Problems getting pH up

[strange-steve]

Nothing obvious there. You're adding around 120ppm calcium which certainly isn't excessive either.

I know arbitrarily adding salts isn't an awfully scientific approach, but in the absence of any better ideas I'd be tempted to do just that, maybe double up on the sodium bicarbonate addition to see what you get. Not terribly helpful I know, sorry.

 

[Sadfield]

Is it me, or are the reported CaCO3, Calcium and the Salifert Bicarbonate measurement all out of alignment with each other? Although not suprising for water reports. I plugged the various average figures into Graham Wheelers water tool and using either the CaCO3 or Bicarbonate figures, it returned an imbalance in ions that required either an increase in calcium or magnesium to balance out. See not 3 on here http://www.jimsbeerkit.co.uk/water.html. Could it be the Calcium figure on the website is wrong and too low?

 

[strange-steve]

I just plugged the following values into that software:
6 bicarbonate (peebee's estimate)
19 calcium
7 sodium
57 sulphate
10 chloride
These are from the report peebee linked (not sure where you got your 47ppm chloride figure from), and while there is a slight imbalance, it's exaggerated somewhat because there's so little in the water. All that's required to balance the ions is to increase the calcium by 6ppm or the magnesium by 4ppm which in practical terms makes no difference.

 

[Sadfield]

Ha ha, that'll explain it. I must have plugged the CaCO3 back in as calcium. Doh! Although does require doubling the Calcium if the website is to be believed, which still highlights a discrepancy between the website and water report. Thankfully the Salifert test comes to the rescue, again.

Could all be different now though as the report is older than the problem.

 

[peebee]

Ha ha, that'll explain it. I must have plugged the CaCO3 back in as calcium. Doh! Although does require doubling the Calcium if the website is to be believed, which still highlights a discrepancy between the website and water report. Thankfully the Salifert test comes to the rescue, again.

Could all be different now though as the report is older than the problem.

Good point. If the water report can provide an explanation, the published one wont because it pre-dates the problem. And I don't hold a lot of faith in the Calcium figure because it hasn't changed in eons and is calculated from the hardness, not tested for (but I have been told the figure doesn't include Magnesium because there isn't any). The Salifert test kit doesn't rescue me because the dyed sample turns pink if I enter the same room with the reagent (… okay, I do get to put one drop in).

I'm going to have to go with "Stange-Steve's" advice. But I'll try adding sodium bicarb until the Salifert test starts returning a usable figure (something between dit and dot instead of between zero and dit).

But I'm beginning to think the answer doesn't lie with water chemistry. I'm digging out any TV X-file recordings I can find, see if the answer is in there.

Thanks

 

[Sadfield]

Surely, knowing that your water has negligible alkalinity is the one bit of information you can trust.

Perhaps a Chalk addition to raise the alkalinity and calcium content is all you need initially.

Another thought is malt, did this problem coincide with crushing your own. Long shot, but could a change in malt colour between pre-crushed and uncrushed be an issue with virtually no alkalinity?Similar to how they use very pale malt with Pilsen water.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk.

 

[peebee]

Surely, knowing that your water has negligible alkalinity is the one bit of information you can trust.

Perhaps a Chalk addition to raise the alkalinity and calcium content is all you need initially.

Another thought is malt, did this problem coincide with crushing your own. Long shot, but could a change in malt colour between pre-crushed and uncrushed be an issue with virtually no alkalinity?Similar to how they use very pale malt with Pilsen water.

I'm happy assuming negligible alkalinity, but I appear to be faced with negative alkalinity which is silly.

Chalk is one of those things I'm happy to be binning. It's unpredictable manner of dissolving just heightens the "where the hell am I" concerns. I've heard of people overcoming its insolubility by using CO2, but I think I give that a miss. Apart from sodium bicarbonate I will use Slaked Lime which adds Calcium too, but I am aware that adding Lime directly to the water can precipitate out CaCO3 (chalk!) and actually have the opposite effect to the intended one (decrease alkalinity, not increase it, but I believe the water must be pretty alkaline for it to happen).
(EDIT: I should be more careful what I say - Slaked Lime can be dissolved in water more easily than chalk (it produces "lime water" for detecting CO2 in school lab experiments) but it isn't what could be described as "soluble").

