grain weight, water volume, and target rest temperatures into a calculator to get my strike temps and infusion/decoction volumes. That doesn't seem like a ton of effort, unless you're referring to the 3-4 extra hours on the actual brew day.
Yeah, I meant the entire amount of effort we put into each batch, including brewing/packaging...purchasing ingredients...everything.

I've been using both the TH and Bru'n calculators my last two brews just to see how close they match each other as well as predict my mash pH. Comparatively speaking, Bru'n Water seems way more complex but once you enter your water ands use it a couple of times it's easy and only takes a few minutes.

What is 'way overthinking' to one guy is just 'being thorough' to another (or just gettin' your geek on...whatever melts your butter). Between AJ, Kaiser, and Martin I think they cover the topic of 'brewing water' pretty well. Being that I trusted JP and his work on brewing water in How To Brew (unfortunately, to my beer's detriment) I now have a pretty tight filter for any advice that is brewing-water related. Your last post had people telling you this then other people telling you that...a tight filter helps here.;)

Also, I have noticed that my light beers are more full and malty since using primer water but it's not like there was a controlled test. So much so that I need to adjust my mash temp. It's a constant evolution...make an adjustment here and it makes an impact there so then you have to go back and adjust something else.
 
Being that I trusted JP and his work on brewing water in How To Brew (unfortunately, to my beer's detriment) I now have a pretty tight filter for any advice that is brewing-water related.

Ah, and see, in another thread, someone linked me to a couple chapters in the How To Brew online book and said that was all I'll ever need to know about brewing water.

A tight filter is all well and good but when you're just starting out it's kind of hard to tell where that filter should be applied.
 
Also, I have noticed that my light beers are more full and malty since using primer water but it's not like there was a controlled test. So much so that I need to adjust my mash temp. It's a constant evolution...make an adjustment here and it makes an impact there so then you have to go back and adjust something else.

If by "primer water" you mean the water described in the OP of this thread (CaCl2 + dilution + pH control), then I think I will go for that to start, and get more sophisticated if it doesn't come out right.

You mentioned experimenting with how well the Bru'n Water spreadsheet predicts mash pH, but you didn't actually mention how good your results were. How accurate has it been?
 
Dusting off this original thread that kicked off ajdelange's water "rules of thumb" for some results feedback.

I've now done 4 batches using ajdelange's approach, all recipes I'd previously brewed in the past. I gotta say, with exception of a pils, none came out as good as before. All the ales "lost" substantial hop flavor and were very bland. Listening to the last CYBI, "Tasty" McDole made a fantastic point - he said 90% of the pro brewers they talk to add gypsum. He also said he generally uses just two water profiles:

Mild: 40 ppm calcium, 180 ppm sulfate
Pale: 80 ppm calcium, 350 ppm sulfate

Now I'm calling a bit of BS on Tasty as I don't think those numbers are even attainable with just gypsum, but I am now convinced some gypsum is critical to most beers. I'm going back to gypsum as my primary source of calcium and adding calcium chloride as necessary to express malt flavor to style.

All of ajdelange's fine work is not completely lost on me however. I've definitely learned the importance of pH and after testing, now add lactic to both my mash and boil to keep the numbers in line.

Curious if others have any feedback yet on their water tweaks...
 
I've now done 4 batches using ajdelange's approach, all recipes I'd previously brewed in the past. I gotta say, with exception of a pils, none came out as good as before. All the ales "lost" substantial hop flavor and were very bland.

Remember that the Primer says to start with low gypsum and increment to taste. Obviously you like the effects of sufate on hops. I (and some others) don't. So you should do exactly what you say you intend to do - get your calcium primarily from gypsum.

Listening to the last CYBI, "Tasty" McDole made a fantastic point - he said 90% of the pro brewers they talk to add gypsum.
True but then I remember a conversation with a professional brewer who asked be how I got the qualities I do in my ales (I'm not an ale brewer). I'd seen the sacks (yes sacks) of terra alba lying around his place and suggested he try without using so much or any of that. He did but I never got to taste the beer.


He also said he generally uses just two water profiles:

Mild: 40 ppm calcium, 180 ppm sulfate
Pale: 80 ppm calcium, 350 ppm sulfate

Now I'm calling a bit of BS on Tasty as I don't think those numbers are even attainable with just gypsum,

You're right that you cannot get that much (350) ppm sulfate from just gypsum. If you did calcium would be at 147 mg/L.

