Bru'n Water pH very low compared to other softwares?

[Cocktus]

I'm starting to use Bru'n Water as my water adjustment software but I think I am doing something wrong as I get very low pH values compared to Beersmith and EZ water. I'm brewing rum raisin imperial stout on Saturday and now started designing the water profile. I got as low as pH 4,59 output from the Bru'n Water as the other ones were close to pH5,4. What could be wrong in my input values? I have checked like million times everything but still I get the low value. My base water seems to be alright as I get identical alkalinity and residual alkalinity as the other programs.

Could you please help me with the software so I could continue developing my recipe?

Edit: I thought I opened the thread under brewing software topic but apparently did not..

 

[Rev2010]

I've personally found Bru'n water to be much more accurate than my previously used Brewer's Friend, especially when it comes to dark beers, and the darker the more accurate Bru'n water is over the others. I know because I've tested with my pH meter. Do you have a pH meter? Is your water report accurate? If so, I would go with Bru'n Water's prediction and treat your water accordingly. If it comes out higher than the estimate you should still be within the ballpark range. I'd like to put your numbers in but I have my sheet configured to pounds and SRM and unfortunately don't have the time right now to convert it all.


Rev.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I've personally found Bru'n water to be much more accurate than my previously used Brewer's Friend, especially when it comes to dark beers, and the darker the more accurate Bru'n water is over the others. I know because I've tested with my pH meter. Do you have a pH meter? Is your water report accurate? If so, I would go with Bru'n Water's prediction and treat your water accordingly. If it comes out higher than the estimate you should still be within the ballpark range. I'd like to put your numbers in but I have my sheet configured to pounds and SRM and unfortunately don't have the time right now to convert it all.


Rev.

What is the lowest metered pH you have measured for a beer recipe with loads of dark roasted malts and grains, plus caramel/crystal malts? How early in the mash do you take your pH readings? Do you cool your sample to 68 degrees F.? Do you mineralize on the high side? Do you sparge, or is your process no-sparge?

 

[Rev2010]

What is the lowest metered pH you have measured for a beer recipe with loads of dark roasted malts and grains, plus caramel/crystal malts? How early in the mash do you take your pH readings? Do you cool your sample to 68 degrees F.? Do you mineralize on the high side? Do you sparge, or is your process no-sparge?

My Imperial Spicy Pumpkin Stout came in at pH 5.05.

pH reading is always taken at 30 min and cooled to at least 85F

No, I don't mineralize on the high side - usually between 0 - 0.5gr/gallon on average (gypsum, calcium chloride, baking soda) depending on beer style of course.

I double batch sparge.


Rev.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

My Imperial Spicy Pumpkin Stout came in at pH 5.05.

There appears to be a growing trend of confirmation from brewers on this forum indicating actual measured mash pH's in the general range of 4.95 to 5.05 for robust stouts. I seriously doubt that 4.59 pH is possible within the mash, but I also must question the cluster of mash pH assistant software solutions which would most likely hover closer to pH 5.3-5.4 for this type of recipe. I'm currently testing Mash Made Easy version 5.30, and for a robust Imperial Stout recipe I just fed it the mash pH prediction (for 70 ppm Ca++) comes in at 5.03 pH.

 

[ajdelange]

No pH prediction software is very good. It cannot be very good unless you have good model for malts and good data to put into it. The good model exists and has been published here but none of the programs I am aware of use it and those that come closest don't have good data. To get good data you would have to make a laborious set of measurements on each malt and process the data from those measurements using techniques unfamiliar to many. It is much easier to simply do a test mash. Many of the programs are good enough to give you an idea as to how a test mash is likely to go an this, plus their ability to give you insight into "what if" situations and thus educate the user on the wiles of mash behaviour is their greatest value.

Bru'n water suffers (or suffered - don't know if the problem has been fixed) from a problem in which the volume of the mash water was improperly interpreted. It is known to give wild answers in some cases especially where dark malts are used. In fact that is the case for all the programs. It doesn't matter if you mismodel paler malts so much because there DI pH's are close to the desired mash pH. With the dark malts it is more distant and more variable and the malt model needs to accurately reflect this. The good news is these malts are used in relatively small quantity.

