# Pilsner and acid adjustment



## TheWiggman

My next venture is a Bohemian pilsner. I now have my system under control and have the luxury of temp control. The venture into the subtle style of pilsner though has identified the biggest weakness in my system to tackle this - water.

I've enjoyed reading through this thread with some clearly very experienced an knowledgeable brewers. Below is a picture of the tap water I have on hand, which I got tested privately recently - 

Metals - tested to CA14106. If not listed, concentration is <0.01mg/l

Calcium 9.9 mg/l
Copper 0.02 mg/l
Magnesium 7.1 mg/l
Potassium 3 mg/l
_Silica (Si02) _4.9 mg/l
Sodium 10 mg/l
Zinc  0.03 mg/l
_Total hardness:_ 54.0 mg\l

Anions - test method CA15000

Chloride (Cl) 14 mg/l
Sulfate (SO4) 4 mg/l

Alkalinity - test method CA12121

Total alkalinity (CaCO3) 53 mg/l
Phenolphthalein alkalinity (CaCO3) <25 mg/l

pH @ 25°C 7.4

Overall it's good and very low in minerals, but I've noticed that due to the slight hardness and measured alkalinity, the mash pH is too high. To do a pilsener properly I need it to get down to the low 5's. 
There are a few ways I can see I can do this - 

Adding some acidulated malt (2% max recommend to minimise minerals)
Treating with calcium chloride
Treating with lactic acid
The issue as I see it is mainly the total carbonate (bicarb + carb) content. Using a calculator, it's around 64 ppm. If I use CaCl this will up the bicarbonate and minerals but reduce the pH. 
If I use lactic acid though I can get it as far down as I want, but I'm concerned 4ml of lactic acid (some for the sparge, some for mash) will contribute too much to flavour/sourness and will again have a negative impact. In either case I will need to add some some I can fly sparge at 85°C.

Any suggestions? I have a feeling lactic acid is simply 'too easy' and if it was the be-all and end-all of pH issues it'd be a stable mention for any home brewer. And no, I don't have access to RO water and due to cost I want to avoid distilled. I've attached the Brunwater spreadsheet for those interested. 

View attachment Brun Water - Bohemian Pilsner.xls


----------



## manticle

How does a calcium chloride addition up the bicarbonate?

Small acid additions are fine. If concerned, use calcium salt (calcium has benefits beyond pH) and some acid.


----------



## Black n Tan

Melbourne Water is also very soft. I use CaCl2 to get the Ca to 50-60ppm. I also add about 3-3.5% acidulated malt and that gets me to pH5.2. I can't taste the lactic acid, the taste threshold is somewhere well north of 5% acidulated (see braukaiser site for more info).


----------



## TheWiggman

manticle said:


> How does a calcium chloride addition up the bicarbonate?
> 
> Small acid additions are fine. If concerned, use calcium salt (calcium has benefits beyond pH) and some acid.


Should have said total carbonates. I'm not great (in fact bad) with chemistry. Addition of CaCl increases carbonates in the spreadsheet, upping hardness but reducing pH. 
From my view it seems like picking the lesser of 2 evils. I want to target minimal minerals to mirror the style, but can't due to total alkalinity. The water is otherwise close. By adding minerals I can address the alkalinity, but this moves away from the purpose of the exercise. 
In any case, low mash pH is the primary goal, matching mineral content the second. From my novice observations, lactic acid seems like the best compromise.


----------



## tiprya

Using lactic acid (or acidulated malt) is fine, but as the others have said, you need to get your calcium levels up for a number of reasons, including yeast health.

Use a small amount of CaCl2 to get calcium where it needs to be, then use lactic acid to get your pH where you need it.

How much lactic does the spreadsheet reckon you need?


----------



## manticle

Don't over complicate it. Drop carbonate level if it's high (at first glance I don't think it is), remove chlorine (strike water heat is usually enough if it's chlorinated water, more drastic if it's chloramines).

Then get calcium to the right level (50+ppm), adjust mash pH with acid or acidulated malt if necessary, then add flavour salts for the brew you are making. Sulphate for hoppy, chloride for malty. Acidify sparge water if you have very alkaline water - otherwise don't worry.

Add some flavour salts to the boil as appropriate.


----------



## The Gas Man

I can understand that I need to add salts to the mash to control ph, but what does adding salts to the boil achieve?


----------



## manticle

Mostly flavour - the sulphate or chloride part affects flavour while the calcium part affects pH (and a bunch of other things). pH is important in both mash and boil though.

For me it's essentially seasoning.


----------



## TheWiggman

All good discussion.
Like all things brewing, there is much to consider. Basic recipe is -

5.0kg floor malted bohemian pilsner (Wey)
0.1kg acidulated malt (Wey)

Step mash using my HERMS system -
35°C acid rest for 2h (optional, but figured I might as well)
65°C sacc rest for 1h
Decoction for 20 mins
75°C mashout for 10 mins
Sparge with 85°C water

Boil for 75 mins using Saaz at 60 min and flameout

The decoction, I understand, extracts calcium and is ideal for a malty pilsner. Hence I'm not too concern with the calcium levels provided I do that right.
I should also note I've made decent beers with no added calcium in the past (and only 10ppm in the water). Not to say this makes it fine, but I'd challenge whether it's necessary if doing a decoction in a pilsner.

Acidulating the sparge water will be necessary if sparging at 85°C.

I'm trying to emulate the water profile to suit a pilsner. I know this is not the right practice, but everything I've read (specifically from wessmith in the link in the first post) maintains to minimise the mineral content and keep the mash pH low when attempting a pilsner. For mine, it seems like the best way to address this is using lactic acid. For other styles of beers I will certainly use mineral additions in the future for reasons you've mentioned Manticle.

tiprya - if using 100gm of acidulated malt, spreadsheet recommends 2.6ml in 25l of sparge water and 1.3ml in 12.5l mash water.


----------



## TheWiggman

manticle said:


> How does a calcium chloride addition up the bicarbonate?


Yep, CaCl does not affect bicarbonate, my mistake. Lactic acid however does (noted when adjusted in the spreadsheet).


----------



## manticle

> The decoction, I understand, extracts calcium and is ideal for a malty pilsner. Hence I'm not too concern with the calcium levels provided I do that right.
> I should also note I've made decent beers with no added calcium in the past (and only 10ppm in the water). Not to say this makes it fine, but I'd challenge whether it's necessary if doing a decoction in a pilsner.


Where does that info come from? I'm not going to go as far as to say it's incorrect as there's much I don't know but I certainly haven't heard of it. Where does the calcium extraction come from? The malt or is the calcium in the water somehow made more 'available' through chemical reaction?

As far as I understand, malt has insufficient calcium for optimum pH and yeast performance which is why it's added in the form of calcium rich brewing liquor or a brewing salt.

Happy to be wrong - it's just something I'm not aware of and haven't come across it in either water chem texts nor articles on decoction.


----------



## Black n Tan

How does decoction or lactic acid affect calcium levels? I would add some CaCl2 as it has a number of benefits including dropping mash pH, better hot break and better yeast health. At 50ppm Ca you still have nice soft water, perfect for a pilsner. Acidulated malt is just malt containing lactic acid, so in the mash just go with lactic acid or acidulated malt to hit your desired mash pH, no need for both. You may chose to add lactic acid to the sparge water to counteract the residual alkalinity of your water.


----------



## tiprya

Also, if you're going to do an acid rest (I wouldn't bother), make sure you calculate the pH drop before adding the acid. Depending on how much of a drop you get will affect how much acid you will need.

It is my impression that correct calcium levels is as important as correct mash pH, but I'd encourage you to do some more reading on it.


----------



## TheWiggman

More reading is definitely in order tiprya. I don't have many good books on this stuff so I'm trusting the concensus opinion.

On the Brun Water spreadsheet the comment re: calcium (hover over cell C12 on worksheet 3) is -

_"A minimum of 40 ppm calcium is needed for good yeast health and flocculation performance although lower concentrations can produce good beer (ie Pilsen) if the mash is decocted. 50 ppm calcium is a commonly recommended minimum concentration."_

Poor paraphrasing on my behalf. Why "it can produce good beer" do not know.
I don't think I said lactic acid affects calcium levels. Except that if I use it instead of CaCl2, the calcium level does not change.

Adding CaCl2 to a level above 50ppm of Ca puts the chlorides around 100ppm, well above the 14ppm of my water. Does this matter? If not, I'll target 50ppm Ca, ditch the acidulated malt, and make up for the rest with lactic acid.

Works out to be

Mash - 2.1g CaCl2, 1.3ml lactic acid
Sparge - 4.3g CaCl2, 0.3ml lactic acid
Cheers for everyone's input. Hopefully if I don't ruin the rest of the process the proof will be in the pudding.


----------



## tiprya

TheWiggman said:


> _"A minimum of 40 ppm calcium is needed for good yeast health and flocculation performance although lower concentrations can produce good beer (ie Pilsen) if the mash is decocted. 50 ppm calcium is a commonly recommended minimum concentration."_


Hmn, that is interesting, I've never heard that before. I will look into this further.

Your proposed plan is what I would do personally, but I'm not an expert on this stuff. Would be interesting to hear what micros do to their water for very pale beers.


----------



## manticle

Calcium aids enzyme function so it is possible that reference to lower levels with decoction refers to that since decoction aids in starch degradation and also ensures the malt is gelatinised properly, thus enabling the enzymes in the main mash better access.

I'm hypothesising.

Calcium is a multi-functional mineral as far as mashing, boiling and fermentation go so even if enzymes need less support in a decoction mash, it is still beneficial to add some. Certainly you can make decent beer without any salt additions - just like you can cook a nice steak without seasoning.

The proof is not in the pudding - the proof of the pudding is in the eating (or drinking).


