Announcing 'Mash Made Easy', a mash pH adjustment assistant

[Silver_Is_Money]

Announcing the release of 'Mash Made Easy' version 3.00, in both the Standard and Metric formats.

The major change is a lowering of the spreadsheets prediction for the requirement of and quantity of need for baking soda when addressing recipes such as Stouts and Porters, or any recipe which contains an abundance of dark roasted malts and/or roast barley. This change required a new engine overhaul, and thus the beginning of the new series numeration of 3.xx.

Also, I believe that I've finally gotten fully to the bottom of a nagging bug which occasionally caused the Metric version to lose its ability to properly assign correct DI_pH's to EBC colored malts/grains, the problem for which cropped up not initially upon use, but rather occasionally with the continued re-use of the spreadsheet.

These changes and several more of importance are detailed more fully on my website. All users are urged to transition to version 3.00.

 

[North_of_60]

Downloaded 3.00. Thank you.

I brewed a Blonde using MME 2.4 last week. My first time adjusting pH. I’m hoping to finally get a good tasting light colored beer. I’ll know in about 2 weeks.

 

[Tribe Fan]

Just downloaded 3.1 on chrome, thanks for this. I'd rather have my online identity exploited by Google than pay actual cash to MSFT. Choices are great!

Input two recent batches, first one was a problem for me and this showed it was definitely too acidic, how much so really depends on the special B I used and what it's DI really is, the spec sheet does not specify it.

Second one was the first batch I did using the primer and it showed me at 5.12. I actually measured 5.2 20 min into the mash. Interestingly, if I had used my first thought of 3g of cacl and 1.5 g of gypsum, I'd have come in at 5.38. I up'd it to 5 and 2 and the calc show the corresponding drop. I can also cut back on the acid malt for that one too. This will be awesome for new recipes to get into the ballpark.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

The MME program should give you a respectable default DI_pH for Dingeman's Special B crystal malt if you use a Lovibond of 125-130 with it, as well of course as classify it as a Caramel/Crystal malt. It is also imperative to select the proper DI_pH for the recipes primary base malt via the drop down in the lower right hand corner. Or if you are using two base malts, select a DI_pH default from the drop-down which splits the difference between them.

 

[Tribe Fan]

The MME program should give you a respectable default DI_pH for Dingeman's Special B crystal malt if you use a Lovibond of 125-130 with it, as well of course as classify it as a Caramel/Crystal malt. It is also imperative to select the proper DI_pH for the recipes primary base malt via the drop down in the lower right hand corner. Or if you are using two base malts, select a DI_pH default from the drop-down which splits the difference between them.

Got it thanks. Didn't notice that down there.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Hover over the cell before clicking on it and base malt selection guidance should appear, or at least it does if you are using LibreOffice. I need conformation that this new hover for pop-up instructions feature is working with Excel, etc...

 

[Tribe Fan]

In Google Sheets on Chrome there is a blue corner that you hover on for guidance.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Announcing Mash Made Easy version 4.00, in both the Standard and Metric formats.

A.J. deLange has finally convinced me that the likes of stouts, including the most robust of stouts, and by association all other beers residing at the highest (darkest) end of the SRM/EBC color spectrum simply do not require anywhere near as much baking soda as was historically believed, if they even require any caustic addition (baking soda, etc...) at all. He has also convinced me that generally more acidity is needed at the lightest color end of the SRM/EBC spectrum, and for the highest DI_pH base malts. So I've come around full circle on all of this once again and thereby revised the mash pH forecasting engine accordingly.

Other improvements to version 4.00 are the addition of Flaked Rye, and a noticeable improvement in the output precision for the case where acid malt is added directly to the grist via the Malt/Grain addition drop down menu selection route.

 

[North_of_60]

I downloaded 4.0. Thank you for all the work you do to keep this updated with the latest data and calculations.

I included a screen shot of the Base Malt drop down menu. It cuts off the very last line.

Have I selected the correct line for Pilsen Malt 2 Row 1 SRM (Briess)

This selection does not affect the Vienna I am using even though its a Base Malt. Is this because it's above 3.0 L?

Since Briess Vienna is 3.5 L, is "Base Malt" the best Grain Classification to use?

3.1 had the "Grists Buffering Capacity (mEq/kg•pH)" set to 35 and 4.0 was set to 45. That made about 1 ml difference is the amount of lactic acid required. I set them both to 45 and the difference between the two is negligible.

How do I decide which number (35 or 45) is the best for my recipe?

For the salt additions I used BS3 calculations rounded to the nearest .5.

For these 1/2 a mg additions I'm tempted to leave them out. Can a 1/2 mg or even 1 mg make a significant difference in 8.5 gallons of mash water?

MME calculates 6.48 ml lactic acid required
BS3 calculates 10.9 ml lactic acid required

I'm going to brew this next week when I get back from Alaska. I'll go with 6.5 ml of lactic acid. I think that 10.9 ml is getting close to my taste threshold. I used 7.5 ml in an 8 gallon mash on a wheat blonde and I taste something sour. It's faint but its there. I have a sensitivity for sour tastes. I may have to switch to phosphoric acid for large additions.

I'll let you know my results.

Below are screen shots of 3.1 and 4.0 with the same recipe, the major difference I see is the "sulfate / chloride ratio".

 

[enkamania]

MME calculates 6.48 ml lactic acid required
BS3 calculates 10.9 ml lactic acid required

Beersmith is bad with its lactic acid suggestions.

 

[North_of_60]

Beersmith is bad with its lactic acid suggestions.

BS3 does seem awful high.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I downloaded 4.0. Thank you for all the work you do to keep this updated with the latest data and calculations.

I included a screen shot of the Base Malt drop down menu. It cuts off the very last line.

Have I selected the correct line for Pilsen Malt 2 Row 1 SRM (Briess)

This selection does not affect the Vienna I am using even though its a Base Malt. Is this because it's above 3.0 L?

Since Briess Vienna is 3.5 L, is "Base Malt" the best Grain Classification to use?

View attachment 586669
3.1 had the "Grists Buffering Capacity (mEq/kg•pH)" set to 35 and 4.0 was set to 45. That made about 1 ml difference is the amount of lactic acid required. I set them both to 45 and the difference between the two is negligible.

How do I decide which number (35 or 45) is the best for my recipe?

For the salt additions I used BS3 calculations rounded to the nearest .5.

For these 1/2 a mg additions I'm tempted to leave them out. Can a 1/2 mg or even 1 mg make a significant difference in 8.5 gallons of mash water?

MME calculates 6.48 ml lactic acid required
BS3 calculates 10.9 ml lactic acid required

I'm going to brew this next week when I get back from Alaska. I'll go with 6.5 ml of lactic acid. I think that 10.9 ml is getting close to my taste threshold. I used 7.5 ml in an 8 gallon mash on a wheat blonde and I taste something sour. It's faint but its there. I have a sensitivity for sour tastes. I may have to switch to phosphoric acid for large additions.

I'll let you know my results.

Below are screen shots of 3.1 and 4.0 with the same recipe, the major difference I see is the "sulfate / chloride ratio".

View attachment 586670 View attachment 586671

What OS, spreadsheet, and spreadsheet version is cutting off the base malt DI_pH selector instructions? This should be a quick fix. Your output for the instructions definitely looks different than what I see in the LibreOffice Calc spreadsheet.

Pilsen or Pilsner malt requires the "nominal" use of the last (highest) of the 6 available DI_pH selections. There is no such thing as a Briess Pilsner malt with a Lovibond color of 1.0. A range of 1.2 to 2.0 is far more realistic, and data which Briess sent me personally shows 1.5, though apparently some individual lots may dip as low as 1.2. Their data shows far more importantly a DI_pH of 5.83, so it's best to use whatever color value gives you 5.83 when combined with the correct base malt drop-down selector choice. Malts use the Lovibond color scale, which is assuredly not the SRM color scale. Or they use EBC for the Metric version. DI_pH is all that really matters sans for the exception of final batch SRM color considerations.

The most significant differences between 3.10 and 4.00 should appear in the calculated baking soda additions required for really dark brews like robust stouts.

With the buffer set at 35 you are getting pretty much the full Kolbach effect with respect to mash pH depression due to the presence of Ca++ and/or Mg++ mineralization. A.J. has suggested that in the mash you will not see the full impact of Kolbach, so I suggest cutting the buffer back to 45 to reduce the impact of mineralization upon downward pH shift, in line with A.J.'s mode of thinking, but not to quite the degree that I think he actually sees it. I actually believe that A.J. thinks only about half of the Kolbach effect is actually witnessed within the mash due to minerals.

Any base malt with a Lovibond color above 3.0L (or 6.5 EBC) is not going to be impacted by the DI_pH modifier drop down selector, and for these base malts you simply accept the default as given, or you can always apply a manual DI_pH override.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Here is a great tool for cross referencing Lovibond to SRM and EBC. Add the color value for any one of these three means of color measurement, to see the proper values transmuted into the other two color scales. Many sources compute these color cross references incorrectly, or advise you of seriously bad formulas for manually accomplishing the same, but this website gets it right.

https://www.brewtoad.com/tools/color-converter

 

[North_of_60]

What OS, spreadsheet, and spreadsheet version is cutting off the base malt DI_pH selector instructions? This should be a quick fix. Your output for the instructions definitely looks different than what I see in the LibreOffice Calc spreadsheet.

Pilsen or Pilsner malt requires the "nominal" use of the last (highest) of the 6 available DI_pH selections. There is no such thing as a Briess Pilsner malt with a Lovibond color of 1.0. A range of 1.2 to 2.0 is far more realistic, and data which Briess sent me personally shows 1.5, though apparently some individual lots may dip as low as 1.2. Their data shows far more importantly a DI_pH of 5.83, so it's best to use whatever color value gives you 5.83 when combined with the correct base malt drop-down selector choice. Malts use the Lovibond color scale, which is assuredly not the SRM color scale. Or they use EBC for the Metric version. DI_pH is all that really matters sans for the exception of final batch SRM color considerations.

The most significant differences between 3.10 and 4.00 should appear in the calculated baking soda additions required for really dark brews like robust stouts.

With the buffer set at 35 you are getting pretty much the full Kolbach effect with respect to mash pH depression due to the presence of Ca++ and/or Mg++ mineralization. A.J. has suggested that in the mash you will not see the full impact of Kolbach, so I suggest cutting the buffer back to 45 to reduce the impact of mineralization upon downward pH shift, in line with A.J.'s mode of thinking, but not to quite the degree that I think he actually sees it. I actually believe that A.J. thinks only about half of the Kolbach effect is actually witnessed within the mash due to minerals.

Any base malt with a Lovibond color above 3.0L (or 6.5 EBC) is not going to be impacted by the DI_pH modifier drop down selector, and for these base malts you simply accept the default as given, or you can always apply a manual DI_pH override.

I am using Excel Office 365 spreadsheet

BS3 has Briess Pilsen Malt at 1.0. I looked at MooreBeer website and they show it at 1.2.

Thank you

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I am using Excel Office 365 spreadsheet

BS3 has Briess Pilsen Malt at 1.0. I looked at MooreBeer website and they show it at 1.2.

Thank you

I think that is the same as Office 2016 Excel. I'll work on a fix.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I am using Excel Office 365 spreadsheet

BS3 has Briess Pilsen Malt at 1.0. I looked at MooreBeer website and they show it at 1.2.

Thank you

1.2L is a stretch, but 1.0L is likely impossible. Even the very finest Weyermann Pilsner malt lots can only occasionally approach 1.2L to my knowledge. And Briess officially lists it new and top shelf premium "Synergy Select Pilsen" malt at 1.8L. But as I said, all that really matters for mash pH prognostication (in MME at least) is the malts DI_pH value. Choosing something closer to 1.8 will probably get it more correct all around.

BS3 likely needs to be tricked into coming closer to actual Pilsner malt characteristics by using a Lovibond color of 1.0L, and (not really knowing) that is all I can reasonably speculate about this. For the case of Bru'n Water I have seen cases where Martin has occasionally instructed playing with Lovibond color values to get better output results as well. In MME you can either choose to play with the Lovibond colors to achieve a more desirable DI_pH, or manually insert a DI_pH. Your choice.

In the real world, any individual lots of malts will not likely have the "nominal" lovibond color that is listed on the bag. They can and do fluctuate quite a bit as to actual lovibond color in fact. Don't get too wrapped up in this.... It's a lot like predicting IBU's, where for that case the 2-sigma error bars are on the order of about +/- 35%. I would guess that for color the 3-sigma error bars are about at that level. A base malt marked 1.8L may in reality be roughly between 1.3 and 2.4L, and a 550L roast malt may perhaps be roughly between 480L and 630L. And this is but one reason why software will never be as good at mash pH prediction as some believe it to be presently, and others believe it can eventually be in the future.

And to think that there was a time when I slaved over hops calculations thinking them to be precise. Now that I know the real world variance is so huge, I spend much less time trying to get them spot on. I listened to a radio broadcast once where a guy had his IBU's tested for a batch of his beer and he had achieved only about 30% of the IBU level that he was shooting for (with precision, or so he thought) via using spreadsheets and online programs.

 

[North_of_60]

They do list the Synergy Select Pilsen as 1.8 but the Pilsen Malt is listed at 1.2.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

They can list is how they please, or perhaps how best to market it. Their lab test data that I received indicates 1.5L. None of it matters. All that matters is its DI_pH and its subsequent titration values (for those demanding even greater precision). It is merely by unfortunate circumstance of ease that software attempts to equate color to acidity (for some programs) and to DI_pH via which to determine acidity (for other software). The 'R' values for confirmation when attempting to equate color to DI_pH or acidity for any given class of malts are "at best" a less than desirable 0.8. And I emphasize "at best". They can be (and are) sometimes well worse than that. Anyone consistently getting 0.01 pH precision between a pH meter measurement and software prediction is a blatant liar. The meter itself isn't all that likely to be "consistently" precise to that level. Even "consistent" 0.1 pH point precision may prove to be a stretch over the long haul, and more so across the broad SRM span of roughly 3 to 70-80 SRM for final beer colors.

 

[oldwhiskers]

I have a couple of questions.

1) I have seen it somewhere but I can't find it now, what are the malts covered in the following groups. There's a big difference pH wise between the first and the second bullet point:

• Brown / Mid Roast
• Roasted Malt
• Roasted Barley

2) In the new MME 4.0 the flaked/torrified wheat has been removed, how are those handled now?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Brown is a UK malt class which typically spans toasted malts from about 45L to 90L (give/take).

Roasted Malt is for "malted" barleys in the typical range of 240L to 600L.

Roasted Barley is for "unmalted" barleys in the same general Lovibond range as above.

I would use the 'base wheat malt' selector to cover flaked and torrified wheat for now. When I have a better understanding of the DI_pH's for these I will add them back.

 

[oldwhiskers]

Ok, thanks. The mid roast had me questioning it all.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Announcing the release of Mash Made Easy version 4.10 in both the standard and metric formats.

Adds Rye Malt, Adds Flaked Wheat, corrects (hopefully, pending verification from Excel users) for the previously reported truncation of the base malt DI_pH drop down selector cell "instructions" in Excel 2016 (instructions for the proper use of the "drop down" cell in lower right hand corner), and lastly, improves buffering for mash water alkalinity (when present).

I believe these modifications resolve all of the user requests/issues which have cropped up since the release of the previous 4.00 version.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

@Silver_Is_Money MME 4.10 looks good and I was wondering how the DIpH values derived for the different 'roasted' malts? Is this latest version using the 'Gen2' approach.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

@Silver_Is_Money MME 4.10 looks good and I was wondering how the DIpH values derived for the different 'roasted' malts? Is this latest version using the 'Gen2' approach.

Totally unique in its approach, so not built upon any of the various gen 1 approaches, but also certainly not gen 2.

I have DI mash pH data from Briess, and I've supplemented it with data from the recent D.M. Riffe paper. I separated the classifications of malted and unmalted deep roasted barleys based upon primarily the Briess data showing me that unmalted barley doesn't change much at all with respect to DI_pH in conjunction with Lovibond color changes, even when pronounced. I toned down the overall range of DI_pH's (the span from high to low) for the deep roasted and also malted barley group based primarily upon the Riffe data, which differs in this regard from the Briess data, but for this group I do see pH movement that is reasonably in lock step with Lovibond color. Thus the need for the separation of the two into distinct classes.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

Totally unique in its approach, so not built upon any of the various gen 1 approaches, but also certainly not gen 2.

I have DI mash pH data from Briess, and I've supplemented it with data from the recent D.M. Riffe paper. I separated the classifications of malted and unmalted roasted barleys based upon primarily the Briess data showing me that unmalted barley doesn't change much at all with respect to DI_pH in conjunction with Lovibond color changes, even when pronounced. I toned down the overall range of DI_pH's (the span from high to low) for the malted barley group based primarily upon the Riffe data, which differs in this regard from the Briess data, but for this group I do see pH movement that is reasonably in lock step with Lovibond color. Thus the need for the separation of the two into distinct classes.

Believe it or not, I just got around to reading Riffe's most recent Perspective on Mash pH and using his version 3 spreadsheet. I think Mark's approach to mash pH prediction is eloquent. The formulas coded in his spreadsheet are straightforward and easy to follow. You've done a good job of building on that work by breaking grains down into more categories. I plan to focus on interpreting and comparing grain type, color and estimated DIpH too. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Announcing the availability of 'Mash Made Easy' v_4.20 in both Standard and Metric formats:

Changes since version 4.10 are:
-----------------------------------
1) Permits the end user to select the percentage of "Kolbach" downward mash pH shift which is due to the concentration of Ca++ and Mg++ ions (calcium and magnesium) present within the mash water. If you want straight up Kolbach pH shift values, select 100% here. If you are more inclined to believe A.J. deLange in thinking that minerals do not drive down mash pH as much as Kolbach originally calculated (many years ago) select something less than 100%. Values down to 50% (of Kolbach pH shift) are permitted. This input is seen in the spreadsheet where formerly buffering value modifications were input. I believe this new method both clarifies and improves upon the functionality of this cell, as well as being far easier to understand for the end user.

2) Incorporates an improved formula for computing the spreadsheet derived acid and baking soda additions necessary to hit your chosen pH target. No longer using an empirically derived (by me) formula for this, but now essentially more in line with how I believe Kolbach was computing acid or caustic additions required to hit a target mash pH. Essentially giving (for all practical purposes) output that is right close to yielding the very same acid/base addition values as were seen in previous version 4.10 (for all of the recipes I've thrown at it so far, ranging from Pilsners to Stouts), but doing it far more elegantly and straightforward internally.

As the computed adjustment output advice doesn't change much vs. previous version 4.10, making this transition is fully at your discretion, but I feel that overall it is best to keep up with the latest version. As always, these two spreadsheets (standard and metric) are completely free for download, and complete in all functions. There is no "pay" version.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Announcing the availability of 'Mash Made Easy' version 4.30, in Standard and Metric.

Changes made since version 4.20
------------------------------------
1) Adds end user variable percent concentrations for Lactic Acid. Functionality here is now just as for Phosphoric Acid. Overseas users who purchase their Lactic Acid at concentrations other than the typical 88% seen here in the USA will find particular benefit here.