So you have one program that tells you mash pH is likely to be 4.59, which is clearly way out of the ball park, one that assures you that it will be 5.03, which is possible but unlikely, and a handful of others that tell you 5.4. To add to your confusion I'll toss in another estimate from a robust sheet (i.e. one that uses the proper models for everything) and that is 5.54. Now while the program that came up with that estimate does all the math right it doesn't have the "right" numbers to put into the formuals. I don't know that the chocolate malt that I did the detailed measurements on is anything but approximately close in its properties to the chocolate malt that you are going to use.

Here's the proton deficit breakdown for the estimate:

Now, as stated, we can't assert that the mash pH you will experience will be 5.54 because we don't know your malts we can determine that it will probably be something in the vicinity of 5.54 and do a test mash to see if we do indeed get that and, in my experience, you will because you have only 13% black malts.

As an example of the "what if" use of spreadsheets we can ask "What if the pH were actually 5.03? How much extra black malt would it take to get there? The proton deficit story for a pH of 5.03 is in this picture:

The first thing we see is that it takes a lot of acid to get this pale ale malt (Rahr) to pH 5.03. It's buffering is a little higher than many pale malts but not inordinantly so. Whereas it only takes 59.6 mEq of protons to get 6.4 kg of this malt to pH 5.5 it would take 237 to hit 5.03. With the other malts you would need a total of 260. You really need go no further to see that 5.03 is an absurd prediction. That acid would have to come from somewhere. If we ask the program to tell us how much chocolate malt would be needed to furnish it it responds that 10.2 kg which would be 54.1% of the grist would have to be chocolate. It's clearly more reasonable to ask how much lactic acid that's equivalent to. The answer is 23.6 mL of 88% strength.

What about some other malts? With Crisp's Maris Otter the lactic requirement would be 21.9 mL and with Munton's MO 27.5.

In summary: Your mash pH is going, most likely, to be in the 5.4 - 5.5 range. Do a test mash to verify this. You didn't put in any numbers wrong. The particular program you chose doesn't handle this mash very well because of the inherent flaw in its prediction algorithm (which may have been fixed) and its poor modeling of actual malt parameters. All existent programs suffer to some extent from one or both these problems.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

The most interesting new feature which I have built into MME version 5.30 (which is still in the testing stage) is that it can now be dialed in to yield a mash pH prediction which is anywhere from 100% logarithm based to 100% linear model based, or anywhere inbetween. The MME version 5.30 result for the recipe shown for MME in the snapshot above, but with the percentage of log based output set at 0% is a mash prediction of 5.42 (as opposed to 5.03 for 100% log based). No need to wait for the outcome of which method ultimately proves to be correct in the real world. With MME version 5.30 you can have both math model outputs right now, or alternately you can have a blend of the two outputs at any percentage ratio that you desire such as to more properly model the final outcome of the deep roasted and deep in caramel/crystal malts mash pH issue.

 

[ajdelange]

That should give you some insight into the worth of the log method. As it has no basis in the science involved it can only be correct by coincidence - like the broken watch that is riught twice a day. I know you have put a lot into it but I wish, for your own benefit, that you would get behind the science.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

That should give you some insight into the worth of the log method. As it has no basis in the science involved it can only be correct by coincidence - like the broken watch that is riught twice a day. I know you have put a lot into it but I wish, for your own benefit, that you would get behind the science.

Actually, due to so many real world mash pH results coming in to this forum which are directly within the range of the log methods output for beers with a heavy weighting (percentage) of deep roasted and crystal malts, and by no means within the appreciably higher pH prediction range of the linear approach methods output, I still vastly favor the former as being more closely affiliated with real world mash pH measurement. But alas, since so many other software mash pH assistant solutions (sans for Bru'n Water and the Kaiser Water Calculator) offer much higher mash pH predictions for the realm of appreciably dark beers, I simply figured, why not offer both outputs within one package. The two approaches (log and linear) begin as essentially identical with regard to their prediction results for lighter colored beers, and begin do deviate slightly for mid-colored beers, and appreciably for even darker beers, with truly dark beers really showcasing the two approaches prediction difference.

