Factors affecting Water Chemistry Calculations (Oh no, not again!)

[marc1]

@Peebee it sounds like the issue you are trying to figure out is that since ppm is a concentration, it doesn't say anything about how much absolute minerals there are in the mash. So people mashing with the same ppm but at different thicknesses are mashing with different absolute amounts of minerals?
I see your vinegar analogy above... wouldn't it make the most sense to know the ppm and the mash thickness? That tells you what is needed to replicate that portion of the recipe. So 75ppm Ca in the mash at a water to grist ratio of 2qt/lb (eg, to use your example, instead of 5% vinegar for your chips, or 30mL of vinegar for your chips [because we don't know how many chips you have, that could be a lot or a little], say 5mL of 5% vinegar per 30g of chips).

The calculator I use has inputs for mash and sparge mineral additions, and then provides an overall mineralization that combines both. We know that some minerals may be lost, and some may be added from the grain, but this provides a way to track the things that we can control so that we can try to repeat recipes. If you keep your process consistent, then you should be able to more reliably replicate your own beers.

I'm trying to understand what your goal is - standardizing recipes? Experienced brewers know that when they see a basic recipe from someone else, they have to adapt it to their own system/process, and it it unlikely to come out exactly the same as the original done on a different system/process.

 

[Peebee]

... I think you might be overthinking this one. Speaking as a brewer who is a chronic overthinker, I think you should RDWHAHB and just use Bru'n water ...

I can't "relax". I really have got a brewing problem, and no-one wanted to help me with it, so if I can't figure it out myself then it looks like I'm stuffed?

My mash pH is often below 5.0. Even after my recent attempts (six months old ... well, I'm slow!) I didn't make any progress. With hindsight my "fixes" were defective, hence this OTT update! Mashing at pH5.0 was hopeless making Stouts and such. And I'm partial to a "London" Stout.

Bru'n Water converts the ppm concentrations and expresses the final additions in grams per gallons of water

Whats the problem?

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/thread...ulations-oh-no-not-again.737625/post-10494787. Grrr!

 

[Peebee]

... I'm trying to understand what your goal is - standardizing recipes?

Thanks very much. But, to deal with "why", it's very much like my previous campaign (dealing with out-dated "Water Hardness" and "as CaCO3"): To do away with "PPM" (and other "concentration" units) when referring to homebrewing. Both topics only cause misinterpretation and errors amongst brewers, even among brewers that know about them and thus compound the errors in the minds of other, less knowledgeable, brewers.

And! It's resulting in errors I'm making now (45-50 years a homebrewer!) so I naturally feel quite (edit, understatement: "VERY"!) strongly about it.

 

[Peebee]

I'm still curious as to where @Peebee is going, but ...

Eee heck. I'm thankful of all this attention I'm getting ... Previously, thinking I've "succeeded" in getting myself on everyone's "Ignore List", I wasn't getting the feedback I need to feel confident in what I'm doing!

The "why" was covered in my last post. I had thought I'd made that clear previously ... but obviously not.

"Where's it going": Just at the moment I'm employing "Bru'n Water" to backup what I'm doing. But I haven't got Martin's permission to publish exactly how I'm using Bru'n Water, so just pictures, no snips of my actual spreadsheet (@mabrungard ... hellllp!). Although I do need to get him a copy to judge it ... working on it.

Actually, I don't think many would get much from my "parasitic spreadsheet" but it's a fine tool for testing it all out. It's having to continue dealing with "ppm" to keep it running alongside and I massively underestimated the work and complexity that would involve. Certainly, reinforces my opinion of "ppm" though!

The aim is to develop a very, but no less (more like "a lot more") accuracy and simplicity. Bring things "up-to-date" by using our newfound ability to shape the water we use (well, relatively "newfound", I mean the timescale that RO filters have been easy to get hold of), thus we can create water for mashing that could be very different to the intended composition going into the boil. At this moment, we are very stuck in our ways, crafting water for mashing that does for the entire process.

I have no need for "RO Water" because my water is so low in dissolved salts anyway. But I'm finding that is exaggerating the difficulties I'm having controlling mash pH. (I've also moved towards low mash thicknesses which has its, unexpected, impact too). And it's that "difficulty" that's fuelling this project!

