kenlenard
Well-Known Member
hey-o!
Sorry Martin... B'N'W problem
- Thread starter kenlenard
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
hey-o!
Well, one way to interpret this is that despite the various measurements (and I am pretty confident in them) I still managed to hit my expected gravity and efficiency. The bigger question in my mind is how critical chasing tight absolutes in mash pH might be. Seems there is some forgiveness in the mash. Assuming that test mash is more or less representative of mashing in my old cooler, I (and most of us here I suspect) are still making pretty good beer...
Of course "pretty good" is pretty subjective... And please put down the Old Milwaukee...
Sent from my iPad using Home Brew
Of course "pretty good" is pretty subjective... And please put down the Old Milwaukee...
Sent from my iPad using Home Brew
I was just listening to an old Brew Strong podcast from last year (5/13/13) with John Palmer about water and he said that above pH target the beer would be dull and boring and below target it would be sharp and harsh. And he said the pH range should be 5.2-5.6.
My last beer on made on Tues, BNW said I should hit 5.4, but I was at 5.57, so I made one more addition and got to 5.47, which I was fine with so I left it. Perhaps I would have been okay with 5.57. Is there really that much difference in 0.1 pH unit when you are still in the range? I'm thinking my palate wouldn't have been able to tell, but who knows. It was only a few more minutes of work.
My last beer on made on Tues, BNW said I should hit 5.4, but I was at 5.57, so I made one more addition and got to 5.47, which I was fine with so I left it. Perhaps I would have been okay with 5.57. Is there really that much difference in 0.1 pH unit when you are still in the range? I'm thinking my palate wouldn't have been able to tell, but who knows. It was only a few more minutes of work.
Matt, that was a great study! I figured that static mashes were probably subject to the degree of mixing, but your result still surprised me. Would you consider the amount of mixing you had to perform was really extensive or was the first mixing just poor? I don't doubt that the sealing up the vessel and shaking it may not have done much. You would have to do one of those paint mixer actions like at the paint store.
I agree that it probably does not make a big difference in the resulting beer if the pH was off by a tenth. The mash is a continuum of enzymatic and chemical reactions that would still make beer in the end. We would have to really screw up the conditions to prevent conversion. The effect of a tenth might have a teeny effect on the nuances in the flavor, but I wouldn't worry about that too much.
Horseshoes and hand grenades!
I agree that it probably does not make a big difference in the resulting beer if the pH was off by a tenth. The mash is a continuum of enzymatic and chemical reactions that would still make beer in the end. We would have to really screw up the conditions to prevent conversion. The effect of a tenth might have a teeny effect on the nuances in the flavor, but I wouldn't worry about that too much.
Horseshoes and hand grenades!
Good question on the first mix. It has been a while since I doughed-in in my igloo cooler mash tun, but I felt that I mixed like I would have in the larger mashtun. With this little 1 quart cooler jug, the mash seemed maybe a tiny bit thicker than normal, but thoroughly mixed. While I preheated the cooler, I dropped the grist in first, the minerals (really a very tiny amount as you can expect) and then poured the hot water in. My water was fairly warm - around 180F, and filled the cooler to about 3/4 full. I should pull the recipe and post it with volumes for the test mash... My pipettes can reach about 4-5" into the mash - perfect for the 1 quart cooler, and my thermometer has about the same length.
That got mixed just to ensure I eliminated dough balls. It didn't occur to me to mix longer, so say a minute or so that raised a bit of foam and a porridge like consistency. I let that sit to settle before testing as the temperature needed to settle. The shaking was more because I was a bit frustrated with the readings - as you say - not the most effective. The later whisking was much more thorough and of course, the extra liquor (which diluted the minerals and acid slightly) getting stirred in with the whisk helped. I think a thinner mash will probably distribute better.
I really need to redo this - before we (I) read too much into the observations.
I was running the test mash to determine where I needed to fall using a new small batch maltster's product that seems to be more acidic than the GW 2 row I normally use. I also crushed like I would for RIMS - and I wonder if the larger crush slowed the buffering process. I think I could redo this when I have the time and record a bit better at what level in the mash and location - and produce analytical results... as well as compare to pre-dosed strike water in a mash. Perhaps taking a set of 4 readings every 5 - 10 minutes with correlating location temps. Also not sure how this would scale up to a 5 or 10 gallon cooler, or if tun shape would be an issue. Perhaps tune the recipe to represent a typical mash tun height/width so that the mash bed is more typical.
That got mixed just to ensure I eliminated dough balls. It didn't occur to me to mix longer, so say a minute or so that raised a bit of foam and a porridge like consistency. I let that sit to settle before testing as the temperature needed to settle. The shaking was more because I was a bit frustrated with the readings - as you say - not the most effective. The later whisking was much more thorough and of course, the extra liquor (which diluted the minerals and acid slightly) getting stirred in with the whisk helped. I think a thinner mash will probably distribute better.
I really need to redo this - before we (I) read too much into the observations.
