Mash ph in relation to beer body.

[dogslapbrewery]

I've noticed all my brews have a great flavor but thin out on the back of the pallet. Very similar to beer flavored water or a very crisp light lager. It's great for pale ales but when it comes to hefeweizens or brown ales it's just missing that chewy mouth feel that sits on your tongue. Even when mashing in the high 150's it doesnt change much. Could this caused from bringing my mash ph too low or not having enough calcium chloride? I'd say on average my mash ph is 5.3 at room temp. If the different between mash temp and room temp is .35 I'd say that's my problem? Anyone have experience with mash ph too low or thin body?

 

[schematix]

I was plagued for years for beers that were too thin. Few things I can offer:

1. Mash time - shorter will produce a beer with more body
2. Mash temp - 158-160 for a thick beer.
3. Step mashing - E.g. 15 mins at 145 then 30 mins at 158. This helps with head too from what i've noticed.
4. Mash out - goes along with mash time. When you're done, make sure you're done.
5. Grain bill is important - Hard to built too much body with just base malt. If you're mashing high and you still think you have a thin beer you might need more 'specialty' grains.
6. Hops - good hop balance increases mouthfeel of beer.

 

[dogslapbrewery]

The whole idea behind the two step mash temps about focusing on the individual amylase instead of just sitting in the middle?

 

[schematix]

The whole idea behind the two step mash temps about focusing on the individual amylase instead of just sitting in the middle?

Correct. If you sit in the ~150-152 range both alpha and beta are doing their jobs. This will get you a highly fermentable beer.

Look up a Hockhurz mash. It's what i typically do and find it makes beers with better body and head. It's not a night and day difference from a single infusion mash, but there is a difference.

 

[dogslapbrewery]

Yeah im thinking its a ph issue because i never really experienced this till i started adjusting the ph. Bringing my mash down to 5.3 room temp ive differently noticed the flavors profile has improved. This also has been leaving me with this thin beer that disappears on the back of my tongue so quick. My recipes normally have around 10-20% specialty malt, and i raise my mash up to 170 with a batch sparge after my first runnings, mash has been around 1.5qts/lb at 150-155. Would you guys say body is more heavily weighted on mash ph, mash temp, or you think the perfect recipe for a chewy brew would be 1.25qts per point, mash temp 148- 15 mins, 158- 45 mins, with a mash ph of 5.4-5.6 room temp?

 

[VladOfTrub]

Body comes from A and B limit dextrin. It's an amylopectin, gelatinization, dextrinization, enzyme thing. When mash is boiled, amylopectin is released. When that happens the mash jells. Enzymes take over and limit dextrin forms. Mash pH, thickness and temperature are all pretty important. I am not sure whether one is more important than another, all of the ducks have to line up.

The last two bags of Weyermann's Boh Pils light floor malt that I brewed with had a use by date of 8 Mar and 20 Mar 2017, pretty good. The beer that I made from the first sack turned out with light body/mouth feel and with less sweet taste at the end and a slight back of the throat malt taste, than the beer produced with malt that I used during last winter's brewing season. Last year's malt was richer. Another brewer had a similar experience with this year's light floor malt. When I used the 2nd bag, I compensated by lowering dough in temp to 60F and added an extra decoction. I increased the dextrinization temperature in the main mash and the sacch rest temp in the 1st decoction to a higher point than I normally would use for the style of Lager. Three, decoctions were used and were comprised of thick mash. The mash tun was fired to reach Alpha II and Alpha I rest temps and for mash out. The beer made from the 2nd sack is back on track.

It would be better to keep the pH at 5.3, 5.2 instead of going higher. Temperatures of 148F and 158F are good. Instead of infusing boiling water or firing the mash tun, use a decoction to increase the mash temp from 148F to 158F. Rest the decoction for 10 minutes at 153F and then boil the decoction for 20 minutes. Boiling will release amylopectin and when the decoction is added back into the main mash, Alpha liquefies the amylopectin and A-limit dextrin is left. Non-fermentable sugar and glucose are released at the same time because amylose is hanging around. Skim off the hot break that forms when the decoction is boiling. Boiling the mash will get rid of some of the protein gum, which helps to make sparging easier and produces a cleaner wort.

 

[ajdelange]

The first thing I'd try would be to add a pinch of calcium chloride to a glass of the thin beer as you are drinking it. If the chloride makes it taste fuller then use more in the mash water. Low chloride does indeed make pale beers taste thin but it is, as has been noted here, not the only cause. Beers short of longer sugars will taste thin too.