----------



## mabrungard

Well, even myself and John Palmer were taken in by the myth that brewing water HAS to include at least 50 ppm calcium. There are a number factors that are cited and yeast health and flocculation are primary. Apparently, nobody ever really did the research to confirm those factors. It turns out that there is ample research in a variety of scientific journals that completely refute the need for brewing water to include calcium for yeast health. In fact, the research goes further and points out that high calcium in the absence of magnesium can actually harm yeast health.

Fortunately, typical barley and wheat malt provide magnesium and calcium to wort in the proper ratio. Not surprisingly, yeast have evolved to prefer the high magnesium content and relatively low calcium content of typical wort. The Mg to Ca ratio of typical wort is between 2 and 6 parts Mg to 1 part Ca. This is without the additional Mg or Ca that may be supplied by the water.

It also turns out that Ca has the ability to strip Mg from yeast cells. That is a bad thing since yeast need Mg more than they need Ca. In fact, if the yeast become Mg deficient, than can lose the ability to ferment maltose and maltotriose. Lager yeast are particularly susceptible to this, while ale yeast is not.

But this not to say that calcium has no place in brewing water. It turns out that calcium's role in flocculation is very real. In addition, it has a real role in reducing beerstone in the brewery by precipitating out the calcium oxalate from the wort in the tun. For ale brewing, calcium is necessary. The 50 ppm minimum Ca is a reasonable target for ales. But the picture changes for lagers. Since they rely more on long lagering, they are far less dependent on flocculation than an ale is. So they can be brewed with low calcium water. That is one reason why you often hear that the megabrewers use water with very little mineralization. They don't need calcium and as pointed out above, adding calcium could make the yeast Mg deficient and this may create fermentation problems for the lager yeast.

So, the water that the OP listed above should be fine for lager brewing. No need to add calcium unless you want the flavor ions that are attached to the calcium or want to reduce beerstone problems in your brewing. There is no detriment to yeast health when brewing with low calcium water!


----------



## verysupple

manticle said:


> Where does that info come from? I'm not going to go as far as to say it's incorrect as there's much I don't know but I certainly haven't heard of it. Where does the calcium extraction come from? The malt or is the calcium in the water somehow made more 'available' through chemical reaction?
> 
> As far as I understand, malt has insufficient calcium for optimum pH and yeast performance which is why it's added in the form of calcium rich brewing liquor or a brewing salt.
> 
> Happy to be wrong - it's just something I'm not aware of and haven't come across it in either water chem texts nor articles on decoction.


It's possible that if you had water with fairly high temporary hardness then a decoction might reduce the calcium content slightly as the phosphate reacts with the calcium as it boils and then precipitates. I think I remember reading somewhere about boiling brewing liquor with high temporary hardness first to intentionally do this. Although I could be talking rubbish. Besides, you only boil a small amount in a decoction so the effect would be very small if it happened at all. And with the soft water the OP has it's simply not an issue.


----------



## manticle

> Well, even myself and John Palmer were taken in by the myth that brewing water HAS to include at least 50 ppm calcium. There are a number factors that are cited and yeast health and flocculation are primary. Apparently, nobody ever really did the research to confirm those factors. It turns out that there is ample research in a variety of scientific journals that completely refute the need for brewing water to include calcium for yeast health. In fact, the research goes further and points out that high calcium in the absence of magnesium can actually harm yeast health.
> 
> Fortunately, typical barley and wheat malt provide magnesium and calcium to wort in the proper ratio. Not surprisingly, yeast have evolved to prefer the high magnesium content and relatively low calcium content of typical wort. The Mg to Ca ratio of typical wort is between 2 and 6 parts Mg to 1 part Ca. This is without the additional Mg or Ca that may be supplied by the water.
> 
> It also turns out that Ca has the ability to strip Mg from yeast cells. That is a bad thing since yeast need Mg more than they need Ca. In fact, if the yeast become Mg deficient, than can lose the ability to ferment maltose and maltotriose. Lager yeast are particularly susceptible to this, while ale yeast is not.
> 
> But this not to say that calcium has no place in brewing water. It turns out that calcium's role in flocculation is very real. In addition, it has a real role in reducing beerstone in the brewery by precipitating out the calcium oxalate from the wort in the tun. For ale brewing, calcium is necessary. The 50 ppm minimum Ca is a reasonable target for ales. But the picture changes for lagers. Since they rely more on long lagering, they are far less dependent on flocculation than an ale is. So they can be brewed with low calcium water. That is one reason why you often hear that the megabrewers use water with very little mineralization. They don't need calcium and as pointed out above, adding calcium could make the yeast Mg deficient and this may create fermentation problems for the lager yeast.
> 
> So, the water that the OP listed above should be fine for lager brewing. No need to add calcium unless you want the flavor ions that are attached to the calcium or want to reduce beerstone problems in your brewing. There is no detriment to yeast health when brewing with low calcium water!


Thanks for this. Turns much of what I thought I knew on its head.


----------



## Black n Tan

mabrungard said:


> Well, even myself and John Palmer were taken in by the myth that brewing water HAS to include at least 50 ppm calcium. There are a number factors that are cited and yeast health and flocculation are primary. Apparently, nobody ever really did the research to confirm those factors. It turns out that there is ample research in a variety of scientific journals that completely refute the need for brewing water to include calcium for yeast health. In fact, the research goes further and points out that high calcium in the absence of magnesium can actually harm yeast health.
> 
> Fortunately, typical barley and wheat malt provide magnesium and calcium to wort in the proper ratio. Not surprisingly, yeast have evolved to prefer the high magnesium content and relatively low calcium content of typical wort. The Mg to Ca ratio of typical wort is between 2 and 6 parts Mg to 1 part Ca. This is without the additional Mg or Ca that may be supplied by the water.
> 
> It also turns out that Ca has the ability to strip Mg from yeast cells. That is a bad thing since yeast need Mg more than they need Ca. In fact, if the yeast become Mg deficient, than can lose the ability to ferment maltose and maltotriose. Lager yeast are particularly susceptible to this, while ale yeast is not.
> 
> But this not to say that calcium has no place in brewing water. It turns out that calcium's role in flocculation is very real. In addition, it has a real role in reducing beerstone in the brewery by precipitating out the calcium oxalate from the wort in the tun. For ale brewing, calcium is necessary. The 50 ppm minimum Ca is a reasonable target for ales. But the picture changes for lagers. Since they rely more on long lagering, they are far less dependent on flocculation than an ale is. So they can be brewed with low calcium water. That is one reason why you often hear that the megabrewers use water with very little mineralization. They don't need calcium and as pointed out above, adding calcium could make the yeast Mg deficient and this may create fermentation problems for the lager yeast.
> 
> So, the water that the OP listed above should be fine for lager brewing. No need to add calcium unless you want the flavor ions that are attached to the calcium or want to reduce beerstone problems in your brewing. There is no detriment to yeast health when brewing with low calcium water!


Thanks for update on the current state of thinking. You have shaken my little world and I will try making a lager without calcium, back to what I was doing 1 year ago before I got convinced calcium was a necessary addition.


----------



## manticle

Martin - do you have some sources I can look at for this info on calcium? I'd like to amend my water chem document and it would be great to read and find out more.
Cheers.


----------



## Mardoo

Second that. I'd love to do some more research.


----------



## TheWiggman

Excellent post Martin, thanks for sharing your expert opinion. The water profile for Pilsen is almost devoid of minerals so it makes sense to me that if one is trying to emulate the water to replicate the style, minimising minerals is key. In addition, wessmith posted this -

"It starts with the brewing liquor - it MUST be low in minerals, no bicarb hardness at all and have a pH factor around 7.0 or slightly less."

My water has slight bicarb hardness of about 54 which is not ideal. This of course has a negative impact on mash pH. Without adding extra mineral additions, the only way I can see that I can address the mash pH is through lactic acid or similar. I'll never get it perfect but hopefully this will be a good starting point.
Cash is tight at present so can't afford ingredients, but will hopefully put the brew together at the end of the month. Being a lager, expect feedback mid-year.


----------



## mabrungard

Here is the reference list for the upcoming article that will be published by the Brewers Association in the AHA magazine "Zymurgy" and the BA magazine "New Brewer". Many of these are available on the web.

1Bertoft E, C Andtfolk, and SE Kulp, _Effect of pH, Temperature, and Calcium Ions on Barley Malt Alpha-Amylase Isoenzymes_, Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Sep-Oct 1984, Vol 90, pp 298-302.

2Birch RM, A Dumont, and GM Walker, _The Role of Magnesium and Calcium in Governing Yeast Agglomeration_, Food Technology and Biotechnology, Vol 40, pp 199-205, 2002.

3Briggs DE, JS Hough, R Stevens, and TW Young, _Malting and Brewing Science_, 2nd Ed, Chapman and Hall, 1981.

4Bromberg SK, PA Bower, GR Duncombe, J Fehring, LA Gerber, VK Lau, and M Tata, _Requirements for Zinc, Manganese, Calcium, and Magnesium in Wort_, Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists, Vol 55, pp 123-128, 1997.

5Brungard MA, _Brewing Water Series: Bavaria_, Zymurgy-The Journal of the American Homebrewers Association, Mar/Apr 2014.

6Bush DS, L Sticher, R vanHuystee, D Wagner, and RL Jones, _The Calcium Requirement for Stability and Enzymatic Activity of Two Isoforms of Barley Aleurone Alpha-Amylase_, The Journal of Biological Chemistry, Vol 264, No. 32, Nov 1989.

7Dengis PB, LR Nelissen, and PG Rouxhet, _Mechanisms of Yeast Flocculation: Comparison of Top- and Bottom-Fermenting Strains_, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Feb 1995, pp 718-728.

8Forsen S and J Kordel, _Calcium in Biological Systems_, Bioinorganic Chemistry, University Science Books, 1994.

9Fulmer EI, _The Acclimatization of Yeast to Ammonium Fluoride and its Reversion in Wort_, Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1921.

10Kontkanen D, DL Inglis, GJ Pickering, and A Reynolds, _Effect of Yeast Inoculation Rate, Acclimatization, and Nutrient Addition on Icewine Fermentations_, American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, Vol 55, 2004.