I was running the test mash to determine where I needed to fall using a new small batch maltster's product that seems to be more acidic than the GW 2 row I normally use. I also crushed like I would for RIMS - and I wonder if the larger crush slowed the buffering process. I think I could redo this when I have the time and record a bit better at what level in the mash and location - and produce analytical results... as well as compare to pre-dosed strike water in a mash. Perhaps taking a set of 4 readings every 5 - 10 minutes with correlating location temps. Also not sure how this would scale up to a 5 or 10 gallon cooler, or if tun shape would be an issue. Perhaps tune the recipe to represent a typical mash tun height/width so that the mash bed is more typical.
Matt, you need to submit this to the AHA Research and Education Fund so that they can support your efforts with a little cash and you can get your research and results immortalized on the AHA website and maybe even in Zymurgy. I can see this with the results you already have and then another trial with all the mineral and acid adjustments performed on the water PRIOR to doughing in. I have recommended that later approach, so it would be interesting (to me) to see if there is a big difference in uniformity in pH and temperature through the mash.
I would say that performing some sort of wort recirculation would be interesting too, but some brewers don't do that. May be that could still be a part of it since most brewers can Vorlauf.
By the way, I am part of the AHA REF committee.
I would say that performing some sort of wort recirculation would be interesting too, but some brewers don't do that. May be that could still be a part of it since most brewers can Vorlauf.
By the way, I am part of the AHA REF committee.
Now there's a thought!
kenlenard
Well-Known Member
Okay guys, another update. Since the vinegar treatment on my meter, it has been acting much better. Reading very accurately and calibrating properly. This morning I'm making a version of Jamil's Vienna. I decided that it was going to be a 100% filtered tap water beer so my numbers (shown on page 1?) are in effect and there is no dilution. Grain bill looks like this:
4.5 lbs Best Malz Vienna (4.5L)
3.0 lbs Best Malz Munich 10L (10L)
2.5 lbs Best Malz Pils (2L)
1.5 ounces Dehusked Carafa III (online sources show an L° rating of something like 490 to 560L so I entered 500 into BNW).
4 gallons mash water, 4 gallons sparge. .5g of gypsum and 2.3g of CaCl added to the mash water. BNW predicted that I would need 4ml of lactic acid to reach a mash pH of 5.2. Being conservative, I added 2.5ml to the mash water. While the mash was heating, I poured fresh calibration solutions and my meter read 4.0 and 7.0 perfectly. I got everything mixed, waited a bit, stirred as though I had gone to all the best schools on the subject, stirred some more and drew my sample, cooled it quickly to around 70° and measured... 5.2. So it appears consistent that BNW is telling me I need more acid than I actually do. Someone else (Zwiller?) asked if my unusually low water pH of 6.6 would be part of the issue but I assume BNW takes this into consideration because it's entered in the water tab. Again, I have no idea if this is me using BNW incorrectly or some other factor that no one else has seen before. I am getting more comfortable using BNW and it's relatively simple to go from batch to batch (just enter the new grain bill, salts & acid additions and see what it tells you based on the color of the beer, etc). So I feel good about using it but the fact that it thinks I need more acid for the mash is unsettling. Oh, btw... it also predicted I would need 2.45ml of acid to get my sparge water in line and I added 2ml and measured and it was 5.8 so I added another .5ml and it came to 5.5 so that appeared to be right on. Cheers Beerheads & thanks again for all the help & direction.
4.5 lbs Best Malz Vienna (4.5L)
3.0 lbs Best Malz Munich 10L (10L)
2.5 lbs Best Malz Pils (2L)
1.5 ounces Dehusked Carafa III (online sources show an L° rating of something like 490 to 560L so I entered 500 into BNW).
4 gallons mash water, 4 gallons sparge. .5g of gypsum and 2.3g of CaCl added to the mash water. BNW predicted that I would need 4ml of lactic acid to reach a mash pH of 5.2. Being conservative, I added 2.5ml to the mash water. While the mash was heating, I poured fresh calibration solutions and my meter read 4.0 and 7.0 perfectly. I got everything mixed, waited a bit, stirred as though I had gone to all the best schools on the subject, stirred some more and drew my sample, cooled it quickly to around 70° and measured... 5.2. So it appears consistent that BNW is telling me I need more acid than I actually do. Someone else (Zwiller?) asked if my unusually low water pH of 6.6 would be part of the issue but I assume BNW takes this into consideration because it's entered in the water tab. Again, I have no idea if this is me using BNW incorrectly or some other factor that no one else has seen before. I am getting more comfortable using BNW and it's relatively simple to go from batch to batch (just enter the new grain bill, salts & acid additions and see what it tells you based on the color of the beer, etc). So I feel good about using it but the fact that it thinks I need more acid for the mash is unsettling. Oh, btw... it also predicted I would need 2.45ml of acid to get my sparge water in line and I added 2ml and measured and it was 5.8 so I added another .5ml and it came to 5.5 so that appeared to be right on. Cheers Beerheads & thanks again for all the help & direction.
14thstreet
Well-Known Member
Ken, I'm a bit surprised, and then again I'm not, that you haven't chosen to brew the same beer twice with the same ingredients and proceedure during all this. Last week I brewed up a dopplebock and mashed in a bag in my kettle. Like Matt I could not believe the level of temperature stratification I found during my step mashes. Even after what I thought was sufficient stirring the temps were not uniform. As such, I wouldn't for a second believe pH was also uniform. While I was neither happy with the temps nor with the work in trying to stabilize them, my mash efficiency was excellent.
