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

[Die_Beerery]

You're focused on creating world-class German lagers with German malts and German processes, and I know you have that down to a science. However, there are whole other countries and continents with their own malts and flavors they're trying to achieve.

German, Belgian, Nordic, British, American, etc malts aren't interchangable, right? Therefore it's helpful to include caveats like: step mashes are regarded as necessary when brewing German styles (which should only be brewed with German malts).
I think that helps avoid contention.

I have never once mentioned myself in this. This is the German mentality. This was prefaced by saying Germans in literally everything I talked about. Thought this was clear.

 

[RPh_Guy]

I have never once mentioned myself in this. This is the German mentality. This was prefaced by saying Germans in literally everything I talked about. Thought this was clear.

It was clear to me because I've asked you about this already. I'm trying to help make sure everyone else understands too.

Maybe they did understand, and in that case I'm sorry that this was just all unnecessary (though I doubt it).

I'm wondering if ideal mash pH varies by the malt/maltster, or more generally the country of origin, not to mention personal taste, because it's obvious that varies widely. I agree with you and @Gnomebrewer it's good to try things for yourself rather than just following others based on their own set of parameters and/or preferences. It is still difficult though because pH is a continuous variable among dozens of other variables, some of which may be somehow linked to mash pH. If you build a matrix of all the different variables you'd have to brew thousands of highly-controlled batches to really dial in your optimized practices to achieve desired outcomes for a range of styles and recipes.

It's frustrating but part of the fun of brewing.
Rambling a little, been drinking my wine...

 

[Brewbuzzard]

Essentially much the same Wyermann data, from the same source, only presented a bit differently. In this graph a (hot?) Mash pH of 5.40 corresponds to a (room temp?) Wort pH of about 5.64.

View attachment 671010

http://lowoxygenbrewing.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Weyermann_TKW_Mash-pH_2010.pdf

Danke

 

[Big Monk]

Yea I think Belgian beer is vile so. I’m the wrong guy to answer that.

How rude!

 

[Big Monk]

Worlds finest is kind of an overstatement I would say, plus Rochefort has such a distinct astringency/bitterness that could be attributed to this high PH, not sure as I gave up on drinking Belgium beer regularly years ago as I've come to appreciate light delicate beers. While I enjoy a Rochefort every now and then, that astringency that they have make it stand out amongst all the Trappist beers, hell Belgium beers while I think about it. Although, over time that astringency goes away, say 8+ years, I just had a 10 last week that was 12 years old and what do you know, the astringency was gone.

It’s odd, because astringency is not something I get out of any of the Trappist beers. Are you sure you aren’t responding in some way to the ester and higher alcohol content?

In particular, if you are used to drinking lagers (which I enjoy almost as much as my Trappist and Belgian beer), the flavor profiles of the Trappists can be very jarring.

 

[RPh_Guy]

Or phenolics. ?

 

[Big Monk]

And who cares if 11,000 people like Rochefort and think it’s perfect - I can probably find 10x that number who think the same of Bud Light.

Other than some of the iconic pale ales and macro lagers, “Belgian”* beers stray the farthest from that essential “beery-ness” found in other beers around the world. They tend to be an acquired taste and given the variety, i.e. Trappist, Abbey, Sours, regional specialties, etc., it’s hard to pin down what people are referring to specifically within that framework.

I’m no stranger to their beers. Yet there are some I’m not fond of. I love the Trappists but tend to find Abbey beers hit or miss. I generally like red and brown sours from Belgium but really prefer Rodenbach. Saisons really aren’t my thing but I like DuPont.

I think some people factor in the aggregate weight of opinion when using beeradvocate or ratebeer so those values should be taken with a grain of salt. What counts is that in my opinion Rochefort makes some of my favorite beers.

*(I use quotations because unlike other countries like Britain, Germany, and the US, whose beers can be said to share flavor profiles across the whole geographic spread for the most part, Belgium has one of the most idiosyncratic and varied beer cultures in the world)

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

On page 34 of Gordon Strong's book titled: ''Brewing Better Beer: Master Lessons for Advanced Homebrewers" is found this statement:

"The mash pH should be in the 5.2 to 5.5 range with a target of about 5.3. Note that mash pH is measured at mash temperatures, not cooled."

This guy is a (the only?) three-time winner of the coveted National Homebrew Competition Ninkasi Award.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Adding Weyermann's 0.22 pH points to convert the above stated mash pH's at mash temperature to room temperature measured "Wort pH" results in a target range of 5.42 to 5.72, with a midrange of 5.57 pH, and with Gordon's personally preferred target weighing in at 5.52 pH.

 

[Dustin_J]

On page 34 of Gordon Strong's book titled: ''Brewing Better Beer: Master Lessons for Advanced Homebrewers" is found this statement:

This guy is a (the only?) three-time winner of the coveted National Homebrew Competition Ninkasi Award.

Gordon rescinded his statement on pH measurement temp, FYI: https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=17065.msg218442#msg218442

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Seems like he must have caved to pressure. There is sufficient peer reviewed evidence presented within this thread to indicate that he initially had it right.

