Dec 17 BYO response to Mash pH questions

[ajdelange]

Were mash temperature 150 F and room temperature 72 that would imply a glide of 0.0058 pH/deg C which is typical.

 

[dmtaylor]

Were mash temperature 150 F and room temperature 72 that would imply a glide of 0.0058 pH/deg C which is typical.

Mash temp was 153 F. "Room" temp was not directly measured but probably about 75-80 F. It no longer felt warm to the touch.

 

[ajdelange]

153 and 80 give 0.0062. Still not much different from the 0.0055 pH/°C that I usually throw out. But it does depend on the malt.

 

[SteveH aka shetc]

So...I use Bru'n Water and the estimated mash ph is, for example, 5.37 pH, and this is good because the instructions say
that the brewer should generally target a room-temperature pH range of between 5.3 and 5.5. Am I targeting 5.37 or 5.62 (5.37 + 0.25) at room temperature?

 

[mongoose33]

I just read all the posts, and one question kept gnawing at me: has anyone tasted the beer produced at these various pH values, either mash temp or room temp?

Seems to me that if the beer turns out great, most of the argument is moot.

A buddy did an IPA that ended up having a room temp mash pH of something like 5.1. It was shockingly low (I still wonder if some sauermalz was included in the LHBS grain he bought--nothing else made sense). Just as shocking was the beer--it was great!

Other than an influence on efficiency, does any of this affect the flavor of the beer, and how satisfying it is?

 

[dmtaylor]

So...I use Bru'n Water and the estimated mash ph is, for example, 5.37 pH, and this is good because the instructions say
that the brewer should generally target a room-temperature pH range of between 5.3 and 5.5. Am I targeting 5.37 or 5.62 (5.37 + 0.25) at room temperature?

5.37

 

[dmtaylor]

I just read all the posts, and one question kept gnawing at me: has anyone tasted the beer produced at these various pH values, either mash temp or room temp?

Seems to me that if the beer turns out great, most of the argument is moot.

A buddy did an IPA that ended up having a room temp mash pH of something like 5.1. It was shockingly low (I still wonder if some sauermalz was included in the LHBS grain he bought--nothing else made sense). Just as shocking was the beer--it was great!

Other than an influence on efficiency, does any of this affect the flavor of the beer, and how satisfying it is?

That is called "luck". Wort wants to be about 5.4, as the minerals within the malt try to take it there naturally. Perhaps it got up there on its own by the end of the mash.

You may be right though. I have no doubt that homebrewers including myself obsess over a great many details that in reality make little if any difference in final beer flavor.

 

[ajdelange]

Wort wants to be about 5.4, as the minerals within the malt try to take it there naturally.

No! This is not true and I can't get people to understand it for some reason. There is no 'buffering' in the sense of a pH buffer in individual malts or mixtures thereof. Their titration curves do not show inflection points nor their buffering curves peaks at 5.4. The titration curves are nearly linear and therefore parabolic rather than peaky. The maxima they show are usually fairly removed from 5.4.

The wort 'wants' to be at the pH where the number of protons absorbed by the base malt and the bicarbonate ions in the water (if any) is just equal to the protons given up by the darker malts and any added acids. If this number is 5.6 then your wort 'wants' to go to 5.6. If it is 5.3 then your wort wants to go to 5.3. If your wort goes to 5.4 that is because you have, in your design of the grist, selected malts which balance protons at 5.4. Not because of any preference of malts for 5.4.

Every time this subject comes up someone posts this notion that worts naturally 'buffer' at pH 5.4. I guess I should work on a clear explanation and offer it as a sticky.

 

[dmtaylor]

I've seen it parroted by others, and it's consistent with my own experience, but... my experience is also based on me wanting to get close to that anyway. Hmm. Thanks for the input, A.J., I value your insights and I'll try to keep it in mind.

 

[cactusgarrett]

5.37

I gathered 5.62 (5.37 + 0.25), though. In re-reading this whole damn thing for the third time, it seems that:

1) Online/Spreadsheet tools estimate pH at room temp (whether or not people measure at RT is a different discussion)
2) There's a 0.25 pH unit increase from mash temp to room temp
3) 5.3 is ideal mash pH (broad generalization, and I'm choosing one value to make a point)

So, due to the pH drop when reading at room temp, if we're trying to get a mash pH of 5.3 (at mash temps), shouldn't we be targeting a predictor tool estimation of 5.55?

