Low Mash pH Effect on Taste in Pilsner

[Vale71]

You don't necessarily need conversion to wash extract from the grist, all you need is to achieve gelatinization of the starch granules. Gelatinized starch will go into solution (and that's where the enzymes will do their thing, if necessary conditions are met) and increase FG exactly the same amount that dextrins would. It doesn't matter if 100 glucose molecules are in solution as a single chain (starch) or as 20 smaller chains of at least four molecules (unfermentable dextrins). In bot cases you will get the same FG but from a qualitative standpoint there is a huge difference.

Even in perfectly mashed beer you will always have some unconverted starch, that's why large breweries perfom a iodine test (with lots of pre-treatment and using absorption spectrophotometry) as part of their standard QA processes. Starch will always be detected, but only if it exceeds a certain threshold will the test fail and the mash process will undergo closer scrutiny.

Long story short: always test for conversion, anything else is just shoddy.

 

[rhys333]

My question is, would a low pH like this present itself as a particularly tart finished beer? Anyone have any experience with this?

In my experience, yes.

Before I measured pH with a meter, I relied exclusively on software that had me over-acidifying the mash by a considerable margin. It expressed itself in the finished beer as an acidic bite on the finish, and also lack of head retention. It showed up mostly in dark beers like porter, as you might expect. Batches that suffered from this low mash pH problem looked like and drank like cola.

 

[micraftbeer]

Iodine test on finished beer mostly disappeared, giving it the slightest tinge.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

Brulosophy intentionally drove mash pH down to 4.43 by hitting the mash water with 19 mL of 88% lactic acid, and the resulting beer came out just fine. It attenuated identically to a beer made identical to it sans mashed at 5.33 pH, and in a triangle test the blind taste testers could not distinguish between them. They finished at nearly identical pH's.

This should also indicate that despite what almost everyone parroting old myths will tell you in regard to being able to taste lactic acid, the taste testers couldn't taste that either, else they would have successfully identified the odd beer out. The taste testers were not informed of the differences in the beers sitting before them until after they had all voted. They were merely asked to identify the single odd beer out when given 2 of the 5.33 mash pH beer samples and 1 of the 4.43 mash pH beer samples. And they could not identify it. There is no Lactobacillus present within 88% lactic acid. Lactobacillus is what gives soured beer its sour taste.

19 mL of 88% lactic acid is somewhere around the acid equivalent of 217 mL of 10% Phosphoric acid.

I really like Brülosophy and the way they do things. I think it’s pretty funny when detractors bag on their processes. I also think that commercial brewing and their tests and specs have little carryover into the homebrew world.

After seeing both the high PH Brülosophy exBeeriment

http://brulosophy.com/2017/07/24/wa...e-impact-of-high-mash-ph-exbeeriment-results/

Iand the low PH Brülosophy exBeeriment,

http://brulosophy.com/2017/01/30/wa...he-impact-of-low-mash-ph-exbeeriment-results/

I think that so long as I start with a reasonably neutral water, that I can ignore PH as a factor in my homebrew.

I know that you have put a lot of time and effort into understanding PH, do you agree that I can just RDWHAHB?

 

[Blazinlow86]

I really like Brülosophy and the way they do things. I think it’s pretty funny when detractors bag on their processes. I also think that commercial brewing and their tests and specs have little carryover into the homebrew world.

After seeing both the high PH Brülosophy exBeeriment

http://brulosophy.com/2017/07/24/wa...e-impact-of-high-mash-ph-exbeeriment-results/

Iand the low PH Brülosophy exBeeriment,

http://brulosophy.com/2017/01/30/wa...he-impact-of-low-mash-ph-exbeeriment-results/

I think that so long as I start with a reasonably neutral water, that I can ignore PH as a factor in my homebrew.

I know that you have put a lot of time and effort into understanding PH, do you agree that I can just RDWHAHB?

Of course you can choose to not adjust ph or do any of the things the best brewers in the world do because brulosophy says you don't need to. **You** may even prefer the end product better. Your point is also valid about not needing to worry about the things the professionals do because your not a professional. The point a lot of people seem to miss is that some of us are trying to create a professional product at home not just homebrew and thats obviously not gonna happen putting in the most minimum effort possible as with pretty much everything in Life. Cheers

 

[Bassman2003]

If pH does not effect flavor, then what is focus of the pro brewing world? Head retention? Shelf life? Extraction? Yeast repitching health?

