Ro or tap

Make grain beers with the absolute minimum of equipment. Discuss here.
Post Reply
Brown beer
Tippler
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:03 pm

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Brown beer » Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:15 am

Oh dear. It appears to have got complicated again just when I'd worked out how to use the GW calculator! If I use the recommendation from dry pale ale will I be in the right ball park? Please bare in mind I've done no water treatment really before for last 15ish brews so anything probably an improvement??

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: Ro or tap

Post by PeeBee » Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:52 am

Brown beer wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:15 am
Oh dear. …
Don't worry. Remember what I posted last:
PeeBee wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 6:17 pm
… the fine tweaks can be left up to the numerous calculators. …
What I didn't anticipate was folk would use your thread to thrash out features in the calculators! But if you want to do it the hard way, I think Eric might give some pointer on how to hold a pencil (should you have forgotten?).
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Silver_Is_Money
Piss Artist
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:35 pm
Location: N/E Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Silver_Is_Money » Thu Jan 30, 2020 12:24 pm

Brown beer wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:15 am
Oh dear. It appears to have got complicated again just when I'd worked out how to use the GW calculator! If I use the recommendation from dry pale ale will I be in the right ball park? Please bare in mind I've done no water treatment really before for last 15ish brews so anything probably an improvement??
The main thing to learn is that there is no mystical magic to be found within anyone's canned water profile(s), and all of such things are merely someones opinion. Whatever anyone's water profile recommendation advice might be considered to be, it will assuredly not be gospel truth. It will in fact be much closer to being a guess. Good process and technique are of far more importance. Don't fret much over water profiles.

And on top of this, as I have previously indicated, one mans 100 ppm calcium is another mans 53.4 ppm calcium (and likewise for all other mineral ions). Any water advice scaled in ppm (mg/L) is by necessity bound to restrictions that are never mentioned, or even thought of or passed along with the profile for that matter. PPM is simply a terrible way to outline a water profile. It even gets the guessing and opinion part of it messed up in the transmission from one brewers process to another brewers process. This often makes it worse than guessing for the recipient.
Developer of 'Mash Made Easy', a free and complete mash pH adjustment assistant spreadsheet

https://mashmadeeasy.yolasite.com/

User avatar
Eric
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2873
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:18 am
Location: Sunderland.

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Eric » Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:50 pm

Brown beer wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:15 am
Oh dear. It appears to have got complicated again just when I'd worked out how to use the GW calculator! If I use the recommendation from dry pale ale will I be in the right ball park? Please bare in mind I've done no water treatment really before for last 15ish brews so anything probably an improvement??
Yes James and sorry, we've messed it up for you. If you want to try the dry pale ale there is every reason to do so. To treat 33.7 litres of your tap water, the quantities are in my first screenshot posting of Graham's calculator. If MME is right, the mash pH will be low, but at this stage in water treatment it won't spoil things.
Without patience, life becomes difficult and the sooner it's finished, the better.

guypettigrew
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2626
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:10 pm
Location: Christchurch, Dorset

Re: Ro or tap

Post by guypettigrew » Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:35 pm

Brown beer wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:15 am
Oh dear. It appears to have got complicated again just when I'd worked out how to use the GW calculator! If I use the recommendation from dry pale ale will I be in the right ball park? Please bare in mind I've done no water treatment really before for last 15ish brews so anything probably an improvement??
Sort of spiralled out of control, this thread, hasn't it?! fascinating stuff, though.

My suggestion, in the light of all this discussion, would be to use 0.1ml AMS/litre of water. And the salt additions I suggested a while back.

There may be better ways to treat your water for the sort of beer you're making, but doing this treatment will be a whole lot better than not doing anything at all!