Also, i don't think it's an issue of "one way is right and the other way makes garbage beer". I think it's more an issue (for me, anyway) of being able to have an accurate understanding or predict what is happening.

 

[ajdelange]

I gathered 5.62 (5.37 + 0.25), though. In re-reading this whole damn thing for the third time, it seems that:

1) Online/Spreadsheet tools estimate pH at room temp (whether or not people measure at RT is a different discussion)

Roger on that one

2) There's a 0.25 pH unit increase from mash temp to room temp

The increase depends on the particular malts selected and what room temperature and mash temperature are. The slope is typically 0.005 t0 0.006 pH/°C

3) 5.3 is ideal mash pH (broad generalization, and I'm choosing one value to make a point)

So, due to the pH drop when reading at room temp, if we're trying to get a mash pH of 5.3 (at mash temps), shouldn't we be targeting a predictor tool estimation of 5.55?

We aren't really trying to target mash pH of 5.3 at mash temperature. We are trying to target the room temperature pH that gives us the best beer. Opinions vary but I think most would agree that this is between 5.4 and 5.6 or at least close to that range. We don't really care what the mash pH at mash temperature actually is just as the air traffic controller mentioned in No. 23 doesn't care what altitudes his aircraft are actually flying as long as he can keep them separated by the use of flight levels.

 

[cactusgarrett]

Makes sense. I think i need to let go of the misconceptions, then, that:

1) 5.2-5.3 at mash temp is ideal, and (more importantly)
2) I should be trying to get 5.2-5.3 on these predictors.

Thanks, everyone!

 

[dmtaylor]

I don't believe we are all on the same page yet. The key thing to keep in mind:

pH parameters are ALWAYS supposed to be reported at room temperature, unless specified otherwise. It's a scientific standard. As such, a goal of 5.3 or whatever is inherently intended to mean it is the goal when measured AT ABOUT 70 F. Thus, if one were to measure at mash temp of about 150 F instead of at room temp, he/she should expect to want to be aiming for 5.3 - 0.25 = 5.05 at mash temp, if 5.3 were the goal at room temp (which it shouldn't be from what I can tell -- too low -- should be more like 5.45 at room temp or 5.2 at mash temp).

Still clear as mud, right?! I'm sure we'll never all be on the same page. I might just be quiet now.

 

[cactusgarrett]

I think it does sound like we're starting to get on the same page, though; we're just arguing the same point. My takeaway from all this is that when using a mash pH predictor, I should be making adjustments to have it spit out a value of 5.4-5.6. This essentially means that the mash (at mash temp) is estimated to be around 5.25-5.45 (give or take, depending on the grist as AJ noted).

To say "we're not targeting a 5.3 mash at mash temps, but 5.4-5.6 at room temp" to me is semantics. I think most of us want that general rule-of-thumb to fall back on, and we should be able to get by with the idea that pH 5.4-5.6 at room temp (as expressed by predictors) is a reasonable catch-all target.

 

[dmtaylor]

I think it does sound like we're starting to get on the same page, though; we're just arguing the same point. My takeaway from all this is that when using a mash pH predictor, I should be making adjustments to have it spit out a value of 5.4-5.6. This essentially means that the mash (at mash temp) is estimated to be around 5.25-5.45 (give or take, depending on the grist as AJ noted).

To say "we're not targeting a 5.3 mash at mash temps, but 5.4-5.6 at room temp" to me is semantics. I think most of us want that general rule-of-thumb to fall back on, and we should be able to get by with the idea that pH 5.4-5.6 at room temp (as expressed by predictors) is a reasonable catch-all target.

Yes, now this I totally agree with. Yay!

 

[doogster]

Outstanding thread here. After reading the article in BYO, and now finding this thread really helps. My head was beginning to get sore from all the scratching about pH!

Based on what I believe to be the consensus, here and in the article, I have been incorrectly working hard all these brewing years to get my mash down to something like 5.2... at room temp! Undershooting optimal/recommended ranges and possibly affecting my efficiency and my beer.

All that said - those beers have all turned out very good. I and friends have thoroughly enjoyed them. But from now on, I'll enjoy them even more as I can relax a bit about this.

 

[cactusgarrett]

I have been incorrectly working hard all these brewing years to get my mash down to something like 5.2... at room temp!

You and me both!

But from now on, I'll enjoy them even more as I can relax a bit about this.

Same here! If nothing else, I'll save money by using less lactic acid.

 

[chris000]

the FL analogy is spot on!!
but I'm sure a lot of home brewers will continue to fly low level (and forget to reset the altimeter as they go)

 

[jcav]

This is a very interesting and informative thread. I appreciate all the insights and explanations of this highly misunderstood topic. I have been wondering myself the proper range I should aim for instead of one magic ph number, and that it should be one range for room temp and another for mash temp. I do now aim for room temp and then I can predict what that would be at mash temp. I then take another reading about 10 to 15 minutes after mashing in, and test this after it cools down to room temp, to verify where I am at. I guess the best information I have heard thus far is that it doesn't have to be a specific ph number like 5.2 only or 5.4 only, (as an example) and that you can still make excellent beer as long as the mash is in a limited but effective range. This way I won't obsess on hitting that one specific number and worry if I am off a smidge. I read that Sierra Nevada brewery adjusts all of their brewing water to a ph of 5.5 before mashing in, and for their grain bill for the beers they make, the ph adjusts for them where they need it to be. Thanks for all the informative posts here, and thanks especially to ajdelange.

John

 

[ajdelange]

Should you mash at 148 or 155 °F. Should you mash at pH 5.4 or 5.55? It's the same thing. There is an optimum mash temperature (for the type of beer you are making and the materials you are using) and there is an optimum pH. You need to find both (or decide that better is the enemy of good enough.

Yes, Sierra Nevada does pre acidify their water to 5.5. This is a clever way of reducing the water's effective alkalinity, what ever it may be, to 0 and the amount of acid required is a measure of what that alkalinity is. I often suggest that home brewers with variable water adopt that approach but it is not, AFAIK, advice that many have taken.

 

[SteveH aka shetc]

More discussion on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1586447511410926&id=464551136933908

 

[mongoose33]

Based on what I believe to be the consensus, here and in the article, I have been incorrectly working hard all these brewing years to get my mash down to something like 5.2... at room temp! Undershooting optimal/recommended ranges and possibly affecting my efficiency and my beer.

This led me to look at some of the pH levels I've produced in the last 10 batches or so. This is 15-minute pH, wort cooled to room temp, pH meter calibrated each time I brewed.

5.32 APA
5.28 APA
5.26 Dark Lager
5.36 Amber
5.31 Pils
5.21 Amber (lucky it even worked--had a "friend" helping, holy cow, miracle I even got beer)
5.18 (Smash done as LODO as much as I could)
5.31 California Common

They are all good beers. Good efficiency (meaning hitting high 70s, low 80s), and great flavors. Now, I may try to let them settle higher in the future to see what that does, but the pH readings I've read are reasonable (room temp) range from 5.2-5.6. I usually am at the lower end as you can see.

Now, maybe they'd be better higher, but a couple of those are some of the best beers I've ever brewed, and that's judging by what others say. When they're back for a second and third glass, and they're usually wine drinkers, I think I've hit.

We even had that beer I noted above that was 5.1 or something (still think some sauermalz must have snuck in there at the LHBS--it was a friend's beer and grist we were brewing). That beer was just delish.

From my point of view this just confirms that beer is pretty forgiving as long as we hit the right range for pH.

PS: I'm sitting here drinking the Amber that was all screwed up. It's good, really good, I'm going to pour another.

 

[dmtaylor]

From my point of view this just confirms that beer is pretty forgiving as long as we hit the right range for pH.

After all the geeking out I did on this topic a few months ago....... I'm beginning to think the ideal range for mash pH is huge. Like 5.0 to 5.8 or something very very broad like that. Homebrewers tend to overthink a lot of things that really don't matter too much. Especially homebrewers who are also scientists or mathematicians. Like me. Does it really all matter at the end of the day? Probably not in any real discernible amount. More blind triangle experiments will be necessary to confirm. Maybe one day I'll run some. But probably not. There aren't enough qualified tasters in my area to get any valid results.

