Dec 17 BYO response to Mash pH questions

[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.