Guy

Silver_Is_Money
Piss Artist
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:35 pm
Location: N/E Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Silver_Is_Money » Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:31 pm

It turns out to be the case that specifically for the criteria of a "Congress Mash" the only way to get Kolbach's formula for the depression of pH via the presence of Ca and Mg ions to fully comply with D.G.Taylor's direct observation (as peer reviewed in 1990) is to multiply Kolbach's 1950's era formula by a factor of ~0.80. I tentatively believe that Kai Troester (Braukaiser) observed much the same roughly a decade and a half ago. A careful read of Kolbach's dissertation shows that he was measuring the pH drop caused by adding calcium and magnesium to the mash water only at "knock-out" (which occurs well downstream of the mash). Potentially not all of the mineral induced drop occurs within the mash, and some additional drop in pH due to added minerals carries on through lautering and even perhaps the boil, such that it's full impact (as measured by Kolbach, and as present within his formula) can not be measured purely in the mash, but rather is measured only at knock-out.

The specific criteria of a "Congress Mash", as should be used by all knowledgeable beer process testers so as to be as well as possible on the same page, is to mash 50 grams of malt(s) in 200 mL of water. Thus the established criteria indicates a mash thickness of 4 Liters per Kg. of grist.

I'm currently modifying Mash Made Easy to apply the ~0.8 correction factor to Kolbach such that Taylor's observation of a 4L per Kg. thickness Congress Mash with 50 ppm Ca which mashes at a measured pH 5.51 subsequently mashes at a measured pH 5.10 in the mash when the Ca is bumped up to 350 ppm. If however mEq measure is applied to mineral additions (as opposed to ppm measure), then the observed outcome as to mineral induced pH drop remains consistent across any mash thickness. I'm making the presumption here that both Taylor and Kolbach indeed performed "Congress Mashes" by which to perform their tests. Stay tuned for MME version 8.45.
Developer of 'Mash Made Easy', a free and complete mash pH adjustment assistant spreadsheet

https://mashmadeeasy.yolasite.com/

WallyBrew
Hollow Legs
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:30 pm
Location: Surrey

Re: Ro or tap

Post by WallyBrew » Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Silver_Is_Money wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 3:31 pm
The specific criteria of a "Congress Mash", as should be used by all knowledgeable beer process testers so as to be as well as possible on the same page, is to mash 50 grams of malt(s) in 200 mL of water. Thus the established criteria indicates a mash thickness of 4 Liters per Kg. of grist.
Yes but it is not a typical infusion mash as practised in the UK

The congress mash, which ASFAIK is the same as the ASBC, is to mash 50g in 200ml of water at 45C for 30mins. The temperature is then raised at the rate of 1C per minute until 70C is reached and then 100mL of water at 70C is added to the mash. After this addition such things as saccharification time are determined. After 1 hour at 70 the wort is cooled and made to a weight of 450g so the mash is 50g in 450g. The wort is continuously stirred throughout.

I think you now have a very heavy workload to complete.

User avatar
Eric
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2873
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:18 am
Location: Sunderland.

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Eric » Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:34 pm

Thanks Jim about the bug. PeeBee was right and described what probably happened as the second time, when I was paying more attention, it worked.

Silver, you can PM me any time for exchange of thoughts and ideas on any matter, but am not sure I might be the right man, having little experience of spreadsheets and virtually no faith in mash pH predicting algorithms. As written earlier, I've heard ample reports by experienced 3V brewers. using single pot systems with increased liquor to grain mass, resulting in higher mash pH. Whether this relationship is linear I doubt and feel the potential exists that a workable pH predicting program might need to be specific to the brewing system.

While mash pH influences many aspects of brewing, getting it within the accepted range is most important. I find it hard to believe one specific value of pH has a significant advantage over another for drinkers or for our hobby. Aiming somewhere mid range is all that the overwhelming majority require. While on occasion I've drank beer, recognising the influence of too high a mash pH, I've never myself thought, or known any other contemplating a beer to then say, "By, that had a lovely pH five point x mash." All that does not exclude some larger brewer sending beer to country "x" by transport "y" in timescale "z", finding one mash pH produces a more consistent product than another, as it might with many other variations.