Further checking back (notes can be handy can't they) tells me I was self-crushing my grain before the problem occurred, and since the problem I've used Warminster Maris Otter Malt, Crisp Maris Otter Malt and Crisp Chevallier Malt. Using the whole Warminster Malt pre-dates the problem (by just one brew) yet returned 73% brewhouse efficiency, which rather blows-out-of-the-water my idea that my current very low mash pHs and low mash efficiencies are related.

I've another brew on later this week, but as it's a low-alcohol offering with 1kg grain in 5L water (not physically possible to get a stiffer mash) so not very representative.

 

[Sadfield]

How about holding half your Gypsum back and add it to the kettle? This would reduce the Calcium in the mash and limit the pH drop, but still give the over all sulphate profile required for a Bitter.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

[peebee]

How about holding half your Gypsum back and add it to the kettle? This would reduce the Calcium in the mash and limit the pH drop, but still give the over all sulphate profile required for a Bitter.

Aye, I have heard Calcium will decrease the pH, or at least will allow the pH to decrease. I'll certainly add that to my "what to try next" list. Thanks.


(EDIT: Ignore "list", I do know better than to try lots of things at once, and if it works, not know what it was that did work! Then again, I probably "know better" through experience because that's exactly what I will do.)

 

[stz]

Water reports always give me a range which makes attempts to balance fruitless. Build your recipe to give the desired concentration of chloride and sulphate and get calcium up to at least 100ppm.
If your mash pH is now too low especially with darker beers either add half to all of your salts to the boil instead of the mash or dose sodium carbonate or bicarbonate directly into the mash.
Your mash pH is not too low at 5.2. It can change more than you think. My rA was 180 for a while, currently 50-60ppm. That said kind of whacky that you'd have that level of chloride and sulphate with such low carbonates. My understanding is that they form an equilibrium within a typical pH with carbonate and bicarbonate hardness dependent on temperature and carbon dioxide. It doesn't dissolve otherwise.

When do you test pH and how? Generally no/low rA is totally awesome for pale styles, though you must add significant salts for flavour and calcium. If you add it to the mash the mEq of a pale grist still usually brings you into the correct range for an efficient mash and you can always add to the boil if you are that worried. The issue is with dark beers, though this is easily corrected for by adding sodium carbonate or bicarbonate to suit. Typical mash pH should be 5.2-5.5, closer to the low end is better than the high. Sparge should not exceed 5.8 though dodges exist such as reducing the sparge temperature.. Pre boil usually finds me staring down 5.0X - 5.3, higher for lagers. Generally a drop of 0.2-0.3, typically closer to 0.2 than 0.3 is observed in the boil. Generally a drop of almost 1 is observed post fermentation. A lot depends on the style/recipe.

 

[peebee]

I've been looking into this problem a little more. It is not a place I'd recommend. Seems I'm only experiencing these problems because I'm on the peripheries of what most brewers find "normal" for brewing water.

Water chemistry and how calcium plays in it; thing happening in exactly the opposite way to what basic understanding thinks is right; "Lewis acids" (aarg!). As all this water treatment in mashing is to get the pH right and any ions actually needed for mashing is present in the malt anyway, there is no problem holding salts off until the boil to get the (alleged) flavour benefits. But I have to take the "suck-it-and-see" approach as all the calculators are failing me (shame, I'd got quite used to following "Bru'n Water's" output and not having to worry about pH).

Anyway, laying off (much of) the Calcium and Magnesium salt additions at least until after the mash seems worthy of trying. And stop tormenting myself with Lewis acids too.

Another thing I might try (if it appears to work for pH prediction) is to carry on using Bru'n Water with some of the pussy-footing American-style water profiles for mashing and switch to some proper full-on mineralised profiles for sparging (I can, in fact have to, treat my mash and sparge liquors quite separately anyway). This division of mash/sparge liquors has become quite simple in Beersmith v3 now too.

 

[Dutto]

When trying to improve your knowledge, it's wise to remember:

A "Specialist" is a person who knows more and more about less and less until in the end he knows everything about nothing.

... whereas ...

A "Generalist" is a person who knows less and less about more and more until in the end he knows nothing about everything.