11Kumari A, T Rosenkranz, AM Kayastha, and J Fitter, _The Effect of Calcium Binding on the Unfolding Barrier: A Kinetic Study on Homologous Alpha-Amylases_. Biophysical Chemistry, Sept 2010, pp 54-60.

12Liu DJ, Y Pomeranz, and GS Robbins, _Mineral Content of Developing and Malted Barley_, American Association of Cereal Chemists, Sep-Oct 1975.

13MacWilliams IC, _Wort Composition – A Review_, Journal of Institute of Brewing, Vol 74-1, 1968.

14Nielsen AD, CC Fuglsang, and P Westh, _Effect of Calcium Ions on the Irreversible Denaturation of Recombinant Bacillus Halmapalus Alpha-Amylase: a Calorimetric Investigation_, Biochemical Journal, Vol 373, pp 337-343, 2003.

15Rees E and G Stewart, _The Effects of Increased Magnesium and Calcium Concentrations on Yeast Fermentation Performance in High Gravity Worts_, Journal of Institute of Brewing, Vol 103, pp 287-291, Sep-Oct 1997.

16Rees E and G Stewart, _Effects of Magnesium, Calcium, and Wort Oxygenation on the Fermentative Performance of Ale and Lager Strains Fermenting Normal and High Gravity Worts_, Journal of Institute of Brewing, Vol 105, No 4, 1999.

17Saltukoglu A and JC Slaughter, _The Effect of Magnesium and Calcium on Yeast Growth,_ Journal of Institute of Brewing, Vol 89, pp 81-83, Mar-Apr 1983.

18Smith GD and GM Walker, _Fermentation Performance of Mg-preconditioned Yeast_, In: Brewing Yeast Fermentation Performance, KA Smart, Ed., Oxford, 2000, pp 92-95.

19Stratford M, _Yeast Flocculation: Calcium Specificity_, Yeast, Vol 5, Issue 6, Nov/Dec 1989.

20Walker GM, _The Roles of Magnesium in Biotechnology_, Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, pp 311-354, 1994.

21Walker GM and JH Duffus, _Magnesium Ions and the Control of the Cell Cycle in Yeast_, Journal of Cell Science, Vol 42, pp 329-356, 1980.

22Walker GM, R DeNicola, S Anthony, and R Learmouth, _Yeast-Metal interactions: Impact on Brewing and Distilling Fermentations_, Institute of Brewing and Distilling Asia-Pacific Section Convention, Hobart, Australia, 2006.

23Udeh, HO and TE Kgatla, _Role of Magnesium Ions and Yeast Performance during Very High Gravity Fermentation_, Journal of Brewing and Distilling, Vol 4, pp 19-45, Sep 2013.

24Verstrepen KJ, G Derdelinckx, H Verachtert, FR Delvaux, _Yeast flocculation: What Brewers Should Know_, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Vol 61, pp 197-205, 2003.


----------



## Mardoo

Wow. Thank you SOOOOOOOO much. What a list! Your input and work are always very much appreciated Martin.


----------



## manticle

Cheers Martin.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies

There goes my Friday night.
Nev


----------



## kevin_smevin

mabrungard said:


> Well, even myself and John Palmer were taken in by the myth that brewing water HAS to include at least 50 ppm calcium. There are a number factors that are cited and yeast health and flocculation are primary. Apparently, nobody ever really did the research to confirm those factors. It turns out that there is ample research in a variety of scientific journals that completely refute the need for brewing water to include calcium for yeast health. In fact, the research goes further and points out that high calcium in the absence of magnesium can actually harm yeast health.
> 
> Fortunately, typical barley and wheat malt provide magnesium and calcium to wort in the proper ratio. Not surprisingly, yeast have evolved to prefer the high magnesium content and relatively low calcium content of typical wort. The Mg to Ca ratio of typical wort is between 2 and 6 parts Mg to 1 part Ca. This is without the additional Mg or Ca that may be supplied by the water.
> 
> It also turns out that Ca has the ability to strip Mg from yeast cells. That is a bad thing since yeast need Mg more than they need Ca. In fact, if the yeast become Mg deficient, than can lose the ability to ferment maltose and maltotriose. Lager yeast are particularly susceptible to this, while ale yeast is not.
> 
> But this not to say that calcium has no place in brewing water. It turns out that calcium's role in flocculation is very real. In addition, it has a real role in reducing beerstone in the brewery by precipitating out the calcium oxalate from the wort in the tun. For ale brewing, calcium is necessary. The 50 ppm minimum Ca is a reasonable target for ales. But the picture changes for lagers. Since they rely more on long lagering, they are far less dependent on flocculation than an ale is. So they can be brewed with low calcium water. That is one reason why you often hear that the megabrewers use water with very little mineralization. They don't need calcium and as pointed out above, adding calcium could make the yeast Mg deficient and this may create fermentation problems for the lager yeast.
> 
> So, the water that the OP listed above should be fine for lager brewing. No need to add calcium unless you want the flavor ions that are attached to the calcium or want to reduce beerstone problems in your brewing. There is no detriment to yeast health when brewing with low calcium water!


It is true that yeast require only small amounts of Ca for proper function, and that too high levels of Ca can adversely effect fermentation performance by antagonising Mg uptake. 

Dont forget however, that Ca is very important for wort production - thermal protection of alpha amylase during mashing, ph regulation, oxalate precipitation, enhanced protein precipitation and a number of other things. 50-100ppm Ca is recommended for wort production. You would get about 30ppm from you malt alone.

I have read the majority of articles you sited in a later post and none of them suggest that Ca is not needed. The fact is that it is needed for mashing and boiling to produce the best quality wort. Yeast need only very small amounts for normal fermentation but absolutely require it for flocculation. The adverse affect of Ca on fermentation (namely lag time, sugar uptake and attenuation) was observed at Ca levels over 800ppm - at least 8 times higher then you would find in any wort. None of the studies suggested that Ca at levels typically seen in wort adversely affect fermentation. It would appear that yeast require Mg to be at higher levels than Ca, this is the norm anyway - for 1.048 OG all grain wort without salt additions, Mg = 106ppm, Ca = 35ppm. All texts i have read say that a finished beer must contain 40-50ppm Ca. Considering the amount of precipitation you get in the boil, you would be very safe to have 100ppm Ca during wort boiling.

So for all of you brewers out there who have read this thread, and are now thinking that you do not need to add Ca to you mash or kettle, dont. This is wrong. Unless you are adding huge amounts of Ca, you will not affect fermentation performance. Not adding Ca however will reduced your mash efficiency, wort clarity and flocculation.


----------



## mabrungard

yum yum yum said:


> Dont forget however, that Ca is very important for wort production - thermal protection of alpha amylase during mashing, ph regulation, oxalate precipitation, enhanced protein precipitation and a number of other things. 50-100ppm Ca is recommended for wort production. You would get about 30ppm from you malt alone.


Unfortunately, that listing of references doesn't put the whole story together. Those forum members that are members of the Brewers Association or American Homebrewers Association will get to read the whole story in the July/Aug issues of Zymurgy and New Brewer.

While the thermal protection of alpha amylase (AA) is a welcome feature of calcium addition, its effect is almost negligible at the calcium content we typically employ in brewing. The reference that confirms that alpha amylase is indeed thermally protected by calcium addition, only conducted that evaluation at 400 ppm calcium. Using another reference, I was able to confirm that the thermal protective response of calcium addition is generally proportional to calcium content. Since the thermal stability of AA is enhanced by roughly 50% at 400 ppm Ca, Its fairly easy to back calculate that the effect is almost negligible at 50 to 100 ppm. In addition, that thermal stability research was performed at 70C. While some brewers do conduct mashes at that temp, many brewers find that better results are produced with slightly lower mashing temperatures. AA thermal stability is greatly enhanced by minor temperature reduction. The advantage presented by elevating the water's calcium content is therefore, further muted. 

I had not heard of calcium's role in pH regulation. However I have heard of its role in mash pH reduction via its reaction with malt phytins. Perhaps that was what you were implying? While calcium's ability to reduce mash pH is well known, it is not the only way to achieve pH reduction. Acid addition is substantially more effective than calcium's effect, but its effect comes along with an anion that may or may not be desirable in the finished beer. Calcium addition also comes with this bonus or detriment of an anion addition. Since this is essentially a wash, adding calcium for its pH reducing effect is neither a plus or minus. 

Oxalate reduction IS an important feature of calcium addition. The opportunity to precipitate oxalates in the mash instead of beerstone throughout your brewery or equipment is an important advantage. I find that about 40 ppm is the minimum calcium needed in the brewing water to provide adequate oxalate reduction. However, there are hundreds of breweries that routinely brew with far less calcium in their water. All it means is that a brewer will have to contend with the additional problems that beerstone presents for maintenance and operation. Again, calcium is desirable, but not required.

Typical barley or wheat produces wort with a bit more calcium than mentioned above. 60 ppm Ca is easily achieved in typical 1.045 gravity wort using distilled water. All that calcium comes directly from the malt. That calcium content is more than needed for the nutritional needs of yeast (which are about 10 to 20 ppm Ca). So it is not necessary to supplement the water for that reason.

So I reiterate: Calcium is NOT REQUIRED in brewing water. However, there are reasons to include it in some cases. The oxalate reduction is a good reason and for ale yeast, the ability to flocculate well is another. There is little reason beyond that to target a certain calcium content. I find that an important reason to add calcium is to obtain those anions that generally regard as desirable for flavor (chloride and sulfate). With all this said, ale brewers should still target a calcium level in the 40 to 150 ppm range for a variety of reasons. However, lager brewers should not target similar levels. Lager yeast can be adversely affected by high calcium levels unless the yeast have been pre-acclimated to high calcium levels. In the case of many lager strains, you are better off targeting much lower calcium levels than suggested for ale yeasts. 