You saw in PeeBee's map and comments on the distribution of water hardness in UK, and that map isn't much different to population distribution. Consequently most here start with moderately hard water, PeeBee and Brown Beer being in the minority. As a result the majority of British beers have in the past been made with hard water. Treated hard water since 1880, when the so called Mash Tun Act moved taxation from malt to the produce of the mash tun. Many of us take pride in trying to replicate some of those and other beers.

My water has just enough minerals to initiate a mash in the way I desire. As calcium is deposited and lost, it is replaced using salts and acid is used to reduce alkalinity in sparge liquor to maintain pH. pH is montored, although at times only when time or mood allow. By this and good sparge control, extraction approaches 100% and I know Guy achieves this level too. WallyBrew, (I think he won't mind me saying this) with his equipment and knowledge can exceed 100%. (100% is not the upper limit as the comparison is with a Congress like Mash without calcium salts, which influence extraction.)

It is thought by many UK brewers, myself included, that most mash pH predictors are based on measurements of low ion liquor brewing, which may not extrapolate well to the levels typical for traditional British beers. At British mineral levels it isn't necessary to remove all alkalinity and further acidify brewing liquor to achieve a suitable mash pH for pale beers. Adjustments can be measured with a simple Salifert KH kit. The majority also have no need to add alkalinity as those with soft water when making darker beers, again measured with a Salifert kit. With lower mineral levels the adjustments required to achieve satisfactory pH are more complicated, being either side of zero alkalinity.

I'm pleased you have derived a further enhancement for your calculator, but please excuse me if I don't show the same degree of enthusiasm. Content with my grasp of my tapwater and the many parts it plays in the brewing process, but cannot see it simply expressed in a mathematical formula. The satisfaction I've had from mastering what at the twist of a hand can with little effort make more types of beer than I could possibly drink and to then exchange findings with many others of similar mind, Brown Beer the most recent addition I know of to those ranks, is where my greater interest lies.
Without patience, life becomes difficult and the sooner it's finished, the better.

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: Ro or tap

Post by PeeBee » Thu Jan 30, 2020 6:25 pm

Brown beer wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:15 am
Oh dear. It appears to have got complicated again just when I'd worked out how to use the GW calculator! If I use the recommendation from dry pale ale will I be in the right ball park? Please bare in mind I've done no water treatment really before for last 15ish brews so anything probably an improvement??
I didn't click on that at the time, you've pulled out GW's "dry pale ale". I've just picked up on it reading Eric's last post.

I was doing a fair bit of work on getting a "Marsden Pedigree" (my "childhood" beer when living near Derby) clone a while back. And I was using GW's "dry pale ale" profile.

It is a very mineralised profile, some 330ppm sulphate (from gypsum mainly). The "Burton" profile has even more (365-370?). My first problem with it was dissolving that much gypsum, although I've since found the gypsum I was using wasn't milled fine enough so that didn't help. I was quite impressed on the impact of that much gypsum on emulating "Pedigree". Gypsum really is responsible for how the beer tastes. It lasted about 3 weeks (the beer was only about 10 days old when the cask was broached). After 3 weeks the "real" (documented) qualities of gypsum came into play. I described it as like "sticking your tongue on a well used blackboard". Pedigree never tasted like that, but then you never got to drink it that old (you could get Pedigree in bottles, but I never knew anybody who liked that stuff).

What I'm getting at is "don't do it"! Or if you do you should hope all the gypsum doesn't dissolve (it probably wont). I got used to it, but I'd never subject a beer of only 1.040-43 to it. I stopped brewing Pedigree clones. The experience is why I recommended an anaemic "New World" water profile as you don't want anything too dramatic when just starting out. Yet here you are … "dry pale ale" profile. Yikes!

The "sweet pale ale" profile can't offend, I use that one a lot myself. "Sweet" doesn't mean the beer comes out tasting of lemonade!


<EDIT: Checking back on my notes; I wasn't using GW's profile, I was using Martin Brungard's (Bru'n Water) which is less mineralised than GW's, but not by much: 300ppm sulphate against 330ppm>
Last edited by PeeBee on Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

User avatar
Eric
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2873
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:18 am
Location: Sunderland.

