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

[Silver_Is_Money]

Let's say I'm brewing a Pale Ale using a simple recipe of 2-row, Chrystal malt and 100% untreated RO strike water. Where the predicted pH is 5.57 would you mash as is and adjust only the pre-boil kettle pH @Silver_Is_Money?

Yes! And I've amended my above post to better reflect and clarify this this.

 

[dmtaylor]

Let's say I'm brewing a Pale Ale using a simple recipe of 2-row, Chrystal malt and 100% untreated RO strike water. Where the predicted pH is 5.57 would you mash as is and adjust only the pre-boil kettle pH @Silver_Is_Money?

I agree. And would keep in mind, a good dose of gypsum might be desirable in a pale ale, which could be added pre-boil as part of the pH adjustment -- calcium should bring pH down a little bit, so you shouldn't need to add as much phosphoric or lactic or other acid.

 

[Robert65]

Yes also. I would not worry about making serious efforts to adjust the mash up or down unless it will be completely outside the acceptable range, that is say 5.5-5.8 as @Silver_Is_Money says, assuming that in the case of the higher end mash pH, non alkaline sparge liquor is to be used. And I wouldn't worry about that drop of acid in RO sparge. The buffers in the mash are more than sufficient to overcome the nominal alkalinity of imperfect RO. In fact I'm not yet sure how much to worry about a mash at 5.4 IF the alternative is excessive addition of salts that one doesn't want for some other reason. (I'm currently mulling over this problem regarding my own Dunkel recipe.) There is some leeway in the mash, I think. The enzymes are happy over a wide range of conditions. It is chilled wort that needs to be on target.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

Ok, I got that thanks. For the same Pale Ale example, what pre-boil kettle pH value would you target then?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Ok, I got that thanks. For the same Pale Ale example, what pre-boil kettle pH value would you target then?

Well, you don't "quite" target a specific pre-boil pH. Rather you (or at least, I, as with my 'Kettle pH Made Easy' software) use measured pre boil parameters (pH, volume, and SG) by which to make an adjustment that will bring post boil and cooling pH into the measured range of 5.0 to 5.2 pH (with 5.2 said by some to present more of a hop presence, as can for example be seen [as one point of reference, albeit it admittedly being anything but peer reviewed] on page 56 of "Brew Like A Monk").

But then again, peer reviewed data indicates that once pre-boil pH is reduced to 5.2 (or lower), there will be no further drop witnessed or measured across the boil, so hitting 5.2 pH pre-boil should result in hitting 5.2 pH post boil. The same source indicates that the higher the pre boil pH is, the greater the drop in pH witnessed during the boil. This being why (I speculate) many on this forum only report seeing a 0.1 to 0.15 pH point drop across the boil, whereas the peer reviewed commercial level masters routinely report seeing 0.3 or more points of pH drop. With my speculative reasoning here being that the amateur home brewer is basked in circular reasoning based (and also flawed) learning that dictates 5.2 to 5.6 room temperature measured mash pH (more often than not favoring 5.2 to 5.4), while the commercials shoot for 5.5 to 5.8 room temperature measured mash pH. The commercials mash higher, and thereby can and do see 0.3 points of pH drop on average across the boil, vs. the amateur home brewer mashing routinely lower in pH, and thereby seeing only 0.1 to 0.15 pH points of drop on average. It all intuitively adds up. And as such it can be seen as yet another potential proof for the contention which I initiated in the OP of this thread.

 

[Robert65]

And again, you don't want to acidify pre boil, but near the end.

 

[Qhrumphf]

I don't presently sparge, so I don't experience a rise in run-off pH as a consequence of sparging, but mitigating that issue via knocking out sparge water alkalinity to a trivial level via acidifying it to 5.4-5.5 pH has always been very good advice, as is the advice to never over-sparge.

Technically, the HCO3- bicarbonate species that causes most alkalinity fully ceases to exist in water at pH 4.5 [some say pH 4.3]. A single drop (0.1 mL) of 88% lactic acid added to 5 gallons of truly excellent RO water should bring it to the 4.3-4.5 pH range, or even potentially a tad lower, particularly if it is by some miracle fully alkalinity free to begin with, albeit that RO does indeed have a small level of extant alkalinity, and if high enough one drop of acid will not get you there. If you have concern that your sparge RO may not be of the highest quality, adding a single drop of lactic acid to it won't hurt anything (even if it does result in 4.3 pH) and will reduce extant alkalinity. The buffering capacity of the grist, even though it is continually being eroded away via sparging, will assure you that a single drop of lactic acid added to 5 gallons of RO sparge water will cause no harm. Short version: It can't hurt, but it may help.

