[quote=“mabrungard”][quote=“ITsPossible”]
Also go back in and adjust your acid addition until your ROOM TEMP PH target is at/ around 5.6
not 5.4
5.6PH at room temp will equate to around 5.3 when mashing.
5.4PH at room temp will equate to around 5.1 when mashing.
No! We don’t care about the fact that mash pH is several tenths lower at mash temp than room temp. All mash and wort pH experience is based on room temperature measurement. In addition, reports from AJ DeLange and Colin Kaminski suggest that in malty styles, a room temp mash pH of around 5.2 produces a more pleasant beer. This is in contrast to hoppy beers that are better when mashed at around 5.4. So, I would move that room temperature pH prediction down into the 5.3 to 5.2 range. [/quote][/quote]
Martin, start a new thread bearing these musings not casually stopping in on my comments made, Just because you authored brunwater doesn’t make you the authoritative view from on high in regards to all the keys to brewing and I will without a doubt state that your view is off here. You have the right to your knowledge and thoughts but there is a time and place to voice your opinion, such as the aforementioned thread directed to such FWIW topics. It is one thing to have a different point of view, but from how you have struck down my view here I take it to mean you understand your knowledge is superior in some way. Well look and learn my friend. Also since you wish to make it a topic of conversation all of a sudden I would beg to differ that .30 points of PH does make a difference especially in the finished beer PH. If one were to be so care free about brewing science then why worry about PH whatsoever?
I have studied Declerck and others that paved the way for modern brewing science and all indications point to PH being sampled at room temp but the algorithm for temperature was always applied to compensate for this variance. So in effect they took the room temp sample but always used a curve to decide exactly where the mash PH was in relation to temp.
So if they measured 5.7PH then they knew and reported true PH to be closer to 5.3.
Back to the OP’s thread I model my Vienna very closely to Tom’s advice above. I don’t think your recipe has flaws persee. But can vouch for simplicity in grist possibly.
Here is a black and white quote directly from Brewing: science and practice. That I contend that my op has been and will be sound practice from reading between the lines of many including this passage and deducting what strategy works for me.
" A major difficulty follows from the habit of measuring the PH of worts or mashes at room temperature and assuming that these values apply at higher temperatures, when they do not (Hopkins and Krause, 1947). Weak acids, like water dissociate more as temperature rises and so the PH values of their solutions fall, like the PH values of mashes. Thus at 65c(149f) the PH of a wort is likely to be about 0.35 Ph unit lower than at room temperature and 0.45 lower at 78c(172.4f).
As the temp of the mash changes (decoctions, temperature programming, sparging) so will the PH. These differences are significant, yet in many reports it is unclear if PH values have been determined at wort- or mash-temperatures or on cooled samples. Probably the latter is most usual. The PH optimum of A-amylase, determined at room temperature is about PH 5.3, but its optimum estimated from mashing experiments is often reported to be about 5.7. This error is due to the PH having been determined on the mash after it was cooled, when the PH had risen. Because of this difficulty the PH optima of changes occurring in mashes are a little uncertain. (table 4.9)
Mashing pale malt in distilled water usually gives a wort with a PH of about 5.8-6.0, this value being maintained by the buffer substances (including phosphates and protiens) from the grist. Infusion mashes are best carried out at Ph 5.2-5.4(mash temperature), and so will give cooled worts with PH values of about 5.5-5.8. "
Table 4.9 ‘optimal’ PH values for ‘normal’ isothermal infusion mashes made with pale malts lasting 1-2h at 65.5c(150f). Data from various sources. As far as possible the temperatures (mash temperature, m, and cooled wort, w), at which the ph values were determined are indicated.
Characteristics 'Optimal’ PH
Shortest Sacc/dextrinization time 5.3m-5.7w
Greatest extract obtained 5.2-5.4m?
Greatest extract from decoction mash 5.3-5.6m?
The most fermentable wort 5.1-5.3m?; 5.4-5.6w?
Mash impossible to filter <4.7
A-amylase most active(+ Ca2+) 5.3m-5.7w
B-amylase most active 5.1-5.3(4.7?)
Maximum yield of PSN 4.4-4.6m; 4.9-5.1w
Maximum yeild of formol-N 4.4-4.6m; 4.9-5.2w
Maximum protease activity (depends on substrate) 4.3m; 4.6-5.0m?
Maximum phytase activity about 5.2m
Carboxypeptidase activity maximal 4.8-5.7
So to finalize, my reasoning’s are rock solid having been drawn from extensive research from masters of the industry, not simple whimsy. Again trust whomever you wish. This is a forum, not a be all end all to perfection. Far from it. I would say over 50% people post here is pure fiction or whimsy.
For the record, for those unaware of this publication published in 2004. Here are the authors that make this quote you will note in the paragraphs above:"Infusion mashes are best carried out at Ph 5.2-5.4(mash temperature), and so will give cooled worts with PH values of about 5.5-5.8. " The book mentioned in Briggs bio is also the one in the same used by Martin per his quote in brunwater “The optimum mash pH range is reportedly 5.3 to 5.5 (Malting and Brewing Science, 1981)” So I would stand that the author (Briggs) was referencing to mash temp values here also in the earlier book used by Martin.
Authors of Brewing: science and practice:
Dennis Briggs was formerly Senior Lecturer in the British School of Malting and Brewing in the University of Birmingham. With Jim (J.S.) Hough and Roger Stevens, he wrote Malting and brewing science (1971; and a second edition with Tom (T.W.) Young in 1980/1981). Other publications include Barley (1978) and Malts and malting (1998).
Chris Boulton is currently at the Coors Brewers Technical Centre at Burton-on-Trent. He is the co-author, with David Quain, of Brewing yeast and fermentation (2001).
Peter Brooke spent over 30 years with Allied Breweries and Carlsberg Tetley, including 6 years as Director of Tetley’s Leeds Brewery. He was also President of the Institute of Brewing from 1997 to 1999.
Roger Stevens was formerly Senior Lecturer in Pharmaceutical Chemistry at Sunderland Polytechnic. As well as being a co-author of Malting and brewing science, he has edited the Institute of Brewing’s monograph on Hops and the Flavour and fragrance journal.