..but I am now convinced some gypsum is critical to most beers.

I think that is very much a matter of taste. I think most people would agree that low sulfate is important in lager brewing. German brewing textbooks caution against pH control using sulfate for this reason.


I'm going back to gypsum as my primary source of calcium and adding calcium chloride as necessary to express malt flavor to style.

Perhaps it wasn't clear enough in the Primer but that is exactly what it wants you to do if you like sulfate. It's trying to help you to brew a beer you like - not one to A.J's liking. I'd be the first to admit that most of my experience and preference is for delicate lagers. There's no place for sulfate in those beers and try though I may to suppress it I suppose my prejudices shine through from time to time.



All of ajdelange's fine work is not completely lost on me however. I've definitely learned the importance of pH and after testing, now add lactic to both my mash and boil to keep the numbers in line.

In a nutshell my pitch is "Get the pH right and then fiddle with the stylistic ions to taste". This will get you good beer every time.


Curious if others have any feedback yet on their water tweaks...
Me too!
 
I think that is very much a matter of taste. I think most people would agree that low sulfate is important in lager brewing. German brewing textbooks caution against pH control using sulfate for this reason.

100% agreed. I've never used Gypsum in my pilsners, but this year's attempt was by far my best. No doubt due to proper pH management.
 
thanks again for your help and support.
I infer from your response that it's not practical to make ph adjustments once things are in the fermenter, but might be useful in establishing benchmarks for future brews. I'd be happy to add that to my process as I pull a sample for FG readings once ferntation is done but before racking and conditioning... taking a PH measurement would be easy then.
Is there a particular ph range I should looking for, or does it change with the style of beer I'm making?
 
I infer from your response that it's not practical to make ph adjustments once things are in the fermenter...

I've never heard of it being done but that doesn't mean that someone might not be doing it. Going into the fermentor it is the mashing/boiling process including additions of salts and or acids that sets wort pH but once in the fermenter it is the yeast.

.. but might be useful in establishing benchmarks for future brews.

That's exactly it.

Is there a particular ph range I should looking for, or does it change with the style of beer I'm making?

It's really the way the beer tastes that is important at this point so that what you are really trying to do is correlate good beer with its pH value. If a lager tastes funny and you measure the pH as 4.0 but pH going into the fermentor was 5.2 and previous brews of the same beer have measured 4.6 then you have a clue as to what your problem was (infection, bad yeast...). So what you are trying to do here is correlate pH with beer quality. If a beer tastes a little off in quality and is a little off in pH then you know your assessment is valid. pH is one more tool for those who disdain the "snowflake" school of brewing (no two brews alike). If you consistently hit the same color, alcohol content, true extract and pH for a particular brew then you know you have mastered that beer. And you know that you are a pretty darn good brewer.

The range does vary with type. Obviously, sour beers are going to have low pH (below 4 in extreme cases). In more normal beers ales tend to have slightly lower pH than lagers but the ranges overlap. The range might be 4.3 - 4.9 with the ales populating the lower 2/3 of that range and the lagers the upper 2/3.
 
I have a double brew day coming up on Saturday: one IPA and one Porter. Based on reading through this thread again and using 100% Distilled, I plan to go with the following. Any comments? I will follow up after I taste the beer with how they turned out. I have no Sauermalz or a pH meter!! So im flying blind here.

For the Porter: 5.5Gal, 4.5gal Mash, 4gal Sparge
4gms of gypsum and 4gms CaCl2
Total Grain (lb): 12.75
Non-Roasted Spec. Grain: 1
Roasted Grain: 0.75
Beer Color (SRM): 29.2
I am having trouble not adding any Gypsum. So I split the CaCl2 and Gypsum.

For the IPA: 5.5Gal, 4.5gal Mash, 4gal Sparge
8gms of gypsum and 4gms CaCl2
Total Grain (lb): 13
Non-Roasted Spec. Grain: 1
Roasted Grain: 0
Beer Color (SRM): 9.7
I went with more Gypsum in hopes of pulling more bitterness.

Lastly, I remember reading somewhere that Na contributes to body and mouthfeel of a beer. Are there any cons to adding some NaCl?
 
My only comment is that this is a lot of salts but then these are beers that are traditionally brewed with high mineral content water. You do say you are looking for lots of hops so the high levels of gypsum may be appropriate for your brewing. You may, in fact, eventually find you want even more. I would recommend that you also try the recipes with less.