In the end offering the click of a button ability to see both methods outputs, or to see blends of the two, is just another feature that is fully in keeping with the already present and broad ability for the end user to modify Mash Made Easy such that it is in conformance with their real world measurement experience, and as such this option is just one more means to achieve software modifiable conformance to real world measurement. And it has always been my opinion that conformance to actual measurement is the ultimate goal.

There are also decades of documented history, and volumes of written brewing books, magazine articles, and other forms of documentation in support of the need for the presence of appreciable mash water alkalinity (or bicarb) when brewing the likes of robust Stouts, Porters, and Imperial Stouts. Nearly all of which history is in support of the low pre-adjustment mash pH predictions of the log method for these types of beers, whereas little to none of this appreciable history would be in general agreement with the likes of a robust Stout mashing at 5.4 to 5.5 pH with no alkalinity required (or desired) within the mash water. And little to none of it would be suggesting acidification for these robustly dark brews if hitting a precise target of 5.4 pH in the mash is the goal.

 

[ajdelange]

And yet we find when we make these beers that the pH's come in at 5.4 - 5.5 without alkalinity augmentation. When I first pointed this out years ago I got lots of push back but as people acquired meters and started using them they started reporting similar results. Yes, you go over 20% black malt and have some high colored crystal in there and you will see pH's going down and in the heavy stouts you may well see that. But if you've got so much of that stuff in a beer that the pH is 5.03 then I'm pretty sure I don't want to drink that beer. But if, in those cases, the linear approach, as you call it, is not being implemented correctly or, as in well known (or known to some) isn't adequate you will not get good pH estimates. If we take the mash we were playing around with in No. 6 and add 4.7 kg 80L caramel malt to it that malt alone offsets the entire deficit of the base malt (Crisp MO) and the other dark malts pull the pH estimate down to 5.208. The Riffe linear method gives an estimate of 5.171 which isn't really that far off so this isn't a mash where the penalty for ignoring non linearity is high. But the improvement I came up with for the Riffe method (single step Newton-Raphson from pH 5.4) while still being non iterative gives anestimate of 5.208 i.e. the same as the robust (non linear) method to three decimal places. Thus the linear method can give you very good answers if done correctly.

 

[Rev2010]

But if you've got so much of that stuff in a beer that the pH is 5.03 then I'm pretty sure I don't want to drink that beer.

My Imperial Spicy Pumpkin Stout that was pH 5.05 was a big hit. I've been asked by several friends to re-brew it and will be doing so two weekends from now. Planning to use a small amount of slaked lime to bring up the pH a bit however. In the recipe there was 4.5% debittered black malt, 6% chocolate malt, and 6% crystal malt. The rest was all base grains. It was a high gravity beer.


Rev.

 

[Cavpilot2000]

My Imperial Spicy Pumpkin Stout that was pH 5.05 was a big hit. I've been asked by several friends to re-brew it and will be doing so two weekends from now. Planning to use a small amount of slaked lime to bring up the pH a bit however. In the recipe there was 4.5% debittered black malt, 6% chocolate malt, and 6% crystal malt. The rest was all base grains. It was a high gravity beer.


Rev.

When you say the beer was 5.03, do you mean in the mash or in the fermenter? At mash temps or room temps?
Edit*** I see you answered some of these questions, but I am going to leave them up for the benefit of others who may not be aware**
I don't want to insult your intelligence, but it's worth asking: You do know that when you take a mash pH sample, you should cool it to room temp first, right? That will give you an appropriate reading. Reading at mash temps or higher will show an artificially low pH (actually it is accurate since heat lowers the pH, but it isn't indicative of what the pH will be at room temp).
Your finished beer should be around 5.0 or less, depending on style, so if you're talking a bout a cooled, post-boil sample at 5.03, that is right in the ballpark.
But it should not be 5.03 in the mash (cooled sample).

If it was 5.03 in the mash, it's not disastrous, but you'll really be retarding your enzymatic activity.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I'm currently drinking a smooth and delicious Oatmeal/Milk Stout that measured 5.18 pH in the mash at 30 minutes, and that was with 2.3 grams of baking soda added to the mash water (for a 6 gallon batch). Back out the baking soda addition and it may have mashed in the 5.05 to 5.10 pH range. Mash Made Easy 5.30 is predicting 5.18 pH in the mash with no baking soda added. This for the 100% log based 10 method.