You should also experiment with higher mash pH's e.g 5.4 - 5.5.

 

[dogslapbrewery]

Body comes from A and B limit dextrin. It's an amylopectin, gelatinization, dextrinization, enzyme thing. When mash is boiled, amylopectin is released. When that happens the mash jells. Enzymes take over and limit dextrin forms. Mash pH, thickness and temperature are all pretty important. I am not sure whether one is more important than another, all of the ducks have to line up.

The last two bags of Weyermann's Boh Pils light floor malt that I brewed with had a use by date of 8 Mar and 20 Mar 2017, pretty good. The beer that I made from the first sack turned out with light body/mouth feel and with less sweet taste at the end and a slight back of the throat malt taste, than the beer produced with malt that I used during last winter's brewing season. Last year's malt was richer. Another brewer had a similar experience with this year's light floor malt. When I used the 2nd bag, I compensated by lowering dough in temp to 60F and added an extra decoction. I increased the dextrinization temperature in the main mash and the sacch rest temp in the 1st decoction to a higher point than I normally would use for the style of Lager. Three, decoctions were used and were comprised of thick mash. The mash tun was fired to reach Alpha II and Alpha I rest temps and for mash out. The beer made from the 2nd sack is back on track.

It would be better to keep the pH at 5.3, 5.2 instead of going higher. Temperatures of 148F and 158F are good. Instead of infusing boiling water or firing the mash tun, use a decoction to increase the mash temp from 148F to 158F. Rest the decoction for 10 minutes at 153F and then boil the decoction for 20 minutes. Boiling will release amylopectin and when the decoction is added back into the main mash, Alpha liquefies the amylopectin and A-limit dextrin is left. Non-fermentable sugar and glucose are released at the same time because amylose is hanging around. Skim off the hot break that forms when the decoction is boiling. Boiling the mash will get rid of some of the protein gum, which helps to make sparging easier and produces a cleaner wort.

My last brew was a dunkelweizen with a double decoction. Mashed in at 120 -15m, 145- 30m, 158- 30m. One thing I noticed was by the time I got my decoction boiling and brought the temp up each step sat for about hour 1/2. Would you just pull the grains out immediately and start the boiling so you don't exceed the set mash time? When you say 5.2-5.3 do you mean 5.5-5.6 at room temp? I think my biggest lost with this particular brew was mashing at 5.3 room temp putting me around 5.0 and each rest going well over 30 mins including the protein rest. It has great taste and smell but once it hits the back of your tongue the flavor is gone.

 

[VladOfTrub]

Ah, you locked onto something that brewers miss!! Yes, by all means, remove the decoction as soon as main mash temp stabilizes. Otherwise, a rest can be over extended. That is why it is better to dough in at temps that keep enzymes in low gear while working with the decoctions. Rest the 1st decoction at 122F, not the entire mash. Trouble can begin when the entire mash is rested at 122F, the beer can become thin. When the entire mash is rested, 115F for 15 minutes is a better choice.

Follow the meter manufacturer's instructions when it comes to temp correction and pH.
It is best to keep the mash in the 5.3, 5.2 range. Around pH 4.6 enzymes stall. The reason for keeping pH low is to stay close to the optimum pH range of beta. Beta is a weak enzyme and since conversion temp is in the optimum range, pH should be optimum as well. Low pH will stagger alpha. Alpha is a very strong enzyme. Keep pH low because mash is boiled a couple of times. When Pils and certain Lager's are brewed, the 1st decoction is rested at 155F to 160F, at that time and only at that time should the pH be in the 5.4 to 5.8 pH range. After that, the brewmaster will adjust pH to benefit enzymatic action during a rest period.

Next time, after sparge, look at the mash and see how much white particles are left. There should be none or very, very, little left. If there is any left, boil the decoctions longer and keep the mash thick in the decoction, especially in the 1st decoction.
The body and sweetness in the finest Pils comes from higher dextrinization and sacch temps.
Alpha liquefies amylose and when the reducing end is formed, alpha liquefies it to a point determined by Mother Nature and what is left is non-fermentable sugar and randomly, A-limit dextrin happens. A-limit dextrin is non-fermentable, it is one of the parts that adds body. I am not sure which of those or if both are long chain sugars. There are large and small A and B limit dextrins. Beta does something similar and releases B-limit dextrin (amylodextrine). Dextrinization starts at 149F. When mash jells, limit dextrin forms.
Beta is responsible for conversion. Beta converts glucose (non reducing end) into maltose, the sugar that helps beer to be beer. Enzymes don't really convert starch into anything.

Whose malt are you using? You might be beating your head against the wall by using poor malt. Malt is not created equal.
Did the mash jell when the decoctions were added back into the main mash?
Did any brownish-tan or grayish colored goop form on top of the grain bed after the mash was dumped into the lautertun?
Did iodine turn reddish-mahogany or no color change?
Reddish-mahogany = body.
No color change = less body

By using iodine a brewer cannot determine whether saccharification or conversion has taken place.

Man, I think that you did pretty good and produced what Mother Nature allowed. Keep at it.

 

[dogslapbrewery]

hmm interesting never thought to bring my ph up a little during the alpha rest. I definitely think I lost this brew with the long protein rear due to trying to get my decoction boiled. This isn't the first brew I've noticed having a really thin almost flavorless body. I just need to brew some more and play with my ph and mash temps. Thanks for the feedback got a lot of valuable knowledge.

 

[ajdelange]

Beta is responsible for conversion. Beta converts glucose (non reducing end) into maltose, the sugar that helps beer to be beer. Enzymes don't really convert starch into anything.

I am curious as to where you got some of the ideas you put in this post. I chose this one as an example as it was the one that hit me in the eye like a wet flounder.

Beta does not convert glucose to maltose and if it did it would use both the reducing end of one glucose and the non reducing end of the other (maltose is a-D-glucopyranosyl-(1-->4)-D-glucopyranose in which the 1 carbon is the reducing carbon and the 4 the non reducing carbon on the other molecule). BTW, 'reducing' here refers to the ability of this end of the sugar molecule to reduce Fehling's solution (a blue Cu(II) complex) to red Cu(I) oxide.

The reactions in the mash tun are extremely complex and still not completely understood (certainly not by me at any rate). A simplified explanation of what happens in essence follows.

The two prevalent types of starch found in barley malt are shown in the sketch. ß-amylase chops off small bits from the non reducing ends (represented by solid hexagons and the singe reducing end, which is at about 4:30 just inside the dashed line, in the amylopectectin part by an asterisk) of both types. As it prefers the penultimate 1-->4 bond at a non reducing end maltose is the sugar produced in greatest proportion. When attacking an amylopectins it can only munch down to within a couple of sugars of a 1-->6 branch points (leaving all the reducing ends within 2 or 3 units of a branch). The result, absent other enzymes, would be a 'limit dextrine' shown by the dashed line in the sketch. Now a-amylase (there are actually 3 of these) can break the 1-->6 bonds allowing ß to continue its march towards the reducing ends resulting in more maltose than there would be if the 1--> 6 bonds were not removed.

This is the executive summary. There is more to it than just this. Other enzymes are involved and other sugars are produced. Each enzyme is effected by temperature (both in terms of reaction kinetics and the length of time it takes to denature it at a given temperature). Brewing practice is determined more by determination of what works best than by activity studies of different enzymes though, of course, those studies lend insight as to what is most likely to work well.

Anyone who wants to understand this better needs to consult a text such as Brewing Science and Practice (Briggs, Boulton, Brookes and Stevens) (from which I got the picture).

As the real goal here is to improve body the followings steps should be taken:
1. Make sure there is enough chloride in the brewing liquor
2. Use a hefty amount of malt (shoot for OG of 12 - 13 °P)
3. Don't rest too long at the protein rest temp (leaving the rest mash at the protein rest temp for as long as it takes takes to process a decoction shouldn't be a problem - at least never has been for me). If you get good head you should have plenty of body.
4. Saccharify at a higher temp (150 °F).

 

[ajdelange]

Follow the meter manufacturer's instructions when it comes to temp correction and pH.

You should, of course, always follow the manufacturer's instructions when using a pH meter but those instructions won't have much to say about temperature correction. All modern (digital) meters include ATC (Automatic Temperature Compensation). Saying that a modern meter incorporates ATC is like saying that a modern car has a steering wheel. What it is very important for tyros to understand is that ATC automatically compensates for the temperature of the electrode. This insures that the meter reads the actual pH of the solution in which it is immersed irrespective of what that temperature may be.

