Brew Day Water pH

[wobbly]

Firstly a mash Ph of 5.34 at 25 degrees isnt too high, its well within an ideal range. Never said/indicated that it wasn't and no offence meant

Aiming for a pale ale water profile as suggested by BrU'n (granted it doesnt hit the targets exactly but its pretty close) I would be adding:
Gypsum (CaSO4) 16.7g Epsom Salt (MgSO4) 5.7g Calcium Chloride (CaCl2) 1.5g I don't use the Pale Ale profile instead prefer the Yellow Balanced or Full profiles (personal choice)

This gives a predicted mash Ph of 5.4. No acidification should be required.

I would add the salts pre dough in. Check Ph 15 mins later. Then add acid if necessary, but it is unlikely.

As B/T and others have advised you, do not focus on pre mash Ph. I know its quoted that is what S.N do, but I am sure they know conclusively what their water and malt compositions are and know the resultant mash Ph and water chemistry inside out. Having said that I serious doubt they would treat all their water the same, ie acidifiying water for a stout in the same way does not compute.

To answer your question (which I believe is counter intuitive as your focus should just be on the mash ph) and it is from my knowledge, it would not make a difference but may effect the rate at which the mash Ph establishes and stabilizes and some of the initial conversations. which is the basis of my inquiries/questions

I suspect both the examples you have given used RO water the Gordon Strong reference did and the AJ deLange reference wasn't as I understand anything more than a theoretical interpretation but SN water is quoted as comming from the surrounding hills/mountains and as such alkalinity was effectively 0, so the water would contain effectively no buffering power. I would think they would still use some acid and salts to get the mash pH right, yes they appear to do so but prior to Dough-In especially for a lighter grist (no crystal or roast). In my situation my water alkalinity is 12 and my RA is 8 (this is prior to adjustment, but is similar to what you get after adjustment), but i still needed to add significant acid to get the mash pH to 5.2 (8mL 88% lactic acid for 55L) which resulted in water pH of mid 3's. So I don't think adjusting the water pH to 5.5 will give you a mash pH of 5.2, not suggesting it will get this low I just don't know without further additions of acid, but hey there is only one way to be sure.yep and thats what I intend to do the next brew using basically that same water mix (potable and rain) and grain bill as detailed in my post number 78

All of this may well end up being a fruitless exercise but a couple of respected water chemists and/or brewers have started me thinking that maybe what they are talking about/doing just might be a better (different??) way forward.

Hey had the "All in One Brewery" discussion not happened back in 2011 who knows if BIAB would have ever eventuated

Cheers

Wobbly

 

[timmi9191]

Bru'n Water predicts a mash pH of 5.34 with the addition of 1.8mls of 85% Phosphoric Acid (which is a bit high) which I check with a calibrate pH meter

If youre not referring to the mash ph, what are you saying is too high

 

[wobbly]

If youre not referring to the mash ph, what are you saying is too high

Should have made myself a bit clearer.

I generally find that Bru'n Water predicted Acid additions (mils) are "a bit high" (too big) and this is most likely due to my water profile on any given day being different due to the amount oif desalinated water in the mix that day (it can change from week to week and not just seaonally as with some places) so I usually add only about 75% of the recommended amount to start with holding some back in case I need to add a bit more. For my softer beers (my taste preference) I generally target a mash pH about 5.25 and I acknowledge that 5.34 at 25C being only about 0.09pH higher is no big deal

Cheers

Wobbly

 

[mabrungard]

The concerns with phosphate stripping out calcium from brewing water are overblown. For this precipitation reaction to occur, the calcium concentration in the water needs to be pretty high to start with. Under that condition, losing some calcium is not a concern. In fact, the malt provides all the calcium into the wort that the yeast need for their metabolism. There is NO need for calcium in your brewing water in order for the yeast to properly metabolize the wort into beer. The only reasons to add calcium to your brewing water is for: adding flavor ions such as Cl and SO4, removing oxalate from the wort, and helping the yeast to flocculate quickly. Yeast performance can actually be degraded if the calcium content is too high. Lager yeasts are particularly sensitive to elevated Ca content in the water.

