Yet more evidence that commercial brewers do not mash at 5.2 to 5.6 pH ...

[Brewsader1]

Honestly, I’m inclined to trust his data more than mine too...which is why I was a bit surprised with my results. I thought it was worth throwing out there, but to include my pH meter, calibration, process, etc is just not viable in this discussion. I plan on reading more about this from the sources and tracking the pH adjustments for future batches to confirm my sample point.

 

[Big Monk]

Honestly, I’m inclined to trust his data more than mine too...which is why I was a bit surprised with my results. I thought it was worth throwing out there, but to include my pH meter, calibration, process, etc is just not viable in this discussion. I plan on reading more about this from the sources and tracking the pH adjustments for future batches to confirm my sample point.

The big thing is certainly not who is right versus who is wrong. It's really important to make sure that we interpret people's results with an "eye" for what errors or inconsistencies might creep in.

Software is a big one. Different models handle inputs much differently. One thing I know intimately is how these different programs handle the modelling based on user inputs. This helps to understand why certain software does certain things.

The more you know the better you can troubleshoot when issues arise. And they do arise. It's no surprise so many Engineers become brewers. It's the troubleshooters in us.

 

[Robert65]

Now that doesn't mean anyone else's data is bunk, but as has been stated, sometimes factors unknown to the brewer (DI pH differences to actuals, etc. as described above, Munich as Cara, modelling of source water, etc.) cause things to appear one way when they are actually another way.

If a model based on solid theory doesn't match what actually happens in my brewery, it is not useful to me. If I have developed an empirical "model" over hundreds of batches that reliably predicts what will happen in my brewery, even if it has to assume proxy values that are not in line with the high level theory, it is useful to me. There's theory, then there's practice. It might be interesting to know why many homebrewers' experience, and much of the software, seems to differ from what is found in the laboratory (which may somehow be better realized in the professional brewery.) This might further elucidate some theoretical basis for better homebrew software. But ultimately I just want a practical method of estimation.

 

[Big Monk]

If a model based on solid theory doesn't match what actually happens in my brewery, it is not useful to me. If I have developed an empirical "model" over hundreds of batches that reliably predicts what will happen in my brewery, even if it has to assume proxy values that are not in line with the high level theory, it is useful to me. There's theory, then there's practice. It might be interesting to know why many homebrewers' experience, and much of the software, seems to differ from what is found in the laboratory (which may somehow be better realized in the professional brewery.) This might further elucidate some theoretical basis for better homebrew software. But ultimately I just want a practical method of estimation.

I think the fundamental thing people need to try and grasp is the modelling of malt. Most of the other parameters (water, acids, salts, etc.) are understood well enough and standardized (with a few exceptions between the various models) that minor errors in how they receive inputs produce relatively minor errors in output.

Malt modelling is where many differ. I for one feel pretty confident with the various modelling methods (charge based, color, DI pH, etc) so I can generally troubleshoot stuff pretty quickly.

Beerery brought up a good example with the concept of the generalized DI pH. It should be common knowledge at this point that giving the user an input for the DI pH greatly increases the accuracy of color based predictions.

Munich is a wonkey donkey though. It behaves differently.

I don't know. I like crunching numbers and helping people troubleshoot. I know that it makes me feel more confident to know why something is happening different than expected.

I've been goofing around with modified version of the MpH sheet from @dmr again and combining that with elements from my charge based sheet developed with @ajdelange.

I know that there is a pretty good compromise in there. Just not 100% sure yet how to implement it all.

 

[Robert65]

Nonetheless, Die_Beerery is surprised by a pH value of 5.7 for Pilsner malt. Yet I can attest that with great consistency over long experience, while they do vary a bit, I find Pilsner malts to average 5.75 in practice. Now, this is what can be inferred from the results in the mash in my system; and also what I actually measure with DI water *under realistic conditions* of my standard crush and standard mash thickness of 3.4 L/kg. I don't know what test conditions give results a full 0.1 unit higher as appears on malt data sheets, or if there is some way of predicting a relationship between the two values. But the "incorrect" value is more predictive in practice.

 

[Big Monk]

Nonetheless, Die_Beerery is surprised by a pH value of 5.7 for Pilsner malt. Yet I can attest that with great consistency over long experience, while they do vary a bit, I find Pilsner malts to average 5.75 in practice. Now, this is what can be inferred from the results in the mash in my system; and also what I actually measure with DI water *under realistic conditions* of my standard crush and standard mash thickness of 3.4 L/kg. I don't know what test conditions give results a full unit higher as appears on malt data sheets, or if there is some way of predicting a relationship between the two values. But the "incorrect" value is more predictive in practice.