Before that, I brewed an Eliot Ness lager clone attempt, and it mashed at a measured pH of 5.21. Mash Made Easy 5.30 has it mashing at 5.30 pH, also for the 100% log base 10 method.

So for my past two brews, Mash Made Easy in the full log base 10 mode was still forecasting a tad higher than actually measured mash pH's for my two recipes, but not very far off. Add about 2 to 3 tenths of a pH point for linear vs. log, and now the mash pH prediction is way off on the high side.

 

[Cavpilot2000]

I'm currently drinking a smooth and delicious Oatmeal/Milk Stout that measured 5.18 pH in the mash at 30 minutes, and that was with 2.3 grams of baking soda added to the mash water (for a 6 gallon batch). Back out the baking soda addition and it may have mashed in the 5.05 to 5.10 pH range.

That was a cooled sample, I assume?

Like I said, it isn't disastrous, but it's not a great range for enzymes.
But like yeast, they still work outside of optimal temp ranges, just maybe not as efficiently or effectively. I've mashed a Pils at 5.1 before and it was good.

But what's important is that it works for you and you are happy with the result.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

That was a cooled sample, I assume?

These are batches I brewed before Mash Made Easy 5.30 existed, so I wasn't targeting such low mash pH's intentionally. In fact, I was targeting 5.4 in the mash. I cool my mash pH samples to ~68 degrees.

 

[Rev2010]

I don't want to insult your intelligence, but it's worth asking: You do know that when you take a mash pH sample, you should cool it to room temp first, right?

See my above post, "pH reading is always taken at 30 min and cooled to at least 85F". As you can see I always cool it down to at least 85F. Often I will cool it as close to room temp as possible but sometimes if I'm busy with adding hops and such to the boil if it's hit at least 85F I will take the reading and let ATC handle it. The room temperature when I'm boiling in the kitchen is usually 75F on average.

But it should not be 5.03 in the mash (cooled sample).

I didn't say 5.03, I said 5.05. it was Ajdelange that referenced 5.03 in his post. As stated it was the mash pH reading taken at the 30 minute mark then cooled down. I don't recall what the exact temp the sample was when taken for this beer (maybe in the 70's), but as mentioned it was definitely not over 85F. Bru'n Water predicted a pH of 4.97 for this beer. My calibrated pH meter read 5.05 pH.

but you'll really be retarding your enzymatic activity

I did indeed get lower efficiency than I ever had for a pumpkin beer (they always tend to be lower on average due to the pumpkin goop in the mash).


Rev.

 

[ajdelange]

ATC does not handle it. ATC corrects for the fact that the meter electrode responds differently to the same pH at different temperatures. It does not compensate for the fact that pH changes with temperature.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I believe a pH meter reads about 0.004 points low for every degree above 68 degrees F. in which a sample is tested. For 85 degrees this would mean:

(85-68) * 0.004 = 0.068 points low

So a reading of 5.05 pH at 85 degrees would better be considered as 5.05 + 0.068 = 5.12 at 68 degrees.

Had you pH tested your sample at the proper 68 degrees F. you would more likely have observed a metered pH reading of 5.12. This would have revealed that the BW prediction of 4.97 was in fact much lower than what you more properly would have witnessed via your pH meter.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I should perhaps preface what I wrote above with the more proper understanding that it is only "effectively" true.

If a properly calibrated ATC pH meter is reading 5.05 pH at 85 degrees, that is in fact the actual pH. If however it reads the very same sample at 5.12 pH when at 68 degrees, that is also in fact the actual pH.

This is why it is critical for everyone to sample at a measured 68 degrees F. We are not on the same page otherwise.

 

[Rev2010]

Reading is fundamental guys. I stated I don't recall the actual temp when I measured this specific beer but I said I maybe it was in the 70's. I said I never sample above 85°. Secondly, why have something called ATC (automatic temperature compensation) if it can't compensate a few degrees? Third, I don't see any information in my kit that indicates what it's calibration temperature is. Wouldn't it just be the temp the calibration solutions were at? I'll look on their website later today. If I find that info I will take all readings at the temp from now on.


Rev.