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Eric » Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:42 pm

I've regularly brewed with 300ppm sulphate without problems by mixing gypsum into the grains thoroughly before mashing in. Further, my systems can recirculate wort and is used to wash in gypsum placed on top of the mash. Similar can be done when fly sparging.

Brews with 400ppm sulphate take a while to reach their best. Those with 300ppm suphate are not generally a first preference of mine, probably because it can mean the chloride level will be too low. In my book beers need an absolute minimum of 100ppm chloride and preferably a lot more.
Without patience, life becomes difficult and the sooner it's finished, the better.

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: Ro or tap

Post by PeeBee » Fri Jan 31, 2020 12:06 pm

I don't have trouble dissolving the new gypsum I got, I think the old stuff (and it was old) was simply too "lumpy". As I've said before I'm no fan of adding gypsum (or any water treatment salt except for slaked lime) directly to the dry mash ingredients. I consider it akin to "sweeping it under the carpet".

The stark results I got from gypsum might be down to chloride? Martin's version of dry pale ale had a third of the chloride of GW's. But I still think it's too mineralised for a "blonde" ale. After all, these "blonde" ales probably sprung up to counter the huge surge of the market to "pseudo" lagers. So I think it's right to apply an anaemic water profile to them and not shoehorn it into a (potentially surprising?) proper ale type water profile. I certainly don't mind high sulphate in beer … when it's appropriate. And I don't think it is appropriate for a "blonde" ale, or for beer like "Pedigree" (currently the only widely UK available "Burton-on-Trent" ale) if it's kept too long (which "Pedigree" isn't; I doubt any "real" Pedigree sees a month out).
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Silver_Is_Money
Piss Artist
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:35 pm
Location: N/E Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Silver_Is_Money » Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:07 pm

WallyBrew wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:04 pm
I think you now have a very heavy workload to complete.
'Mash Made Easy' version 8.45 has just been published to my website. The spreadsheet is free and complete. There is no pay version. Available in both US and Metric versions.

Change made:

Reduces the downward pH shift impact of calcium and magnesium mineralization in the mash to better comply with the pH shift observed by D.G. Taylor within: "The importance of pH control during brewing." MBAA Tech. Quart. 27: 131-136
Developer of 'Mash Made Easy', a free and complete mash pH adjustment assistant spreadsheet

https://mashmadeeasy.yolasite.com/

Heron1952
Piss Artist
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:39 pm
Location: Burford, Oxfordshire

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Heron1952 » Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:51 pm

Your release dates still think its 2019!!!
aka Rhys

Silver_Is_Money
Piss Artist
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:35 pm
Location: N/E Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Silver_Is_Money » Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:53 pm

Heron1952 wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:51 pm
Your release dates still think its 2019!!!
Thanks much!!! Fixing it now. My old (retired) mind hasn't adjusted to 2020 yet. :oops:

Edit: It's been fixed. Thanks again.
Developer of 'Mash Made Easy', a free and complete mash pH adjustment assistant spreadsheet

https://mashmadeeasy.yolasite.com/

User avatar
Eric
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2873
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:18 am
Location: Sunderland.

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Eric » Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:13 pm

Silver_Is_Money wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:07 pm
WallyBrew wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:04 pm
I think you now have a very heavy workload to complete.
'Mash Made Easy' version 8.45 has just been published to my website. The spreadsheet is free and complete. There is no pay version. Available in both US and Metric versions.

Change made:

Reduces the downward pH shift impact of calcium and magnesium mineralization in the mash to better comply with the pH shift observed by D.G. Taylor within: "The importance of pH control during brewing." MBAA Tech. Quart. 27: 131-136
OK, so here is the latest MME with water treatment advised by Graham's calculator. While doing this I saw that on my previous efforts with MME I inputted the wrong value for alkalinity. I assume MME uses alkalinity as CaCO3, but Graham's displays the just the carbonate proportion. This means those first 2 display a higher mash pH than MME 8.4 would predict had I input the correct alkalinity.
BBMME3.jpg
Without patience, life becomes difficult and the sooner it's finished, the better.

Post Reply