Sorry Martin... B'N'W problem

[mabrungard]

Ken, I REALLY don't like to add minerals to the mash. As pointed out in that posting that Matt referenced, it is so much better to fully dissolve the minerals into the mashing and sparging water before adding to the grain so that you can be assured that those ionic components are evenly and fully distributed. It takes a lot of stirring to get things mixed up very well.

By the way, is this a RIMS? If not, the mixing becomes a critical issue. Oh heck, even if you have RIMS, I found that out the other day. I was mashing a Hefe with my RIMS and decided to scrimp on rice hulls. The flow rate sucked and I had forgotten to add the acid addition to the mashing water prior to mashing in. WELL, I had a really low pH in that wort sitting on top of the grist for about 15 minutes. It took forever to get the acid distributed through the mash and wort. (Note to self: Follow your own advice...I'm a dumba$$).

 

[kenlenard]

Cylindrical cooler with an SS braid. No direct-fired ability so heating mash water on the stove, etc. I mentioned in my last post that I would add the acid and additions to the mash water before heating and try that. But on this upcoming beer, I'm going to be a little more conservative on the acid addition to the mash water. If it's not low enough, I can always add a little more.

 

[kenlenard]

I could certainly try that. Looks like I might be brewing on Wednesday this week. Very simple recipe... 9 lbs of Rahr Pale Ale malt, 4 ounces of C40 and 4 ounces of Special B. I'm going to make it with all tap water. Add 1.2g of CaSO4 and 2.5g CaCl to the mash. BNW shows that I need 3ml of acid added to the mash to get the mash pH to 5.2. Something tells me that I'm going to be low if I do it though. I might add 1.5ml plus the additions to the mash water, heat it and then check the pH. FWIW, the new version of EZ_Water says I need 5ml. Ugh.

Gang... here's an update. I started this beer today around 5:30. Added 1.2g of gypsum and 2.5g of CaCl to the mash water along with 1.5ml of lactic acid. All filtered tap water for this beer. I checked the mash (more on my meter later) and it was 5.4. I added another 1ml of acid to the MT and settled in at 5.2. So BNW suggested 3ml and 2.5 was correct and that doesn't mean that BNW wouldn't have been correct if I entered 2.5ml total (although I'm pretty sure I was working my way up with acid and this was the first entry that got me to 5.2). Anyway, seems reasonable and I'm happy with what happened this morning.

On my meter: I called Milwaukee Instruments yesterday to tell them that my meter would show "WRNG" when calibrating the 4.0 point. Jason in support suggested soaking my meter in white distilled vinegar overnight. I placed the tip into some white distilled vinegar and noticed that some small pieces of filmy schputz were floating in the vinegar. Seems I had some residue left on the probe. How, I don't know. I left the meter in there for about 30 minutes and calibrated. It calibrated cleanly without the WRNG message. Then I put it back into the vinegar. This morning I rinsed it off and calibrated it. WRNG! Then again. WRNG! Then rinsed it and calibrated again. It calibrated cleanly and read the 4.0, 7.0 and my 6.6 tap water properly. Who knew a meter would be such a PITA and source of stress!?!?! Ugh. Could my 4.9 pH on the previous batch have been due to some schputzy film on the probe? Possible, I suppose.

Cheers guys... thanks for all of the help and replies on this thread.

 

[Yooper]

Gang... here's an update. I started this beer today around 5:30. Added 1.2g of gypsum and 2.5g of CaCl to the mash water along with 1.5ml of lactic acid. All filtered tap water for this beer. I checked the mash (more on my meter later) and it was 5.4. I added another 1ml of acid to the MT and settled in at 5.2. So BNW suggested 3ml and 2.5 was correct and that doesn't mean that BNW wouldn't have been correct if I entered 2.5ml total (although I'm pretty sure I was working my way up with acid and this was the first entry that got me to 5.2). Anyway, seems reasonable and I'm happy with what happened this morning.

On my meter: I called Milwaukee Instruments yesterday to tell them that my meter would show "WRNG" when calibrating the 4.0 point. Jason in support suggested soaking my meter in white distilled vinegar overnight. I placed the tip into some white distilled vinegar and noticed that some small pieces of filmy schputz were floating in the vinegar. Seems I had some residue left on the probe. How, I don't know. I left the meter in there for about 30 minutes and calibrated. It calibrated cleanly without the WRNG message. Then I put it back into the vinegar. This morning I rinsed it off and calibrated it. WRNG! Then again. WRNG! Then rinsed it and calibrated again. It calibrated cleanly and read the 4.0, 7.0 and my 6.6 tap water properly. Who knew a meter would be such a PITA and source of stress!?!?! Ugh. Could my 4.9 pH on the previous batch have been due to some schputzy film on the probe? Possible, I suppose.

Cheers guys... thanks for all of the help and replies on this thread.

That's exactly what happened with my meter- it's been sent back to Milwaukee Instruments twice, and I've purchased three new electrodes. It worked great a couple of times, but now it's not even usable. I was very unhappy with my meter, that's for sure!