Well, keep in mind we are talking pretty specifically about Weyermann Pilsner malt (in various varieties), which hasn't had a lot with DI pH below 5.8 in almost 4 years. They've trended up to 5.95 a few years ago and settled around 5.84 in recent memory.

That's neither here nor there. I don't doubt your experience one bit. I just mainly wanted to point out that We (people like Bryan, Myself, You, etc.) are generally more aware of malt analysis than the average brewer. That's not a dig to the average brewer either. Unless you are brewing a lot and buying bulk grain from a maltster with good data sheets (Weyermann in particular) it's difficult to get an analysis for the malt you are using, as it is likely a snapshot of an unknown malt sack.

I do know that using the malt sheet DI pH as an input to calculations has been a a great help and a great improvement, in the most practical sense, to the color based calculations. As has the modelling of Munich as a caramalt, combined of course with it's DI pH. This kind of stuff was all based on empirical work at The Beerery over the years.

The most important thing anyone can do is understand their own Brewery.

 

[Robert65]

What complicates this a bit is that I do normally use Weyermann malts and get results as described, in conflict with the sheets, but in agreement withbthe assumptions of most of the homebrew software (none of which have I found better than my own back of the envelope calculations.)

 

[Big Monk]

...(none of which have I found better than my own back of the envelope calculations.)

That says quite a bit about your judgement and understanding.

 

[Robert65]

That says quite a bit about your judgement and understanding.

My judgement favors actual results over theoretical predictions, and my understanding is that everyone's is as yet incomplete regarding these matters. I make evidence based assumptions and refine them empirically. I don't distrust the evidence before my eyes because it contradicts my expectations, I alter my expectations accordingly.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I've been trying to get people to give up their 100% total blind faith in software for some time now, but some are convinced that certain of it is so great that they don't ever need to verify it. Its the same old circular reasoning thing over and over. Someone told someone something, and they told it to someone else, who said, I just read the same thing somewhere, and so on, and so on, until it just had to be gospel truth. Why verify what is already perfect. The verification will not be perfect anyway, so why bother.

And then for those who do attempt to verify, there is always the monstrously huge "confirmation bias" trap. Tweak the verification until it matches the software fantasy prediction, and bingo, it's all good. Another perfect match for the record book.

 

[brewbama]

I don’t think it’s blind faith as much as it’s close enough. By following it the beer “ain’t bad”.

 

[Big Monk]

My judgement favors actual results over theoretical predictions, and my understanding is that everyone's is as yet incomplete regarding these matters. I make evidence based assumptions and refine them empirically. I don't distrust the evidence before my eyes because it contradicts my expectations, I alter my expectations accordingly.

I hope you took my comment as a compliment.

 

[Robert65]

I hope you took my comment as a compliment.

Yes, I think my comment describes what we're all trying to do. (Okay maybe not all of us. But those who are actively engaged in discussions like the present one at least.)

 

[eric19312]

Hmmm is modeling kettle pH adjustment such a debatable issue? I’m a noob here for sure, just started based on this or the other current applicable thread, but noted in the two batches I’ve done it, it was not hard to dose somewhat less than estimated, mix in the acid, then test pH again and figure out pretty exactly how much more acid I needed. This is a little different I think than mash pH because the entire system in the kettle is in solution. Not sure what I’m missing I don’t really see a need for a precise kettle acid addition calculation.

 

[Big Monk]

Hmmm is modeling kettle pH adjustment such a debatable issue? I’m a noob here for sure, just started based on this or the other current applicable thread, but noted in the two batches I’ve done it, it was not hard to dose somewhat less than estimated, mix in the acid, then test pH again and figure out pretty exactly how much more acid I needed. This is a little different I think than mash pH because the entire system in the kettle is in solution. Not sure what I’m missing I don’t really see a need for a precise kettle acid addition calculation.

It's super easy to dial in an empirical process for dosing acid in the kettle.

Just like anything else though, it's nice to have the calculation incorporated into a modelling solution for tracking and troubleshooting on the fly. When you do that however, you get conversations like this one where people will naturally want to talk about how it would be executed.

 

[bierhaus15]

Total non-argumentative question: for what reasons are people acid dosing in the kettle?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Total non-argumentative question: for what reasons are people acid dosing in the kettle?