The real question is, given how distinctly he wrote it in his book, what sort of pH measurement does (or did) he actually do? And why does he say that "pro brewers" led him astray? And was that before or after he was winning an unprecedented number of top level national awards?

 

[Big Monk]

On page 34 of Gordon Strong's book titled: ''Brewing Better Beer: Master Lessons for Advanced Homebrewers" is found this statement:

This guy is a (the only?) three-time winner of the coveted National Homebrew Competition Ninkasi Award.

All due respect but I don’t believe he ever won that award for a beer. He snuck in with Cider or Mead if I’m not mistaken.

That’s beside the point anyway. He could be wrong about anything just like anyone else.

 

[Big Monk]

Seems like he must have caved to pressure. There is sufficient peer reviewed evidence presented within this thread to indicate that he initially had it right.

The real question is, given how distinctly he wrote it in his book, what sort of pH measurement does (or did) he actually do? And why does he say that "pro brewers" led him astray? And was that before or after he was winning an unprecedented number of top level national awards?

You could go back to the first English edition of De Clerck's “A Textbook of Brewing”, from 1957 (IIRC), and read that pH optima are quoted for cooled wort.

Using room temperature pH optima has not steered me wrong as of yet.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

You could go back to the first English edition of De Clerck's “A Textbook of Brewing”, from 1957 (IIRC), and read that pH optima are quoted for cooled wort.

Using room temperature pH optima has not steered me wrong as of yet.

What pH optima did he specify for "Wort" prior to adjusting it (either just pre, or during , or post boil) so as to achieve 5.0-5.2 post boil and cooling. I've expressedly stated that pH should be measured upon cooled Wort, but my distinction (and I believe also Weyermann's) is that at that juncture it is a Wort pH that one is measuring, and no longer is it technically a mash pH, whereby via the application of the Weyerman 0.22 point offset one sees a means to "presume" mash pH from "de-facto" wort pH.

The EBC standard for measuring Wort pH is to do so at 20 degrees C., but this does not make what is being measured a mash pH. Wort pH is at room temperature and mash pH is at mash temperature.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

RPIScotty, what is your understanding of the Weyermann Mash pH and Wort pH dichotomy witnessed within their presentation?

 

[Big Monk]

RPIScotty, what is your understanding of the Weyermann Mash pH and Wort pH dichotomy witnessed within their presentation?

First things first: I love Weyermann but you can’t hang your hat on them from the standpoint of language.

For instance, they call DI pH of their grains Wort pH.

For their premade Sauergut, they refer to Mash pH dosage specifications and and Wort (Kettle) pH specifications:

In “pH in the brewery” it seems they are referring to Mash Temp pH (Mash pH) and Room Temp pH (Wort pH).

That’s 3 different interpretations of “Wort pH” by the premier maltster in the world. Like everything in these “Room Temp Vs. Mash Temp” discussions it often comes down to semantics and not everyone, including leadings companies and super smart researchers, are ever real clear about what they mean.

So long story short: measure and target Room Temp pH. It’s the only way to effectively standardize across equipment, ingredients, and personal philosophy. It’s a standard by which to re-evaluate accepted pH optima and the fact that we keep coming back to this discussion in light of that seems odd to me.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

So long story short: measure and target Room Temp pH. It’s the only way to effectively standardize across equipment, ingredients, and personal philosophy. It’s a standard by which to re-evaluate accepted pH optima and the fact that we keep coming back to this discussion in light of that seems odd to me.

We both fully agree about the equipment saving benefit of targeting and measuring room temperature pH. We merely (perhaps) disagree as to what the "idealized" room temperature target (as to range and midpoint within said range) should be.

 

[Big Monk]

We both fully agree about the equipment saving benefit of targeting and measuring room temperature pH. We merely (perhaps) disagree as to what the "idealized" room temperature target (as to range and midpoint within said range) should be.

Right. As long as that’s clear, then that’s a healthy discussion. For my purposes, somewhere between 5.4-5.5 seems to be the jam. YMMV.

 

[exit8]

All due respect but I don’t believe he ever won that award for a beer. He snuck in with Cider or Mead if I’m not mistaken.

That’s beside the point anyway. He could be wrong about anything just like anyone else.

Look like he placed with 5 beers on 2009 and a couple of meads. The other 2 years he indeed had more awards in the mead categories.

 

[Big Monk]

Look like he placed with 5 beers on 2009 and a couple of meads. The other 2 years he indeed had more awards in the mead categories.

Definitely wasn’t meant as a dig. Just as context. He’s obviously an experienced homebrewer but so are many others that frequent this and other forums.

It’s unreasonable to hold people to specific comments as proof that something is either this or that.

With regards to this topic, the best pH optima for the specific Brewer is the room temperature reading at the value that gives them the desired extract, wort quality, etc.

I think part of the expansion of the vocabulary and methodology of homebrewing in recent years is the expulsion of these types of cut and dry ranges. It used to be that when people were not as well versed in specific topics that it was easier to say “This value works best for X, Y, and Z.”

Now there are just too many advanced homebrewers to try and fit things into neat and tidy ranges. Their tastes are too varied and their preferences too wide for general guidelines.

Do what works for you as long as you are taking readings at room temp. That way you are reporting results that can be replicated and standardized.

 

[Die_Beerery]

Definitely wasn’t meant as a dig. Just as context. He’s obviously an experienced homebrewer but so are many others that frequent this and other forums.

Do what works for you as long as you are taking readings at room temp. That way you are reporting results that can be replicated and standardized.

Crazy, sounds familiar.

 

[Big Monk]

Crazy, sounds familiar.

Mine got 3 likes though!

 

[Robert65]

I'd happily give Bryan 3 likes to even it up, but I can't, and I'd also like to like yours, Derek, so it would just start spiraling further out of control...

 

[Big Monk]

I'd happily give Bryan 3 likes to even it up, but I can't, and I'd also like to like yours, Derek, so it would just start spiraling further out of control...

In these trying times, I can’t make heads or tails of what’s goin’ on anymore.

 

[Robert65]

And yet, light at the end of the tunnel, when nobody knows what to make of anything out in the world, determining standard conditions for pH measurement doesn't seem so dizzyingly nebulous anymore... perspective, brother!

 

[ep_brew]

I was a part of the Gourmet Brewing Crowdcast with Sierra Nevada Brewmaster Scott Jennings tonight. Award Winning Lagers - Scott Jennings, Sierra Nevada - Crowdcast The discussion was about lagers and he said he targets a mash pH between 5.2-5.5, while trying to stay close to 5.2.

I had to ask at what temperature he measures and he said at temp when the mash is homogeneous as well as his first runnings and most importantly his last runnings.

I followed up to make sure there was no ambiguity and he verified he measures at mash temp at the time of the first rest.

Looks like Gordon Strong was reporting correctly all along. "mash pH between 5.1 and 5.3 which Sierra Nevada targets. The brewers measure pH at usage temperature" - Brewing Better Beer pg 149.

 

[dmtaylor]

I was a part of the Gourmet Brewing Crowdcast with Sierra Nevada Brewmaster Scott Jennings tonight. Award Winning Lagers - Scott Jennings, Sierra Nevada - Crowdcast The discussion was about lagers and he said he targets a mash pH between 5.2-5.5, while trying to stay close to 5.2.

I had to ask at what temperature he measures and he said at temp when the mash is homogeneous as well as his first runnings and most importantly his last runnings.

I followed up to make sure there was no ambiguity and he verified he measures at mash temp at the time of the first rest.

Looks like Gordon Strong was reporting correctly all along. "mash pH between 5.1 and 5.3 which Sierra Nevada targets. The brewers measure pH at usage temperature" - Brewing Better Beer pg 149.

Quiet now! You'll offend millions of homebrewers who are certain they are much smarter than us!

I am kidding, of course. Well, half-kidding anyway.

Welcome to the forum!

 

[stamandster]

(not sure if this was mentioned before, see I'm late to the party with no date) This makes sense because a 5.34 pH @ 77f (standard for pH measurement) would correlate to about 5.1 pH @ 156f. Basically, we've been doing the same thing but cooling our mash/boil/etc wort before testing because most of our consumer instruments cannot handle wort temp without damaging or reading properly (even though they do provide ATC logic).

Here are some pH/temp translations, first the lower spectrum for most mashes

5.1 pH @ 148 = 5.32 pH @ 77f
5.2 pH @ 148 = 5.41 pH @ 77f
5.3 pH @ 148 = 5.49 pH @ 77f

Higher spectrum for most mashes

5.1 pH @ 158 = 5.34 pH @ 77f
5.2 pH @ 158 = 5.43 pH @ 77f
5.3 pH @ 158 = 5.52 pH @ 77f

Seems to me that Sierra Brewing isn't doing temperature correction and that Gordon Strong is just documenting on what was told to him. Perhaps we assumed that all breweries use ATC as mash temp? How do we know this to be true? A 5.1ph temperature corrected for 148f would be about 4.5pH @ 77f. The enzymatic activity of the mash would-be severely inhibited.

Am I missing something big?

 

[RPh_Guy]

You should read the thread. ATC doesn't correct for the actual pH change resulting for a change in temperature.

20°C measurements are the standard because that's really the only way to compare results. However, like anything any other standard, it's not always followed.

There's no set conversion formula to "correct" a pH reported at the wrong temperature.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

You should read the thread. ATC doesn't correct for the actual pH change resulting for a change in temperature.

ATC does not correct pH for temperature. It assures that the pH issued by the device is correct for any given temperature. Thus if it reads 5.1 pH at 154 degrees F., and for the same sample it reads 5.35 pH at 68 degrees, it assures you that at 154 degrees F. the pH reading of 5.1 is accurate, and also that the pH reading of 5.35 at 68 degrees is accurate. Things are inherently more acidic when they are hot. If ATC did not match the slope of the device to the slope required for different temperatures you would have to refer to a chart and make the correction yourself to reveal a more accurate pH for any given temperature.

Looking at this another way, most people want their ATC to cause the device to lie and tell them the same 5.35 pH as its output at 154 degrees F. and also at 68 degrees F. for the same sample. But pH meters equipped with ATC do not lie to you. They report the truth.