Proposed simple kettle pH adjustment, a potentially new 'ballpark rule of thumb' for your consideration

[VikeMan]

This is sort of "baked-in" to the beer mathematics. You have to compare possible/theoretical sugars to something, and I have always used 46.21 as the basis. We know right off the bat that we need to adjust for moisture and extraction/conversion efficiency. We know that extraction/conversion efficiency is the mechanism by which we account the everything else besides starches and moisture.

I agree with all this. Sort of. I use the number 46.21 so much that I see it in my sleep.

What I don't agree with is that malt, in any theoretical word (let alone real world), could yield it. Sucrose yes. Malt no.

The step that's missing above is determining what the total (100%) potential yield from malt is. And it's not 46(.21) adjusted for moisture.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Maltsters arrive at the FGDB value by subtracting out protien, husk material, etc.

So perhaps the rudimentary approach I presented (which did include moisture) is on the right track, or at least close enough whereby to alter a Congress Mash buffering factor to suit Joe/Josette's efficiency based buffering valuation? Only 46.21 must replace my 46.

 

[VikeMan]

So perhaps the rudimentary approach I presented (which did include moisture) is on the right track, or at least close enough whereby to alter a Congress Mash buffering factor to suit Joe/Josette's efficiency based buffering valuation? Only 46.21 must replace my 46.

PPG = DBFG x (1 - Moisture) x 46.21 PPG

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I agree with all this. Sort of. I use the number 46.21 so much that I see it in my sleep.

What I don't agree with is that malt, in any theoretical word (let alone real world), could yield it. Sucrose yes. Malt no.

The step that's missing above is determining what the total (100%) potential yield from malt is. And it's not 46(.21) adjusted for moisture.

Briess again lists the maximum for their grains at 37-38, and not 46.21. It's almost as if they are multiplying 46.21 x grind efficiency x (1- moisture fraction) = theoretical maximum extraction points per pound for each malt or grain or adjunct.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Ah, we are arriving on the same page. With both of us typing over each other...

 

[VikeMan]

Briess again lists the maximum for their grains at 37-38, and not 46.21. It's almost as if they are multiplying 46.21 x grind efficiency x (1- moisture fraction) = theoretical maximum extraction points per pound for each malt or grain or adjunct.

That's exactly what they should be doing.

ETA: here's a presentation I gave a while back to my local homebrew club:
http://sonsofalchemy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Mash_Efficiency_and_Brewhouse_Efficiency.pdfUnfortunately it doesn't cover conversion efficiency and lauter efficiency, since most people don't need to think about them directly.

 

[VikeMan]

Ah, we are arriving on the same page. With both of us typing over each other...

Lol. Yeah. The formula above ( PPG = DBFG x (1 - Moisture) x 46.21 PPG ) is the one I've always used.

ETA: watch out for articles, books, and even one particular boutique maltster I can think of out there that skip the moisture adjustment part. Just sloppy.

 

[Big Monk]

The step that's missing above is determining what the total (100%) potential yield from malt is. And it's not 46(.21) adjusted for moisture.

Right. Fine Grind Dry Basis IS the 100% maximum potential yield for malt, it's just on a Sugar basis.

Think per unit calculations in electrical engineering.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Now it comes down to a question of the validity of this part of it:

Effective buffer = 72/90 x 45 = 36 mEq/Kg.pH

I wonder just what sort of efficiency a Congress Mash generally yields? (whereby to replace the '90' divisor with something better)

 

[Big Monk]

Now it comes down to a question of the validity of this part of it:



I wonder just what sort of efficiency a Congress Mash generally yields? (whereby to replace the '90' divisor with something better.

I don’t think you have a basis for this though. It’s a WAG even in the best case, and does not have enough basis to be considered a SWAG.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I don’t think you have a basis for this though. It’s WAG, and does not have enough basis to be considered a SWAG.

I did admit above that "for now at least" it is purely driven by intuition, and that intuition often makes for bad science. But then D.M. Riffe says something around 0.65 seems to be about right. It (I.E., 0.65) may (again intuitively) correlate somehow to efficiency, but with an offset constant or variable, or alternately, completely non-linearly.... 72/90 = 0.80. Better than half the way to 0.65....

 

[VikeMan]

I wonder just what sort of efficiency a Congress Mash generally yields? (whereby to replace the '90' divisor with something better)

I think you could just treat a congress mash as 100%. The DBFG is an output of the congress mash, and the efficiency numbers we talk about are in relation to that.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I think you could just treat a congress mash as 100%. The DBFG is an output of the congress mash, and the efficiency numbers we talk about are in relation to that.

So then it would be 72/100 = 0.72. Even closer to 0.65... I used to default it to 0.70. Then I set it back to 1, or full buffering. Of course it would differ for each recipe and each system capability.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

And then there is "correlation does not in and of itself imply causation", which I believe is where Big Monk is coming from. It is a matter for testing and the scientific method to decide.

 

[VikeMan]

Maltsters arrive at the FGDB value by subtracting out protien, husk material, etc.

I would say they arrive at FGDB by measuring the gravity of the wort produced, and then adjusting for moisture. They don't need to measure protein and husk material directly to determine FGDB.

 

[Big Monk]

I would say they arrive at FGDB by measuring the gravity of the wort produced, and then adjusting for moisture. They don't need to measure protein and husk material directly to determine FGDB.

I didn't make the point I wanted to. What I should have said is that protein content, etc. arrives out of the FGDB measurement, not the other way around.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

That's exactly what they should be doing.

ETA: here's a presentation I gave a while back to my local homebrew club:
http://sonsofalchemy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Mash_Efficiency_and_Brewhouse_Efficiency.pdfUnfortunately it doesn't cover conversion efficiency and lauter efficiency, since most people don't need to think about them directly.

@VikeMan nicely done presentation and very helpful, thanks for posting