The point of my original post was to alert brewers that the 50 ppm calcium target is not necessary or desirable for lager brewing and might be ignored for some ale brewing.

Enjoy!


----------



## wessmith

Thankyou Martin.

Wes


----------



## kevin_smevin

mabrungard said:


> Unfortunately, that listing of references doesn't put the whole story together. Those forum members that are members of the Brewers Association or American Homebrewers Association will get to read the whole story in the July/Aug issues of Zymurgy and New Brewer.
> 
> While the thermal protection of alpha amylase (AA) is a welcome feature of calcium addition, its effect is almost negligible at the calcium content we typically employ in brewing. The reference that confirms that alpha amylase is indeed thermally protected by calcium addition, only conducted that evaluation at 400 ppm calcium. Using another reference, I was able to confirm that the thermal protective response of calcium addition is generally proportional to calcium content. Since the thermal stability of AA is enhanced by roughly 50% at 400 ppm Ca, Its fairly easy to back calculate that the effect is almost negligible at 50 to 100 ppm. In addition, that thermal stability research was performed at 70C. While some brewers do conduct mashes at that temp, many brewers find that better results are produced with slightly lower mashing temperatures. AA thermal stability is greatly enhanced by minor temperature reduction. The advantage presented by elevating the water's calcium content is therefore, further muted.
> 
> I had not heard of calcium's role in pH regulation. However I have heard of its role in mash pH reduction via its reaction with malt phytins. Perhaps that was what you were implying? While calcium's ability to reduce mash pH is well known, it is not the only way to achieve pH reduction. Acid addition is substantially more effective than calcium's effect, but its effect comes along with an anion that may or may not be desirable in the finished beer. Calcium addition also comes with this bonus or detriment of an anion addition. Since this is essentially a wash, adding calcium for its pH reducing effect is neither a plus or minus.
> 
> Oxalate reduction IS an important feature of calcium addition. The opportunity to precipitate oxalates in the mash instead of beerstone throughout your brewery or equipment is an important advantage. I find that about 40 ppm is the minimum calcium needed in the brewing water to provide adequate oxalate reduction. However, there are hundreds of breweries that routinely brew with far less calcium in their water. All it means is that a brewer will have to contend with the additional problems that beerstone presents for maintenance and operation. Again, calcium is desirable, but not required.
> 
> 
> Typical barley or wheat produces wort with a bit more calcium than mentioned above. 60 ppm Ca is easily achieved in typical 1.045 gravity wort using distilled water. All that calcium comes directly from the malt. That calcium content is more than needed for the nutritional needs of yeast (which are about 10 to 20 ppm Ca). So it is not necessary to supplement the water for that reason.
> 
> So I reiterate: Calcium is NOT REQUIRED in brewing water. However, there are reasons to include it in some cases. The oxalate reduction is a good reason and for ale yeast, the ability to flocculate well is another. There is little reason beyond that to target a certain calcium content. I find that an important reason to add calcium is to obtain those anions that generally regard as desirable for flavor (chloride and sulfate). With all this said, ale brewers should still target a calcium level in the 40 to 150 ppm range for a variety of reasons. However, lager brewers should not target similar levels. Lager yeast can be adversely affected by high calcium levels unless the yeast have been pre-acclimated to high calcium levels. In the case of many lager strains, you are better off targeting much lower calcium levels than suggested for ale yeasts.
> 
> The point of my original post was to alert brewers that the 50 ppm calcium target is not necessary or desirable for lager brewing and might be ignored for some ale brewing.
> 
> Enjoy!


Ca has a number of beneficial roles that are separate to its role in pH reduction (yes, this is what I was referring to when I said pH regulation). You most certainly can reduce pH by simple acid addition, nothing wrong with that. 

The main reason for removal of oxalic acid is to prevent haze formation and potential gushing

Other non pH related roles of Ca include improved protein coagulation during boil, restricting colour formation during boil - important for a nice pale lager. It also stimulates proteolytic enzyme activity. 

In most of these, Ca would play a very small role. The big one is improved wort clarity, and therefore beer clarity by aiding in precipitation of oxalic acid and protein during boil, and aiding in yeast flocculation. 

The suggestion that lager breweries rely on long lagering times so don't need the flocculation benefit is far away from the commercial reality of a large brewery. The fact is that a large brewery will do everything in its power to speed up maturation times and decrease the load on the filter. 

Text books and research papers aside, my personal experience with Ca, Dosing 100ppm to the mash and 50ppm to sparge liquor resulted in a huge improvement in hot break formation and resulting clear wort, and a step change in efficiency - 75% pre calcium to 90-95% post calcium. This change may be due to PH reduction alone, I don't know? 

In the end, there are many ways to skin a cat. If you want clear/bright beer, I would keep adding Ca. Otherwise you might be waiting a very long time for your beer to clear up. If you have a good clean ferment, lagering will not improve flavour, just clarity. In fact, the longer beer is stored, the more aged and oxidised it will become


----------



## Dunkelbrau

yum yum yum said:


> In the end, there are many ways to skin a cat. If you want clear/bright beer, I would keep adding Ca. Otherwise you might be waiting a very long time for your beer to clear up. *If you have a good clean ferment, lagering will not improve flavour, just clarity. In fact, the longer beer is stored, the more aged and oxidised it will become*


Firstly, the "fact" is incorrect.. Lagering actually reduces oxidation by allowing the yeast to clean up not only off flavours, but residual oxygen and other imperfections, and improves beer stability over longer time frames.

Lets look to history.. In Bavaria, Germany 1553 it was once not permitted to brew in summer. .. here is a snippet

_"In 1553, summer brewing was outlawed altogether in Bavaria. By then the authorities--always worried about the supply of healthy summer beer--had obviously learned that cold fermentation yielded a purer beer with better keeping qualities than possessed by those unwittingly brewed and probably bacterially infected top-fermented beers of summer. The official brewing season was, therefore, restricted to between St. Michael's Day (September 29) and St. George's Day (April 23)."_

This means that the summer stock of beer had to be brewed during the permitted brewing season! Thats at least 5 months of age if the beer is brewed in the final days of April.

If thats the case, they drank old, infected, bad tasting, oxidized beer.. the exact reason they outlawed summer brewing in the first place (and inadvertently, Ale brewing).

Regarding commercial clarifying, big commercial breweries use something called a centrifuge, this pre clears the beer before filtration, where they add a pile of antioxidants and stabilizers to ensure good shelf live and reduce risk of oxidation in the bottle..


----------



## manticle

Yyy said the longer beer is stored (not lagered) the more it is prone to staling. What happened in 1553 doesn't negate that.
His argument was that with insufficient Ca, lagering periods would be extended considerably in order to achieve the same levels of flocculation. 
Staling reactions occur as early as mash and even malting from memory - chemical pathways that are often irreversible which have a variety of effects on flavour - some desirable (beer dependent) others not so. Active yeast may retard some of the negative effects and stave off other oxidation reactions but its efficacy is not permanent or immortal.


----------



## TheWiggman

I should apologise that I haven't brewed my Bohemian Pilsner because I put my order through MHB at the wrong time. Haven't ordered grain from someone who has lactic acid, so it's off the cards 'til I get my other brews out of the way. 
Still looking forward to it though and have received a _lot_ of good advice from this thread.


----------



## Muscovy_333

Cracking discussion!
Taking notes...


----------



## antiphile

If you're willing to sit thru a 30 minute video,  is full of really good tips as well as some in-depth chemistry.


----------



## Dunkelbrau

manticle said:


> Yyy said the longer beer is stored (not lagered) the more it is prone to staling. What happened in 1553 doesn't negate that.
> His argument was that with insufficient Ca, lagering periods would be extended considerably in order to achieve the same levels of flocculation.
> Staling reactions occur as early as mash and even malting from memory - chemical pathways that are often irreversible which have a variety of effects on flavour - some desirable (beer dependent) others not so. Active yeast may retard some of the negative effects and stave off other oxidation reactions but its efficacy is not permanent or immortal.


The way yyy worded the text I quoted was to allude that lagering for longer periods doesn't mature the beer, but negatively impacts it instead. To which I referred to a centuries old observation in which that isn't the case. 

If that is not the case, then it should be stated more plainly.

I'll shoot you a PM Wiggman


----------



## TheWiggman

I've got tomorrow off and finally decided to brew this. I managed to get hold of some WLP800 pilsner yeast so rather than do a Bohemian pilsner, I'm going for a Czech Pilsner. 
I bought a pH test kit today to find my water is 7.6 pH. Higher than expected.
I used Brun Water to calculate my required acid additions and also added 1.5% acidulated malt.

View attachment Brun Water - Czech Pilsner.xls


Adjustments using 80% lactic acid were -

1.9 ml to sparge to achieve pH 6.5
5.3 ml to mash (15l total for a 3:1 water:grain ratio)
I created these adjustments to target the figures from this post from Wessmith.

After adjustments, I tested the sparge water and it was pH 6.5 - perfect.
I can't test the mash water as my kit doesn't go down that far, but I tasted it with 4.5ml of lactic acid and I could definitely taste it. I wouldn't want to have a glass of it if I was thirsty.

My concern is even if I follow the pH and mash guidelines that I'm going to taste the sourness of the lactic acid in the final product. In this case, I'm not going to bother going to the effort. Will this sourness be obvious and detrimental to the final product?


