Creating a Brewing Water Calculator - (Part II?)

[PeeBee]

There was something wrong with what I was doing with Graham Wheeler's water calculator. So, I've withdrawn the post while I sort it out.

[EDIT: Explanation in preceding post. The old posts are provided as JPG images 'cos that's what the forum software understands.]

[PeeBee]

Right! ... I'll forget about this Graham Wheeler stuff; it is "heroic" but doing something quite out of line with what I'd imagined. So, it wasn't helping at all. Same goes for D.M. Riffe's "MpH" water calculator ... an earlier version of it is behind the water calculations in the recipe builder I used ("Beersmith") which I'd never got along with before. Though I'd never properly appreciated how calculators differed between each other. "MpH" was developed in USA, has a fairly limited dataset (in the version I have), and I live several thousand miles away using different malts, etc. I'll revisit it later, for now it's not helping me either. I'll stick with Martin Brungard's offering (Bru'n Water) which while not being blindingly accurate for my situation, has fallen in the right area for me in the past.

There's a lot more to this pH caper than people have you believe! Predicting pH to fractions of a pH unit is "cloud-cuckoo-land"!

My advice on pH predictions goes back to what it was ... keep trying calculators until you get one you are broadly agreeing with and stick with it for a while (in a couple of years don't be too disappointed if it's not working for you no longer). One that "learns" and continually "adapts" to local circumstances would be ideal ... perhaps?

On a more positive note: I came across a video featuring John Palmer blabbing on about water; someone I've always considered a "homebrewing hero" (detrimental sense) and "bad-mouthed" in the past! Blimey, it was flippin' interesting! Okay, he still used "ppm" measurements without warnings, but I can let that go. Here was a person I could look up to, even with a bit of awe? Not some clown I could remember from the past spouting garbage that his followers spout (and continue to spout) unthinkingly to wider audiences. Yet it was dated 2018. Quite a while ago. I really do need to keep abreast of my prejudices and dislikes. I'm even beginning to accept another "homebrewing hero" (Gordon Strong) but agreeing with things others criticize him for (I've not changed that much then!).

I'd thoroughly recommend viewing John Palmer's video, just empty your head of what you think you know about water and brewing ... and careful with that "ppm" stuff!

[PeeBee]

As simply descriptive as I can (yeah, that'll be the day coming from me). Using "Bru'n Water" to output a water for an "English" (London) Stout (heavily mineralised, not an "Irish" stout by any stretch of the imagination). And avoiding copious complexity along the way. This will be a "live" demonstration of what I hope can be done with a brewing water calculator taking the path of "Normalization".

A tortuous water "profile" (Graham Wheeler's "Stout" water profile) from a very low mineralized starting water. It's my tap water (<100ppm mineral ions), but "RO" water makes a decent starter, as does some bottled waters. Just the sort of exercise that would have flummoxed me a few months ago. And would have certainly triggered an immensely complex solution that I would fail miserably to pass on. As I've explained earlier, for the time being I'm only concentrating on Low Mineralized source water (including some bottled and "RO" sources). For "highly mineralized" water users, for the time being, you'll have to sit back, spectate, and contemplate how I (and dozens of others with low mineralised water) have had to feel for years on end listening to high mineralised water users.

Firstly, let me sort out those "arbitrary" mash water volumes: There's 1:2, or one half the batch volume (not pre-boil volume 'cos that comes later and is connected to the equipment being used so everyone has a different value). The 1:2 ratio is important because it's what I've chosen as the volume used to calculate all those "concentration" guidelines, like "calcium in the mash should be 50-150ppm". That's right, "ppm" is a "concentration", and the actual amount of calcium depends on the amount of mash water used. Why's this important? ... Well, some of the calcium (a "water hardness" element) reacts with components in the mashed grains. Note! The "mashed grains", which will be a fixed amount in any given recipe, unlike mash water quantity which can change on the whim of the brewer. This is what will be what is subject to "Normalization".

The next "arbitrary" mash water volumes will be ... where the heck have I got 14.4 litres of mash water from? I no doubt had some complicated reason for it. But I've forgotten it. So, I'll change that to a "half way" three quarters the batch volume, or 3:4 ratio (1:1.333 .... yeuck, that's probably why I got 14.4 litres?).

Lastly there's full batch volume or 1:1 ratio. That's not "full-boil-volume-mash" as used by BIABers as that will include water to cover boil evapouration losses, etc. which will make the mash "no sparge", i.e. the full boil volume will simply drain from the mash. 1:1 won't be much used, but was included for BIABers who'll use a "full-boil-volume-mash".

