BrunWater now missing the mark?

[SanPancho]

have done few brews lately with some issues that were probably ph related. after doing checks on my beers for final kettle ph, it seems they've been coming in high. i cant really understand what has changed, as typically the software had me pretty much spot on to measured ph. i'd often not even bother measuring until it was in the kettle.

but now three beers in a row have been off the mark widely. first beer was likely off, but not confirmed. i base that on a harsh bitterness ive never experienced before. the second measured about .2 to .3 high in the kettle. and now today i've got a mash that's at 5.6ish when i shot for 5.4, so about the same miss of +/- .2ish higher than expected.

first beer was with version 5.4, and then recently i went up to version 5.5 for last two beers.

no changes to ingredients or process on my end. meter calibrated with 4/7 solutions immediately before brewing. the odd thing is that they've been off by the exact same amount both times, roughly .2 high. first two were hoppy pales, this ones a black lager.

the only thing in the beers that doesnt get put into the software are my brewtan B additions, but if i recall correctly its tannic acid or some derivative so it shouldnt be raising pH. and san francisco water is pretty damn soft, not much in the way of alkalinity. software shows only 30 for RA. 0 for permanent. temp hardness is only 52.

just seems odd that i keep missing by the same amount....

 

[Hanglow]

A quick google brings up an annual variation of 6 - 131ppm Alkalinity (as CaCO3) for your water (I think, from https://sfwater.org) if I had that potential variation I'd be measuring the alkalinity before each brew

what does brunwater suggest your mash ph be in either extreme for those beers?

 

[SanPancho]

i changed line 28 of the water input to read 131 total alkalinity, it made no difference to the mash profile. not sure if that is the only way to do the check you're mentioning but that seemed like the only data field in the water report where i could change alkalinity/caCO3.

for what its worth, by 50 min the mash was down to 5.4ish.

 

[Hanglow]

I don't use brunwater, you might have to change other variables too, as there will be more/less of the other minerals in your water

 

[SanPancho]

yeah, that maybe beyond my ability.

one thing i did notice is that going back over the water input numbers, i had to update to the most recent water annual report numbers, which is 2017. i think in updating the software through two versions in only a month or so i must have lost anything recent in my water data.

one odd thing- our report only shows alkalinity(51) and hardness (52), so you gotta use the program's conversion calculator to estimate bicarbonate and carbonate. when i enter the bicarbonate number, the cation/anion difference goes to 0.07. but when i add carbonate estimated number it jumps up to 0.23 meq/L.

is that coincidence that it pretty much matches how "off" my wort pH has been?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

A simple switch from using predominantly a 2-Row Brewers type base malt to using predominantly a Pilsner type base malt (with both having the same Lovibond color) can (and likely will) shift mash pH upward by as much as ~0.3 points. I still don't think BW provides a means for the end user to accommodate or address this.

 

[Big Monk]

A simple switch from using predominantly a 2-Row Brewers type base malt to using predominantly a Pilsner type base malt (with both having the same Lovibond color) can (and likely will) shift mash pH upward by as much as ~0.3 points. I still don't think BW provides a means for the end user to accommodate or address this.

I've said it before: In lieu of any other tweaks to the standard Gen I algorithm, inputs for DI pH are the #1 biggest improvement you can make.

 

[SanPancho]

off the top of my head, im going to say the last few beers have been split base- two row and wheat, maris and pale, pale and golden promise.

beyond doing actual testing on the grains, is there no way to address this in the software?

 

[Big Monk]

off the top of my head, im going to say the last few beers have been split base- two row and wheat, maris and pale, pale and golden promise.

beyond doing actual testing on the grains, is there no way to address this in the software?

There is. Let's exclude anything besides the affects of DI pH for a minute just to illustrate a point.

Each base grain will have it's own DI pH. I have always made my own pH estimation sheets so I have included this as a separate user input for almost 3 years.

Think about if you mashed just base grains that had a DI pH of > 5.75, which is the assumed DI pH value in most software, and then you measured. It would likely be higher than the prediction, i.e. if the sheet assumes 5.75 in the background calcs as the DI pH value, and you present it with base grains that have a higher value than that, your actual value will be higher.

Do you have the brands handy for the grains you used?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Typical wheat malt is noticeably higher in DIpH than most all Pilsners, and Maris Otter is up there near the Pilsner's, though not quite as high in DIpH. I have not seen data on Golden Promise, but it wouldn't surprise me to find it somewhat similar to Maris Otter.

Just as for RPIScotty's software solutions, Mash Made Easy permits direct input override of DIpH for any/all malts and grains for those who have the data at hand. But in addition to this it also offers a simple drop down selector with 6 end user selectable ranges of DIpH for base malts, so even if you don't have hard DIpH data at hand, and all you know is the type of base malt, you can still get generally right close to its nominal DIpH.