----------



## Black n Tan

The kaiser did a lactic acid taste threshold test and concluded the following, so I don't think you will have a problem:

"It was surprisingly difficult for panelists to pick out beers that had lactate added even at levels that correspond to an equivalent acidulated malt use of 13% and higher. Note that the acidity of the lactic acid was neutralized with slaked lime. A general recommendation for home brewers is to keep the use of acidulated malt below 5%, which corresponds to a level of 264 mg/l added lactate in a 12 Plato beer with 85% efficiency into kettle. Many of the panelists were not able to pick up the added lactate at a level of about 400 mg/l which corresponds to about 7.5% acidulated malt. Based on that we can safely say that even 8% acidulated malt won't ruin a beer if that amount is needed to counteract water alkalinity." http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Lactate_Taste_Threshold_experiment


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies

TheWiggman said:


> My next venture is a Bohemian pilsner. I now have my system under control and have the luxury of temp control. The venture into the subtle style of pilsner though has identified the biggest weakness in my system to tackle this - water.
> 
> I've enjoyed reading through this thread with some clearly very experienced an knowledgeable brewers. Below is a picture of the tap water I have on hand, which I got tested privately recently -
> 
> Metals - tested to CA14106. If not listed, concentration is <0.01mg/l
> 
> Calcium 9.9 mg/l
> Copper 0.02 mg/l
> Magnesium 7.1 mg/l
> Potassium 3 mg/l
> _Silica (Si02) _4.9 mg/l
> Sodium 10 mg/l
> Zinc  0.03 mg/l
> _Total hardness:_ 54.0 mg\l
> 
> Anions - test method CA15000
> 
> Chloride (Cl) 14 mg/l
> Sulfate (SO4) 4 mg/l
> 
> Alkalinity - test method CA12121
> 
> Total alkalinity (CaCO3) 53 mg/l
> Phenolphthalein alkalinity (CaCO3) <25 mg/l
> 
> pH @ 25°C 7.4
> 
> Overall it's good and very low in minerals, but I've noticed that due to the slight hardness and measured alkalinity, the mash pH is too high. To do a pilsener properly I need it to get down to the low 5's.
> There are a few ways I can see I can do this -
> 
> Adding some acidulated malt (2% max recommend to minimise minerals)
> Treating with calcium chloride
> Treating with lactic acid
> The issue as I see it is mainly the total carbonate (bicarb + carb) content. Using a calculator, it's around 64 ppm. If I use CaCl this will up the bicarbonate and minerals but reduce the pH.
> If I use lactic acid though I can get it as far down as I want, but I'm concerned 4ml of lactic acid (some for the sparge, some for mash) will contribute too much to flavour/sourness and will again have a negative impact. In either case I will need to add some some I can fly sparge at 85°C.
> 
> Any suggestions? I have a feeling lactic acid is simply 'too easy' and if it was the be-all and end-all of pH issues it'd be a stable mention for any home brewer. And no, I don't have access to RO water and due to cost I want to avoid distilled. I've attached the Brunwater spreadsheet for those interested.


First port of call Acidulated malt, the rest of your chems aint that bad.
Don't over complicate it , suck it and see.
Nev


----------



## TheWiggman

Excellent. I have a level of ~335 mg/l so while high, that info is comforting.

Understood Nev, I noted that you and Wes didn't agree with acidulated malt content in pilsners. I have very little mineral content in my water so I'm going down the acid path this time. 

Full steam ahead.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies

TheWiggman said:


> Excellent. I have a level of ~335 mg/l so while high, that info is comforting.
> 
> Understood Nev, I noted that you and Wes didn't agree with acidulated malt content in pilsners. I have very little mineral content in my water so I'm going down the acid path this time.
> 
> Full steam ahead.


Possibly he dont have the same water, I use it routinely and pull the big awards, not bragging just how I brew.
Each to their own.
Nev


----------



## spudfarmerboy

TheWiggman said:


> I've got tomorrow off and finally decided to brew this. I managed to get hold of some WLP800 pilsner yeast so rather than do a Bohemian pilsner, I'm going for a Czech Pilsner.


Is a Bohemian Pilsner very different to a Czech Pilsner?


----------



## manticle

no


----------



## technobabble66

i think the original meaning was: Bohemian = Czech


----------



## manticle

Original meaning where? Bohemia does = Czech or close enough to. Thus we are on the same page, I think.


----------



## technobabble66

Bohemia definitely = czech republic (well, close enough to the modern day republic).
But i think the hipsters & style critics have subverted bohemian to (also) mean some sort of shabby, raggedy alternative for dressed down rich kids or something. The bastards.
So i was just trying to clarify to SFB that he shouldn't mistake a Bohemian pils with a BoHo pils.
h34r: :lol: :unsure:


----------



## spudfarmerboy

technobabble66 said:


> Bohemia definitely = czech republic (well, close enough to the modern day republic).
> But i think the hipsters & style critics have subverted bohemian to (also) mean some sort of shabby, raggedy alternative for dressed down rich kids or something. The bastards.
> So i was just trying to clarify to SFB that he shouldn't mistake a Bohemian pils with a BoHo pils.
> h34r: :lol: :unsure:


The point I was trying to make was why did Wiggman decide to make a Czech pilsner rather than a Bohemian pilsner when they are the same beer.
Nothing to do with those pesky hipsters.


----------



## TheWiggman

The Wiggman did it because he found Czech pils yeast on special, and had Czech saaz hops in the freezer. 
And JW pilsner malt, making the whole point a bit moot.
I believe if I was using Bo pils malt and Bohemian yeast (as I originally intended/ordered but never arrived) then this that would be a Bohemian pilsner. Though as has been said to my knowledge they are very similar styles. 
My main concern was about minimising minerals for a pilsner by using acid and whether this is is more beneficial to the flavour. I probably threw this out the window using Aussie malt but I can still use this as a basis for comparison.


----------



## yankinoz

mabrungard said:


> Well, even myself and John Palmer were taken in by the myth that brewing water HAS to include at least 50 ppm calcium. There are a number factors that are cited and yeast health and flocculation are primary. Apparently, nobody ever really did the research to confirm those factors. It turns out that there is ample research in a variety of scientific journals that completely refute the need for brewing water to include calcium for yeast health. In fact, the research goes further and points out that high calcium in the absence of magnesium can actually harm yeast health.
> 
> Fortunately, typical barley and wheat malt provide magnesium and calcium to wort in the proper ratio. Not surprisingly, yeast have evolved to prefer the high magnesium content and relatively low calcium content of typical wort. The Mg to Ca ratio of typical wort is between 2 and 6 parts Mg to 1 part Ca. This is without the additional Mg or Ca that may be supplied by the water.
> 
> It also turns out that Ca has the ability to strip Mg from yeast cells. That is a bad thing since yeast need Mg more than they need Ca. In fact, if the yeast become Mg deficient, than can lose the ability to ferment maltose and maltotriose. Lager yeast are particularly susceptible to this, while ale yeast is not.
> 
> But this not to say that calcium has no place in brewing water. It turns out that calcium's role in flocculation is very real. In addition, it has a real role in reducing beerstone in the brewery by precipitating out the calcium oxalate from the wort in the tun. For ale brewing, calcium is necessary. The 50 ppm minimum Ca is a reasonable target for ales. But the picture changes for lagers. Since they rely more on long lagering, they are far less dependent on flocculation than an ale is. So they can be brewed with low calcium water. That is one reason why you often hear that the megabrewers use water with very little mineralization. They don't need calcium and as pointed out above, adding calcium could make the yeast Mg deficient and this may create fermentation problems for the lager yeast.
> 
> So, the water that the OP listed above should be fine for lager brewing. No need to add calcium unless you want the flavor ions that are attached to the calcium or want to reduce beerstone problems in your brewing. There is no detriment to yeast health when brewing with low calcium water!


I'll second all the above. Pilsner Urquell is reportedly made with very soft water and no salts are added. But in the case at hand the water is somewhat alkaline. If nothing is done, the pH of the mash will be too high for good conversion. So use acidulated malt or lactic acid. I'd go with the lactic, since it's what makes acid malt acidic, and Australia won't likely extradite you for violations of the German purity laws.


----------



## TheWiggman

Well a bit over 2 months later and I've taken a taste. The results are in:

Utter crap.

I didn't win at all with this one. It only got down to 1.016 (target was 1.009), I recently found out I was using the wrong polyclar so it's cloudy as shit, and it has one huge major flaw - tastes like acid. The comments earlier about it not being detectable, well it is in this one. On my first sip I found it a bit offensive, and after a few sips it finally clicked: it has a sour, acidic taste which lingers. Then I remembered this thread, and cast my mind back to when I was brewing it. ~8ml of acid used overall. Very similar lingering taste as per my comments when I sampled the MT water.

Major takeaways from this -

Step mashing was ineffective. I didn't do any starch tests so I think I didn't have my recirc flow high enough to allow decent conversion. 
Didn't oxygenate because I didn't have the gear. Would have helped FG down a bit.
Didn't have a pH meter so was flying blind.
Very high water pH (7.6) not suited for pilsners.
I'm suspicious of underpitching. Even though I had 2 vials, I'm not confident they fermented out fully before I decanted and pitched the yeast. They were also 4 months old.
The sad thing is in the back of my mind I thought all the above, but hoped it wouldn't matter anyway. Wrong again. Before re-attempting I'll get hold of a pH meter and focus a bit more on the ferment. Maybe consider an RO unit, but not for a while yet.
Sadly, this is keg #2 that the lawn's going to claim. You live and learn.


----------



## spudfarmerboy

That's a shame.
You've certainly had some trouble with your brews over the short time you have been brewing.
I remember you posting about the plastic taste in your first half dozen or so brews, I think you had used the wrong thread sealant or something similar.
Then your ales all had a toffee taste (diacyetal?).
Then the keg with the "lavender/perfumey" scent and now the sour taste.
As long as you learn from your mistakes all is not lost.


----------



## Dan Pratt

Try rain water next time and add your minerals to get the pilsner profile. Off the top of my head the ezibrew xls available online for free has <10ppm for each.


----------



## TheWiggman

Haha, I must have an entertaining web presence. You are right, but there have been some winners in between.

Plastic taste was a fault all of my own
Diacetyl _was_ a problem but I keg my beers so only affected a handful of longnecks (and a whole batch my mate fermented)
Lavender/perfume keg was given back to the keg doner and he's enjoying it more than I did, so all's well.

Am certainly learning and haven't made the same mistake twice.