Yes, I understand that. And when I'm brewing 5 gallons it's easy to neutralize with acid, and I do. But you didn't read what I wrote.

Rather, your thread is titled "evidence that commercial brewers are blankety blank".

And most of your (smaller to midsize at least) commercial brewers

1) aren't brewing with RO water, but filtered city water. RO filters maybe aren't in the budget and take a lot longer to run than carbon filters. So "use RO" is simply not helpful advice

2) don't have the ability to dose a single sparge volume with acid, just dose the entire hot liquor tank. Dosing the mash with salts and acid is easier. Sparge is a not. A good setup can dose inline. But when buildout goes over budget, that can get cut (if it was ever considered). So either completely empty the HLT between every turn and wait for it to heat again, with all the nightmare of getting the doses right, and completely destroy continuous production, or dose as you go with a constantly changing variable, or constant daily titration and adjustment. Or just, don't bother.

3) Do and will continue to sparge. No-sparge is inefficient compared to sparging. Period. Grain costs money. And pushing to the limits of grain potential maximizes its use. Because grain costs money.

So. Should a commercial brewery go to enormous efforts and cost to retrofit in an RO filter just so they can raise their mash pH, solely to acidity it back down in the kettle?

Why?

You're painting things with a broad, unnecessary brush.

For no real reason. As it's easily mitigated. By simpler, cheaper methods.

Circle jerk.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

And again, you don't want to acidify pre boil, but near the end.

But several of my Beta testers for 'Kettle pH Made Easy' have indicated to me that they see improvement in their beers while doing exactly what you advise against.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

2) don't have the ability to dose a single sparge volume with acid, just dose the entire hot liquor tank. Dosing the mash with salts and acid is easier. Sparge is a not. A good setup can dose inline. But when buildout goes over budget, that can get cut (if it was ever considered). So either completely empty the HLT between every turn and wait for it to heat again, with all the nightmare of getting the doses right, and completely destroy continuous production, or dose as you go with a constantly changing variable, or constant daily titration and adjustment. Or just, don't bother.

A.J. deLange's "zero alkalinity" brewing method should work well for those with equipment not capable of treating their mash and sparge waters separately. Why would anyone intentionally sparge with higher alkalinity water?

What I see here is an attempt to rationalize away an issue, rather than factually address it. And also I see here the application of what is known in philosophy as "The argument from intimidation" (such as using "circle jerk" as if it had any meaningful level of validity aside from intimidation).

 

[Qhrumphf]

A.J. deLange's "zero alkalinity" brewing method should work well for those with equipment not capable of treating their mash and sparge waters separately. Why would anyone intentionally sparge with higher alkalinity water?

What I see here is an attempt to rationalize away an issue, rather than address it.

If (as most posters in this thread seem to agree), mash pH seems to be fairly inconsequential compared to kettle pH, and properly acidifying the mash flows downstream to the appropriate pH down the line, then why fix what isn't broken? Because inconsistent and ambiguous literature might say so?

It's an answer in search of a question.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

If (as most posters in this thread seem to agree), mash pH seems to be fairly inconsequential compared to kettle pH, and properly acidifying the mash flows downstream to the appropriate pH down the line, then why fix what isn't broken? Because inconsistent and ambiguous literature might say so?

It's an answer in search of a question.

Most home brewers likely do not adjust their kettle pH (let alone for many, their mash pH). Let's agree that kettle pH is the more important of the two. On that we seem to find common ground.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Most home brewers likely do not adjust their kettle pH (let alone for many, their mash pH). Let's agree that kettle pH is the more important of the two. On that we seem to find common ground.

The same can be said for a shameful number of commercial breweries, that don't even own a pH meter. Including some pretty decent sized ones.

And hell, for brewers who do check pH, it's mash only (or even just water). Runnings pH, kettle/KO pH, and beer pH aren't even a thought.

 

[TheMadKing]

If (as most posters in this thread seem to agree), mash pH seems to be fairly inconsequential compared to kettle pH, and properly acidifying the mash flows downstream to the appropriate pH down the line, then why fix what isn't broken? Because inconsistent and ambiguous literature might say so?

It's an answer in search of a question.

This is exactly where I'm at now as well after sleeping on it and thinking.

Unless it is addressing a specific problem in the mash, why do it?

The argument of "it makes better beer" doesn't hold water. Better how? What specific thing does it change to cause this improvement? Is that an objective "better"? Or a subjective "better"?

If the problem cannot be explicitly defined, then either it is not understood, or there is no problem. Until you can define the problem you can't postulate solutions with any more precision than guessing.