 

[Big Monk]

Typical wheat malt is noticeably higher in DIpH than most all Pilsners, and Maris Otter is up there near the Pilsner's, though not quite as high in DIpH. I have not seen data on Golden Promise, but it wouldn't surprise me to find it somewhat similar to Maris Otter.

Just as for RPIScotty's software solutions, Mash Made Easy permits direct input override of DIpH for any/all malts and grains for those who have the data at hand. But in addition to this it also offers a simple drop down selector with 6 end user selectable ranges of DIpH for base malts, so even if you don't have hard DIpH data at hand, and all you know is the type of base malt, you can still get generally right close to its nominal DIpH.

I have to admit that I have a sort of skewed opinion on this matter because i only use Weyermann malts and their malt sheets are to die for and include a ton of information, including DI pH for that lot.

 

[SanPancho]

Most of it is Briess and Viking. Crisp for GP I think, tho I’d have to check it wasn’t fawcett.

 

[mabrungard]

i changed line 28 of the water input to read 131 total alkalinity, it made no difference to the mash profile.

Um, line 28 does nothing in the rest of the program. That is a calculator.

You have to enter the result from that calculator in the actual water report input.

 

[ajdelange]

The problem with picking classes of malt is that there can be considerable variation in the same class. Here's a screenshot for a mash made to pH 5.4 with equal amounts of 3 Pilsner malts:

As the table shows in the ∆pH column the Rahr pils pulls the pH almost twice as much as the Weyerman pneumatic pils. Note that the 3 malts have distinct dHPI's but that they also have different buffering properties. Note especially that even though the Weyermann floor pils has a higher pHDI than the Rahr it pulls pH less. It is true that programs considering pHDI are going to give much better estimates than programs that don't, pHDI is not the whole story

 

[SanPancho]

Yes, i entered the results but there was a roughly .05 difference. Not enough to account for being off by .2 to .3

 

[jdauria]

https://sfwater.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=12569

Looks like your water comes from 5 different water sources all with different ranges of pH and mineral content. The main water report on their website is a showing a range for all 5 combined. If your water department can narrow it down for you and tell you which of the 5 you normally get your water from, I would use the info on the report I linked instead of their "overall" water report. Do note though that even the reports for the individual locations are a range of tests during the year, not a set number at the time you are brewing.

 

[SanPancho]

That’s not true in the way you’re interpreting it. Our source is the hetch hetchy reservoir in Yosemite. The other sources are blended in at different times and proportions.

I wouldn’t think they could make that big of a difference as they are supplemental sources to the main pipeline but we could ask. Although I’d think a alkalinity test might be rad than relying on them to answer in any immediate timeframe.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

Most of it is Briess and Viking. Crisp for GP I think, tho I’d have to check it wasn’t fawcett.

Using predominantly Briess grains I brew a few batches of the same recipe in order to get the predicted and actual pH values to align. So I take notes and adjust the water properties as needed for subsequent batches until I'm satisfied with the outcome. Over time I have accumulated a half dozen or so favorite recipes whose pH values are consistently good. I use RO water for my brewing water to eliminate variations and treat it accordingly for each recipe.

 

[SanPancho]

So just to revive this for a second, i had another high mash ph recently. Looking back thru notes it seems to be related to golden promise, viking pils/pale, or both. All three high ph beers had GP and one viking so not sure which is the factor here.

 

[Big Monk]

So just to revive this for a second, i had another high mash ph recently. Looking back thru notes it seems to be related to golden promise, viking pils/pale, or both. All three high ph beers had GP and one viking so not sure which is the factor here.

High WRT to the estimation? How far off?

 

[SanPancho]

Typically 5.4 target. Most recently i did overnight mash and after 14 hours was almost 5.6. The others were high probably 1.5 to 2 also as i recall.

 

[jdauria]

So just to revive this for a second, i had another high mash ph recently. Looking back thru notes it seems to be related to golden promise, viking pils/pale, or both. All three high ph beers had GP and one viking so not sure which is the factor here.

It could be the grain you used has a higher Distilled Water pH rating. For example, I use Weyermann Barke Pils a lot, that grain when mashed with distilled water alone has a 5.86 DI PH, while let's say Castle Pilsner malt is 5.54 pH. So if you adjust your mash with the same exact minerals, obviously the mash with Barke will wind up with a higher pH then the mash with Castle malts.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, Rahr base malts tend to have a lower pH, so you would be lower than expected. Martin B has said on AHA forums that to fix this when using Rahr, he increases the Lovibond color by 3 Lovibond.