Agreed Pratty. I have an ESB ready for the weekend (very appropriate for Australia Day :blink which used rainwater for the sparge. I filtered it but it had a green tinge to it in the pot. First samples taste very promising though. Before going it for the whole brew I might invest in QldKev's cheap fridge filter option.


----------



## Mardoo

Dude, that's heartbreaking. Kind of. Ya know, in the FWP kind of way. But I would be gutted. For a short time. Or a week. Or two. I've been following this thread since you started it. I'm about to embark on my first string of lagers.

BTW what was the wrong polyclar you used?


----------



## TheWiggman

Look it sucks but I've got decent HB at home which means 1) I can brew decent beer under controlled conditions and 2) and I can drown my sorrows with it. Isn't the first, won't be the last. If you haven't failed you haven't tried hard enough.

Big takeaway from this (for me) is you can certainly overdo the acid. Go back to the start of the thread with the discussion between acid malt and lactic acid, and it tended away from using acidulated malt (wessmith) and towards acidulated malt (Nev). Then it was about how much can be added, seemed I was in the safe zone, but I do know enough about beer tasting now that there was absolutely detectable acid sourness to the final product. 8ml in a 19l batch = too much. Coupled with the high FG there was absolutely nothing going for this beer except decent head.

Other things are that I need to work harder to get my FG down and I'm better set up for that now (O2, better managed starter, yeast nutrient, better mashing). All very good info for me as a home brewer, learnt the hard way but learnt nonetheless.

I used Polyclar 70/30+, does SFA for clearing out beer. Should have used PVPP.


----------



## Mardoo

Ah. Yeah, the PVPP works well but it has to be prepared correctly. Stirplate makes it a doddle. 

I've used too much acid malt before and it's dropped out over time, but that obviously depends on how much too much and type of beer.


----------



## fraser_john

Pratty1 said:


> Try rain water next time and add your minerals to get the pilsner profile. Off the top of my head the ezibrew xls available online for free has <10ppm for each.


Yeah doing this is FAR easier than people think. I like the Brun Water spreadsheet as it shies away from adding anything to your sparge water that increases alkalinity, which reduces the chance of tannin extraction during the sparge.

I use Lactic acid 88% solution, diluted down to 11% solution so it is easier to measure for both mash and sparge. I do final mash adjustments after dough in and re-measuring with a pH meter.

The amounts I use for a Pilsner/Lager of each kind of salt vary from 0.4g to 4g depending on which one. But, it is very easy and worthwhile doing.

If you had a green tinge in your rain water, that is a bit of a worry LOL. I use a sediment filter & carbon filter combination on mine, it comes from brand new tanks, so is crystal clear, odorless and tests out at practically all minerals (had it by a pool/spa joint, not 100% accurate, but good enough).

<edit - fix spelling>


----------



## labels

Adding acid or using acidulated malt has a minimum affect on wort pH. You may get it drop a point maybe and that's all. The very powerful buffering effect of the natural acids in the wort will stabilize the pH within the desired range very tightly UNLESS you're making beer with a very high level of adjuncts such as rice. Even Yankinoz is not correct in saying higher alkaline water will raise the pH unless it's stupidly high. Most potable water supplies are deliberately alkaline. Alkaline water tastes nice giving it a slightly sweet taste. Neutral or acidic water tastes like shit. Most municipal water supplies are somewhere between pH7 and pH8 and if you make normal, adjunct free or low adjunct beer of mid strength and above I can guarantee your pH will be in the range pH5.2 to pH5.4 with no acid additions. Roast barley and dark grains will drop it a little.

I've made stacks of successful lagers without any adjustment to Adelaide's normal water supply (and you all know the reputation of Adelaide water) and I only use acidulated malt for the flavor component (in lagers the ever so slight sour acidic flavor can give the impression of the beer being crisper)


----------



## Dunkelbrau

I can tell you now an all pils mash will be higher than 5.2-5.4 with water sitting at 8.

The pH of pils malt is 5.8ish so it WILL buffer down, but you won't stabilize at 5.2-5.4 without acid additions which DO change the pH more than you say (personal experience).


----------



## labels

In a normal mash (as I described above) pH should be least of your problems. Only when the pH of the water is abnormally high, your grist:water ratio is too high or high levels of adjuncts do you really need to consider pH an issue.

When it can be an issue is during the sparge. Because you are weakening the buffering power in the mash as you sparge (fly or batch) I would suggest at that point you may want to add a minute amount of acid to the sparge water if the pH of your water is abnormally high. High pH in the sparge (maybe coupled with over-hot sparge water) can lead to tannin extraction which, of course leads to astringency.

If you're going to measure pH at any stage I would suggest to use a quality pH test strip. Those cheap Chinese pH meters are crap.

In any case I suggest the use of acids (phosphoric or lactic) be used extremely sparingly. Acidulated malt will have a minimal (but measurable) effect on mash pH but may help with not allowing the sparge pH to rise too much - but then a drop or two of Phos in the sparge water will achieve the same result.


----------



## Dunkelbrau

As I said, an all pils mash will hit around 5.8 pH. That is too high. Acid adjustments fix that. 

The pH of the mash changes enzyme activity. 

I run on a 3:1 or maybe 2.5:1 L:G and in small or large batches for pale and even some brown beers (depending on what I'm doing with the water with regards to alkalinity) I nearly always add acid malt to my mash.

I also have observed hundreds of straight sparges with 78 degree acid free water onto a grain bed that was 5.2 10 mins after mashing in. The final runnings were never higher than 5.6.

I'd say mash pH is key to accurate, reproducible conversion that works how it is expected. And adding acid to sparge on an as needed basis. 5.9mls of lactic in my experience and opinion is too much for sparge treatment. 

A few hundred grand of acid malt would have fixed the issue and the sparge runnoff being observed (gravity and pH) would let you know if you need to add acid next time for sure. (It also gives you a gauge to how much).

I use a freshly calibrated Hanna pH meter and cool all samples to room temp.


----------



## TheWiggman

Note I added 1.9ml to sparge water, which is still high. Main reason was to do an 85°C as the a thread I linked earlier which Steve/labels started. 5.3 ml was added to the mash, which is heaps. And acid malt. I'd say this is the real downfall in the final product.
This was all calculated on Brunwater and I'll point out again that actual figures were not confirmed with a meter (except water pH done with a fish tank test kit).
I've done a lager, 95% pils with acid malt or salt using 7.6 pH water and it turned out fine.
I think I have some yeast slurry left so in going to give this another whirl this weekend I think, with changes being -

Minimal adjustment to sparge using lactic acid (i.e about 0.5ml as I have done with other brews)
Salts, as per earlier thread suggestions?
Single sacc rest, no steps
Normal fly sparge with 78°C water
I'll use similar quantities of acidulated malt in the mash. It won't be the grainy pilsner I might have wanted but who knows, maybe it will be? Surely this one will turn out well so will be a basis to build on technique at a later date.



labels said:


> In a normal mash (as I described above) pH should be least of your problems. Only when the pH of the water is abnormally high, your grist:water ratio is too high or high levels of adjuncts do you really need to consider pH an issue.


Steve this beckons the question - if it has minimal effect, why does it appear to have a significant effect when put in the spreadsheet? A 200g addition will drop a raw water (i.e. no added salts) mash pH from 5.8 to 5.4. Everything I've seen or read implies that mash pH is a critical part of brewing.


----------



## TheWiggman

Note that regarding sparge water I originally calculated a desired sparge pH of 5.6 (just checked my spreadsheet). Don't ask me why. This explains the seemingly large addition, which should have been around the 0.9ml mark.


----------



## TheWiggman

Gents... a moment for one of our fallen please.


----------



## Goose

what an interesting thread.

Wiggs if I may ask, do you filter your water at all ?


----------



## TheWiggman

Negative, straight from the tap.


----------



## Goose

You are probably expecting me to tell you go buy one, but just curious, can you taste the difference in your tap water vs a bottle of distilled water ?

I invested in a relatively low cost 7 stage unit and the change in taste of the water was amazing. Tapwater here has a Ph of around 7.7 but after filtration its neutral according to my pH meter.

Its one of these, though not sure if available down under. originally I just hooked it up to the tap and pulled it out each time I brewed, but I found the water quality so good I got it installed under sink with some plumbing that allows me to filter water when I want to (no sense to use filtered water for washing up right).

if you can taste the difference in your tap water vs a bottle of distilled water maybe invest a few bux and try a brew with distilled water (not mineral water  ) to see if it is indeed the minerals or other components that make pils brewing a challenge.

where I am the water supply is all surface water and as such extremely soft, hence ideal for pils brewing. I have been told that the utilities board here do add some hydroxide in there to raise pH a bit to prevent pipe corrosion, but that's about it. However god knows what other crap is picked up in the network of pipes and pumps before it hits the tap. I know in your case you tested water ex tap though, its a great thing to know.

for my pils I add about 1% acidulated malt to the grain bill, my Mash PH is 5.4 each time so I don't bother to test anymore. I add no calcium or any other mineral. Of course the flipside is when I brew an ale, I have some chalk (for chloride) and gypsum (for sulphate) available at hand for style adjustments depending on whether I want to bring out malt or hops character.


----------



## manticle

Chalk won't give you chloride.


----------



## Goose

quite right old chap. Sorry, calcium chloride not calcium carbonate (chalk). The latter for raising pH of the mash if need be.


----------



## manticle

Thought it was probably just a typo.
Have a read about the insolubility of chalk and subsequent reduced effect additions actually have on pH if you're interested.
Brun water knowledge and braukaiser both have good sections.


----------



## Goose

LOL brain not engaged at early hours cross referencing common names with chemical compound names, my bad. Afraid Calcium Chloride has no common name that I am aware of.

but then I am a goose.


----------



## TheWiggman

I've seen your posts before, not a goose


----------



## sean_0

manticle said:


> Thought it was probably just a typo.
> Have a read about the insolubility of chalk and subsequent reduced effect additions actually have on pH if you're interested.
> Brun water knowledge and braukaiser both have good sections.