 

[mongoose33]

After all the geeking out I did on this topic a few months ago....... I'm beginning to think the ideal range for mash pH is huge. Like 5.0 to 5.8 or something very very broad like that. Homebrewers tend to overthink a lot of things that really don't matter too much. Especially homebrewers who are also scientists or mathematicians. Like me. Does it really all matter at the end of the day? Probably not in any real discernible amount. More blind triangle experiments will be necessary to confirm. Maybe one day I'll run some. But probably not. There aren't enough qualified tasters in my area to get any valid results.

I have scientific training as well, and sometimes that can be a straightjacket--but usually not.

I've had a similar thought as you--that the acceptable pH range is broader than we typically see listed. Maybe it only matters mostly in terms of efficiency--a slightly less-efficient mash will produce a bit lower gravity, but if so, in the end, it's still good beer.

Part of that scientific training is the idea that precision matters only until further increases don't produce measurable or discernable outcomes. Then it's a conceit or simply an attempt to approach perfection in the desire to see if one can do it. That's ok if that's someone's goal, but usually not mine.

There's also this saying: Perfect is the enemy of good enough. Maybe a pH from 5.0 to 5.8 is good enough.

 

[ajdelange]

There is no question that beers - even acceptable beers perhaps can and are made over a wide range of pH. pH control is for those for whom better is not the enemy of good enough. These people are often called 'perfectionists' and sometimes that is intended to be taken as praise and sometimes as opprobrium. Mongoose's observation that his beers which fell between 5.18 and 5.31 is interesting and valuable to the community. It should be comforting to those who don't want to be bothered with pH meters etc. But mongoose and the rest of us need to keep in mind that in general the best beer you ever drank was the last beer you brewed. This is an elliptical way of reintroducing our old friend confirmation bias back into the discussion. Were I moongoose I'd want to get the impressions of some other tasters and perhaps even put the beers into a competition (not that I think competitions are nearly as good a way to get feedback as the opinions of respected brewers/tasters). The question is as to whether any or all or some of those beers would have been 'better' than they are were they mashed in the more 'generally accepted' pH band. "Better" can only be defined by mongoose, of course and he may or may not care. I would want to know but then I'm a perfectionist.

 

[dmtaylor]

I am a lazy perfectionist. It is a constant internal battle for me. I am a perfectionist when I want to be, but laziness usually wins the battle ultimately, especially if/when I theorize that perfectionism isn't paying off regarding any particular topic.

 

[mongoose33]

There is no question that beers - even acceptable beers perhaps can and are made over a wide range of pH. pH control is for those for whom better is not the enemy of good enough. These people are often called 'perfectionists' and sometimes that is intended to be taken as praise and sometimes as opprobrium.

People can do what they want. As I'm sure you know, AJ, people like what they like, so if a beer is stunning even though it was brewed at an edge-of-range pH, it's a stunning beer.

Mongoose's observation that his beers which fell between 5.18 and 5.31 is interesting and valuable to the community. It should be comforting to those who don't want to be bothered with pH meters etc.

It's more than comforting. Some of the best beer I've done--not just my opinion, btw--has come at the low end of the range.

But mongoose and the rest of us need to keep in mind that in general the best beer you ever drank was the last beer you brewed.

Maybe for newbies. Not for me. And I know others who are pretty good at evaluating. I have at least 5 beers on tap at any time, so it's not that hard to compare. Maybe if someone only has one at a time, that statement might be ok.

This is an elliptical way of reintroducing our old friend confirmation bias back into the discussion. Were I moongoose I'd want to get the impressions of some other tasters and perhaps even put the beers into a competition (not that I think competitions are nearly as good a way to get feedback as the opinions of respected brewers/tasters).

Well, then, this is your lucky day, because I do that all the time. It's why I've been skeptical of certain things people accept as dogma, because it doesn't fit the experiences I have of watching others drink my beer.

And the competition thing? I began to lose confidence that this was a way to go when people submitted the same beer under different labels and they were drastically different in ratings by judges. So I rely on locals who are known to have excellent palates (I don't have one, I just like what I like).

