deadwolfbones
Well-Known Member
It gives you a green box because most software says 5.2-5.6 is a good range. But what people are saying in this thread is that the higher end of the range actually produces better results.
God dammit! Sorry, yes you are correct. temp up - pH down, that's my rule for this. So if I've been targeting 5.2 in the spreadsheet, does this mean that I've been mashing in a crazy low mash pH? Damn I just can't grasp this. But it gives me a green box!
Yes, you've been mashing crazy low. It's like Dave's been saying, the software all incorporates the same fundamental misunderstanding. Ignore the green boxes.
Wow..... the following is very telling.......
I always keep track of various parameters for every batch. One parameter is mash pH, typically measured after about the first 10-15 minutes in. These are reported at room temp, by the way. Another parameter is a normalized quality score on a 0-100 scale. I won't get into how that's determined at the moment but suffice it to say that I try to evenly distribute as many scores from 0-50 as I do from 51-100. Following is a plot of pH vs. quality score for my last, I dunno, ~100 batches.
View attachment 639240
What I am able to conclude from this new graph, which I've never done until now, is that if I mash at 5.5 @room temp (which would be about 5.25 at mash temp ~150 F), then I am extremely likely to end up with a high quality beer.
How do you like that?! I sure as hell know what to aim for now. In fact I'll even go higher to 5.6, since I only have 3 data points there currently. I imagine that part of the curve will shift upwards with more data points, but, maybe not. Maybe there truly is a ceiling, at 5.5 for me and my process, beyond which the quality goes bye-bye.
P.S. And yes, I've always rounded to the nearest 0.1 pH unit. Good enough for me.
That's my thought too. But to just cut to the chase. I can just use the pH assumption in the spreadsheet and call it a day? If it says 5.2 it is 5.2.
I would trust but verify. Most of us (initially at least) used bits and pieces of math models from either AJ deLange or Kai Troester or DM Riffe (or all three) as our inspiration for our software. And all of those sources insist upon 25 degree C. mash pH readings.
I'm getting more confused by every reply I recieve now.. If 25C is the reference temperature, and the software (Bru'n Water) says 5.2 am I mashing extremely low or "good" when it says 5.2? Would this mean, if 5.2 as stated from the software, and measured at 25C, would this mean 5.45 at mash temps? I just don't get it.
I'm getting more confused by every reply I recieve now.. If 25C is the reference temperature, and the software (Bru'n Water) says 5.2 am I mashing extremely low or "good" when it says 5.2? Would this mean, if 5.2 as stated from the software, and measured at 25C, would this mean 5.45 at mash temps? I just don't get it.
If I'm understanding everything correctly (a big if!), we've been mashing at 5.2-5.3 per the calculators when we should have been mashing at 5.5-5.6 per the calculators, for ideal results.
FWIW, I think 5.2-5.3 is probably still perfectly acceptable for styles where a lighter body/less malt presence is desirable, eg. sours and saisons. But for English ales, stouts, German styles I'm going to try the higher end in the future.
I'm still waiting for someone to definitively prove that the old timers of yore took their mash pH sample readings at mash temperature.
If I'm understanding everything correctly (a big if!), we've been mashing at 5.2-5.3 per the calculators when we should have been mashing at 5.5-5.6 per the calculators, for ideal results.
FWIW, I think 5.2-5.3 is probably still perfectly acceptable for styles where a lighter body/less malt presence is desirable, eg. sours and saisons. But for English ales, stouts, German styles I'm going to try the higher end in the future.
Sorry for sidetracking the thread!
I'm getting more confused by every reply I receive now
given the cost associated with burning out and having to replace a pH probe.
The cost is about $13 as far as I'm concerned. My $13 meter has worked just fine at mash temperatures for at least the past 3 years. Hasn't needed replacement yet.
https://www.amazon.com/Poit-Digital...+home+brewing&qid=1565358082&s=gateway&sr=8-3
Have you ever tried the Hanna pHep5? I may sound like a broken record recommending it, but I'm high on it for good reason. I get a couple of years on an electrode, the junction is renewable which helps a lot, reliable and durable. Not as cheap as what Dave uses, but I think cheaper than the usual Milwaukee units and ATC for auto calibration to boot.pH meters hate me. For some reason I blow a probe ~ every 10 months regardless of how carefully l store it.
This thread is informative and interesting.
One thing I'd point out though, if ones reference of success is hitting some value that agrees with some software, ones beer might not be as satisfying as brews brewed to ones own taste.
I get it, we are in early 21st century, but seems to me some are more fixated on the screens in front of their face than actual outcome of the beer they brew.
Anyway, have a good weekend and make some beer if you can.
I have a recipe I brewed before at 5.4. I removed the lactic acid and now the predicted is 5.65. I'm brewing this tomorrow, should be fun.5.60-5.65 room temperature for me. Improvement in every aspect of process and wort and beer quality, night and day, over ~5.4 room temperature.
I think ones reference of success is understanding the importance of those values.This thread is informative and interesting.
One thing I'd point out though, if ones reference of success is hitting some value that agrees with some software, ones beer might not be as satisfying as brews brewed to ones own taste.
I think ones reference of success is understanding the importance of those values.
I don't use software to figure it out though, only trail and error and some note books.
Interesting reading here: https://byo.com/mr-wizard/setting-record-straight-mash-ph/
Looks like I've been using water chem calculators wrong and (probably) hitting a mash pH 0.2-0.3 too low. Huh.
Crazy, I always check at room temp and shot for the recommended range in BrunWater. I wonder if mabrungard would care to chime in on this?
Yes, a write up of this issue was posted on the Bru'n Water Facebook page quite a while ago. You may have to scroll down the page a bit to find it.
Thank you for the link, for those of us not on FB.
Thank you for the link, for those of us not on FB.
Crazy. This might explain why I NEVER hit my projected pH from the online calculators when taking a reading at room temp. I have always been way higher and have had to then adjust my mash with acid (which is actually then dropping my pH too low).
My last few batches I have been taking my readings at mash temps (because I have been lazy) and have been surprised that they have been pretty close to my projected numbers from the calculator.
I never understood how people claimed they hit their numbers every time from the online calculators (to the point that they didn't even bother taking readings) and I was always so far off...live and learn.
I'd agree with those people only if they are exactly duplicating each batch using the same water, grains and quantities. There's no getting around having to take and record mash pH measurements though. If your lucky enough to hit your target mash pH the first time then that's awesome. If further tuning is needed to get the mash pH to where you want it to be then take and record those mash pH measurements too.I never understood how people claimed they hit their numbers every time from the online calculators (to the point that they didn't even bother taking readings) and I was always so far off...live and learn.
@Silver_Is_Money sounds like an interesting project. I'd be included as an alpha tester too just let me know what's needed and I'm in.Once my kettle pH adjustment software (which is intended to essentially replace mash pH prediction software for most recipes) transitions beyond the Alpha stage I will likely open up a new thread. There are four Alpha level testers on board so far, and one independent test result is now on the books. That isn't enough to justify a new thread at this juncture.
Posted this here, to my own thread, so as to cease walking on a thread that is not related to this subject matter.
Enter your email address to join: