Water: A New Brewing Water Spreadsheet

[Silver_Is_Money]

I can't support this change in the slightest. Why wouldn't you just use the acid malt in the malt dropdown?

Purely personal preference.

PS: The 240 value I initially went with can be adjusted to match your particular acidulated malts actual acid strength (concentration). This value may at first quick assessment range between approximately 200 and 300 as my first guesstimate. I haven't fiddled with it enough to verify it, but 200 may correlate to 2% lactic acid by weight in the acidulated malt, and 300 may correlate to 3% lactic acid in the acidulated malt. This gives another dimension to the end user which is not available by simply selecting German Saurmaltz (acidulated malt) from the dropdown.

PPS: I only made this change (and others, all for my personal use) after reading your comments to another forum member regarding your confirmation that you consider this spreadsheet being open source. If this has changed, please let me know.

 

[Big Monk]

Purely personal preference.

PS: The 240 value I initially went with can be adjusted to match your particular acidulated malts actual acid strength (concentration). This value may at first quick assessment range between approximately 200 and 300 as my first guesstimate. I haven't fiddled with it enough to verify it, but 200 may correlate to 2% lactic acid by weight in the acidulated malt, and 300 may correlate to 3% lactic acid in the acidulated malt. This gives another dimension to the end user which is not available by simply selecting German Saurmaltz (acidulated malt) from the dropdown.

PPS: I only made this change (and others, all for my personal use) after reading your comments to another forum member regarding your confirmation that you consider this spreadsheet being open source. If this has changed, please let me know.

Just be careful. I can add an acid malt strength input if you'd like.

The equation for sauergut is based on 60 ml/kg of malt. Your value of 240 is going to throw the equation out of whack, and inputting grams instead of ml there isn't going to jive either. You can alter the sheet to your hearts desire as long as you know how the calcs work!

Let me know about the strength setting and I'll implement Monday.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Oops, I was clearly experiencing brain fade earlier, and I intended ounces wherever I previously stated grams for acidulated malt. I have edited my earlier post accordingly.

My guide in initially choosing 240 (this still needs tweaking) has been from admittedly quite limited experience which indicates that for batches of the size that I typically brew, 1.25 ounces of acidulated malt added to the grist generally gives me about the same downward pH shift as does the addition of 1 ml of 88% lactic acid.

I'm knee deep in personalized modifications at this juncture, so I will leave it to others on the forum to decide if you should implement a strength setting box for acidulated malt in future releases. Since I never intend to use saurgut, my personal modification should suffice for me.

 

[divrack]

ive seen a number of studies that found little or no noticeable impact of even HSA, im not sure we need worry too much about DO in water?

besides everything i make tends to be drunk before it would be a problem. maybe ill think about employing some of these methods for barley wines and the like.

 

[Big Monk]

Purely personal preference.

PS: The 240 value I initially went with can be adjusted to match your particular acidulated malts actual acid strength (concentration). This value may at first quick assessment range between approximately 200 and 300 as my first guesstimate. I haven't fiddled with it enough to verify it, but 200 may correlate to 2% lactic acid by weight in the acidulated malt, and 300 may correlate to 3% lactic acid in the acidulated malt. This gives another dimension to the end user which is not available by simply selecting German Saurmaltz (acidulated malt) from the dropdown.

PPS: I only made this change (and others, all for my personal use) after reading your comments to another forum member regarding your confirmation that you consider this spreadsheet being open source. If this has changed, please let me know.

No that's fine. I just to make sure that you know the equations for that section are based on 60 ml of Sauergut per 1 kg of malt to give the correct pH drop.

I don't believe what you have implemented will work.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

As long as it shows that for every 1.25 ounces of acid malt that I add to the grist I'm getting a predicted pH shift that is a close match to the alternative of adding 1 ml of lactic acid to the mash (or to the strike water), I'm happy with my modification. In simulations so far it seems to be behaving just as I want it to. I.E., it seems to be working.

 

[Big Monk]

As long as it shows that for every 1.25 ounces of acid malt that I add to the grist I'm getting a predicted pH shift that is a close match to the alternative of adding 1 ml of lactic acid to the mash (or to the strike water), I'm happy with my modification. In simulations so far it seems to be behaving just as I want it to. I.E., it seems to be working.

Awesome! That's what it's all about!

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

It is a very nice spreadsheet, but its underlying complexity often plays fits with LibreOffice in Linux, and I constantly find myself blowing it up just by entering batch data. The multitude of Index/Matches do not always find a match, and as soon as one does not, it blows up and it's back-up copies to the rescue. No idea if it is so frail under Excel.

 

[Big Monk]

It is a very nice spreadsheet, but its underlying complexity often plays fits with LibreOffice in Linux, and I constantly find myself blowing it up just by entering batch data. The multitude of Index/Matches do not always find a match, and as soon as one does not, it blows up and it's back-up copies to the rescue. No idea if it is so frail under Excel.

It's for sure an open office thing. It is very robust in excel.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I sure wish I had Excel!

 

[Big Monk]

I sure wish I had Excel!

Why don't you try google sheets?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

No account. I don't like clouds.

 

[PlinyTheMiddleAged]

RPIScotty,

Nice spreadsheet! I'd like to start testing the DI pH of my grains for a given grist. Any quick/easy guidance on this? Does mash thickness matter?

Thanks,
PlinyTheMiddleAged

 

[Big Monk]

RPIScotty,

Nice spreadsheet! I'd like to start testing the DI pH of my grains for a given grist. Any quick/easy guidance on this? Does mash thickness matter?

Thanks,
PlinyTheMiddleAged

Thank you! I am hoping people get some use out of it and it gives values comparable to what have been getting.

We use only Weyermann Malts and their data sheets are so good that we typically take the pH straight from the lot/malt sheets.

I would think if you mashed a couple hundred grams with a reasonable WTG ratio and waited 25-30 minutes you could take your reading and use that value.

 

[stpug]

RPIScotty,

Nice spreadsheet! I'd like to start testing the DI pH of my grains for a given grist. Any quick/easy guidance on this? Does mash thickness matter?

Thanks,
PlinyTheMiddleAged

This is what has been suggested elsewhere: "50g finely crushed malt to 200ml distilled water. 65c rest for 15 should be fine. Give it some shakes/stirs."

While it's probably not any more complex that a super-mini, single-infusion mash, I DO think the "distilled water" part is very important so as to not skew the pH reading.

 

[PlinyTheMiddleAged]

RPIScotty and stpug,

Thanks for the guidance. I'll try this out on my next few batches. Once I get the hang of it and make better notes about exactly which grains I purchase, I'll start building my own database to pull information from.

Good stuff! I'm always looking to make better beer (and I think I'm doing pretty well) and I hope that better control over these kinds of details will help.

PlinyTheMiddleAged

 

[schematix]

I was looking into this spreadsheet for an upcoming brew and wanted to make sure i understood how it worked.

I am planning to use 94% of my grist as Best Pilsen malt. Their website (http://www.bestmalz.de/en/malts/best-pilsen-malt/) says the 'mash pH' is 5.80-6.10. I'm not likely going to have time to test this so i was thinking of using the average of 5.95.

In the spreadsheet if I blank out the cell for DI pH i get a mash pH of 5.39 (brun'Water says 5.40 with all else being equal). However when i put the DI pH of that base malt as 5.8 or 6.1 i get a significantly different pH (5.5 to 5.8).

What is going on here?

 

[Big Monk]

I was looking into this spreadsheet for an upcoming brew and wanted to make sure i understood how it worked.

I am planning to use 94% of my grist as Best Pilsen malt. Their website (http://www.bestmalz.de/en/malts/best-pilsen-malt/) says the 'mash pH' is 5.80-6.10. I'm not likely going to have time to test this so i was thinking of using the average of 5.95.

In the spreadsheet if I blank out the cell for DI pH i get a mash pH of 5.39 (brun'Water says 5.40 with all else being equal). However when i put the DI pH of that base malt as 5.8 or 6.1 i get a significantly different pH (5.5 to 5.8).

What is going on here?

Brun Water assumes a default pH of 5.75.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Brun Water assumes a default pH of 5.75.

If it is merely an assumption, what validity does it really have in the case for which a maltster states that you should expect their malt to DI mash at between 5.8 and 6.1 pH? Is it merely an empirical kludge chosen to make all of the formulas best reflect a nominal midrange? And why should the kludge be preferentially used instead of the maltsters values? What would you do in this situation? Go with the default, go with the maltsters midrange DI mash pH value, or do a test mash and measure the real DI mash pH?

 

[Big Monk]

If it is merely an assumption, what validity does it really have in the case for which a maltster states that you should expect their malt to DI mash at between 5.8 and 6.1 pH? Is it merely an empirical kludge chosen to make all of the formulas best reflect a nominal midrange? And why should the kludge be preferentially used instead of the maltsters values? What would you do in this situation? Go with the default, go with the maltsters midrange DI mash pH value, or do a test mash and measure the real DI mash pH?

You have to look at much like I looked at it when my collaborator and I were using the purpose built brewing sheet: you have to make concessions and user-centric choices when a TON of people will be using the sheet. I'm sure that Martin, Kai, and others picked their default values based on what they felt was a good average. This way you had a middle ground between everyone.

AJ has said a few times now that DI pH and its accuracy can swing the calcs in your favor. So, with that in mind, here is a list, in order of preference, that you may want to use as a guide:

1.) Test the malt. Do a small mini-mash to establish the DI pH for that quantity of malt. This is the sure fire way.

2.) If you have empirically verified the DI pH for a certain maltster and you trust their numbers (Weyermann for me is always spot on) then use the DI pH of their malt/lot analysis sheets. Best, on the other hand, has a spotty history of customer service and has put out a few contaminated (with Sauermalz) lots of Pils. I'm not sure I'd want to use the analysis sheet data from a company that specifies 0.3 Δ pH.

3.) use the default to get the same performance you would get from, say, Brun Water.

 

[schematix]

You have to look at much like I looked at it when my collaborator and I were using the purpose built brewing sheet: you have to make concessions and user-centric choices when a TON of people will be using the sheet. I'm sure that Martin, Kai, and others picked their default values based on what they felt was a good average. This way you had a middle ground between everyone.

AJ has said a few times now that DI pH and its accuracy can swing the calcs in your favor. So, with that in mind, here is a list, in order of preference, that you may want to use as a guide:

1.) Test the malt. Do a small mini-mash to establish the DI pH for that quantity of malt. This is the sure fire way.

2.) If you have empirically verified the DI pH for a certain maltster and you trust their numbers (Weyermann for me is always spot on) then use the DI pH of their malt/lot analysis sheets. Best, on the other hand, has a spotty history of customer service and has put out a few contaminated (with Sauermalz) lots of Pils. I'm not sure I'd want to use the analysis sheet data from a company that specifies 0.3 Δ pH.

3.) use the default to get the same performance you would get from, say, Brun Water.

Makes perfect sense to me. Thanks.

 

[schematix]

One question about the DI pH test mash...

I have an RO system that lately has been putting out water at 8-9 ppm. Should i use that RO water for my test mash or should i use (bottled) distilled water?

 

[stpug]

One question about the DI pH test mash...

I have an RO system that lately has been putting out water at 8-9 ppm. Should i use that RO water for my test mash or should i use (bottled) distilled water?

My understanding is that most RO has little enough of buffering capacity that it's virtually equivalent with distilled in brewing; and I would surmise this would include a DI pH test. You could certainly perform two identical tests (one with RO, one with distilled) and determine if it matters in your case. If not, then you know future tests can be done with your RO alone.

 

[schematix]

Is the standard DI pH test mash process documented somewhere? The googs isn't coming back with good results for the search terms i'm using...

 

[stpug]

Is the standard DI pH test mash process documented somewhere? The googs isn't coming back with good results for the search terms i'm using...

Below are the two posts the describe the general process. As for "official" documentation of the process, I haven't seen any yet. If I come across something more concrete I'll post back.

I would think if you mashed a couple hundred grams with a reasonable WTG ratio and waited 25-30 minutes you could take your reading and use that value.

This is what has been suggested elsewhere: "50g finely crushed malt to 200ml distilled water. 65c rest for 15 should be fine. Give it some shakes/stirs."

That bottom quote is from Bryan/rabeb from another forum.

 

[schematix]

How should the pH measurement be taken? Should the liquid be separated from the grain and chilled to room temp, or can i just dunk the pH meter right in? Does any correction need to happen for temperature? How long does it usually take a reading to stabilize?

I've had a pH meter (Hanna HI98128) for over a year now and it's never left the original box so this will be the first time i'm going to use it. Hoping to make it a regular part of my routine and this should be a good time to get acquainted with it.