 

[private4587]

Do you stir the mash before taking a sample to ensure it's well distributed and do you let it cool before testing? I actually don't bother testing until the end of the mash because I don't intend to adjust on-the-fly and just take a reading for reference in case I need to change something the next time. Using Brunwater for calculations and Ashbeck + salts + lactic acid I've always been very close to the predicted number for the pale ales and lagers I normally brew.

This time i stirred the mash at the beginning and again after 15min, waited until end of mash(60min) and then took reading after letting it cool to 20C. Again found my Ph high 5.9 instead of 5.5 which is what Brunwater worked out. It was the fishermans stout recipe found on this site. It is puzzling as the beers are tasting nice although this could be my inexperience and only tasting my own brews.

 

[peebee]

Another mash resolves out as pH5.0. But this time I added nothing to the mash water.

There is something very screwy going on with my water (or my grain? Na, I really doubt it could be the grains). pH of water (doesn't mean much, but checked it anyway) is 7.5 using the same pH meter as the mash, like it's always been … hang on, it's 8.4! I guess this drought messes with water company too, but not to worry as pH really doesn't say a lot. Test the meter with 4 and 7 buffers and its reading 4.2 and 6.9, actually as I calibrated it (they're a pain this single adjuster calibrators - always a compromise). So no joy there, in fact it suggests the meter might have a slight over-read at around pH 5.

I've got a Salifert "Calcium" test on its way, but I don't think I'll find the answer there either. But meanwhile, I'm still brewing palatable beer mashing at pH 4.9 - 5.1.

 

[private4587]

when calibrating my meter i use just one calibration solution, is this OK or is it required to us two points i.e. 4.1 & 6.8?

 

[Sadfield]

when calibrating my meter i use just one calibration solution, is this OK or is it required to us two points i.e. 4.1 & 6.8?

Ideally three point, 4,7 and 10. Not all cheap meters can do this though and only manage two. Only doing one point, means that your meter is only accurate at that value.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

[peebee]

Another mash resolves out as pH5.0. But this time I added nothing to the mash water.
...
I've got a Salifert "Calcium" test on its way, but I don't think I'll find the answer there either. But meanwhile, I'm still brewing palatable beer mashing at pH 4.9 - 5.1.

Salifert kit returned "20-30ppm Calcium". A tad more than the 19ppm quoted by the water board, but fits with the comments that if the recently reported anions have increased (sulphate) then to balance the cations must have too (calcium). Calcium is reported as a (historic) calculated value, not as a tested one, so I had no problem tweaking it and had already done so to balance cations and anions reacting to earlier comments. So Calcium in the source water is now 26ppm for my calculations (up from 19ppm).

I don't see these tweaks as getting to the root of my acid mashes, but who knows? No brewing planned for a month so I'll have to wait. This rain following the drought has probably seriously messed up the salt contents in the water any way.

 

[private4587]

Ideally three point, 4,7 and 10. Not all cheap meters can do this though and only manage two. Only doing one point, means that your meter is only accurate at that value.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Does this mean that i calculate at one solution and do the same on the second solution. How does the instument know which calibration to use when i place it in the wort.

 

[peebee]

Does this mean that i calculate at one solution and do the same on the second solution. How does the instument know which calibration to use when i place it in the wort.

It doesn't know. What "Sadfield" said makes one point calibration sound bad, but in reality it is worse than that! You've got two solutions at about pH7 and pH4. You put the probe in pH7 and adjust the instrument so it reads "7". Now you put the probe in the pH4 solution and if it reads 4.2 (say) you adjust it so it reads "4". Now you pop the probe back in the pH7 solution and the instrument probably reads 6.8. After a bit of toing and froing you get the instrument reading (say) 6.9 and 4.1 in the two solutions. Compromise. It doesn't read correctly at the point it was calibrated to like "Sadfield" said; it reads correctly at some unknown point between the two points used to calibrate it.

But its close enough for our purposes.

 

[Sadfield]

All dependent on the quality of the meter. The more calibration points, the better. Generally, the probe on £10 pH meter will likely be same as that on a £100 meter, what you pay for is the consistency and accuracy of how the circuitry deals with the data from the probe.