I have absolutely no heartburn with targeting a mash pH of 5.5-5.6, acidifying my sparge water, and then acidifying in the kettle because it makes zero real change to my brew day. But on a commercial system things may not be as flexible, so it makes perfect sense that it could be easier to mash at a lower pH and forgoe sparge water acid.

Adjust the process to the ingredients, that is a fundamental rule of business. work with the tools you have until you have the excess capital to upgrade your tools.

We as homebrewers can lose sight of the fact that this is a hobby and we can spend extra money to achieve maximum quality without doing a cost benefit analysis.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

It's an answer in search of a question.

The question as I see it is a matter of where ones faith resides. If one places faith in what is a vast myriad of amateur home brewer level literature that may be "circle jerking" us (if I may borrow your terminology here, whereas I vastly prefer the term "circular reasoning", wherein one text merely references another blindly, as verified by Bamforth), then one will faithfully mash at 5.2 to 5.6 pH (favoring most often the 5.2 to 5.4 side of this range) as measured at 'nominal' room temperature. If one places faith in peer reviewed commercial brewing level documents (albeit admittedly being both obscure and scant in quantity), one mashes at 5.5 to 5.8 pH as measured at room temperature (and subsequently adjusts to achieve pH 5.0 to 5.2 post boil and cooling). My faith has transitioned from the former to the latter.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

The same can be said for a shameful number of commercial breweries, that don't even own a pH meter. Including some pretty decent sized ones.

And hell, for brewers who do check pH, it's mash only (or even just water). Runnings pH, kettle/KO pH, and beer pH aren't even a thought.

I fully concur! A.J. deLange once stated that more than 2/3 of the commercial level brewers he addresses don't own pH meters, or keep them in a drawer if they do own one. But I speculate that the majority of these types transitioned from home brewing to commercial brewing without seeking formal brewing educations first.

 

[hopjuice_71]

If (as most posters in this thread seem to agree), mash pH seems to be fairly inconsequential compared to kettle pH, and properly acidifying the mash flows downstream to the appropriate pH down the line, then why fix what isn't broken? Because inconsistent and ambiguous literature might say so?

It's an answer in search of a question.

I'm not sure it I read the intended message correctly, but if you can hit the exact right mash pH every time and end up with a good kettle pH then that would be fantastic. However, what I was finding is that I would use software to target a mash pH and, even though these are impressive programs, on average I was only within 0.2 pH units of what I wanted, often worse. But the time you know this in your mash it is usually too late to do anything. So, if I hit a mash pH of 5.7 my starting kettle pH would be around 5.7. If I hit 5.3 it would be 5.3, etc. For various reasons, I don't re-brew the exact same beer over and over again, so making mash adjustments batch to batch is a crap shoot. I think this was leading to small inconsistencies in my beer similar to those TheMadKing described. Setting the pH in the kettle by dropping them to a consistent value really improved things, particularly the consistency and quality of my hoppy beers, which I brew a lot of. And, as I mentioned, adjusting kettle pH is a lot easier (at least for me).

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

There are often simply too many drifting variables and flat out unknowns going on within the mash to allow for much better than a consistent 0.2 points of routine pH measurement precision via the use of mash pH assistant software, so again we find agreement. The case for using post mash and pre-boil level software to find, adjust accordingly within the kettle, and then actually hit a post boil and cooling target is much better as to its potential for precision. That is what my Beta testers (and myself thereby) have discovered.

 

[Qhrumphf]

The question as I see it is a matter of where ones faith resides. If one places faith in what is a vast myriad of amateur home brewer level literature that may be "circle jerking" us (if I may borrow your terminology here, whereas I vastly prefer the term "circular reasoning", wherein one text merely references another blindly, as verified by Bamforth), then one will faithfully mash at 5.2 to 5.6 pH (favoring most often the 5.2 to 5.4 side of this range) as measured at 'nominal' room temperature. If one places faith in peer reviewed commercial brewing level documents (albeit admittedly being both obscure and scant in quantity), one mashes at 5.5 to 5.8 pH as measured at room temperature. My faith has transitioned from the former to the latter.

"Self-congratulatory academic exercise" was more my intent. But my previous "answer in search of a question" phrasing sums it up as well.

But I agree in general. And if there was an issue, I'd sooner be looking to Kunze than Papazian for answers. If there was an issue. And beyond any literature source, I put my faith in my own practical and experimental data.

In my case, when I dove into pH at first, I was using the homebrew sources, and going for 5.2-5.3 room temp. While it was an improvement over doing nothing, the results weren't perfect (beers often thin and sharp). I dialed that up to 5.45 as my preferred magic number, though higher in heavy roast malt beers. This allows me to run-off to "oversparging" levels by again homebrew lore, without detriment, and all my pHs fall in line, through the end of fermentation.