But then, I'm a scientist, so I'm fully aware of confirmation bias. Heck, when I did the BrewtanB experiment, I swore the BtB version was different, based on my drinking BtB and control.

But I was not able to pick the odd-one-out in the triangle test. Nor at the 3-month mark either. But side-by-side? Sure.

But then, one of my areas of expertise is measurement, and why I'm so critical of triangle tests that do not control for what people have been drinking prior to doing the tests. I wanted to KNOW if there was a perceptible difference, not just believe it, which is why I subjected the beers to testing better than the norm.

The question is as to whether any or all or some of those beers would have been 'better' than they are were they mashed in the more 'generally accepted' pH band. "Better" can only be defined by mongoose, of course and he may or may not care. I would want to know but then I'm a perfectionist.

Someday I may play with this, it's on the list of the about 480 things I want to test.

The surprising thing about this is that if you approach the edge of the range, your beer will not be ruined. In fact, the flavors that result may be a feature, not a bug.

**********

There's a local guy who's brewed in excess of 20 years. Known as the local guru. He is generally pretty critical of my beers, but what he suggested is I try to get the guy with the super-palate to taste my beers and give me feedback.

So I did. I've known him for years, asked him to be ruthless in his criticism--and he would be, and is. That's what I need him to be, and he gets it.

Imagine my amazement when super-palate could hardly have been more complimentary of my beers. Local guru: they're undercarbed. Super-palate: No, they're not. Local guru: there are issues. Super-palate: They're terrific. From whom do I take guidance? Makes me wonder if local-guru is simply doing his own confirmation bias, as there's no way that a plebe like me could produce excellent beer, is there?

So, AJ, I agree wholeheartedly that one must put one's beers to the test if one wants an objective evaluation. But we also need to be careful in how we do that.

 

[mongoose33]

I am a lazy perfectionist. It is a constant internal battle for me. I am a perfectionist when I want to be, but laziness usually wins the battle ultimately, especially if/when I theorize that perfectionism isn't paying off regarding any particular topic.

I'd say I'm the same to the extent that I want my brew day to be as easy as I can get it to be, that efficiency of time and motion and effort is a goal to be sought.

Is that lazy? I'd like to think of it as conservation of energy.

 

[Big Monk]

I'm all about consistency. I want to measure pH and get the same values because when something goes wrong with a beer, I want to be able to trace what happened. That's the main reason I use room temp measurements. It eliminates a variable from the equation. It's the same reason I track gravity so closely. Some may not care for consistency but to me it's king. Consistency is the key to proper troubleshooting.

 

[ajdelange]

...I'm so critical of triangle tests that do not control for what people have been drinking prior to doing the tests.

It's very important to understand that in a triangle test you are testing the panel, not the beer. The beer is the beer and it sends its "signal" to the panel. In testing you attempt to determine the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic - a term borrowed from radar engineers though it is interesting that the Wikipedia article on the ROC does not even mention radar) of the panel. So naturally the result depends on the panel - who they are, what their skills and experiences are, how they are motivated, the conditions of their palates, fatigue, distractions etc. I tried to explain this, without much luck, in a thread last summer (not in this forum) at some length. You can try to find that if you want to know more about these tests. If you really understand triangle testing and how it is carried out I think you will pretty quickly come to the conclusion that it's going to be pretty difficult to construct a meaningful test to determine whether a beer mashed at pH 5.2 is "better" or "worse" (what are your criteria?) than another. According to whom (IOW whom do you want to empanel)?

The surprising thing about this is that if you approach the edge of the range, your beer will not be ruined.

I don't find that surprising at all. Sure you are likely upon doing your first lager with a mash pH of 5.4 say "wow, that's a lot better beer than I used to brew when I didn't control pH" but in fact the beers brewed at pH 5.6 or even pH 5.7 were quite acceptable. I've never explored going too low (i.e. pH 5.2...) but would not expect things to be different at that end of the range.

In fact, the flavors that result may be a feature, not a bug.

We used to say that was IBM's motto: "If you can't fix it, feature it."

From whom do I take guidance?

I'd say you listen carefully to both and draw your own conclusions.

Makes me wonder if local-guru is simply doing his own confirmation bias,

Is he human?

as there's no way that a plebe like me could produce excellent beer, is there?