 

[stpug]

How should the pH measurement be taken? Should the liquid be separated from the grain and chilled to room temp, or can i just dunk the pH meter right in? Does any correction need to happen for temperature? How long does it usually take a reading to stabilize?

I've had a pH meter (Hanna HI98128) for over a year now and it's never left the original box so this will be the first time i'm going to use it. Hoping to make it a regular part of my routine and this should be a good time to get acquainted with it.

I am no pro, nor pH guru. This is just the process I use based on the information I've gathered and experience with my meter.

"This is my meter. There are many like, but this one is mine. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me my meter is useless..."

Grain bits in the sample should not matter with the exception that you should aim to not have a ton. It should be mostly wort/liquid with some grain bits in it; sometimes it's as simple as pouring your micro-mash into a separate sample cup slowly to leave behind most debris. No need to filter. If you do filter, ensure you're using something that will not affect pH (e.g. stainless colander/sieve).

Definitely try to get your sample down to the calibration temperature of your meter (68ish, usually) - the closer you are to that the more reliable the reading. However, generally speaking, if you're in the "room temp" realm of temperatures and you have an ATC model then you should fine. Hot liquids are not good for pH meters; you definitely don't want to put your meter in hot liquids.

Reading stabilization will vary by meter brand/model; some fast-ish and some slow-ish. I use a relatively cheap model and it may take a couple minutes to stabilize.

As for usage: I've found a long hydrating of the probe in distilled water prior to a proper calibration will help alleviate inconsistent readings or jumpiness of the meter readings. This is especially true on newly unboxing and after long storage periods. You may actually do this (distilled soak) for 4 hours prior to calibration; and calibration should happen just prior to testing the sample.

 

[Big Monk]

I have pulled the sheet from LOB.com to perform some troubleshooting and cleanup. I am unsure whether I am going to keep it as a standalone sheet or roll it back into Revision 6 of the full Low Oxygen brewing spreadsheet. That is going to be a major revision with a much requested update to the user interface. Stay tuned. Please continue to use the sheet and give feedback in the interim.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

It has the ground workings of a fine spreadsheet. I hope you re-issue it as a stand alone at some juncture.

A few suggestions for user friendliness:

1) Grist components entered by weight instead of by percent.
2) Separate mineral additions for strike and sparge waters.
3) Mineral additions in grams per the actual quantity of strike or sparge water to be used, rather than in terms of grams per gallon.
4) A calculation for the acidification of sparge water to a target pH.

 

[VictorBrew]

2.) If you have empirically verified the DI pH for a certain maltster and you trust their numbers (Weyermann for me is always spot on) then use the DI pH of their malt/lot analysis sheets.

Just for clarity ... when reading the below malt analysis sheet, for example, the Di pH is 6.0, correct?

http://www.weyermann.de/pdf_analyses/r077-001360-01.pdf

 

[Big Monk]

It has the ground workings of a fine spreadsheet. I hope you re-issue it as a stand alone at some juncture.

A few suggestions for user friendliness:

1) Grist components entered by weight instead of by percent.
2) Separate mineral additions for strike and sparge waters.
3) Mineral additions in grams per the actual quantity of strike or sparge water to be used, rather than in terms of grams per gallon.
4) A calculation for the acidification of sparge water to a target pH.

All nice suggestions but a big part of the reason I wrote my sheet was to trim the fat from Brun Water and get back to the basics. Feel free to edit the sheet however you like though. It's open source and all I ask is credit for the framework.

 

[schematix]

As for usage: I've found a long hydrating of the probe in distilled water prior to a proper calibration will help alleviate inconsistent readings or jumpiness of the meter readings. This is especially true on newly unboxing and after long storage periods. You may actually do this (distilled soak) for 4 hours prior to calibration; and calibration should happen just prior to testing the sample.

I got my pH meter so long ago i forgot the research i had done. Turns out the mfr of my meter suggests rehydrating in the storage solution, which i also bought when i got my meter. They explicity state not to use distilled water to rehydrate because it causes the KCl solution in the probe to diffuse out, effectively lowering the life of the probe.

So it's soaking in the storage solution now. Tomorrow i'm going to get out the buffers and do a calibration.

 

[lari]

cant access the spreadsheet, link is down..