It is chloride that usually gets the credit for the enhancements you mention. In general the reasoning is that you might as well get it paired with beneficial calcium as opposed to, at best, "don't care" sodium but some beers definitely have a hint of saltiness to them. Remember that the goal of the Primer is to get you under control WRT pH. When it comes to the stylistic ions you are on your own!
 
My only comment is that this is a lot of salts but then these are beers that are traditionally brewed with high mineral content water. You do say you are looking for lots of hops so the high levels of gypsum may be appropriate for your brewing. You may, in fact, eventually find you want even more. I would recommend that you also try the recipes with less.

It is chloride that usually gets the credit for the enhancements you mention. In general the reasoning is that you might as well get it paired with beneficial calcium as opposed to, at best, "don't care" sodium but some beers definitely have a hint of saltiness to them. Remember that the goal of the Primer is to get you under control WRT pH. When it comes to the stylistic ions you are on your own!

Doh. My aim was more for 1 gram per gallon. Looks like fudged it.

For the IPA I was going to use 5 gypsum and 3 grams CaCl2. That seems for in line.
 
I don't understand how you got to 5 & 3 for the IPA. I see that you are using a total of 14 gallons water.

I'm still struggling to get a handle on this. The way I read the primer for an IPA with 14 gallons water total, you would add 28 grams of Calcium Chloride (dihydrate) and 28 grams of Gypsum, as well as 2% Acid Malt. Based on RO water. And of course check and adjust the pH after the mash has settled in. What part am I missing?
 
I don't understand how you got to 5 & 3 for the IPA. I see that you are using a total of 14 gallons water.

I'm still struggling to get a handle on this. The way I read the primer for an IPA with 14 gallons water total, you would add 28 grams of Calcium Chloride (dihydrate) and 28 grams of Gypsum, as well as 2% Acid Malt. Based on RO water. And of course check and adjust the pH after the mash has settled in. What part am I missing?

I have 8.5 gallons of water per brew... so I went with 8 grams total. I cant measure to the half of a gram on my scale.

For a Burton beer it says to double the amounts and I am not ready to do so. So for the IPA I will go with 1 gram per gallon and split between gyp and CaCl2.

I came to my determination through reading through the primer. One member (I cant remember who) said they wanted for gypsum in their beer and that is what I had historically done for my water treatments (plus adding gobs of chalk and other salts). So I want to start over using this primer and build upon my water profiles.

I hope to get a pH meter and a pound or two of acid malt by my next brewing day. Then the real fun begins!
 
OK I misread your first post. I missed that the 5.5 gallon is total, then you listed Mash and Sparge. Makes a little more sense now.

I've been doing my best to follow the guidelines, but so far I'm still not sure if I have been getting exactly what AJ suggests. But there is enough room with the addition amounts that so far my beer has improved. I have used 2% acid in all of my mash's since reading this, and my pH has always came in at 5.2-5.4.

Although with my next brew I'm going to mill the acid malt and just have it ready rather than have it in the grist to start. That way I can meter the mash and actually see the pH shift.

So even though I don't have a clear understanding, my beer is much better.
 
ajdelange,

What mash thickness do you typically use? Do you use this thickness on all of your beers?
 
Saccharomyces said:
Since the book just recently came out, one word of caution if following his advice: the water where he lives has about 400ppm of bicarbonate, and about 100ppm of total hardness, which means RO with a 90% rejection rate (typical) will result in 40ppm of bicarb and 10ppm of total hardness. My water is considerably less alkaline, so at best I just need to cut my water with RO, and even then only if I'm doing a light lager. I've won plenty of awards for IPAs to stouts doing very little with my water other than filtering it and adding enough phosphoric acid to drop the pH into the butter zone.

Regardless of whether you use RO or go with tap, your goal should be to have as few salts in the resulting water as possible, and you should be consistent in how you treat your water from brew to brew. The numbers given in the OP as targets are fantastic advice... I think 90% of all grain brewers over-think their water, and their beers actually *suffer* as a result.

Where do you get your phosphoric acid? Star San? :D
 
Saccharomyces said:
...phosphoric acid for everything else since it is flavorless.

Yeah, that's why I asked. I've never actually seen it at any homebrew store though...
 
Made a thread about this, but I should have came here first. I was wondering if someone can tell me if this is a decent water profile for a IPA (10 SRM)? Im going to be using 100% distiller water since I have a water softner. Seems like thats a lot of Gypsum to be adding. This is my first shoot at this so bare with me. Hopefully you can read it.