The question of adding zinc to the wort was also posed. A better option for adding zinc is Zinc Sulfate Heptahyrdrate. That form is better than zinc chloride since it doesn't absorb water from the air. It is readily available in capsule form from vitamin and nutrition stores. The amount to add is exceedingly small. The proper dose is: 1 gram per 310 gallons (US) for ales and 1 gram per 620 gallons (US) for lagers. Those values come directly from an Anheuser Busch brewer that I respect and that resulting concentration agrees with brewing text recommendations. Of course, using a commercial yeast nutrient my be an easier option. PS: If you are brewing with RO water, there is virtually no zinc in that water and you do need to add some for the yeast's benefit. Typical tap water has enough zinc in it. Don't add zinc unless you're reasonably sure your wort needs it, since zinc can taste bad at even low levels.

 

[MHB]

The doses of Zn you are talking about are 4-8 times what Kunze recommends 0.1-0.15mg/L
Australia is uniquely low in available zinc, water can quite commonly be around the 0.05ppm or lower, this also means that the Barley grown here and malt made from it is also very low in Zn. Agreed its not something that is going to make a huge difference to most brewers but it is worth being aware of.
I love the line "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore." Sometimes different climes require different answers.
Mark

 

[Thefatdoghead]

I use filtered town water form SEQ. I now use bru n water and follow the instructions to add all additions to the brewing liquer.
I use the 50L brau and ss kettle at the same time. Ill have 75L in the ss kettle and 55 in the brau.
I make 2 seperate spread sheets for the two vessel volumes and add sepperate amaount to kettle and brau.
I use lactic acid 88% in both vessels then I add my salts. This all happens the night before brewing.
PH before additions is 7.01
PH after all additions is 3.24

Mash Ph depending on grain bill was 5.33 to 5.23 (I add acid after mashing for 20 min and check again if not low enough.)

Im getting great efficiency so i have decided not to sparge which makes life easier. Im not worried about a couple of kg of grain.
My ferments have been pumping away nicely so im pretty stoked with the system.

Why the brewing liquer is 3.23 PH to start I dont know but more reading needed of the water book.

Hi Cervantes

I'm at loss as for the pH to drop so dramatically you would think it would be associated with there being virtually no buffering (bicarbonate or carbonate) in the water. I have set both of these values to zero and still get a requirement to add around 2.28mls of Phos Acid. What I don't understand is that when I add that amount of Phos Acid for the grain bill as per post my post #14 the resultant pH of the mash water prior to adding the grains is in the mid 3's measure at room temperature

In your post above you are adding a "few ml" of lactic acid without issue.

In post #8 you indicated that you add your minerals and lactic acid to you brew water before mashing in. Have you checked the pH of the brew water before you have added the grains and if so what is it?

Maybe I'm stressing over nothing and that if/when I add the grains the mash will sort it self out.

Maybe this is a light bulb moment!!!!

Cheers

Wobbly

OK can someone (anyone) offer me an explanation/advise.

Note I brew with a 20lt Braumeister

I am new to "Soft water" (rain water) brewing and water adjustments for both pH and salts.

I have a reliable pH meter that reads to two decimal places and is calibration checked before each brew

My tap water is high in Chlorides (165ppm+/-) Sodium (105ppm+/-) Lowish in Sulphate (20ppm+/-) Lowish in Calcium (25ppm+/-) Alkalinity (77ppm+/-) Hardness (90ppm +/-)
These figures are from the water authority and are the annual "Mean" so could be lower/higher month to month. I haven't had the water specifically tested

To reduce the Sodium and Chloride levels back to lower levels I have diluted with 90% rain water (assumed virtual blank canvas) for a total brew day water (mash and sparge) of 38lts.

For a grain bill of 3.5kg Ale malt (5.6 EBC) 600g Munich (14 EBC) 300g Wheat (3.5 EBC) 250g Carapils (3.9 EBC) 100g Acid Malt (3.5 EBC) Bru'n Water for a particular water profile indicates to add 5.6g Gypsum, 3.5g Calcium Chloride and 2.28 mls of 85% phosphoric acid to achieve a pH of 5.32 (EZ Water indicates similar figuares)

I added the salts to the brew water (not acid yet) and dough in and wait 10/15 mins and take a sample cool to 20C and and pH indicates 5.28?