Most peoples goal in brewing is to produce a beer that their "customers" think is good. In the case of a commercial brewery it is pretty plain what this means. The customers will buy it. The problem of empaneling tasters for a test like a triangle test is much simplified in this case. The panelists should be representative of the customer base. Where the customer base is you, or you and your friends or your wife it becomes a little more difficult to determine who should go on the panel. This was discussed last summer (IIRC). The bottom line is that if YOU like it is good beer. If you find that a beer that you brewed at an unusually low mash pH has 'features' that YOU like it doesn't matter whether I or anyone else finds that feature to be a flaw. It is good beer.

So, AJ, I agree wholeheartedly that one must put one's beers to the test if one wants an objective evaluation.

Actually I am not sure I mentioned testing here but it is the sort of thing I might suggest.

If we are going to design a test then we want to design it carefully (which as I noted above is no mean task) e.g. use a powerful test like a triangle test, make sure we mask properly, choose the proper demographic from which to draw our panelists etc. but the broader consideration is that we must interpret the data we collect. Giving the beers to the conflicting experts and asking their opinions is a test of sort. Given that one says A and the other says not A how do you use that data? Perhaps throw it out but not necessarily. There may still be a way to use it.
But we also need to be careful in how we do that.

 

[mongoose33]

It's very important to understand that in a triangle test you are testing the panel, not the beer. The beer is the beer and it sends its "signal" to the panel. In testing you attempt to determine the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic - a term borrowed from radar engineers though it is interesting that the Wikipedia article on the ROC does not even mention radar) of the panel. So naturally the result depends on the panel - who they are, what their skills and experiences are, how they are motivated, the conditions of their palates, fatigue, distractions etc. I tried to explain this, without much luck, in a thread last summer (not in this forum) at some length. You can try to find that if you want to know more about these tests. If you really understand triangle testing and how it is carried out I think you will pretty quickly come to the conclusion that it's going to be pretty difficult to construct a meaningful test to determine whether a beer mashed at pH 5.2 is "better" or "worse" (what are your criteria?) than another. According to whom (IOW whom do you want to empanel)?

Oh, I agree. People like what they like. It's why I don't think much of the experiments that "test" ingredients. My favorite brulosophy study--I use this in class--is the one comparing Maris Otter to 2-Row. People could tell the difference but in the end, preference was split exactly 50-50.

I'd say you listen carefully to both and draw your own conclusions.

Oh, absolutely. Whatever people say, I take it at face value initially and try to confirm or refute it. And when they are contradictory, as these two were, I'm looking at others' responses as well.

For a long time I've used the "second beer" measure, i.e., they may say it's good just to spare my feelings, but if they have a second one, they probably mean it.

And I account for taste in all this. I don't care for Belgians. But I can tell if one hits the mark pretty well or not. I had one of Morrey's, it was an excellent Belgian, I thought. And I don't like it!

Super Palate: Is he human?

I'm not sure. He's a PhD chemist so he probably understands what's going on with taste better than almost anyone. But he'll also tell me if it's not right, and that is what I want to hear if that's how it is.

It's sort of like the Brewtan-B experiment I did. I can't say there's any discernable effect. I couldn't detect it, others couldn't detect is (with two exceptions). If I don't go in with my ego attached to any expectations, then it's easy to accept whatever the results are. I was...surprised. But that's kind of fun, actually.

Not all results were covered (longer storage time? Worse storage conditions? Had an effect that wore off by the time we tasted the beer? There are many...), so it's not definitive by any means, but it sure was shocking. I really thought there'd be a difference.

Most peoples goal in brewing is to produce a beer that their "customers" think is good. In the case of a commercial brewery it is pretty plain what this means. The customers will buy it. The problem of empaneling tasters for a test like a triangle test is much simplified in this case. The panelists should be representative of the customer base. Where the customer base is you, or you and your friends or your wife it becomes a little more difficult to determine who should go on the panel. This was discussed last summer (IIRC). The bottom line is that if YOU like it is good beer. If you find that a beer that you brewed at an unusually low mash pH has 'features' that YOU like it doesn't matter whether I or anyone else finds that feature to be a flaw. It is good beer.

Truer words never spoken.