The other side of the coin is that mashes and worts contain acids and that the acidity of an acid depends on how readily the acid yields up its protons. Unsurprisingly, the hotter it is, the easier it is to knock a proton off. Thus the measured pH of mash or wort depends on the temperature of the pH at which you measure it. Most measurements are taken at laboratory (room) temperature but unfortunately few authors with notable exceptions being Jean deClerck (room) and Gordon Strong (mash) specify which. This makes it hard to decode the literature. Generally speaking you will get the best results (best tasting beer - who cares how close you are to the optimum pH of ß-glucanase if the beer tastes better at one pH than another) with mash pH between 5.4 and 5.6 as measured at room temperature and with kettle pH around 5.2., also as measured at room temperature.

It is best to keep the mash in the 5.3, 5.2 range.

As mentioned above the best results will generally be obtained with a mash pH of 5.4 - 5.6 as measured at room temperature.

Around pH 4.6 enzymes stall.

Enzymes are proteins which are long chains of amino acids many of which have ionizeable groups. pH changes the charge on these and thus change the charge on those amino acids thereby changing the shape of the protein molecule. If the shape of the 'keyhole' in the enzyme doesn't match the shape of the 'key' on the starch then the enzyme isn't as effective as it could be. Each enzyme has an 'ideal' range of pH. To operate it at any other pH is to obtain less than ideal performance from it but we do this all the time as the pH's we choose we choose for best beer - not to hit the optimum for any enzyme. Of course we could easily argue that the pH that gives the best beer is the optimum pH for all the enzymes that participate.

The reason for keeping pH low is to stay close to the optimum pH range of beta.

The reason we keep pH where we do is to get the best beer.

After that, the brewmaster will adjust pH to benefit enzymatic action during a rest period.

I don't doubt that tweaking pH throughout a mash program might benefit the beer but discovering the process would certainly be an arduous task. Nor do I doubt that one could probably improve his beers by experimentation to determine which pH in the 5.4 - 5.6 range is best for a particular style and set of materials. Again an arduous task within the capabilities of a large commercial operation.

 

[ajdelange]

WRT #11: Reading over it I think I probably over simplified it with the basic model I presented there being what one would find in older books (one of which* pictured 'Alph', a large molecule with an axe, lopping huge branches off a tree, while 'Betty', clearly his spouse trimmed them into manageable sized logs with a hatchet). I suppose this is adequate to help one keep things basically straight in ones mind but it does really assume that there are only two enzymes, which I guess is how people thoght at one time. At another time everything was assumed to be done by the single enzyme diastase. This two enzyme model assigns to 'Alph' (alpha amylase) more than he actually does, in fact everything that Betty doesn't do. In particular the cleavage of the 1-->6 bonds is really done by other enzymes including the so called 'debranching enzymes' and even, to some extent, ß amylase.

*[Edit: Found it: Dave Line's Big Book of Brewing]

 

[ajdelange]

By using iodine a brewer cannot determine whether saccharification or conversion has taken place.

Well, yes, he can. The iodine test is far from perfect, certainly but it can be quite informative.

It works because starches form into long coils. Tri-iodide ion (dissolve some iodine in a KI solution) gets trapped within these coils (6 glucoses per turn) to form the deep purple to black complex. When the coil is lysed into shorter strings of glucose molecules the ability to trap iodine is lost and the solution decolors. The problem is that amylose helices can trap things besides tri-iodide (fats, proteins) and if they do they can't pick up I-3 and don't produce the deep color pure starch does. Thus a decrease in color intensity is a sure indicator that saccharification has taken place but it would be hard to quantify how much. If two subsequent tests show the same intensity/color it is fair to assume that saccharification is as complete as it is going to be. One might suppose that a better test would be the Fehlings, Tollens, Lane-Eynon or Benedicts tests for reducing sugars. Even easier is to check the gravity of runoff or simply taste the mash liquid to see if it is sweet. I haven't done an iodine test in years.

 

[lhommedieu]

I don't doubt that tweaking pH throughout a mash program might benefit the beer but discovering the process would certainly be an arduous task. Nor do I doubt that one could probably improve his beers by experimentation to determine which pH in the 5.4 - 5.6 range is best for a particular style and set of materials. Again an arduous task within the capabilities of a large commercial operation.

Well, that is certainly damning with faint praise! Adjusting pH throughout the mash is not so arduous a task as one might imagine: grain will have an inherent pH and the mash is easily lowered with the addition of sauer maltz. If one can improve a particular style of beer by manipulating pH and mash temperature (among several other factors) with a proven method, then why not trade convenience for rigor? To each his or her own.