After a further 10/15 mins I take another sample cool to 20C and the pH now reads 5.36. Added 0.5mls of 85% Phos Acid waited 10/15 mins and took sample cooled to 20C and pH now 5.28

What I am struggling with/to understand is:-

1) Why is the initial pH reading after 10/15 mins (5.28) lower than subsequent reading (5.36)?
2) Why are both Bru'n and EZ Water indicating to add up to 4 times the amount of 85% Phos Acid as physical sampling/testing indicates. Is it that my water mix has virtually no buffering capacity (low/zero Alkalinity)

Today's brew is the second I have done with my "Rain Water" mix and the above grain bill and on both occasions the results/trend has been the same ie. Initial pH reading low and only requiring to use a lot less Phos acid than indicated by the software.

Any advise/comments would be appreciated

Cheers

Wobbly

Do remember reading in 'Water' book that salt additions can take a while to dilute and start affecting PH etc. This may be part of the reason?

 

[Jack of all biers]

Adding acids is like any other addition. Everything you add has a benefit and a consequence. The consequence of lactic acid is that it has a taste threshold that can be over stepped, The consequence of hydrochloric or sulphuric acids is the addition of chloride and sulphate compounds which also have a taste consequence (some good and some not so good - too much sulphur in a beer would not be good). The consequence of phosphoric acid is that it may precipitate out some calcium in the mash. I figure that with the addtions of calcium (chloride/sulphate/carbonate) as well as the presence of a fair bit in the water (unless you use RO or very soft water) and grains, then this minor precipitation would be the lesser of the consequences for many. I believe that is why it is so widely used (especially in the states). I think the lactic acid fits for the German way of thinking (as long as it is lactic acid produced from die Gersten [barley]) because it fits nicely into the purity laws.

My OPINION (cause that's all it is) to the OP is that I'd figure out how much acid you need for your brews by testing the pH on brews you make, then calculate how much you would need to correct that. That first batch for each recipe would then need the acid added post mixture of grist to liquor, but everytime you brew after that you can add the calculated acid to the liquor (holding a bit back as suggested) before adding the grist. As has been stated here already, this would ensure that the desired pH is achieved quicker rather than adding it after mixing the grist (seems a logical argument to me anyway).

The question of adding zinc to the wort was also posed. A better option for adding zinc is Zinc Sulfate Heptahyrdrate. That form is better than zinc chloride since it doesn't absorb water from the air. It is readily available in capsule form from vitamin and nutrition stores.

It's interesting you prefer Zinc Sulfate Heptahydrate as others have recommended Zinc Chloride as the better of the two. From Zie Germans: "In order to prevent fermentation defects, the zinc content of wort must be monitored and adjusted, if to low. This can be easily done in countries outside Germany by addition of zinc-salts, such as zinc-chloride, zinc-sulphate or zinc-asparate. Although all these salts are used, trials have shown that zinc-chloride seems to be most appropriate with no negative effects in case of overdosing" - [SIZE=11pt]B. Mändle, K.-U. Heyse, A Piendl,[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] Über die Auswirkungen einer Zugabe von Zinksalzen zur Würze auf die Gärung,[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] Proc. EBC, 483-494.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I understand the absorbtion of water by zinc chloride being more likely, but the above study makes a strong argument for the use of zinc chloride, concluding that it is the most appropriate in case one accidently adds too much it won't cause problems. (not sure if they are talking about problems for yeast or for humans consuming it :icon_vomit: ).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Found in Vitamin/nutrition capsules - do you have any brands you can nominate? not sure they would be here in Australia, but worth knowing just in case.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The doses of Zn you are talking about are 4-8 times what Kunze recommends 0.1-0.15mg/L[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Australia is uniquely low in available zinc, water can quite commonly be around the 0.05ppm or lower, this also means that the Barley grown here and malt made from it is also very low in Zn. Agreed its not something that is going to make a huge difference to most brewers but it is worth being aware of.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]I love the line "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore." Sometimes different climes require different answers.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Mark[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]It's not just Kunze that recommends 1.5 gm/L, but this German mob also recommend it as the minimum (so doesn't necessarily negate what Martin said either);[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]"Healthy yeast does have a zinc content of 6-13 mg/100 g (d.m.). To provide the yeast with sufficient zinc to uphold these values, the recommended zinc content in the wort should be above 0.15 mg/l. When pressure is applied during fermentation, a minimum content of 0.08 mg/l can be sufficient due to reduced yeast growth" - [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]D. Wagner, E. Geiger, W. Birk - [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Der Zink und Mangangehalt der Hefe in Abhängigkeit von bestimmten gärungstechnologischen Faktoren [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Proc. EBC London 1983, 473.480[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Palmer recommends "For best performance, zinc levels should be between 0.1-0.3 mg/l, with 0.5 mg/l being maximum." - J. Palmer - How to Brew, Chapter 6.9.1, Online Book.[/SIZE]