2) Improves output accuracy with respect to all % concentration selections for the end user input of their Phosphoric Acids concentration.

3) Changes the nominal (average) strength of Acid Malt to 2.4% as the default. 2.4% now gives output identical to previous versions 3% (fixing a previous misunderstanding of acid malt acidity on my part, and settling upon 2.4% lactic acid by weight as being typical for average acid malt). Unless you know from using it that your particular lot of Acid Malt is somewhat weak or strong vs. typical (average) lots of Acid Malt, simply leave this value at the new default of 2.4%. Do not place it back to the previous 3% default value of earlier additions unless warranted.

4) Acid Malt added via the grist component entry 'Drop Down' "Malt/Grain Classification" selector now directly responds to end user changes in Acid Malt % strength.

In conjunction with the recent version 4.20 changes, 4.30 is now a substantial upgrade, and my recommendation is now that all previous users of any MME versions prior to 4.30 (including 4.20) should immediately upgrade to 4.30.

 

[Big Monk]

Announcing the availability of 'Mash Made Easy' version 4.30, in Standard and Metric.

Changes made since version 4.20
------------------------------------
1) Adds end user variable percent concentrations for Lactic Acid. Functionality here is now just as for Phosphoric Acid. Overseas users who purchase their Lactic Acid at concentrations other than the typical 88% seen here in the USA will find particular benefit here.

2) Improves output accuracy with respect to all % concentration selections for the end user input of their Phosphoric Acids concentration.

3) Changes the nominal (average) strength of Acid Malt to 2.4% as the default. 2.4% now gives output identical to previous versions 3% (fixing a previous misunderstanding of acid malt acidity on my part, and settling upon 2.4% lactic acid by weight as being typical for average acid malt). Unless you know from using it that your particular lot of Acid Malt is somewhat weak or strong vs. typical (average) lots of Acid Malt, simply leave this value at the new default of 2.4%. Do not place it back to the previous 3% default value of earlier additions unless warranted.

4) Acid Malt added via the grist component entry 'Drop Down' "Malt/Grain Classification" selector now directly responds to end user changes in Acid Malt % strength.

In conjunction with the recent version 4.20 changes, 4.30 is now a substantial upgrade, and my recommendation is now that all previous users of any MME versions prior to 4.30 (including 4.20) should immediately upgrade to 4.30.

I would caution you against limiting the users ability to enter Sauermalz %s greater than 3%. I’ve routinely had to enter %s higher than 5% to get my numbers to match batch data.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I would caution you against limiting the users ability to enter Sauermalz %s greater than 3%. I’ve routinely had to enter %s higher than 5% to get my numbers to match batch data.

The version 4.30 upper limit for Sauermalz (Acid Malt) strength has been bumped up to 4%. 5% seems to be truly unusual, but I will consider expanding this range even more in a future release.

Next on the agenda is CaCl2, wherein I contemplate that the end user should be able to select concentrations spanning from 100% (true anhydrous, extremely rare) to 50% (verging upon, if not factually getting mushy with water saturation). The highly common CaCl2-2H2O (dihydrate) species is ballpark 75% CaCl2. 2 bottles of prills tested by me averaged ~94% CaCl2 when first opened. And they go down hill in strength from there with each opening of the bottle. Presently MME offers only the dihydrate form by default, with no option to change this.

 

[Droot]

I don't really understand the tool, and cannot open it on my android.

If My mash ph is 5.0 after dough in, do I add Baking soda to bring it near 5.4? Tried this and made a volcano.

I may be able to download the program on my work computer, but thought I would ask here.

I make 11 gallon batches and use a thick mash because my tun is 1/4 keg.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Just as for all minerals, I add baking soda to the mash water and dissolve it fully therein well before heating the water and doughing in.