A few "potential" reasons:
1) So you can mash within a higher pH range in an effort to avoid thin tasting beer.
2) More consistent regulation and control of hop utilization (albeit that it may be reduced).
3) More consistent control of Mailard reaction induced color alteration during the boil.
4) More consistent control of final beer pH for a given recipe and yeast.
5) Per Bamforth, Kunze recommends it as a means to increase wort buffering. I believe this correlates with 4. Bamforth also states that mash pH does not correlate well with final beer pH (whereas presumably wort pH does).
6) Some indicate that Irish Moss and Whirlfloc work best at pH 5.0-5.2.
7) @Robert65 stated that his beer improved markedly across the board only after he started mashing at 5.65 pH

 

[Die_Beerery]

A few "potential" reasons:
1) So you can mash within a higher pH range in an effort to avoid thin tasting beer.
2) More consistent regulation and control of hop utilization (albeit that it may be reduced).
3) More consistent control of Mailard reaction induced color alteration during the boil.
4) More consistent control of final beer pH for a given recipe and yeast.
5) Per Bamforth, Kunze recommends it as a means to increase wort buffering. I believe this correlates with 4. Bamforth also states that mash pH does not correlate well with final beer pH (whereas presumably wort pH does).
6) Some indicate that Irish Moss and Whirlfloc work best at pH 5.0-5.2.
7) @Robert65 stated that his beer improved markedly across the board only after he started mashing at 5.65 pH

Better break formation
Faster fermentations (yeast does not have to drop wort pH as much)
Healthier fermentations (see above)
Less time for nasties to get in.
beer beer stability

Also this is how one of the foundational german beer flavors are created.


To name a few more off the top of my head.

 

[bierhaus15]

Better break formation
Faster fermentations (yeast does not have to drop wort pH as much)
Healthier fermentations (see above)
Less time for nasties to get in.
beer beer stability

Also this is how one of the foundational german beer flavors are created.

Okay, for the types of pale-lager beers that are being brewed in this context, acidifying is a no brainer. That said, I was more curious of the IPA brewers who do the same, especially to mitigate high DH amounts, when there is increasing contradictory information between wort acidification for lowering DH pH and the expression/retention of hop oils, thiols, and oxygen-reactions via dry hopping. Carry on.

 

[Die_Beerery]

In that case you may need another post DH acidification, to lower the high post DH pH. This will help with the sharpening of flavors and a more stable beer.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I've come across several peer reviewed documents which reference Kunze as stating that the ideal final "wort pH" range to be achieved is 5.1 to 5.2 pH (presumably as measured post boil and cooling in compliance with the EBC standard 8.17 method at 20 degrees C.), so with this as guidance I now recommend targeting 5.15 pH as the ideal for kettle wort acidification when using 'Kettle pH Made Easy', or any other computational methodology of your choosing.

 

[leesmith]

I've come across several peer reviewed documents which reference Kunze as stating that the ideal final "wort pH" range to be achieved is 5.1 to 5.2 pH (presumably as measured post boil and cooling in compliance with the EBC standard 8.17 method at 20 degrees C.), so with this as guidance I now recommend targeting 5.15 pH as the ideal for kettle wort acidification when using 'Kettle pH Made Easy', or any other computational methodology of your choosing.

How have you found your own results align with this recommendation?

 

[Die_Beerery]

I've come across several peer reviewed documents which reference Kunze as stating that the ideal final "wort pH" range to be achieved is 5.1 to 5.2 pH (presumably as measured post boil and cooling in compliance with the EBC standard 8.17 method at 20 degrees C.), so with this as guidance I now recommend targeting 5.15 pH as the ideal for kettle wort acidification when using 'Kettle pH Made Easy', or any other computational methodology of your choosing.

I target 5.0-5.1 personally.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

How have you found your own results align with this recommendation?

All of the Beta testing batches (albeit it only 6 of them total) would have fallen within the 5.1 to 5.2 range for a 5.15 pH setting if that was each testers chosen target. Amazingly better overall precision than for mash pH targeting.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I target 5.0-5.1 personally.

What improvement are you seeing over 5.1-5.2 targeting?

 

[Die_Beerery]

What improvement are you seeing over 5.1-5.2 targeting?

better break formation, kettle finings work better, etc.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

better break formation, kettle finings work better, etc.

Are you adding the acid pre-boil, post boil, roughly mid-boil, or a combination of the three?

 

[Die_Beerery]

Are you adding the acid pre-boil, post boil, roughly mid-boil, or a combination of the three?

I dose 2-3 times depending on beer parameters. Mash to target proper mash pH (if needed), start of boil to target proper starting boil pH, and end of boil (10 minutes) to have proper knockout pH. It's all automated and based on grainbill.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I dose 2-3 times depending on beer parameters. Mash to target proper mash pH (if needed), start of boil to target proper starting boil pH, and end of boil (10 minutes) to have proper knockout pH. It's all automated and based on grainbill.