 

[ajdelange]

Apparently you misunderstood. I do strongly advocate estimating, measuring and adjusting mash pH. I gave a paper on the subject at the MBAA conference in Austin three years ago and presented a poster on the subject at the conference in Jacksonville last fall. What I was talking about in the post is adjusting pH for each of the parts of a mash program.

Let's talk home brewers here. Let's say a guy makes no pH adjustment, brews and takes pH measurements throughout the process. For the next brew he adds some sauermalz to the grist, takes careful meaurements again and tastes the two beers to find that the second beer is better. He has discovered that adding some sauermalz improves the beer and notices that pH is lower at all stages of the brewing process than when he added none. He says to himself he is on a good path and so adds more sauermalz to the next batch, notes a further improvement in taste and a further reduction in pH. His thesis is confirmed and he continues to experiment until at some point things start to worsen instead of improve. It may take half a dozen brews of the same style to find this sweet spot and that's if ceteris paribus other than the acid malt applies for each brew.

One of the things he will have noticed in his journey is that given a particular strike pH the pH at the other points in the brew tend to track. Certainly as a starting point he will assume that these pH's (return of first decoction, return of 2nd, return of srd, kettle, knockout) are, if not the optimum, they are pretty close to it but if he is really ardent he may start experimenting with adjusting the pH of the first decoction around where it falls naturally and when he finds an optimum. But this is the optimum given what he decided was best at dough in (the amount of sauer malz originally in the grist). He should really now retest with dough in pH's around what he had originally decided. I hope you see the point I am trying to make which is that it takes a lot of brews, all of the same type that must be brewed under exactly the same conditions except for the pH variations, to fully explore the decision space. Suppose 3 levels of pH are to be tried for dough in, protein rest and saccharification rest. That's 27 brews. The summary point being that while I may have made Pilsner 27 times in my life I am not able to undertake a project of this magnitude for each beer I brew. Now a craft brewery that does Pils 54 times a year or even more might be able to undertake a project like this but most of them (though the number is growing) don't check pH at all.

 

[lhommedieu]

Sure - but why assume my journey is solipsistic? If I move from a first-person perspective to a third-person perspective I find a community of brewers that collectively has made more than 27 beers; must I then validate my process in the manner that you prescribe?

In the process that I have been following sauer maltz is not added at dough-in; it is added after the first decoction.

 

[ajdelange]

Sure - but why assume my journey is solipsistic? If I move from a first-person perspective to a third-person perspective I find a community of brewers that collectively has made more than 27 beers; must I then validate my process in the manner that you prescribe?

One benefits from the community experience of course. It is from the convolution of the community experience with with the individual experience that we can say that 5.4 - 5.6 is probably (note the use of probably) the best range for mash pH. But certainly the community can't be said to supply the ceteris paribus conditions we need to make a firm determination. Even among professionals this problem is recognized. It is the goal of collaborative experiments to try to quantify the resulting uncertainties.

I usually post to the Brew Science thread and sometime forget that I am not posting there when I don't.

In the process that I have been following sauer maltz is not added at dough-in; it is added after the first decoction.

You can, of course, add it at anyplace you want that gives you the benefit you seek. It is reasonable to assume that different pH's for ß-glucan rest, protein rest, saccharifaction rest, lautering and kettle will give the best beer. It is also reasonable to assume that adjustments from the natural trajectory may give noticeably better results than just following the natural trajectory. If you can find those deviations using collaborative data or no, then I applaud your effort and encourage you to publish what you find. In fact I applaud the effort whether you succeed or not.

 

[lhommedieu]

One benefits from the community experience of course. It is from the convolution of the community experience with with the individual experience that we can say that 5.4 - 5.6 is probably (note the use of probably) the best range for mash pH. But certainly the community can't be said to supply the ceteris paribus conditions we need to make a firm determination. Even among professionals this problem is recognized. It is the goal of collaborative experiments to try to quantify the resulting uncertainties.

I usually post to the Brew Science thread and sometime forget that I am not posting there when I don't.

You can, of course, add it at anyplace you want that gives you the benefit you seek. It is reasonable to assume that different pH's for ß-glucan rest, protein rest, saccharifaction rest, lautering and kettle will give the best beer. It is also reasonable to assume that adjustments from the natural trajectory may give noticeably better results than just following the natural trajectory. If you can find those deviations using collaborative data or no, then I applaud your effort and encourage you to publish what you find. In fact I applaud the effort whether you succeed or not.