BrewingWaterIPA_Page_1.jpg


BrewingWaterIPA_Page_2.jpg
 
Did you consider using the included Pale Ale profile as your water guide? I'm brwing an APA this weekend and was going to use that profile but now I'm wondering if some of the ion concentrations are too high - CA of 165 and S04/Cl of 5.5 - which in my case will take 11.5 grams of Gypsum :eek: .
 
Did you consider using the included Pale Ale profile as your water guide? I'm brwing an APA this weekend and was going to use that profile but now I'm wondering if some of the ion concentrations are too high - CA of 165 and S04/Cl of 5.5 - which in my case will take 11.5 grams of Gypsum :eek: .

Actually Im looking at that now for the Pale and everything is low. I finally just got done reading this whole thread (about 2hrs btw), and it sounds like I should just use gypsum and calcium chloride and nothing else at first. But if I do that w/ 100% DI Ill have no Magnesium, Bicarbonate and Alkalinity, but looking at the spreadsheet, looks like they're all benefical, so IDK.

The recipe is 45% Pale Malt, 35% Vienna, 15% Munich II, and 5% Crystal 90, if that matters.
 
I have read through this thread at least twice and probably for the worse, plenty of other threads and sites. I'm about to try my first all-grain batch after only a few extract brews. My first brew, although drinkable, was pretty heavily affected by the chlorine in my tap water. After that I have been using RO/DI water with positive results.

I'd like to continue using RO?DI water (I have a ready supply for my reef aquarium) which is what drew me to this thread. Unfortunately, my brain is currently locked up with all of the conflicting/confusing information. This thread alone strays from ajdelange's "keep it simple" first post to people suggesting, apparently while agreeing with the initial post, complete water profile adjustments. Somewhere along the line the initial theme of the thread got lost (or at least I lost track of it).

So, my plan at this point is to go with the simple formula in the first post. The beer will be Reaper's English Mild:

5 lb 8 oz Maris Otter (Crisp, UK)
1 lb 8 oz Crystal 60L (Crisp, UK)
6 oz Chocolate malt (Crisp, UK)

The primary primer post suggests the baseline addition of 1 tsp of calcium chloride dihydrate. Now since it is a british beer I would add 1 tsp gypsum to that. And since it has roasted malt I would exclude the usual baseline 2% saurmalz. Does that sound right? Is there enough roasted malt to justify exclusion of the full 2% of the sauermalz?

My concern is with the mash ph. After much reading I'm convinced of the importance of the mash ph. Unfortunately, that comes with the side-affect of being afraid of totally botching it with out measuring it. However, it also became clear that the +/- .2 or worse accuracy of test strips and cheap meters isn't going to be of much use and is a poor value. I can't currently afford a meter with sufficient accuracy (although I found the Milwaukee ph53 which is only $65 + the necessary solutions). Given the above grain bill and doctored RO water how likely am I to have mash ph issues?

I'm sure I'm over-thinking everything given that this is my first all grain brew. I just need reassurance :D
 
My concern is with the mash ph. After much reading I'm convinced of the importance of the mash ph. Unfortunately, that comes with the side-affect of being afraid of totally botching it with out measuring it. However, it also became clear that the +/- .2 or worse accuracy of test strips and cheap meters isn't going to be of much use and is a poor value. I can't currently afford a meter with sufficient accuracy (although I found the Milwaukee ph53 which is only $65 + the necessary solutions). Given the above grain bill and doctored RO water how likely am I to have mash ph issues?

The roast malt is only a minor concern. The primary concern is the huge addition of crystal malt. I brewed that recipe a few months ago using RO water and fortunately I use Bru'n Water to evaluate the mash performance beforehand. I knew I would need to be ready to prevent too great a pH drop. Upon mashing in and checking mash pH with my calibrated meter, sure enough the pH was down in the 4.9 to 5.0 range (room temp measurement). I was ready with the precalculated pickling lime addition and brought the pH to a more appropriate 5.3 pH.

I laud AJ for getting brewers to simplify their brewing water practices, but even that practice will get brewers in trouble if they don't understand the cause and effect of water and grain. This Primer is a good start. A good brewer will build upon this by advancing their brewing water knowledge to the next level with Bru'n Water.

PS: You absolutely want to delete the acid malt addition from this brew. This is a beer that WILL require alkalinity and does not need any more acidity. AJ's rule of thumb will be very sore for many brewers in this case.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top