Nice, but I believe the average home brewer would likely rather kettle acidify only once, as a convenience due to the lack of such automation. For that I would shoot for the 5.15 pH target and add it just prior to initiating the boil. It may mute the bitterness a tad (hinder isomerization) and require a smidge more hops, but I'm not (currently at least) aware of any other drawbacks to this single acidification approach. And pellet hops likely isomerize well more quickly than whole/leaf, so their use may render this a moot issue.

 

[Die_Beerery]

DMS with soft boils and pilsner malts would be one thing.

 

[aeviaanah]

I have a brew coming up id like to try some of the ideas in this thread..All measured at room temp

Mash pH 5.4
Pre boil pH 5.1
Post boil pH 5.1

Hows this sound?

 

[Robert65]

Depends on the beer. I personally would let the boil ride for at least 30 minutes at pH ~5.4 (wherever it comes in from the lauter, I don't adjust this) to convert SMM to DMS (if necessary) and get good hop utilization, then drop it midway or at the end for successful fining (and maybe less bitterness from late hops.) I also have found that a higher pH gives a better break, but some literature I cited earlier suggests that within the range above 5.0 there not a huge amount of difference there. Should be noted that I brew mostly light lagers, so it makes sense that I find Kunze's guidelines appropriate. If you're brewing a stout or an IPA, different concerns apply I suppose.

 

[aeviaanah]

Depends on the beer. I personally would let the boil ride for at least 30 minutes at pH ~5.4 (wherever it comes in from the lauter, I don't adjust this) to convert SMM to DMS (if necessary) and get good hop utilization, then drop it midway or at the end for successful fining (and maybe less bitterness from late hops.) I also have found that a higher pH gives a better break, but some literature I cited earlier suggests that within the range above 5.0 there not a huge amount of difference there. Should be noted that I brew mostly light lagers, so it makes sense that I find Kunze's guidelines appropriate. If you're brewing a stout or an IPA, different concerns apply I suppose.

I’m brewing a common ale. 90% Golden promise 10% Munich around 25 ibus from mandarina Bavaria and motueka.

 

[Robert65]

I’m brewing a common ale. 90% Golden promise 10% Munich around 25 ibus from mandarina Bavaria and motueka.

Well DMS is not an issue then. Sounds like you're looking for softer hop character too, so I can see your plan to lower the pH early being appropriate. I guess you'll let us know your assessment. Enjoy the brew day! I'm doing a Dunkel tomorrow, so I'm looking at it similarly. I expect the dark malts will get me a fairly low initial wort pH anyway.

 

[aeviaanah]

Well DMS is not an issue then. Sounds like you're looking for softer hop character too, so I can see your plan to lower the pH early being appropriate. I guess you'll let us know your assessment. Enjoy the brew day! I'm doing a Dunkel tomorrow, so I'm looking at it similarly. I expect the dark malts will get me a fairly low initial wort pH anyway.

I like the approach of questioning whether a beer may have DMS precursors or not and adjusting ph accordingly.


Would you be worried about a Pilsner 5.2 at pre boil and boiled for 45m?

 

[Robert65]

TBH, I'm not really worried about most modern Pilsner malts having significant SMM (DMS precursor) so my inclination would be go for it, and if you detect DMS, alter the plan next time. I'd prioritize minimizing the boiling of a wort I want to have a fresh, delicate flavor.

 

[Paulaner]

TBH, I'm not really worried about most modern Pilsner malts having significant SMM (DMS precursor) so my inclination would be go for it, and if you detect DMS, alter the plan next time. I'd prioritize minimizing the boiling of a wort I want to have a fresh, delicate flavor.

A few years back, when I was mashing at a lower PH which was right around 5.2, and then I started experimenting with lowering my boil rates, I got DMS once. I know a few others here and on the other site talked about experiencing the same thing.

 

[Die_Beerery]

A few years back, when I was mashing at a lower PH which was right around 5.2, and then I started experimenting with lowering my boil rates, I got DMS once. I know a few others here and on the other site talked about experiencing the same thing.

I can get DMS all day long with a soft 60 minute ~3%evap with a 5.2. So for me it's 5.4 entering the boil, 10 minute remaining knockout dose. Room temp values of course.

 

[Paulaner]

I can get DMS all day long with a soft 60 minute ~3%evap with a 5.2. So for me it's 5.4 entering the boil, 10 minute remaining knockout dose. Room temp values of course.

Yup, that's my procedures now also, except I'm around 5% evap.

 

[aeviaanah]

For a hoppy beer without Pilsner malt (or any beer without risk of DMS), dosing at preboil is recommended?