That said, I once sprinkled a small amount of baking soda across the surface of an active mash and then rapidly stirred it in, and I did not notice anything resembling a volcano gusher. In fact, I didn't notice anything of the sort. But my pH at the time of the addition was only 5.26, and not 5.0. And I did not toss it in at only one location. In the end my sprinkle only moved the mash to pH 5.32, as it was just a pinch.

I don't have a modern phone (mine is an older flip-phone) so I never intended MME for use on a phone. I can't help you with that one.

 

[Big Monk]

The version 4.30 upper limit for Sauermalz (Acid Malt) strength has been bumped up to 4%. 5% seems to be truly unusual, but I will consider expanding this range even more in a future release.

It only seems unusual if you take to heart the ROT about 1%/0.1 pH.

Sauermalz does not behave like Lactic acid. It varies not only with whatever pilsner malt it was made but also the acid characteristics of the Sauergut that is sprayed on it. You can’t directly coordinate its equivalent weight as Lactic with its acidity without fudging the numbers in many instances until they seem improbable.

I consider my unique in that I’ve always used Sauermalz to acidify in every single all grain batch I’ve ever made.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

It only seems unusual if you take to heart the ROT about 1%/0.1 pH.

In 'Mash Made Easy' version 4.30, the default strength of 2.40% corresponds closely with Weyermann's advice that 1% Acid Malt (by weight of the grist) moves the mash pH downward by 0.1 pH points.

 

[Big Monk]

In 'Mash Made Easy' version 4.30, the default strength of 2.40% corresponds closely with Weyermann's advice that 1% Acid Malt (by weight of the grist) moves the mash pH downward by 0.1 pH points.

Analytically? Yes.

Empirically? No. That correlation is the exception rather than the rule in the real world.

I’ve set weight based Sauermalz calcs using equivalent Lactic Acid percentage to greater than 6% on some lots of Sauermalz to match calculations vs. real world data in my batches.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I'll have to monitor this closely going forward, but my current stock of acid malt is from Swaen, and not from Weyermann.

 

[Droot]

Thank you, I am in the right track. I will add the baking soda to the water before heating.

David

 

[Big Monk]

I'll have to monitor this closely going forward, but my current stock of acid malt is from Swaen, and not from Weyermann.

Shouldn’t make a lick of difference who makes it.

The major point is that if Sauermalz calcs using Lactic Acid % are being implemented or considered, and are considered by the user and developer as a necessary evil, then the most flexibility possible should be granted to the user.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Shouldn’t make a lick of difference who makes it.

The major point is that if Sauermalz calcs using Lactic Acid % are being implemented or considered, and are considered by the user and developer as a necessary evil, then the most flexibility possible should be granted to the user.

Understood, and I fully agree. When v_4.40 comes out it will offer the end user the choice of selecting 5%, as opposed to the current 4% maximum acid malt strength as seen in version 4.30.

As a bonus related to looking into this, I just noticed a typo in my original post of version 4.30, wherein I rather quite embarrassingly spelled 'Kolbach' as 'Kolback' in error. I just fixed this typo and all future downloads of 4.30 from my website will have the correct spelling.

 

[Big Monk]

Understood, and I fully agree. When v_4.40 comes out it will offer the end user the choice of selecting 5%, as opposed to the current 4% maximum acid malt strength as seen in version 4.30.

As a bonus related to looking into this, I just noticed a typo in my original post of version 4.30, wherein I rather quite embarrassingly spelled 'Kolbach' as 'Kolback' in error. I just fixed this typo and all future downloads of 4.30 from my website will have the correct spelling.

If it were me, I’d make it a free form entry. Like I said, my current lot needs to be entered as 5.6% to match reality.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

If it were me, I’d make it a free form entry. Like I said, my current lot needs to be entered as 5.6% to match reality.

You've talked me into 6%. Completely "free form" entry can lead to huge errors if the end user does not fully understand.

But if Weyermann is to be believed, 2.4% should be their own target norm. It's almost as if they have little wherewithal by which to control this in their process. It's likely better to just use Lactic Acid if that is the case.