What I'm finding! Is much of what I'm doing is already described in Martin Brungard's "Water Knowledge". All except "Normalization" ... a process which I thought would go down easily with American brewers because it makes even less demands on mineral additions, whereas my own countrymen are going to find the low TDS mashing waters quite difficult to accept (like I've said before; us - "Traditional" - Brits like a good of salts in our beer!).

Some relevant samples from Martin's "Water Knowledge":

Calcium is typically the principal ion creating hardness in water. It is beneficial for mashing and enzyme action and is essential for yeast cell composition. Typical wort produced with wheat or barley contains more than enough calcium for yeast health. In the mash, calcium reacts with the malt phosphates (phytins) to lower the mash pH by precipitating calcium phosphate and liberating protons (H+). ...

Increasing the calcium content of mash water is a useful tool for reducing the pH of the mash water. Calcium content has little effect on beer flavor ...

4.3.10 Harden Water to Increase Malt Acid
Hardening the brewing water to increase malt acid (phytin) production is a common alternative for alkalinity reduction. The brewing water is hardened with calcium and/or magnesium salts to create more malt acids through the malt phosphate reaction with the calcium or magnesium (hardness) ions. This approach is directly from the concept of Residual Alkalinity presented above.

Hardening an alkaline water does not make the water suitable for sparging use. The malt phytin content is depleted during sparging and that malt acid production is limited during sparging. Alkaline sparging water should be neutralized with an acid addition.

And most importantly:

4.3.13 Delaying Hardness Mineral Additions to the Mash
Delaying hardness mineral additions to the mash may be an alternative to adding alkalinity when mashing an acidic grist. When the brewing water has lower than desired alkalinity and calcium and/or magnesium additions are planned for the water, delaying the addition of those hardness-producing minerals to the mash can be employed to avoid decreasing RA and mashing pH any further. An overly low mashing pH can increase the proteolysis of proteins in the wort and the body of the resulting wort can have less body (be thinner) than desired. Proper mashing pH avoids excessive proteolysis which should retain more of the medium-length proteins that contribute to beer body.

Although calcium and magnesium minerals can be important additions to brewing water, they are not absolutely needed in the mash when the alkalinity is too low for the mash. As long as those minerals are added to the wort prior to fermentation, they will still serve their purpose as if originally added to the mash without the detriment of decreasing mash pH too far. The calcium and/or magnesium additions intended for the mash can be added directly the kettle prior to the boil to provide the desired water profile to the wort. Be aware that the pH reducing effect of hardness mineral addition is not avoided, it is only delayed past the mash and it occurs in the kettle. If the resulting kettle wort pH will be too low, it is better to use the proper alkalinity level in the mash to avoid this effect.

"Normalization" because all this nattering has been about water. Static or Variable quantities of it. Whereas "malt" is always a "fixed" quantity for the planned output; it does not change in quantity because the water has. Yet the more water added will increase the calcium (measured in concentration amounts). And the excess Calcium must be balanced with more alkalinity salt (principle of "RA" or residual alkalinity).

Wow, that's an essay an' a 'arf!. Will that do?

 

[Unicorn_Platypus]

If you use RO water and Bru'n water you will hit your targets for PH within 0.05 even with dark beers

Add baking soda for alkalinity. If your base water is genuinely soft then use it. Have you had it lab tested?

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

Please do remember what Martin says alongside his pH display. "Estimated Mash pH". He doesn't say that to make himself sound clever. And he doesn't expect others to use it to sound clever either. He's just being honest.

Probably because the DIpH of all grains varies somewhat from batch to batch and maltster to maltster.

 

[Peebee]

Probably because the DIpH of all grains varies somewhat from batch to batch and maltster to maltster.

I *think* you might find Bru'n Water pre-dates all that "DIpH" stuff (it's what I was told). Martin is the one to question about that. As far as I'm concerned Bru'n Water has attained its place through results, and that's good enough for me. The "DIpH" stuff are apparently pretty accurate, but for the reasons you mention, the calculators using it precisely are a nightmare to maintain (for me at any rate). And the accuracy is for what purpose? Tying down a constantly moving target? I have considered it ... couldn't see it being helpful .... don't particularly want to go back.

If the predictions get me within one decimal place of reality (after mash is complete) that will do me and help solve my current mash problems. I'll leave the within pH 0.02 to magicians.

Cheers!