Seems like there has to be a reason for such an emphasis over the years? Any German trained brewers around that know the answer?

 

[Blazinlow86]

I believe it affect all the things you listed including flavor. Cheers

 

[SoCal-Doug]

pH mostly effects efficiency. But some don't care if their efficiency is 90% or 40%. Other's have no clue what any of the three efficiency ratings are or what things effect each of them. It can effect flavor. But there are some who brew absolute swill but don't know it. Others are perfectly happy with their brews so for them, whatever it is, is fine. It can effect attenuation, but some don't understand that concept and will drink whatever gets bottled no matter if its dry as champagne or sweeter and maltier than a cinnamon roll. I mean honestly, there are people that like 300 IBU hop bombs with so much plant haze in it, it looks like orange juice. If that's the case, pH and the underlying beer wont matter because you wont taste anything anyway

If you want to excel and grow in brew skills, quality and repeatability, all of the processes, values and milestones should be understood and applied. If whatever you brew makes you happy, don't worry about it. Keep brewing it and drinking it.

Brulosphy as some excellent write-ups and does dispel many of the myths of brewing. However, when the triangle test tasters are all joe blow off the street who some of which may think Lucky-50 or Tecate are great beers, and couldn't discern diacetyl from astringency, my faith in some of their results is extremely low.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

Of course you can choose to not adjust ph or do any of the things the best brewers in the world do because brulosophy says you don't need to. **You** may even prefer the end product better. Your point is also valid about not needing to worry about the things the professionals do because your not a professional. The point a lot of people seem to miss is that some of us are trying to create a professional product at home not just homebrew and thats obviously not gonna happen putting in the most minimum effort possible as with pretty much everything in Life. Cheers

Maybe it’s ugly baby syndrome, but I believe that my beer, probably through no fault of my own, is better than commercial. Believe me, I’m surprised too and often wonder how my ice packs and little cooler make such great beer. I put a lot of effort into my beer, but ask questions like this because I want to put my effort where it makes the most difference.

Having read “A Good Hobby Mashed”, by Chris L. Burcher, it becomes painfully obvious to homebrewers that their methods and processes are almost completely useless when scaled up. As new information from sources like Brülosophy and Experimental Brewing come out and myths are busted about secondary and fermentation temps etc. I think it’s becoming clear that commercial practices don’t apply to making homebrew either.

 

[SoCal-Doug]

If you have been blessed with pretty good water (or mix your own), and your grain bill creates an environment to where your pH falls in the happy range, you probably have a great beer without dinking with a bunch of chemistry. Keep in mind that not all recipes need a pH adjustment.

Where it can bite you is, for example, using a really bad water while brewing something with a ton of pilsner (or similar) base malt. It all depends on many factors. Knowing when and how you will get bit is the key.

 

[Blazinlow86]

Maybe it’s ugly baby syndrome, but I believe that my beer, probably through no fault of my own, is better than commercial. Believe me, I’m surprised too and often wonder how my ice packs and little cooler make such great beer. I put a lot of effort into my beer, but ask questions like this because I want to put my effort where it makes the most difference.

Having read “A Good Hobby Mashed”, by Chris L. Burcher, it becomes painfully obvious to homebrewers that their methods and processes are almost completely useless when scaled up. As new information from sources like Brülosophy and Experimental Brewing come out and myths are busted about secondary and fermentation temps etc. I think it’s becoming clear that commercial practices don’t apply to making homebrew either.

maybe im just picky. i dont feel that Brülosophy or Experimental Brewing (although i have and enjoyed the book) have busted anything.you cant belive everything you read on the net. ive had lots of beers my buddies made they thought were great and i would have dumped. they all follow rdwahahb. 10/10 beer is VERY hard to make and takes lots of effort. dont let one website convince you that the whole world of pros over all the years have been incorrect. it all adds up together. its not ONLY one thing like in those test. that one thing might only make a 3% differance but when theres 15 of those things all skipped it adds up to 45%. that said alot of brewers dont care to make a 10/10 product and love the beer there making and thats honestly great for them. i wont be having any though lol. cheers

 

[Blazinlow86]

If you have been blessed with pretty good water (or mix your own), and your grain bill creates an environment to where your pH falls in the happy range, you probably have a great beer without dinking with a bunch of chemistry. Keep in mind that not all recipes need a pH adjustment.