 

[Cocktus]

Hey guys, thanks for the very good discussion. I was not able to see the posts before I brewed the beer. I finally decided to adjust the water to 150ppm bicarbonates and let's see what will be the final result. I had 5.25 pH 10 minutes into mashing and the measurement is taken in ~50C° (~122F) temperature. I thought that it does not matter what the temperature of the sample is if I have ATC on my pH-meter. Might be that in future I'll wait the mash to hit the 30min mark and then take a sample and cool it down to room temperature. I'm quite newbie what comes to water adjustments and things get confusing really fast but now I' again a little bit smarter as this was my first time to adjust water of dark beer

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Hey guys, thanks for the very good discussion. I was not able to see the posts before I brewed the beer. I finally decided to adjust the water to 150ppm bicarbonates and let's see what will be the final result. I had 5.25 pH 10 minutes into mashing and the measurement is taken in ~50C° (~122F) temperature. I thought that it does not matter what the temperature of the sample is if I have ATC on my pH-meter. Might be that in future I'll wait the mash to hit the 30min mark and then take a sample and cool it down to room temperature. I'm quite newbie what comes to water adjustments and things get confusing really fast but now I' again a little bit smarter as this was my first time to adjust water of dark beer

Your measured 5.25 mash pH at 122 degrees F., and also in the presence of 150 ppm added bicarbonate (the equivalent of 123 ppm added alkalinity) would likely have been close to 5.47 pH if taken at 68 degrees. Once again this is appears to be a representative example proving that the old school reasoning with regard to a need for high alkalinity in the mash water for such a deep roast and caramel containing grist is correct, and the new school software reasoning that no alkalinity is necessary for such a recipe to mash at ~5.4 pH is in some way seriously flawed. The "real world" evidence for this flaw continues to stack up. As does the evidence that your chosen softwares prediction of 4.59 pH is grossly in error in the opposite direction.

 

[Big Monk]

he "real world" evidence for this flaw continues to stack up.

Stack up? That's a pretty strong statement. Recognize that we tend to have no control over how and when people measure pH. Seizing upon a few data points to verify the validity of a pH estimation seems pretty silly.

Maybe that works in the "real world", but here in the real world, I'd say we should get as much data from the brewer as possible, troubleshoot, and then talk about claiming victory in one way or another.

Remember that this isn't a contest Larry. We (the Royal We) are not competitors except for maybe in an intellectual sense (and even then only in the sense that it's fun to exercise the brain on hard topics) and anyone thinking and working on this stuff should be interested in helping everyone get the best results, not winning a contest of some sort.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

@Silver_Is_Money I may have missed this but when was it decided that (68F/20C) was the temperature range for taking pH samples? For years I've read and have since adopted (77F/25C) as being the standard temperature when taking mash pH samples. I'd like to see some agreement on what is going to be the benchmark for taking and recording pH samples before we go forward collecting data.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

ScrewyBrewer, I just took a rather rapid search engine revisit of this issue, and it appears that indeed most pH meters (along with the NIST) call for the use of 25 degrees C (77 degrees F.) as their ideal standard for calibration and sampling. I stand fully corrected, and will henceforth accept that 25 degrees (77 degrees F.) is the proper calibration and sampling temperature.

This adjusts the temperature correction factor from my previously presumed 0.04 to 0.045 pH points per degree.

I'm retired now, but I seem to recall that back in my college days as a chemistry major 20 degrees C was being used as the standard for just about everything. Oh well, I'll just chalk this up to old age.

Edit: I see where in 1982 there was a revision of many STP standards.

 

[ajdelange]

Your measured 5.25 mash pH at 122 degrees F., and also in the presence of 150 ppm added bicarbonate (the equivalent of 123 ppm added alkalinity) would likely have been close to 5.47 pH if taken at 68 degrees. Once again this is appears to be a representative example proving that the old school reasoning with regard to a need for high alkalinity in the mash water for such a deep roast and caramel containing grist is correct, and the new school software reasoning that no alkalinity is necessary for such a recipe to mash at ~5.4 pH is in some way seriously flawed. The "real world" evidence for this flaw continues to stack up. As does the evidence that your chosen softwares prediction of 4.59 pH is grossly in error in the opposite direction.