Do notice I'm fixing the mash water volume: I'm not being concerned about "mash thickness": It's a minor variable, best ignored. Or do you think N thousand "no sparge" BIABers have got it wrong? You'd best tell them 'cos I won't (I'm effectively one of them).

Note: A user wanting 50ppm of calcium in their mash may pass the ingredient list to a BIABer who will, with no second thought, be putting "only" 25ppm calcium in their mash. Yet they added the same amount of calcium. Eh? Work it out! It's the reason I keep blagging on about "Normalization".

Enough blabbering, as if I hadn't blabbered on enough. Did I say earlier, "As simply descriptive as I can"? Oops.

Here goes ...

[PeeBee]

Firstly, the water analysis. This will be important because injecting "Normalization" should require two mash calculations, and this is how I'll coerce "Bru'n Water" into giving me two instead of one. These are the main figures, you are not really interested (for brewing) with anything recorded in fractions of a ppm e.g. as ppb. "Nitrate" is useful because it is often in significant quantity and will help balancing. "Phosphate" is often in significant quantity too but will be missing (as here) as it's a component of the "Total Alkalinity" (as are silicates and borates but they are very rarely seen). These figures have been through my own "Defuddler" spreadsheet and will always balance ("Cation/Anion Difference" is 0.00); you may balance your own figures by making slight changes to "Bicarbonate". This will also make "Bicarbonate" effectively "as Bicarbonate" and the same as "Total Alkalinity" (divide by 1.22 to have Total Alkalinity "as CaCO3").

Whitbread 1940 Extra Stout oi.i.jpg (101.01 KiB) Viewed 86 times

Secondly: The following Mash grain components ("Grain Bill Input" page) is the recipe for this "Stout". Note I have "Remove Roast Malts from Main Mash" selected with a "Yes". Stouts (and perhaps Porters) have copious amounts of roast grain and will be difficult to obtain a correct mash acidity with them in the mash. So, they are removed! Worry not, they will go in later. I've not seen an issue with Crystal Malts (then can be even higher in acidity, but are used in smaller amounts) so haven't had to deal with them yet ... but there may be a time in the future?

Of the other settings: "Estimated Room-Temperature Mash pH" will be invalid unless using the lowest mash grain amount amounts. The "Water used for Mash" will remain "Adjusted Water" as I can determine no benefits for using it (but the possibility of using it is clear!).

Whitbread 1940 Extra Stout oii.i.jpg (161.6 KiB) Viewed 86 times

And finally: The "Mash Adjustment". All the "Water Additions" will be zero. Start incrementing the Calcium Chloride until "Calcium (ppm)" in the "Mashing Water Profile" starts to register starts to register "50". "50" is an arbitrary figure, but don't go higher than the maximum amount you are aiming for, I wouldn't go lower than 35ppm (some may disagree) and 70ppm is perhaps the highest. A choice of three, and that should be enough. You chose so the final mash pH shouldn't require any acid or alkalinity additions and still have an estimated pH in the "optimum" zone (5.2 - 5.6).

You might choose to increment Calcium Sulphate instead of Calcium Chloride, or even as well as! Choice is yours; I prefer Calcium Chloride.

Whitbread 1940 Extra Stout oiii.i.jpg (343.22 KiB) Viewed 86 times

The "Estimated Mash pH" at this stage probably isn't valid (the "Water Volume" for the mash may be lower than intended). So, on to the next ...

[PeeBee]

This next bit really defines the "normalization" in this case. "Normalization" defines different things in different environments and is not a specific operation ... Normalization - Wikipedia ... in particular, "'Normalization' refers to a process that makes something more normal or regular". Please be careful with it, "Normalization" (in this way) isn't built into "Bru'n Water", isn't a "feature", and will only work if you follow the instructions closely. It's a "proof of concept" (for now), not necessarily an everyday method to use.

The "baseline" mash thickness I've selected for this "ppm to explicit measurement" conversion is half a batch volume equals mash water volume. For this Stout I want to change to using a mash thickness of three-quarters of a batch volume equals mash water volume. (Note: The "Sparge Volume" includes unrecoverable losses so mash volume plus sparge volume is not equal to batch volume). If you tackle water additions to very high degrees of precision, you really do need to understand why I'm having to estimate this "baseline" for working with "concentrations"!

Having altered the "Mash", "Water Volume" on the "Water Adjustment" page, slowly decrement the "Additions" value for Calcium Chloride until "Total Mineral Additions" returns to its previous value (2.63). Note the "Calcium (ppm)" for the Mashing Water Profile will drop (if you did it right!), in the following illustration it has dropped from 50ppm to 40ppm. "40ppm" is outside the frequently documented "50-150ppm" recommendation; do not worry about this, the "recommendation" is not valid here (it's too dodgy!). The "Estimated Mash pH" is now valid again (for the new "Mash" "Water Volume"; here, the water is my tap water, and the estimated pH 5.43 with no acid or alkalinity additions).