Golden Promise seems to give people lower pH then expected vs Bru'n Water per this thread...https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/low-mash-ph-with-golden-promise.582845/

And if you look at page 21 on this PDF from Viking it looks like their pH for base malts is pretty high. https://www.vikingmalt.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/BeerMalt-Handbook__2017_FINAL_22092017.pdf

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

And if you look at page 21 on this PDF from Viking it looks like their pH for base malts is pretty high. https://www.vikingmalt.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/BeerMalt-Handbook__2017_FINAL_22092017.pdf

It looks like the DIpH values for all of their malts is being reported unusually high. 560 Lovibond (1,500 EBC) black malt at 5.3 DIpH is significantly higher than normal for such a deeply roasted black malt. Somewhere between 4.7 and 4.3 DIpH would be far more normal for 500-600L black (or black patent) malt.

 

[Big Monk]

It looks like the DIpH values for all of their malts is being reported unusually high. 560 Lovibond (1,500 EBC) black malt at 5.3 DIpH is significantly higher than normal for such a deeply roasted black malt. Somewhere between 4.7 and 4.3 DIpH would be far more normal for 500-600L black (or black patent) malt.

Could be the type of Barley used, i.e. winter vs. spring, etc.

I have a fairly large local malt house and their base malt runs into the high 5s and low 6s. I was able to tour the facility and speak for a bit with the maltster and he stated that depend on where and in what time of the year it is grown, the DI pH can vary considerably.

Weyermann consistently put out lots during 2017 that had DI pH up near 5.9-6.0 for a bunch of their base malts.

When you think about it it makes perfect sense. In a grain bill dominated by base malt, DI pH higher than the idealized grist pH for that program can mean an upward or downward swing of the delta between the 2.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Could be the type of Barley used, i.e. winter vs. spring, etc.

I have a fairly large local malt house and their base malt runs into the high 5s and low 6s. I was able to tour the facility and speak for a bit with the maltster and he stated that depend on where and in what time of the year it is grown, the DI pH can vary considerably.

Weyermann consistently put out lots during 2017 that had DI pH up near 5.9-6.0 for a bunch of their base malts.

When you think about it it makes perfect sense. In a grain bill dominated by base malt, DI pH higher than the idealized grist pH for that program can mean an upward or downward swing of the delta between the 2.

This reminds me. I reached out to Weyermann earlier this morning in an email asking them to explain the difference between what they refer to as mash pH and what they refer to as wort pH, and I'm hopeful that they will respond. In their published "pH In The Brewery" document they consistently show wort pH as hovering at about 0.2 to 0.25 pH points higher than mash pH, and they chart both of them as separate and distinct data lines on a single graph. I have pondered this matter before, but my current presumption is that this will prove to be the measured pH span that they witness when taking a very early (as in say 10 minute) mash pH reading vs. a pre-boil wort pH reading. I also specifically asked Weyermann to tell me if their DIpH's as garnered from lot codes found on 25 Kg bags are intended to be interpreted as mash pH's or wort pH's.

 

[Big Monk]

This reminds me. I reached out to Weyermann earlier this morning in an email asking them to explain the difference between what they refer to as mash pH and what they refer to as wort pH, and I'm hopeful that they will respond. In their published "pH In The Brewery" document they consistently show wort pH as hovering at about 0.2 to 0.25 pH points higher than mash pH, and they chart both of them as separate and distinct data lines on a single graph. I have pondered this matter before, but my current presumption is that this will prove to be the measured pH span that they witness when taking a very early (as in say 10 minute) mash pH reading vs. a pre-boil wort pH reading. I also specifically asked Weyermann to tell me if their DIpH's as garnered from lot codes found on 25 Kg bags are intended to be interpreted as mash pH's or wort pH's.

Wort pH = DI pH of the malt

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Wort pH = DI pH of the malt

I hope Weyermann responds to my email soon to confirm this. If this is so, and some maltsters report early "mash pH" data, whereas others report full mash termination, or "wort pH" data, and there is roughly a 0.23 pH point difference between them as verified by the Weyermann data and graph, that will assuredly throw a monkey wrench into a lot of accumulated DIpH data, particulatly for the case whereby one has maltster sourced data but does not know if it is mash pH or wort pH derived.

 

[Big Monk]

I hope Weyermann responds to my email soon to confirm this. If this is so, and some maltsters report early "mash pH" data, whereas others report full mash termination, or "wort pH" data, and there is roughly a 0.23 pH point difference between them as verified by the Weyermann data and graph, that will assuredly throw a monkey wrench into a lot of accumulated DIpH data, particulatly for the case whereby one has maltster sourced data but does not know if it is mash pH or wort pH derived.

I’m confused. Malt testing is done by certain standards that should be universal from maltster to maltster.

I think it’s more a question of semantics rather than different companies reporting different results.

 

[SanPancho]

well i guess that would seem to indicate that viking is most likely the culprit. going to be a while until the next brew with pale base but i'll switch back to briess next time and see if my numbers get back on track.