To my mind, if I'd have to actually add alkalinity for many of my beers to further raise the mash pH (currently only have to with porters and stouts), only to turn around and acid back in the kettle, for a reason that literature can't agree on, for flavor reasons that aren't necessary, why?

Hence my assessment as a self-congratulatory academic exercise.

 

[Qhrumphf]

I'm not sure it I read the intended message correctly, but if you can hit the exact right mash pH every time and end up with a good kettle pH then that would be fantastic. However, what I was finding is that I would use software to target a mash pH and, even though these are impressive programs, on average I was only within 0.2 pH units of what I wanted, often worse. But the time you know this in your mash it is usually too late to do anything. So, if I hit a mash pH of 5.7 my starting kettle pH would be around 5.7. If I hit 5.3 it would be 5.3, etc. For various reasons, I don't re-brew the exact same beer over and over again, so making mash adjustments batch to batch is a crap shoot. I think this was leading to small inconsistencies in my beer similar to those TheMadKing described. Setting the pH in the kettle by dropping them to a consistent value really improved things, particularly the consistency and quality of my hoppy beers, which I brew a lot of. And, as I mentioned, adjusting kettle pH is a lot easier (at least for me).

Depending on the beer, often (though not always) still need to add a touch of acid in the kettle. Rare cases in whirlpool as well. I didn't intend to imply it was perfect. But can reliably get most of the way in the mash, while most importantly keeping sparge pH down.


(Edit: I also brew a lot of the same things over and over since I do this for a living. On the rare occasion I brew small scale or at home, especially with something I haven't brewed before, yes, it's much less predictable, but even then I know my system and my water well enough I can get pretty close)

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

"Self-congratulatory academic exercise" was more my intent. But my previous "answer in search of a question" phrasing sums it up as well.

But to be fair, I did not participate in any of the Beta testing so as to not introduce any level of "confirmation bias" (what you are calling self congratulatory academics, and thereby once again sneaking in the argument from intimidation). I only modified the software in accordance with Beta tester provided data and feedback until they themselves were uniformly satisfied with it. My pH meter was on the fritz the whole time, and I just received my new one, so I have yet to confirm what my testers are confirming for the software. My self aggrandizement is thus yet to come.

 

[hopjuice_71]

Depending on the beer, often (though not always) still need to add a touch of acid in the kettle. Rare cases in whirlpool as well. I didn't intend to imply it was perfect. But can reliably get most of the way in the mash, while most importantly keeping sparge pH down.


(Edit: I also brew a lot of the same things over and over since I do this for a living. On the rare occasion I brew small scale or at home, especially with something I haven't brewed before, yes, it's much less predictable, but even then I know my system and my water well enough I can get pretty close)

Being a pro, I suspect you also have the advantage of consistently sourcing your grains and knowing them very well, then using the same/similar grains repeatedly, even if you change up the recipe. This would be great.

One of my issues has been that even though I buy grains in bulk, availability changes and they are not always from the same maltster. For example, I went through three sacks of MO in the last year and they were all from different maltsters. In terms of hitting pHs and yield - they all performed differently in the mash. By the time I sort of figure out whats going on the sack is gone. The current sack of Bairds is the weirdest of the three. Anyways, just highlights one of the potential challenges regarding the homebrewer and mash pH. Adjusting kettle pH is a good tool to have in the toolbox.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

If (as most posters in this thread seem to agree), mash pH seems to be fairly inconsequential compared to kettle pH, and properly acidifying the mash flows downstream to the appropriate pH down the line, then why fix what isn't broken? Because inconsistent and ambiguous literature might say so?

What about the benefits gained when mashing within pH 5.2 to 5.5? Plenty has been written about them over the years.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Being a pro, I suspect you also have the advantage of consistently sourcing your grains and knowing them very well, then using the same/similar grains repeatedly, even if you change up the recipe. This would be great.

One of my issues has been that even though I buy grains in bulk, availability changes and they are not always from the same maltster. For example, I went through three sacks of MO in the last year and they were all from different maltsters. In terms of hitting pHs and yield - they all performed differently in the mash. By the time I sort of figure out whats going on the sack is gone. The current sack of Bairds is the weirdest of the three. Anyways, just highlights one of the potential challenges regarding the homebrewer and mash pH. Adjusting kettle pH is a good tool to have in the toolbox.

There's still plenty of lot/year variation, but it certainly doesn't hurt. But I've never had a hard time at least keeping the same maltster at home. Hops are the bigger wild card.