Whitbread 1940 Extra Stout oiii.ii.jpg (97.88 KiB) Viewed 65 times

Take a note of the "Calcium (ppm)" and "Chloride (ppm)" values for "Calcium Chloride" in "Water Additions" ("Calcium" and "Sulphate" if using gypsum). Zero the "Addition" value once you have the values.

Return to the "Water Report Input" page. Add the noted values (last paragraph) to the appropriate entries in the "Water Report Input" tables. This is a spreadsheet, so you can enter spreadsheet style formulars into the boxes and save some brain power (or hunting for a calculator). For example, I've entered "=21.75+18.5" in my "Calcium (Ca)" box (21.75 from my water analysis, 18.5 from the calcium chloride addition).

Whitbread 1940 Extra Stout oi.ii.jpg (96.32 KiB) Viewed 65 times

Back to the "Water Adjustment" page and the "Batch Notes" may be filled in with some guidance of what's changed.

Whitbread 1940 Extra Stout oiii.iii.jpg (20.84 KiB) Viewed 65 times

Job done and ready for detailing other, post-mash, tasks. That'll be next.

[PeeBee]

The main mash step is complete and "Water Additions" in Bru'n Water entirely emptied ready for next mash step thanks to having shifted the main mash mineral additions to the "Water Report Input". Go to the "Grain Bill Input" page and temporarily answer "No" to the "Remove Roast Malts from the Main Mash" option. The "Estimated Room-Temperature Mash pH" indicator falls through the fall (it shows pH 5.06 on mine). It's why holding back large amounts of roast grains from the main mash is a good idea.

There is still undamaged starch in these grains that could be mashed, especially this Chocolate Malt where roasting hasn't had as much time to damage the starch. And there are plenty of enzymes left in the main mash to do this (but much of the beta-amylase will have "burnt-out" so this is a dextrin recovery exercise, not a maltose one).

In actual practice you'd start heating the mash to 70°C (a recirculating mash system, HERMS or RIMS, will be handy for this), stir in the roast grains, and prepare to add the extra mineral salts. If you are only planning to steep grains (maybe you've chosen to add crystal malts?) you may choose to heat to "mash-out" temperatures (75°C?).

When planning mineral salts to add, start with the "Hardness" salts (Calcium and Magnesium) because they will impact pH. Don't be too precise yet because you may have to juggle with some amounts (especially chloride salts). I succeeded just adding Epsom salt (magnesium sulphate) and calcium chloride (Magnesium salt considered first). The pH fell even further ... 4.67! That's why I said Hardness salts first!

Now to get the pH prediction back up. Say to 5.3? Alpha- amylase is much happier in this, more acid, environment than beta-amylase, but don't go mad! Start adding (virtually ... in the calculator) Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Soda) to get the estimated pH up. Baking Soda is good because it's fairly quick when it is actually altering pH. Lime is very sensitive to having the dose just right and is harmful to you if you're not careful with it. Chalk is too slow for these "on-the-fly" changes.

Add salt (NaCl) last to get the Sodium level up to the chosen "profile".

Whitbread 1940 Extra Stout oiii.iv.jpg (301.78 KiB) Viewed 32 times

Record the alkalinity salt addition details in the "Batch Notes" before: Zero the Alkalinity salt quantity, set the "Add Hardness Minerals to Kettle" to "Yes" (anyway, we're not adding them to the Kettle, they go in the "second" mash) and on the "Grain Bill Input" page set the "Remove Roast Malts from the Main Mash" option back to "Yes". Everything is then back for "first mash" again. Remember these three salt operations.

Whitbread 1940 Extra Stout oiii.v.jpg (70.04 KiB) Viewed 32 times

With "Add Hardness Minerals to Kettle?" enabled the affected entries only change colour (orange background) to indicate that are removed from the main mash and included in the boil. "Salt" isn't removed, but in this case would be better if it was. Optionally add the two "salt" amounts together (physically) and put in boil as it evens out the figures so they don't seem "suspicious".

I don't entirely agree with copying geographic "water profiles" into a water calculator, but it's a good game trying to resolve them. This example here was resolved to within 15ppm of Chloride ions, but the target was 341ppm for Chloride so 15ppm discrepancy was less than 5% (of chlorides ... all other ions counted matched their targets exactly). The highly mineralised profile was picked to purposely make the exercise difficult. The "Normalization" process used in the exercise will remove a lot of Calcium from the finished mashing profile, but as yet I've not attempted to reduce the Calcium over the entire profile. Perhaps I should?