 

[rude]

How do you test for zinc

 

[MHB]

ICP, AAS - not the sort of thing you do at home. Most other methods would not be accurate enough at the type of concentrations we are working with.
About the best we can do is look at our water reports and make an educated guess, most show Zn content if they don't contact your local water authority and ask.
Mark

 

[rude]

Phew thats a relief thought I might be up for another $100 plus for a zinc meter

 

[MHB]

I doubt $100 would buy the light bulb for a AAS (more properly a hollow cathode lamp), there is a type of meter that might work called an Ion Selective Electrode meter, similar to a pH meter but it measures various Ions according to the type of probe you plug into it.
Some high end pH meters will take ISE's as well as pH probes but I think we are talking over $1000 starting money, another couple of (or more) hundred for each probe and I'm far from sure they would be sensitive or accurate enough to measure 0.01ppm which would be what you need to measure Zn reliably.

Unfortunately not the type of toys I get to play with any more and cant afford.
Mark

 

[mabrungard]

Although all these salts are used, trials have shown that zinc-chloride seems to be most appropriate with no negative effects in case of overdosing" - B. Mändle, K.-U. Heyse, A Piendl, Über die Auswirkungen einer Zugabe von Zinksalzen zur Würze auf die Gärung, Proc. EBC, 483-494.

Um? That is not that great a consolation. The negative effects of sulfate would never be realized since the negative effects of the metallic zinc flavor would destroy the beer long before the sulfate would. That statement is a Red Herring, in my opinion. Considering that the mega-breweries are using zinc sulfate, I have to assume that they have also thought it through. I do prefer minerals that aren't hygroscopic.

 

[MHB]

There does appear to be an Atlantic divide, most of the European literature seems to prefer ZnCl2, American ZnSO4. I personally don't think its going to matter provided you know to keep the lid on the jar, I keep a drying sachet in there to, or make up a stock solution (very handy for small additions, more accurate if you don't have seriously good scales).
I don't have any problem keeping my CaCl2 from taking up too much water although it to is pretty deliquescent.

Another couple of examples of the Atlantic divide I have noticed -
North American brewers appear to use a lot of Phosphoric, as apposed to Lactic, HCl and H2SO4 (Germans use Bio-Acidification)
Kunze references a sour mash being used to make a Zn rich stock solution from (if I am reading it right) trub and expended malt.
American brewers lean on the Sulphate harder than do European brewers - a trend/generalisation - some Euro beers need a fair amount of sulphate

Might be a bit of an uphill push with a pointy stick, around here, arguing that we should follow US mega brewers processes, considering what the make and the regard in which their products are held.
Someone brought me a can of this

As a joke, at least I hope it was as a joke, also brought a bottle of Green Flash Palate Wrecker so easily forgiven.
I'm not a serious hop head, but the Green Flash brewers nailed that one.
Mark

 

[rude]

I recently used Bruns calc for a APA using the pale ale profile

Grain bill was 3.2kg maris otter
1kg munich 1
100g pale wheat
100g cara munich 11

Used R/O water 12 L mash in caso4 - 5.16g , cacl2 - 0.96g , mgso4 - 1.8g , ca(OH) - 0.6g (pickling lime )
10 L mash out no salts used they were reserved for the kettle
20 L sparge no salts used as above

34 L in the kettle caso4 - 12.9g , cacl2 - 2.4g , mgso4 - 4.5g

Put all this into Brun & got 5.41 PH calculation

I put all the mash salts in the mash tun put grain on top & underlet strike water

The reason I do this is because I have a basic 3 vessle system no pump
HLT is filled to 32 L & once mash in & out water is used I top up with 15 L for 20 L sparge leaving 5 L in HLT
so for ease of water treatment I underlet

Yet to get a PH meter but one is on its way ADWA 12 meter

Does this process seem ok or should I be treating the water first before adding to the mash tun

Also since using R/O water my attenuation has taken a slight hit so have been using wyeast nutrient
10 min at the end of the boil

Thanks to all who post in advance for advice
Cheers Rude

 

[MHB]

Ca(OH)2 being very basic it raises pH.
Curious as to why.
Mark

 

[rude]

Without it PH would have been 5.24 which would have been ok
but with R/O bicarbonate level was 16 ppm

The pale ale profile has bicarbonate at 110 ppm so used Ca(HO)2 to raise the bicarbonate level
with hopefully my PH still in if not a better range 5.41 ?????