Anybody else having trouble with braukaiser? Haven't been able to access it this week


----------



## manticle

Just checked - looks all fucked up. Hopefully temporary.


----------



## seamad

It's done funny things in the past for me as well, slightly different version of fukd this time, just when I was wanting to check some stuff out too...


----------



## TheWiggman

Righto folks doing this one again tomorrow. Will be celebrating Australia drinking ESB and making a pilsner. 

4kg JW pilsner
150 acidulated (3.8%) up from 60g
Hop additions as per before, maybe will use up some hallertauer hersbrucker flowers left in the freezer to the same IBU (25).

DIFFERENCES:
Yeast nutrient
Single 63°C sacc rest, up to 72 etc.
O2 prior to yeast
NO acid or salt additions.

I played around with the salt a bit and it will only make 0.1 pH difference or thereabouts. I figure it's not worth it, I'll minimise minerals and then give it another go at a later date to see the difference. Estimated mash pH will be 5.5.
2.5l WLP800 is on the stir plate now recultured from last brew. Whoa, it is going NUTS. Krausen in first 12h before I even put on the stir plate, and now it's threatening to climb out the top. A hit of O2 and yeast nutrient has done wonders.

Looking forward to reporting back.


----------



## Black n Tan

Looks good wiggman. I use 4% acidulated in my pils regularly and certainly can't taste the lactic acid.


----------



## Weizguy

TheWiggman said:


> Righto folks doing this one again tomorrow. Will be celebrating Australia drinking ESB and making a pilsner.
> 
> 4kg JW pilsner
> 150 acidulated (3.8%) up from 60g
> Hop additions as per before, maybe will use up some hallertauer hersbrucker flowers left in the freezer to the same IBU (25).
> 
> DIFFERENCES:
> Yeast nutrient
> Single 63°C sacc rest, up to 72 etc.
> O2 prior to yeast
> NO acid or salt additions.
> 
> I played around with the salt a bit and it will only make 0.1 pH difference or thereabouts. I figure it's not worth it, I'll minimise minerals and then give it another go at a later date to see the difference. Estimated mash pH will be 5.5.
> 2.5l WLP800 is on the stir plate now recultured from last brew. Whoa, it is going NUTS. Krausen in first 12h before I even put on the stir plate, and now it's threatening to climb out the top. A hit of O2 and yeast nutrient has done wonders.
> 
> Looking forward to reporting back.


Need a bigger flask, Wiggman.
Best of luck


----------



## TheWiggman

I'll heed that advice and bump this one up on the purchase list.
Overall brew day went very well. Being Australia day the latter part of the day was a bit fuzzy. I do recall cubing the boiled wort, must have added all ingredients because there were none left on the bench, recall squeezing the cube so must have got around 20l, but have no recollection of cleaning the kettle so I think the shed will be in a bit of a state.

OG remains to be seen. First runnings were 1.068 so should be good.


----------



## labels

Dunkelbrau said:


> As I said, an all pils mash will hit around 5.8 pH. That is too high. Acid adjustments fix that.


Hmm, I have used Weyermann Pilsner malts (premium, normal and Bohemian) and BB malts (Galaxy - sadly no longer available and BB Pils) and never had a pH of 5.8, always around 5.2 to 5.4 without any acid additions or acidulated malt. I have used both acid (phos) and acidulated malt in the past but I state again, the powerful buffering from the natural acids in the malt will limit the pH drop considerably.

I have also used JW pils but can't remember testing pH. I have only made the one lager with it and ended up with a beer which tasted so close to Carlton Draught you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. As I don't like Carlton, I've never used that malt again.


----------



## Black n Tan

I use very soft, low alkalinity water (Melbourne water) and a pretty thin mash (5L/kg), and my mash pH is about 5.6-5.7 for a pilsner grist without adding acid. I add 4% acidulated to bring it down to 5.2. Using Brun water it estimates the pH will be just 0.1pH unit lower for a thick mash (2.5L/kg). Most advice I have seen is that you will need to add some acid to get to a ph of 5.2 in the mash for a pilsner type grist.


----------



## Dunkelbrau

labels said:


> Hmm, I have used Weyermann Pilsner malts (premium, normal and Bohemian) and BB malts (Galaxy - sadly no longer available and BB Pils) and never had a pH of 5.8, always around 5.2 to 5.4 without any acid additions or acidulated malt. I have used both acid (phos) and acidulated malt in the past but I state again, the powerful buffering from the natural acids in the malt will limit the pH drop considerably.
> 
> I have also used JW pils but can't remember testing pH. I have only made the one lager with it and ended up with a beer which tasted so close to Carlton Draught you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. As I don't like Carlton, I've never used that malt again.


As BnT mentioned above, with low alkalinity water, and all pils the usual pH would be around 5.7. (RODI or close to RODI water). When you increase the alkalinity you will need some other additions (either minerals, darker malts or acids) to lower the pH into the correct range for the beer you are brewing. Some waters in some areas have higher mineral content and can bring an all pils malt into place pretty easily. Thats great, and if thats the case then that explains your experience.

If you are trying to replicate (or just strike it lucky) and have a low alkalinity AND low mineral content water, then you will need some kind of acidic addition into the water or mash to bring it down into acceptable ranges for good enzymatic activity.

I'd be interested in seeing the water profiles and malt bill for the brews you mention if you have the records for them?


----------



## TheWiggman

Results are in. 
Far better than the first attempt. Not a great beer, I'm assuming due to yeast treatment. Bottled brews are completely ruined by diacetyl and there is a hint of it in the kegged beer. Totally drinkable, very light and easy to knock back. Just lacks character I would associate with a pilsner. Unlike the first brew though, no off putting acidity. 
Next time more yeast and fresher. 5l flask on the cards.


----------



## Adr_0

What happened to the first one?

There is a lot that can go wrong with a pilsener: body can be off (mash too high, under-attenuated, under-carbed), chlorine will create chlorophenols, boil is not vigorous/long enough leaving DMS in, general infection, diacetyl, esters...

I have a 3L flask and for a 50L batch did 3 steps, the last two of which were 2.5 and 2.5L. I'm sure someone will throw the book at me, but there's still growth in the last step which = more yeast. There are many ways to skin a cat if a 5L is going to be too heavy/bulky.


----------



## labels

TheWiggman said:


> Results are in.
> Far better than the first attempt. Not a great beer, I'm assuming due to yeast treatment. Bottled brews are completely ruined by diacetyl and there is a hint of it in the kegged beer. Totally drinkable, very light and easy to knock back. Just lacks character I would associate with a pilsner. Unlike the first brew though, no off putting acidity.
> Next time more yeast and fresher. 5l flask on the cards.


Odd that diacetyl is more prominent in the bottled version than the kegged version. Diacetyl is very noticeable even in very tiny amounts in lagers and is generally caused by yeast not absorbing the chemical late in the fermentation cycle OR fermenting too cold in which case more diacetyl is produced than the yeast can re-absorb at the end of fermentation. Some strains produce more than others so it's worth checking this before choosing a yeast.


----------



## TheWiggman

For clarity - Adr_0, I say yeast treatment based on what I'm tasting in the beer and my knowledge of my process. There's a bit to read through in this thread but most of the info on the first brew is in this post. FYI, 2nd brew got down to 1.009, no chlorine or bleach in my process, boil is ridiculous and went for 75 mins.
Labels, I've started a thread before about diacetyl and I have never got it in the keg, but when I've got it it's always been in the bottles. I wouldn't say it's more prominent; diacetyl completely overpowers the bottled beer making it (in my opinion) undrinkable, and is barely detectable in the keg (but still there). Just always how it's been for me. Hence why I'm tending towards yeast issues as the ferment was longer than I'd liked and when I've had good ferments I've never had diacetyl. 
And yes, I did a diacetyl rest with this brew and left it on the cake for a few weeks.
Note too that this yeast was recultured from a previous brew so there's lots of margin for error there.

Moral of the story: success with acidulated malt, nasty acidity with lactic acid.


----------



## Black n Tan

Thanks for the update Wiggman. Your comment "success with acidulated malt, nasty acidity with lactic acid" made we wonder if you understood that acidulated malt is basically just malt that has been bathed in lactic acid (contains 2-3% lactic acid by weight).  It should not matter if you use acidulated malt or lactic acid, the issue is not to use too much. I think the issue with the first beer was that you used too much lactic acid and it was above the taste threshold. I suspect that using lactic acid in the sparge was a contributor with the first batch because the amount of lactic acid in the mash (combination of the lactic acid and the acidulated malt) you used looks very reasonable to me. If you want to acidify your sparge water you could always use phosphoric acid (that is what I use) but I typically only target a sparge water pH of 6.0. You targeted a sparge ph of 5.6 which I think is probably too low considering tannins are typically only extracted with a pH above 6.0 and the grain already has significant buffering acidity. That said I am starting to wonder if acidifying the sparge is having undesirable effects on my pilsners so I am going to drop it for the next batch. In your second batch I estimate the mash pH was about 5.5, which I think is a little high and may affect the flavour and crispness. So next time may be target a mash pH of 5.2 and a sparge pH of 6.0 (using phosphoric acid) or don't acidly the sparge water at all. Anyway they are my thoughts for better or worse.


----------



## TheWiggman

Appreciate the comments B&T, and yes I did understand how acidulated malt is put together. You're right though, in my instance I added too much and it ruined it. 
Like all things though I'd imagine there would be different flavour contributions from lactic acid and acidulated malt. Always more to learn. I'd be interested to hear the differences with sparge water acidification as that is well and truly on topic.