What about the benefits gained when mashing within pH 5.2 to 5.5? Plenty has been written about them over the years.

My preference for 5.45 isn't based on literature but brewing hundreds of batches across various styles and finding that a reliable baseline. That also means others may get different results. There are so many variables in the brewing process at both home and pro levels that finding something that works (and that can be empirically verified) for you, your ingredients, and your system is paramount. Literature can guide you, but trying to match literature for its own sake (that falls short of consensus) is foolish in my opinion.

By all means, experiment. If you find a 20C mash pH at 5.2 or 5.8 (or measure at mash temp, however that's done properly, I'm admittedly not clear on the calibration/ATC chemistry ramifications, I just know the shift exists), or wherever down the line, gives you the results you want, consistently, then you should be doing that.

 

[hopjuice_71]

What about the benefits gained when mashing within pH 5.2 to 5.5? Plenty has been written about them over the years.

Just wondering what benefits you are referring to specifically? When considering the final beer product, in my opinion, it is very hard to find sources where the mash pH is disentangled from the kettle pH (see earlier post). So are the benefits inherent to whats going on in the mash, or because a certain mash pH results in a beneficial kettle pH? I guess this is the heart of the circular discussion we have going on.

What I have consistently seen in the literature is that the reported optimal mash pHs will provide the fastest starch conversion, but conversion is still complete with the same yield over quite a wide pH range (between 5 to 6.0, IRC, and maybe even lower) for a typical 60 minute mash. Also there is some influence on eventual attenuation over a reasonable pH range (again 5-6, IRC), but effect was small and I don't recall pre-fermentation pHs being normalized, which may factor into yeast performance. Anyways, the fermentability seems at least similar, if not identical. So, specific to the mash, IMO there appears to be some leeway, unless your goal is to have it convert as fast as possible. This of course is all academic....

[edit: not sure how a blank image got attached to this and I can't figure out how to get rid of it..]

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

@hopjuice_71 let's say beer color, clarity and reduced chill haze in the finished beer for example. It's been said that a mash pH near 5.20 will enhance those characteristics in the wort. What if those same grains were mashed at 5.60 pH and later adjusted downward to 5.20 in the kettle. Would those two batches of wort have the same characteristics related to color, clarity and reduced chill haze?

 

[hopjuice_71]

@hopjuice_71 let's say beer color, clarity and reduced chill haze in the finished beer for example. It's been said that a mash pH near 5.20 will enhance those characteristics in the wort. What if those same grains were mashed at 5.60 pH and later adjusted downward to 5.20 in the kettle. Would those two batches of wort have the same characteristics related to color, clarity and reduced chill haze?

Yeah, a fantastic question. This is exactly the kind of experiment I haven't been able to find any data for, though it is possible Google Scholar and Web of Science are letting me down (they haven't before though). My gut (and some personal anecdotal experience, for what little that is worth to anybody but me....) says the batches would have the same characteristics. Many would argue that the batches would be indistinguishable regardless of adjusting kettle pH, but I don't think I am onboard with that, particularly when high hopping rates might be involved.

[Edit - PS. love the tagline in your signature. I use it when teaching to emphasize learning concepts, rather than facts. Undergraduate students love it]

 

[Bilsch]

@hopjuice_71 let's say beer color, clarity and reduced chill haze in the finished beer for example. It's been said that a mash pH near 5.20 will enhance those characteristics in the wort. What if those same grains were mashed at 5.60 pH and later adjusted downward to 5.20 in the kettle. Would those two batches of wort have the same characteristics related to color, clarity and reduced chill haze?

One big difference in my mind would be better attenuation in the one mashed at 5.6, with a kettle acid addition to 5.2 especially when using continental malts and or ones slightly less modified.

 

[hopjuice_71]

One big difference in my mind would be better attenuation in the one mashed at 5.6, with a kettle acid addition to 5.2 especially when using continental malts and or ones slightly less modified.

Out of curiosity, do you think the lower attenuation from mashing at a lower pH might be overcome by a longer mash, more maybe using a judiciously selected step mash?

 

[Bilsch]

Yes certainly working a mash longer in the beta range results in a more fermentable wort. There are other factors that help like selecting a malt with a lower gelatinization temp and of course keeping your pH in the sweet spot. Where that is exactly is possibly now less certain considering the information from this thread.

 

[Bilsch]

By the way.. it's been impressive reading along here over the last few days. So much actual science being discussed, papers quoted, experiences related and everyone just getting along regardless of their position on this matter. Had to check a couple of times to be sure what forum I was on.