Where it can bite you is, for example, using a really bad water while brewing something with a ton of pilsner (or similar) base malt. It all depends on many factors. Knowing when and how you will get bit is the key.

very good point

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

maybe im just picky. i dont feel that Brülosophy or Experimental Brewing (although i have and enjoyed the book) have busted anything.you cant belive everything you read on the net. ive had lots of beers my buddies made they thought were great and i would have dumped. they all follow rdwahahb. 10/10 beer is VERY hard to make and takes lots of effort. dont let one website convince you that the whole world of pros over all the years have been incorrect. it all adds up together. its not ONLY one thing like in those test. that one thing might only make a 3% differance but when theres 15 of those things all skipped it adds up to 45%. that said alot of brewers dont care to make a 10/10 product and love the beer there making and thats honestly great for them. i wont be having any though lol. cheers

It’s impossible to make 10/10 beer. If you consider off flavors and style guidelines as valid, different people still have different preferences. Even then communities influence preference, so its a moving target that can’t be nailed down. Unless you are one of the 18 Master Cicerones, then judging someone’s beer as a dumper is not really cool. Further a Master Cicerone wouldn’t do that, even if pressed. Be picky, enjoy what you enjoy, but you literally can’t say that you friend’s homebrew is worse than yours because you can’t speak for everyone that enjoys beer.

 

[Blazinlow86]

It’s impossible to make 10/10 beer. If you consider off flavors and style guidelines as valid, different people still have different preferences. Even then communities influence preference, so its a moving target that can’t be nailed down. Unless you are one of the 18 Master Cicerones, then judging someone’s beer as a dumper is not really cool. Further a Master Cicerone wouldn’t do that, even if pressed. Be picky, enjoy what you enjoy, but you literally can’t say that you friend’s homebrew is worse than yours because you can’t speak for everyone that enjoys beer.

You wouldnt be saying that if you tried my friends beers and you cant stop me from trying to brew a perfect beer. cheers

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

You wouldnt be saying that if you tried my friends beers and you cant stop me from trying to brew a perfect beer. cheers

You said your friends are RDWHAHB brewers and you were critical of those who subscribe to that philosophy. This shows you are biased against their beer. So even without trying it, assuming that your judgement is good. I can say with almost certainty that their beer is better than you say it is.

I really think that most of us are trying to brew 10/10 beers in our own way, I would never suggest that anyone stop doing that. You will excuse me if I don’t agree that your way is the only way to do that.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I think that so long as I start with a reasonably neutral water, that I can ignore PH as a factor in my homebrew.

I know that you have put a lot of time and effort into understanding PH, do you agree that I can just RDWHAHB?

Generally starting with water that has no alkalinity and a moderate amount of Ca++ (50-70 ppm) gives you a pretty good chance of mashing within acceptable pH ranges across a quite broad spectrum of common recipes. The two most likely exceptions (extremes) would be a 100% Pilsner malt grist and a grist with very high quantities of combined deep roasted and crystal malts, a bit beyond typical quantities. The first will give you a mash pH in the 5.7's and the second will potentially get you as low as the measured 5.0 pH range, depending upon how overboard one goes on the crystal and deep roasted. I've simply never done the side by side mash pH variance recipe comparisons required to see if I could personally tell the difference. I've listened to years of advice from "experts" telling me that pH must be held between 5.2 and 5.6 when measured in the mash at room temperature. Such that I wrote a spreadsheet to assist with accomplishing this. But I must admit that the Brulosophy pH related exbeeriments do give pause to re-think this logic. A recent robust Stout I brewed (with 2.3 grams of baking soda added in advance to the mash water) came in at 5.18 pH at 30 minutes into the mash, and it read 5.22 pH for a sample taken at the 60 minute mark, and I'm currently enjoying it very much (but for all practical purposes it mashed at pH 5.2, so it was not "out of bounds"). A Bohemian Pilsner I made long ago before owning a pH meter, and which had no acid adjustment, and therefore was most likely in the 5.7's mash pH range is still the single beer of that style that I consider my personal best effort.