----------



## Black n Tan

Common wisdom is by acidifying the sparge water you reduce the risk of tannin extraction by keeping the pH below 6. Although I didn't have astringency problem at the time, I introduced it into my process about a year ago as an incremental 'improvement'. Since this time I have noticed my pilsners have a bit of astringency which muddies the finish. However it doesn't seem to affect my Munich Helles which won the Nats last year. So my suspicion is that it is a combination of tannin extraction from the grain with tannins from the high hopping rates used in the pilsner. As acidifying the sparge water is the one major change I have made, it is in my sights as a potential reason for the problem: despite it being contrary to the common widsom. I will not be making a pils until June, but will post my results. The only other culprit is the 2013 noble hops had particularly low alpha acid levels. Although I didn't increase the amount of hops I used as I use them mainly for flavour/aroma additions, I do wonder if it was a bad batch that contributed to the astringency issue.


----------



## labels

I think that you are underestimating the phenomenal buffering power of the mash. I don't think there is any need to acidify you sparge water unless your water supply is seriously alkaline. Then as soon as you add acid to neutralize the alkalinity you form a salt of some sort. If your water is that seriously alkaline you might be better using a different water source or buy a RO water purifier.
I have absolutely no problem making super clean lager beer using the simplest possible method of reaching my goal, the KISS principle if you like but paying very close attention to timing, temperature control and sanitation. I've made lagers many times using one malt, one hop, filtered town water and my chosen liquid yeast strain - no chemical adjustments whatsoever. They are super clean and free of astringency, graininess, sourness or any kind of fault, even when taste-tested at 20C
In my opinion if you strip things back to basics, you will be surprised at the results. To finalise yes, hops can definitely add astringency. My lagers now generally use a high alpha hop for bittering just so I can reduce the amount of hop matter in the wort and kettle finishing hops are added no later than 20mins before flame out and even then not overdoing them.


----------



## Goose

TheWiggman said:


> Results are in.
> Far better than the first attempt. Not a great beer, I'm assuming due to yeast treatment. Bottled brews are completely ruined by diacetyl and there is a hint of it in the kegged beer. Totally drinkable, very light and easy to knock back. Just lacks character I would associate with a pilsner. Unlike the first brew though, no off putting acidity.
> Next time more yeast and fresher. 5l flask on the cards.


G'day Wiggs, am presuming you kegged some and bottled some from the same batch ?

I also presume that after fermentation, prior to racking to keg/bottle you could not taste any diacetyl ? If not did you try this test ?


----------



## TheWiggman

Right on all accounts. Haven't tried the test, are you suggesting I do this to the kegged beer?


----------



## Goose

no mate, but its a great test to do _before_ you keg to determine if the diacetyl precursor AAS is present. Its tasteless, but if it is there it will rear its ugly head as diacetyl much later on .....


----------



## Adr_0

Maybe do this test around 1015-1020. A bit like acetaldehyde, it is reduced by more time on the yeast. You may be doing the d-rest too late, or potentially 'crashing' the yeast (which works well for ale yeasts once they are well and truly done) instead of gently bringing it down so that it can keep working.

The 34/70 / 2124? yeast is known for a fair chunk of diacetyl. I haven't used it for about 10 years, instead using Wyeast 2000 which produces much less diacetyl/AAL and has a better malt/hops profile (in my opinion).

Not sure if it helps, but I've attached profiles of the last two pilseners I've done which have had no diacetyl problems - though have both used Wyeast 2000:


----------



## Black n Tan

labels said:


> I think that you are underestimating the phenomenal buffering power of the mash. I don't think there is any need to acidify you sparge water unless your water supply is seriously alkaline. Then as soon as you add acid to neutralize the alkalinity you form a salt of some sort. If your water is that seriously alkaline you might be better using a different water source or buy a RO water purifier.
> I have absolutely no problem making super clean lager beer using the simplest possible method of reaching my goal, the KISS principle if you like but paying very close attention to timing, temperature control and sanitation. I've made lagers many times using one malt, one hop, filtered town water and my chosen liquid yeast strain - no chemical adjustments whatsoever. They are super clean and free of astringency, graininess, sourness or any kind of fault, even when taste-tested at 20C
> In my opinion if you strip things back to basics, you will be surprised at the results. To finalise yes, hops can definitely add astringency. My lagers now generally use a high alpha hop for bittering just so I can reduce the amount of hop matter in the wort and kettle finishing hops are added no later than 20mins before flame out and even then not overdoing them.


Agreed. I tried to fix something that wasn't broken and have inadvertently introduced a fault.


----------



## TheWiggman

That's about the profile I used Adr_0. 
9°C for 3 days
10°C until 1.018 was hit
Increase 1°C/day until 17°C. Hold until FG (about 7 days by memory, 1.009)
Chill down 4°C/ day to 4°, held for 10 days
Chill to -0.5°C until about the 5 week mark. 
I gave it the odd rouse towards the end. Hence why I'm pointing towards poor yeast health, if I had the right quantity of yeast diacetyl wouldn't be an issue, and in honesty it's not really an issue in the kegged beer anyway. Stressed yeast carries other problems which is overall making this an average beer rather than a good one.


----------



## ///

labels said:


> Odd that diacetyl is more prominent in the bottled version than the kegged version. Diacetyl is very noticeable even in very tiny amounts in lagers and is generally caused by yeast not absorbing the chemical late in the fermentation cycle OR fermenting too cold in which case more diacetyl is produced than the yeast can re-absorb at the end of fermentation. Some strains produce more than others so it's worth checking this before choosing a yeast.


Kind sir, might be best to grab some of that reading other than a forum on things like VDK. 

To make it easy the below link will sort you out. Anything you are not sure of just holla. 

http://www.whitelabs.com/files/Diacetyl_Time_Line.pdf

If you have VDK in your beer as a homebrewer, you have really stuffed up. Stuffed fermentation, conditioning and yeast management. No excuses with this one at a HB level, so get cracking with the reading and sort it out.


----------



## Adr_0

TheWiggman said:


> That's about the profile I used Adr_0.
> 9°C for 3 days
> 10°C until 1.018 was hit
> Increase 1°C/day until 17°C. Hold until FG (about 7 days by memory, 1.009)
> Chill down 4°C/ day to 4°, held for 10 days
> Chill to -0.5°C until about the 5 week mark.
> I gave it the odd rouse towards the end. Hence why I'm pointing towards poor yeast health, if I had the right quantity of yeast diacetyl wouldn't be an issue, and in honesty it's not really an issue in the kegged beer anyway. Stressed yeast carries other problems which is overall making this an average beer rather than a good one.


How are you measuring temp, in-wort?

You really want a few points of gravity left when you start to cool it down into the lagering range, and cool down very gently. 4°C a day is probably a bit steep and might be the reason you had an under-attenuated lager another time (my two examples above were 13°C in 10 days and 11°C in 7 days). The risk of having a few points left is if you cool it too quickly and don't fully attentuate, leave diacetyl/acetaldehyde in the beer; however the reward if you cool it gently is a magnificently conditioned beer and confidence the yeast are actually doing something at lagering temps.

Still not sure why your bottles ended up buttery and not your keg. Did you bottle them earlier? Did you move any yeast across into the keg?


----------



## Black n Tan

Adr_0 said:


> Still not sure why your bottles ended up buttery and not your keg. Did you bottle them earlier? Did you move any yeast across into the keg?


The likely explanation is that diacetyl precursor, acetolactic acid, was present in the beer at the time of bottling, which was later oxidised to diacetyl (doesn't require the presence of yeast). So in the case of the bottles, the ideal condition are provided for the conversion of acetolactic acid to diacetyl: oxygen in the head space and the warmer conditions required for bottle conditioning. A forced diacetyl test prior to bottling will ensure the precursor is not present and avoid an unhappy face down the track.


----------



## Adr_0

Black n Tan said:


> The likely explanation is that diacetyl precursor, acetolactic acid, was present in the beer at the time of bottling, which was later oxidised to diacetyl (doesn't require the presence of yeast). So in the case of the bottles, the ideal condition are provided for the conversion of acetolactic acid to diacetyl: oxygen in the head space and the warmer conditions required for bottle conditioning. A forced diacetyl test prior to bottling will ensure the precursor is not present and avoid an unhappy face down the track.


There you go.

So what do you reckon, the phasing is just off a bit? D-rest a touch too late (e.g. have it at 12-14°C in the 20's) and lagering too late as well, i.e. not many yeasties floating around?


----------



## Black n Tan

Adr_0 said:


> There you go.
> 
> So what do you reckon, the phasing is just off a bit? D-rest a touch too late (e.g. have it at 12-14°C in the 20's) and lagering too late as well, i.e. not many yeasties floating around?


May be the D-reast was too late or too short, but I suspect an under-pitch of yeast. Personally I D-rest close to FG without issue (within 4 points). However I do an extended d-rest (18-20C for 5 days) for the yeast to clean up diacetyl and other compounds, because I then cold-crash to 3-4C over 24 hours: I figure all the clean up happens quicker at elevated temps so I don't need to keep the yeast to be active during extended lagering (and it works).


----------



## TheWiggman

Not a pilsner but still on-topic.

My latest XXXX Bitter clone grain bill was like this -

* 3.000 kg JW pils
* 0.270 kg sugaz
* 0.155 kg JW light crystal
* 0.115 kg Weyermann acidulated
* Danish Lager with common 13°C to 18°C ferment schedule
I managed to hit 1.008 in under 6 days which is indicative of the extra effort I put into a good ferment this time.

Fast forward a few weeks: it's now at drinking age. A mate was around last night and tried one of my stouts, then a sample of the lager. His comment: "that's terrible - it tastes like water". Was it offensive I asked? "No it's not that I don't like it, it just doesn't have any flavour". Jackpot. It honestly has all the calling cards of a macro lager.
However...
There is something in the aftertaste to it that's detectable now that it's cleaned up with some lagering. In my opinion it's the acid malt. It is the same flavour slightly present in the recent pils and my shitty first attempt. 

I'm convinced that I can taste it at 3.2%.

Next lager attempt I'm going to take the pH hit and use only [reasonable] salt additions with no acidulated malt. Or hopefully use RO water because that's my birthday gift to myself next month.


----------