How real is the "real world" evidence. In this particular case you are using a pH reading made at 10 minutes at 122 °F by a gentleman who is new enough at this that he thought that ATC would take care of it (cocktus, please don't take offense at this - we were all there at one time) and using it to push your pet theory. Malts exhibit different glides so a reading at 50 °C would probably translate to between 5.40 and 5.52 at 20 °C. Then as he added bicarbonate pH will climb over time and at half an hour be something like 0.1 higher. Thus his 30 min mash pH was probably between 5.50 and 5.62. This is what "flawed" software predicts for typical pale ale malts though it would also predict as high as 5.7 for an unusually alkaline base malt (such as Munton's MO) and/or less potent colored malts or lower for more powerful colored malts. Bru'n water is known for coming in from way out in left field sometimes when dark malts are involved. Better software predicts pH around 5.4 - 5.7 depending on which malts are selected and the models used to represent them.

I started looking into this when the early Gen I programs were coming out calling for tablespoons of chalk in black beers. This didn't make sense so I began to investigate. In doing so I learned how to make precise pH measurements. It's an art and it takes some time to acquire. I learned that it takes scrupulous care to realize the ±0.01 pH accuracy of which a good meter is capable and I understand that, even where that care is taken, what the meter indicates can be ±0.05 off with appreciable probability. The kind of care I refer to is not justified for brewing in general. But it is necessary if you are trying to determine the validity of a model. I have made precise measurements on malts, stuck them into robust software and checked the results against lab mashes. They check to within hundredths. I have checked against actual mashes using precise pH measurement techniques and found agreement there too. You, conversely, imply that a single clearly imprecise measurement in which you choose to ignore the drift supports your theory. It's hardly a very convincing argument.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

...Secondly, why have something called ATC (automatic temperature compensation) if it can't compensate a few degrees? Third, I don't see any information in my kit that indicates what it's calibration temperature is. Wouldn't it just be the temp the calibration solutions were at?

ATC doesn't do what you think it does. I calibrate my meter using solution at or very near to my (77F/25C) wort pH sampling temperature for consistency.

 

[Rev2010]

ATC doesn't do what you think it does. I calibrate my meter using solution at or very near to my (77F/25C) wort pH sampling temperature for consistency.

My solutions are kept at room temp in my apartment. So the solutions were likely at 72F-74F. I believe the sample temperature for the referenced Imperial Pumpkin Stout was 77F. But if I'm wrong and the sample was at 85° why would that be treated so catastrophic? I feel like some in the thread (not naming anyone specifically) are trying to discount things just so the results can better meet their idea of what it should/can/can't be. I do plan on taking the temperature of the solutions and lowering the sample to within 2°-3° of the solution temp going forward, but I just can't see how 13° maximum difference between calibration temp and sample temp could make all that much a difference.


Rev.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

....I just can't see how 13° maximum difference between calibration temp and sample temp could make all that much a difference.Rev.

@Rev2010 this is the Brewing Science forum, of course, we're held to a higher standard of testing and reporting accuracy. A rounding error here, a +-0.05 pH resolution there and before you know the data provides less and less value.

Taking and recording pH readings on brewday requires a lot of extra time, work and additional focus. If I'm going to go through all that at the end of the day I want my results to be worthwhile to everyone.

 

[Rev2010]

@Rev2010 this is the Brewing Science forum, of course, we're held to a higher standard of testing and reporting accuracy. A rounding error here, a +-0.05 pH resolution there and before you know the data provides less and less value.

I understand and respect that. However, please also understand this thread was not created by you, it was created by Cocktus and its intent was to question if the results he was receiving in Bru'n Water are valid or not. I simply responded stating my recent pH meter measurements seem to most accurately match Bru'n Water over some of the other calcs out there. After that I was then presented with multiple questions to which I answered and then was met with an analysis from more than one person which precluded that *I* must be in error. If this had been a thread asking for data I would understand the higher degree of scrunity, but alas this thread is one individual asking about the results he's receiving in one calculator. I also understand there are many dogs in this fight trying to stake their claim to having the most accurate data, and that is awesome. *I too* want the most accurate calc available. I just don't feel such threads as this should be the battleground.



Rev.