But the key here is starting with water that exhibits right close to no alkalinity "plus" moderate mineralization. If alkalinity is present it must be accounted for and adjusted, and excessive mineralization may likewise bring cause for pH adjustment. All of this being recipe dependent. A.J. deLange is convinced that the best way to address alkalinity is to properly knock it out (to a pH of 5.4) before the mash. He calls this his zero alkalinity method as I recall.

For the specific case of zero alkalinity and moderate mineralization the bottom line may be to simply RDWHAHB.

 

[ajdelange]

pH mostly effects efficiency.

It does effect efficiency but not as much as you might think and that's not why we monitor and control it. Conversion of starch to sugar is only one of a large number of brewing reactions that are mediated by enzymes and so effected by pH. We want the pH that gives us the best tasting beer and that may not be the same pH which gives the greatest conversion efficiency. Thus home brewers aren't really concerned about the effects of pH on efficiency. This may not be true for a large commercial brewer but even he will trade efficiency for flavor (or really sales) if it turns out that the pH for best taste and best conversion are appreciably different.

 

[Blazinlow86]

You said your friends are RDWHAHB brewers and you were critical of those who subscribe to that philosophy. This shows you are biased against their beer. So even without trying it, assuming that your judgement is good. I can say with almost certainty that their beer is better than you say it is.

I really think that most of us are trying to brew 10/10 beers in our own way, I would never suggest that anyone stop doing that. You will excuse me if I don’t agree that your way is the only way to do that.

If you enjoy the beer your making your doing it correctly. Be happy you don't require all the extra steps and processes that some of us need to do to enjoy ours. Cheers

 

[Bassman2003]

My overall impression is that pH should be thought of as an optimum through the entire brewing process. Mash pH gets a lot of attention but boil pH and into the fermenter help affect hop utilization and yeast performance.

 

[ajdelange]

If by that you mean that there is an optimum pH at each step of the process that is, of course, true. Fortuitously, if you get the pH right at the first step it more or less tracks throughout the rest though brewers sometimes adjust pH, usually downward in the kettle as a lower pH leads to brighter runoff. The yeast can take care of themselves pretty much but if you present them an environment in which the pH is high they must process sugar to make acid which sugar is, preferrably, processed into beer. This does not mean it is necessary to establish wort pH of 4.5 at pitching. Something close to 5 is generally considered acceptable.

Hop bittering compounds are like any other acid: they are more soluble when dissociated so high pH does increase utilization but that is at the expense of the benefits of lower pH such as biological stability.

 

[Big Monk]

Be picky, enjoy what you enjoy, but you literally can’t say that you friend’s homebrew is worse than yours because you can’t speak for everyone that enjoys beer.

There are, however, objective measures used to gauge the quality of a beer. We can't always hide behind the whole "taste is subjective" rap.

 

[Bassman2003]

If by that you mean that there is an optimum pH at each step of the process that is, of course, true. Fortuitously, if you get the pH right at the first step it more or less tracks throughout the rest though brewers sometimes adjust pH, usually downward in the kettle as a lower pH leads to brighter runoff. The yeast can take care of themselves pretty much but if you present them an environment in which the pH is high they must process sugar to make acid which sugar is, preferrably, processed into beer. This does not mean it is necessary to establish wort pH of 4.5 at pitching. Something close to 5 is generally considered acceptable.

Hop bittering compounds are like any other acid: they are more soluble when dissociated so high pH does increase utilization but that is at the expense of the benefits of lower pH such as biological stability.

Thanks for your reply. I was meaning optimum range but you described it very well. A simple homebrew translation would be to get your pH in the low 5's in the mash and you can't go wrong. Everything else will fall into place. But is interesting to know which levers to pull or push to affect things. This side of brewing is of interest to me.

 

[Bassman2003]

There are, however, objective measures used to gauge the quality of a beer. We can't always hide behind the whole "taste is subjective" rap.

Derek, I always find your posts enlightening. Your name descriptor says you like pH. What are your thoughts about pH focus at the homebrew level? Is it worth tracking down stage by stage or is the Xbeeriment the reality of minute differences?