 

[ajdelange]

Wort contains protein which would love to coat your bulb and clog your junction. This is the best explanation for your weird pH readings offered to date. There are pH electrode cleaners which contains enzymes designed to attack protein coats. The more generally applicable Zymit should work equally well.

 

[zwiller]

Sorry to read about the issues you guys have but it basically is the same experience I've had with them. I think it's possible these handheld things are mostly designed for light use such as aquariums etc and brewing just is too much stress on them. I wager the measurements during mashing are what that do it, high solids/proteins. Sparge water acidification and final pH are probably OK.

 

[mchrispen]

This thread starting me wondering - so I did a test mash today in a 1 quart drink cooler.

All mineral and acid measurements were weighed on a gram-weight scale, and the grain to the nearest tenth of ounce. I mashed in first with RO water - intentionally added the tiny mineral adjustments to the mash, along with a small acid addition. I was attempting to strike at 156F with a pH of 5.4, and a 1.5 qt/lb water/grist ratio. After a few minutes of stirring, visually well mixed with no dough balls, I sealed the vessel and gave it a good shaking. Letting that sits for a few minutes, I took some pipettes and drew 5 samples into shot glasses from various levels in the mash, as well as measured temperatures in various levels and areas of the mash with a NIST traceable digital thermometer. I was frankly very shocked at the distribution of values. The pH varied from 4.8 to 5.7, and the temperature varied from 166F to 150F.

I decided to stir again vigorously, this time with a whisk. I whisked for at least 3 more minutes, which caused a temperature drop. I added hot water to bring up the temperature to about 1.75 qt/lb ratio, which stabilized the mean temperatures. The pH measurements continued to range from 5.0 to 5.6. I closed up the vessel and let it sit for another 30 minutes. At that point, I checked temperatures, which only varied about 1-2 degrees between locations. I only took 3 pH readings from various levels in the mash, which ranged from 5.4 to 5.55. However, conversion tests (iodine on paper towels) showed conversion was not complete at that point (about 40-45 minutes into the mash). At 60 minutes, I checked the mash again, drained the mash into a pot and the first runnings were right at 5.43, and right onto my expected gravity of 1.058. I should add all samples were cooled to around 70F.

I now wish I took better notes about where in the mash each sample was taken, and a more scientific approach. I did not write down all of the measurements - nor could I take a temperature reading at the sampling location accurately. So no precise repeatability, and of course, a single set of data. Take the above with a grain of salt. Also - the iodine test is not terribly reliable, and I did not test the conversion samples on a refractometer.

My point? It seems that static mashes are highly susceptible to stratification of temperatures (which I knew) but also pH, and I assume concentration of enzymes or their activity. I am wondering if some of the inconsistency we generally see in mash readings are from readings from a mash site that is not representative of the entire mash, either concentrated or diluted. I now wonder where the ideal sampling location might be - if there is one at all, perhaps a vorlauf-like procedure in the middle of the mash with a larger wort sample? I got a consistent reading on the runnings of this mash as it was collected and homogenized. I brew on a RIMS system, and never really worried about liquor mineral distribution as I generally pump pretty quickly with a course crush. Martin's comment about acid staying on the top of his RIMS mash is what triggered me to check. While not scientific - my observation seems to uphold Martin's assertion of treating the strike liquor before mash-in to maximize the distribution of minerals and acid to the grist, but also support that mash-in requires fairly rigorous stirring to ensure complete hydration and temperature distribution beyond just eliminating dough balls.

Perhaps someone else is doing a test mash soon that could verify my observations?

 

[kenlenard]

Wow, Matt.... good stuff. The only thing I can say is that when I take a small sample for the mash, I have a frozen metal cup I use to quickly lower the sample temp and I stir the mash like I'm getting paid for it and draw the sample as I'm stirring because I had heard that there could be stratification of pH. The range of temps and pHs you saw make me want to go back to buying commercial beer. LOL. Anyone for a Busch Light!?!?!?!

Cheers and thanks for the experiment.

 

[mtnagel]

Yep, very interesting. I also stir before sampling, but I take it from the surface. Perhaps I should do something different.

 

[zwiller]

Matt, dude, great job. Back in the day of weird meter stuff, I saw large differences from samples drawn from the grant and from on top of the mash. I stir every 10-15 minutes. With my setup, the samples from the grant were always quite lower than from the top of the grain bed.

Yes, Ken, a round of Busch light on me! Actually, how about Old Milwaukee Light to keep it American?

 

[kenlenard]

yes, ken, a round of busch light on me! Actually, how about old milwaukee light to keep it american?

hey-o!

 

[mchrispen]

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

 

[mtnagel]

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.

 

[mabrungard]

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!

 

[mchrispen]

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.

 

[mabrungard]

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.

 

[mchrispen]

Now there's a thought!

 

[kenlenard]

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.

 

[14thstreet]

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.