Setting aside for the moment the action of other enzymes in the mash, can we agree that the pH range of 5.4 - 5.6 is generally used for mashing because it is assumed to fall between the optimum pH for Alpha and the optimum pH for Beta? The same for mash temperature: a brewer decides to mash at 150F for a particular style because the temperature falls between the optimum mashing temperatures for Alpha and Beta, respectively? At some point a set of conventions emerges, as evidenced in the popular brewing literature, whether one is brewing using infusion method, step mash, or decoction method (Palmer, Strong, Noonan, e.g.). With respect to decoction method, the two-enzyme model to which you allude above is popular (but that is not to say that the actions of other enzymes are simply ignored), and pH/temperature ranges are scheduled accordingly - especially if the brewer is dialed in to the base malt that he or she is using.

 

[ajdelange]

Setting aside for the moment the action of other enzymes in the mash, can we agree that the pH range of 5.4 - 5.6 is generally used for mashing because it is assumed to fall between the optimum pH for Alpha and the optimum pH for Beta?

If this were Brew Science I would say that this approach represents a simple model in which it is assumed that there are only two enzymes at work and so I guess I'll say it here too. The model doesn't represent the absolute truth but it allows one to predict what might happen in the real world under a given set of conditions. IOW it is a useful model.

I would also ask what 'optimum' means in this case. Fastest conversion? Most complete conversion? Best beer? If the latter 'best' has to be defined for the beer too because we need to recognize that the best beer in one drinker's opinion may not be the best in the mind of another.

I shoot for the pH that produces the beer I personally like best. The brewer at the local brew pub shoots for the beer that sells best even though he would do things differently if he were brewing it for himself.

The same for mash temperature: a brewer decides to mash at 150F for a particular style because the temperature falls between the optimum mashing temperatures for Alpha and Beta, respectively?

At this point in time I think brewers appreciate the effects of temperature variation more than they do pH but understanding of the effects of pH is advancing as reliable and affordable pH meters are now available. Again, the two enzyme model is useful but does not tell the whole story. And again, as with pH, the concept of multiple enzymes, each doing mysterious things to imprecisely known substrates to produce different spectra of flavor compounds with some spectra producing more pleasing beers than others (dependent on different optimality criteria) helps me to understand better what is likely to happen if I do, or don't do, certain things.

At some point a set of conventions emerges, as evidenced in the popular brewing literature, whether one is brewing using infusion method, step mash, or decoction method (Palmer, Strong, Noonan, e.g.). With respect to decoction method, the two-enzyme model to which you allude above is popular (but that is not to say that the actions of other enzymes are simply ignored), and pH/temperature ranges are scheduled accordingly

That's the way I see it.

- especially if the brewer is dialed in to the base malt that he or she is using.

I think 'dialing in' is the critical part of the process. One uses the conventional wisdom to make his decisions about what he is going to do in his first shot at, for example, Pilsner. Add 1/2 gram CaCl2 to each liter of water, use 3% sauermalz in the grist, dough in at room temperature, check pH, raise to 105, pull first decoction, return decoction to hit 122, check pH... The second time he brews it he might use a bit more or less sauermalz resulting in different dough in pH and the beer might be better or worse. There is obviously an infinite number of tweaks he an try on subsequent brews (add more CaCl2, hold the sauermalz until the decoction is returned, shoot for 125 on return...) but we've discussed that earlier. Given patience, luck and skill eventually he will evolve a beer that is more to his liking than what he started with. The obvious question is "When does better become the enemy of good enough?" In my personal opinion, with home brewing, the answer is "never".

 

[ajdelange]

An important point I forgot to mention in #20 is that should you be fortunate enough to have tuned your process to the point where you think your beer is way better than it used to be and then change equipment (for example increase the size of all of it because you want to make 20 gal batches instead of 5) then you will have to start the tuning process over - not from 0 but you will have to make changes. The point being that it isn't just temperature and pH that determine what the enzymes do to your raw materials.

Perhaps the broad conclusion is that there are more variables than we can hope to understand and control. Thus brewing is an art rather than a science. It helps the artist to understand the science of course. Had Vermeer never visited van Leeuwenhoek the Girl with the Pearl Earring wouldn't be what she is.

 

[lhommedieu]

True - but had Vermeer not been Vermeer, she wouldn't be what she is either, lol. Agreed that it is a balancing act; both sides are important. I find myself at the beginning of a journey in both respects.