[Cliffs]

Side by side they look nearly identical. And yet the mash pH (without any acid adjustment) can be as different as 5.2 with American pale malt, and 5.6 with European pale malt.

wow, makes me wonder if maybe during the malting process, one maltster is using hard water and the other soft

[ttash]

Side by side they look nearly identical. And yet the mash pH (without any acid adjustment) can be as different as 5.2 with American pale malt, and 5.6 with European pale malt.

wow, makes me wonder if maybe during the malting process, one maltster is using hard water and the other soft

Interesting observation.

[Cliffs]

Side by side they look nearly identical. And yet the mash pH (without any acid adjustment) can be as different as 5.2 with American pale malt, and 5.6 with European pale malt.

wow, makes me wonder if maybe during the malting process, one maltster is using hard water and the other soft

Interesting observation.

perhaps theres an accurate way to use a TDS meter to see?

[denny]

Side by side they look nearly identical. And yet the mash pH (without any acid adjustment) can be as different as 5.2 with American pale malt, and 5.6 with European pale malt.

wow, makes me wonder if maybe during the malting process, one maltster is using hard water and the other soft

Aren't you also assuming that matters?

[Cliffs]

Side by side they look nearly identical. And yet the mash pH (without any acid adjustment) can be as different as 5.2 with American pale malt, and 5.6 with European pale malt.

wow, makes me wonder if maybe during the malting process, one maltster is using hard water and the other soft

Aren't you also assuming that matters?

yes of course, just throwing out ideas

[Silver_Is_Money]

It's not just the deionized water mash pH (or pHDI) rating of a malt that determines a barley base malts acidity.  The base malts BC (Buffering Coefficient or Buffering Capacity) matters just as much.  And also, pHDI and BC are literally inseparable.  Neither value has meaning at all unless both are measured and expressed. 

Delta-pH = mEq/(BC x Kg)
so therefore, via rearrangement:
(Delta-pH)*(BC x Kg) = mEq (= malt acidity in units of milliequivalents)

If 1 Kg. of a base malt is conveniently being mashed, the 'Kg' variable drops out, so what I think you are seeing within your mashes is something along these hypothetical lines:

Hypothetical Malt Example 1:
--------------------------------
European Pilsner type malt
pHDI = 5.85
BC = 33.33
Delta-pH whereby to mash at pH 5.40 = (5.85-5.40) = 0.45
0.45(33.33) = 15 mEq/Kg_pH malt acidity

Hypothetical Malt Example 2:
--------------------------------
USA 2-Row Brewers type malt
pHDI = 5.55
BC = 50
Delta-pH whereby to mash at pH 5.40 = (5.55-5.40) = 0.15
0.15(50) = 7.5 mEq/Kg_pH malt acidity

To move 1 Kg of the first of these two hypothetical malts to a mash pH of 5.40 requires the addition of 15 mEq's of acid to the deionized mash water. But to move 1 Kg of the second of these two hypothetical malts to a mash pH of 5.40 requires the addition of only 7.5 mEq's of acid to the deionized mash water.  Half as much acid.

If however 15 mEq of acid is added to the mash water for hypothetical Malt #2 the resulting mash pH estimate is:
Delta-pH = mEq/(BC x Kg)
(5.55 - pH_Mash) = 15/(50 x 1)
(5.55 - pH_Mash) = 0.30
pH_Mash = 5.25

[ttash]

It's not just the deionized water mash pH (or pHDI) rating of a malt that determines a barley base malts acidity.  The base malts BC (Buffering Coefficient or Buffering Capacity) matters just as much.  And also, pHDI and BC are literally inseparable.  Neither value has meaning at all unless both are measured and expressed. 

Delta-pH = mEq/(BC x Kg)
so therefore, via rearrangement:
(Delta-pH)*(BC x Kg) = mEq (= malt acidity in units of milliequivalents)

If 1 Kg. of a base malt is conveniently being mashed, the 'Kg' variable drops out, so what I think you are seeing within your mashes is something along these hypothetical lines:

Hypothetical Malt Example 1:
--------------------------------
European Pilsner type malt
pHDI = 5.85
BC = 33.33
Delta-pH whereby to mash at pH 5.40 = (5.85-5.40) = 0.45
0.45(33.33) = 15 mEq/Kg_pH malt acidity

Hypothetical Malt Example 2:
--------------------------------
USA 2-Row Brewers type malt
pHDI = 5.55
BC = 50
Delta-pH whereby to mash at pH 5.40 = (5.55-5.40) = 0.15
0.15(50) = 7.5 mEq/Kg_pH malt acidity

To move 1 Kg of the first of these two hypothetical malts to a mash pH of 5.40 requires the addition of 15 mEq's of acid to the deionized mash water. But to move 1 Kg of the second of these two hypothetical malts to a mash pH of 5.40 requires the addition of only 7.5 mEq's of acid to the deionized mash water.  Half as much acid.