 

[manticle]

pH of the mash presumably?

Bicarbonate won't add anything great to a pale brew as far as I understand so don't get too fixated on recommended profiles.
Instead look at the mash pH and preferred flavour profile and adjust/tweak from there.

By adding slaked lime, you are raising mash pH (possibly good for stout or porter) but by adding your other salts, you are dropping it: counterbalancing your own additions.

Keep it simple - minimum required levels of calcium, magnesium and zinc (mostly provided by all malt wort in the first two incidences, decent nutrient in the third), acid OR slaked lime to hit pH target, then ionic compound to target hop driven, malt driven or somewhere in between.

 

[rude]

So I could have used less Caso4 or Cacl2 or mgso4 or all 3 to achieve the 5.4 PH
then reserved them for the kettle to get the pale ale profile leaving the bicarbonate at 16ppm ?

I here you about the profiles but surely you have to aim for some type of profile ie full, balanced , dry yellow
which I have been doing

Have heard a lot about the high sulfate to make the hops ping (Randy Mosher) so thought I'de give it a go but used
the Brun pale ale profile

Was wondering about upping the bicarbonates so thanks for advice

 

[Jack of all biers]

It's interesting you prefer Zinc Sulfate Heptahydrate as others have recommended Zinc Chloride as the better of the two. From Zie Germans: "In order to prevent fermentation defects, the zinc content of wort must be monitored and adjusted, if to low. This can be easily done in countries outside Germany by addition of zinc-salts, such as zinc-chloride, zinc-sulphate or zinc-asparate. Although all these salts are used, trials have shown that zinc-chloride seems to be most appropriate with no negative effects in case of overdosing" - [SIZE=11pt]B. Mändle, K.-U. Heyse, A Piendl,[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] Über die Auswirkungen einer Zugabe von Zinksalzen zur Würze auf die Gärung,[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] Proc. EBC, 483-494.[/SIZE]

Um? That is not that great a consolation. The negative effects of sulfate would never be realized since the negative effects of the metallic zinc flavor would destroy the beer long before the sulfate would. That statement is a Red Herring, in my opinion. Considering that the mega-breweries are using zinc sulfate, I have to assume that they have also thought it through. I do prefer minerals that aren't hygroscopic.

I don't think they were refering to overdoses being catastrophically large additions, but more like adding 0.8 mg/L as opposed 0.2 mg/L. I'm pretty sure at those levels they weren't refering to the benefits of chlorides over sulphates (or asparate for that matter), but more to do with the way the yeast take up the zinc component from the zinc chloride. I'm not sure why this is though and it is just one study. I'm not an expert on it at all, but want to learn some more about zinc as it is the only needed element that is generally lacking in worts (especially in Australia). Any technical reasons for the benefits of one type of zinc compound over another (ie yeast can handle one type better than another) I'm keen to hear about.

 

[MHB]

Jack
When a salt goes into solution it disassociates into ions or radicals ZnCl2 > Zn2+ and 2Cl- or ZnSO4 > Zn2+ and SO42- called Cations and Anions
So the Zn will be in the same form and as we are talking about pretty minute quantities of Zn the accompanying anions (Cl or SO4) aren't going to matter.

Rude
I'm tempted to think adding Carbonate, most people use chalk (Calcium Carbonate) in anything other than a very black beer would be unnecessary.
The melanoidins that form in dark malt (and Beer) are acidic. This is why dark beers developed in high carbonate water areas (Guinness in Dublin being the classic example) using dark/roast malt to provide acid to counter the carbonate.
No doubt the carbonate and resulting reaction provides some of the typical flavours in dark beers and if I were making a dry stout with RoMo water there are plenty of good reasons for adding carbonate.
Not where I would be going with a pale beer. there is plenty of buffering capacity in malt and its usually harder to get the pH down rather than do anything to push it up.
Mark