Thanks for your input!

 

[Big Monk]

Derek, I always find your posts enlightening. Your name descriptor says you like pH. What are your thoughts about pH focus at the homebrew level? Is it worth tracking down stage by stage or is the Xbeeriment the reality of minute differences?

Thanks for your input!

My opinion is that a mash pH of 5.4 is desirable and attainable.

I’m against trying to chase pH through the mash. Use a software that gives reasonable parity between estimates and actuals and take great notes.

I also acidify to 5.0 at flameout.

I think people should really concern themselves with consistency in mash pH.

 

[ajdelange]

There are, however, objective measures used to gauge the quality of a beer. We can't always hide behind the whole "taste is subjective" rap.

We could launch a whole new thread on that statement. Not necessarily suggesting that we do that though so let me pose the question here: What are some of those objective measures? I have the MOAs on the bookshelf so I know what they (or many of them) are so I guess the question isn't so much "What are they?" as it is "How do they relate to or correlate with perceived beer quality?"

 

[Bassman2003]

My opinion is that a mash pH of 5.4 is desirable and attainable.

I’m against trying to chase pH through the mash. Use a software that gives reasonable parity between estimates and actuals and take great notes.

I also acidify to 5.0 at flameout.

I think people should really concern themselves with consistency in mash pH.

Thanks for your reply. Is the 5.0 at flameout for yeast health? Does this vary with beer style? Hefe vs IPA vs Stout...

 

[Big Monk]

We could launch a whole new thread on that statement. Not necessarily suggesting that we do that though so let me pose the question here: What are some of those objective measures? I have the MOAs on the bookshelf so I know what they (or many of them) are so I guess the question isn't so much "What are they?" as it is "How do they relate to or correlate with perceived beer quality?"

Before I get too far into the weeds I’ll make a distinction.

I am in support of the idea that you can’t say a beer is worse than another because you don’t like that style. Here is where subjectivity is king. I personally don’t like spurs but I wouldn’t say that they are worse than X beer, etc.

I guess I was implying that we can taste and detect flaws in beers that would make them objectively worse than a similar beer without them. That would be the objective part.

 

[Gnomebrewer]

I guess I was implying that we can taste and detect flaws in beers that would make them objectively worse than a similar beer without them. That would be the objective part.

Unless a brewer/drinker likes the particular 'flaw' and wants to get it in their beer. Better or worse against a set of criteria doesn't mean better or worse for a particular drinkers tastes.

 

[ajdelange]

I guess I was implying that we can taste and detect flaws in beers that would make them objectively worse than a similar beer without them. That would be the objective part.

And my question was: "What would one of those objectively identifiable flaws be?"

How about DMS. Canned corn! Yuch!

When LaTrobe, famous for its Rolling Rock "ponies" (sold by the bushel basket in a bar in State College, Pa), was bought by whoever it was that bought them the brewing scientists from the new parent descended on the plant and advised what process changes were to be made to get the DMS out of the product. These were carried out and sales plummeted. Thus we have at least one example of an objective "flaw" (I think most everyone here would agree that DMS is a flaw) that was not a flaw in the opinion of that brewery's customers. Quite the contrary. After the "flaw" was "corrected" they wouldn't drink the beer any more.

I remember another conversation with a craft brewery's master brewer. He stated flat out "There is absolutely no place for diacetyl in lager beer!" My response was to ask him whether he had communicated that to Pilsen.

I think a beer with 400 mg/L sulfate is deeply flawed. Colin Kaminsky thinks a beer without 400 mg/L is flawed. The only reason he doesn't brew them is because he can't sell them.

So here are three examples of things which can be objectively measured (though a GC may be required to do it). But when it comes down to it whether a particular level of any of those things is deemed desirable or not the decision is made subjectively. This is why breweries use tasting panels tuned to their customer base's preferences.

 

[Blazinlow86]

I think it would be fair to say if you took a room of 1000 beer enthusiasts and served them a sierra Nevada pale ale as a example vs a home brewed sierra Nevada pale ale clone that omitted all the processes that Bru found irrelevant the actual sierra Nevada brew would win by a very large amount. Could be wrong. Cheers