If however 15 mEq of acid is added to the mash water for hypothetical Malt #2 the resulting mash pH estimate is:
Delta-pH = mEq/(BC x Kg)
(5.55 - pH_Mash) = 15/(50 x 1)
(5.55 - pH_Mash) = 0.30
pH_Mash = 5.25

Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for, and exactly why I throw out questions to this amazing collection of passionate brewers. 🍺

[Silver_Is_Money]

Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for, and exactly why I throw out questions to this amazing collection of passionate brewers. 🍺

In the end the only thing that really matters is how many mEq's of Acid or Base (not to be confused with "base" malt) are required whereby to move 1 Kg. of a malt (grain, adjunct) to the desired mash pH target.  Since 5.40 as measured at room temperature has (of late, and particularly for home brewers, right or wrong) become the most typically called upon 'ideal' mash pH target, wouldn't it be great if the various maltsters supplied us with this mEq per Kg information (or at least nominalized averages of same) for each of their malts, unmalted grains, and adjuncts (such as flaked and torrefied)?  With the analytical tools at their disposal this would seem to be a rather easy undertaking.  Ideally each lot could be accompanied with this mEq valuation.

Another thing needed is the (highly specific yet again to pH 5.40) mEq/mL or mEq/gram valuation of the various acids or bases used to move the mash to pH 5.40.  Subject to correction, I've computed these values for a pH target of 5.40:

11.451 mEq/mL for 88% Lactic Acid
10.246 mEq/mL for 80% Lactic Acid
3.660 mEq/mL for CRS/AMS
1.0903 mEq/mL for 10% Phosphoric Acid
3.667 mEq/mL for 30% Phosphoric Acid
12.262 mEq/mL for 75% Phosphoric Acid
14.865 mEq/mL for 85% Phosphoric Acid
12.635 mEq/gram for Citric Acid (anhydrous)
-11.904 mEq/gram for Baking Soda (negative value because this one is a base and not an acid)

The last thing that matters is the mEq's of H+ (acid) ions liberated by Ca++ (calcium ions) and Mg++ (magnesium ions) present within the mash water.  The calculation of this was once thought to be straight forward (due to the work of Kolbach), but as recently as 2015 research Chemists Barth and Zaman destroyed the fixed math model valuation method established for this by Kolbach, and proved the calcium and magnesium induced H+ mEq valuations to be highly variable with respect to ones chosen grist components, and also nowhere near the H+ mEq's level at which the Kolbach method computes them to be (meaning that the mashes downward pH shift due to the presence of calcium and magnesium is far less than [our conception of] Kolbach imagined, specifically within the confines of the mash step).  A side effect of this Kolbach destruction is that there can be no 'easy' math model means whereby to calculate the derivative valuation known as 'RA' (Residual Alkalinity).  In effect there is no such value as 'RA' which can be known and thereby predicted prior to the mash, outside of calculating it via test mashes.  I speculate that in part the variability may be due to the unknown concentrations of calcium and magnesium initially present within each malt, grain, or adjunct found within any recipes grist.  Soil and water analytical conditions during any malt or grains growth likely play a huge part here.  Barth and Zaman also tell us that Kolbach never measured calcium and magnesium induced downward shift within the mash itself.  What Kolbach's model actually and specifically intends to compute (per his own documentation) is the drop in pH due to Ca and Mg as measured post boil at "knockout".  It is therefore a huge mistake to attempt to apply Kolbach's work in this arena to the mash.

[Silver_Is_Money]

More on the last paragraph from my previous thread post as seen above:

The Residual Alkalinity issue with respect to the mash revolves specifically around this formulation given to us by Kolbach:
mEq/L RA = meq/L Total Alkalinity - (mEq/L Ca/3.5 + mEq/L Mg/7)

RA is a purely derivative conception/value for which its entire validity hinges upon the divisors of 3.5 for Ca and 7 for Mg.

Barth and Zaman chose three base malts, and repeatedly added to their mash waters varying mEq levels of Ca (they did not test mash using Mg).  For their three chosen malts they discovered that within the mash the presumed 3.5 Kolbach divisor for calcium was actually found to be (from memory here):

For their lot and brand of Pilsner Malt: 14.8 (vs. 3.5)
For their lot and brand of Pale Ale Malt: 7.2 (vs. 3.5)
For their lot and brand of Munich Malt: 12.3 (vs. 3.5)

The Ca++ divisor may drift more toward 3.5 at 'knockout' (post boil and cooling), but Barth and Zaman did not test for this.

[ttash]

Silver is Money, I can't thank you enough for the time and effort you put into your responses to my question about pH variability between pale malts from different regions. You are part of what makes this forum so valuable.

Cheers!  🍺

[Silver_Is_Money]

As to the overall mEq's of acid liberated via added Ca++ and Mg++, when approached without the need to consider RA at all, it becomes:

In Kolbach terms (which have via Barth and Zaman been '3.5, and likely also 7 divisor-denominator' debunked):
mEq's of acid liberated from the grist within the mash via the addition of Ca and/or Mg = (mEq's of added calcium ions)/3.5 + (mEq's of added magnesium ions)/7

Life was so much more simple and naive when 3.5 and 7 were considered to be unquestionably valid Ca and Mg (respectively) divisors for computation within specifically the mash.

Perhaps Barth and Zaman would be great interview candidates for 'Experimental Brewing'.

Here is a link to their paper which I have been referencing:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1094/ASBCJ-2015-0621-01