Panel can't distinguish beer mashed at pH 6.39 from pH 5.17

[Silver_Is_Money]

Yet another interesting (and to me shocking) Brulosophy brewing science experiment. In this one the panel of taste testers could not statistically distinguish a pale beer mashed at an extremely high pH of 6.39 from the exact same recipe mashed at a far more appropriate pH of 5.17.

http://brulosophy.com/2017/07/24/wa...-high-mash-ph-exbeeriment-results/#more-94790

 

[z-bob]

That is one of the most interesting (to me) experiments he's done. I've been struggling with my water; trying to figure out how to brew with the local tapwater (which tastes just fine) instead of buying RO water all the time. If I adjust to 5.4 with lactic acid, it takes about ten ml for a 4 gallon batch.

Perhaps the sparge water pH is important, but the mash pH is not particularly. And I can just acidify to about 5.8 .

 

[steveoatley]

Too Me ( my opinion )

This is one of their more Laughable Experiments

Just look at ALL the hops that were added................ ??

Its gotta taste like = "Bong Water" is the term I use for "Hop Forward" beers


just my 2 cents - that & 1.99 will get you a iced coffee at Mc D's

S

 

[Dan_K]

Too Me ( my opinion )

This is one of their more Laughable Experiments

Just look at ALL the hops that were added................ ??

Its gotta taste like = "Bong Water" is the term I use for "Hop Forward" beers


just my 2 cents - that & 1.99 will get you a iced coffee at Mc D's

S

So you don't like hoppy beers? I've never drank or smelled bong water, but that's really not that much hops overall. I wouldn't have used so many different varieties though.

 

[steveoatley]

I think that adding SO many Hops ( varieties )
adds a variable to the experiment that does NOT help prove his point....

Just adds a new variable to the expirement

" is it possible to cover a flaw, by dry hopping ? "

again - here is 2 more cents

S

 

[Bowtiebrewery]

I have to agree. If they were really going to try and test this theory of mash pH, they should have brewed something like a kolsch or a lager. If anywhere it would be relevant, it would be in those.

 

[dyqik]

Oh, and it was no-sparge, so no water above 170F added, which, together with high pH, is what's needed to extract tannins.

 

[Trail]

Oh, and it was no-sparge, so no water above 170F added, which, together with high pH, is what's needed to extract tannins.

Which is correct process... if he mashed at high temperature, he'd be testing multiple variables instead of just mash pH. Now that he's done a mash pH experiment, it's appropriate to test it in conjunction with another variable (and hopefully, a more malt-forward beer!)

What does bug me about his exbeeriments is the nearly-universal use of gelatin. He ran an XBMT a while back to rule out gelatin as affecting flavors, but all that it ruled out was the possibility that gelatin affects "standard" flavors. It doesn't seem like a stretch that it might affect off flavors. One commenter on the brulosophy article mentions gelatin is used to remove tannins from wine, so I think this should see more experimentation.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I agree that this experiment should have been done on a Pilsner with noble hops in the range of 25 IBU. That would have been a far more difficult test.

But I've potentially done something similar. Back in the 80's, before I had a clue regarding pH or its importance, I made a simple all grain Bohemian Pilsner that I mashed into artesian spring water with no acidification and no added mineralization. No clue as to the mash pH, but I presume it was likely rather high. No clue regarding the spring waters chemistry either. Yet it is was a brew that I've never been able to duplicate since returning to brewing years later, equipped with a lot more knowledge of water chemistry and pH. More people complemented me on that Bohemian Pilsner than any other batch I've ever brewed. Aside from the water, the only other thing I did for that batch which I have done for no others was that I step mashed. I started at 121 degrees for about 30 minutes, then stepped it up to about 151 degrees for 60 minutes.

I'm about 55 miles away from that artesian spring water now (110 mile round trip). Perhaps some day I'll have to take a road trip and bag 10 gallons of it in order to try to recreate my best ever Bohemian Pilsner. But then again, traveling 110 miles for 10 gallons of water seems mighty painful.

 

[dyqik]

Which is correct process... if he mashed at high temperature, he'd be testing multiple variables instead of just mash pH. Now that he's done a mash pH experiment, it's appropriate to test it in conjunction with another variable (and hopefully, a more malt-forward beer!)

No, it's not really a correct process. Experimental design should include an element of sensitivity analysis, which is sadly missing from this exbeeriment. The received wisdom that is being tested is that you are unlikely to get astringency without a high temperature sparge, even ignoring mash and sparge pH. A much better experiment would have sparged both batches, at different pHs, and still would have only changed one variable.

No-sparging plus all the hops plus gelatin fining pretty much guaranteed a null result in this exbeeriment.

 

[Trail]

The received wisdom that is being tested is that you are unlikely to get astringency without a high temperature sparge, even ignoring mash and sparge pH.

The point of the exbeeriments is literally to test received wisdom. "Mash PH in isolation affects flavor" is something many of us have heard and worth testing on its own.

No-sparging plus all the hops plus gelatin fining pretty much guaranteed a null result in this exbeeriment.

I disagree that it's a null result, but the result is admittedly "mash pH doesn't matter when brewing a no-sparge IPA and fine with gelatin", which says a great deal less than we'd like.

 

[dyqik]

I disagree that it's a null result, but the result is admittedly "mash pH doesn't matter when brewing a no-sparge IPA and fine with gelatin", which says a great deal less than we'd like.

Well, technically and pedantically (this is science, pedantry is what we do ), exBeeriments are all either positive results or null results - they test a hypothesis against the null hypothesis. A more complete and accurate statement of the results is "When brewing this no-sparge IPA fined with gelatin, mash pH did not have an effect that could be distinguished from the null hypothesis with this tasting panel."

The old saw of "can't prove a negative" comes back...

 

[RevKev]

As others have pointed out he should have not been any style other than a SMaSH, likely with IBU within the lowest range of all ales around 8 and plain 2-row or pale malt as the grist. Dry hopping at the rate of 0.81lb/barrel can have a buffering affect of +0.20 pH let alone all the hops within the boil, which yes will overpower subtle off flavors produced from the mash.

If he was trying to distinguish a singular causality this experiment proves nothing. As another has pointed out above I am extremely speculative about his conclusion that gelatin as a fining agent does not play a role within the taste testing, hell blind fold the tasters, as I am sure that if each of these beers were cold crashed there would be different levels of proteins and other compounds left hence a different appearance and tendency to suspend compounds.

I find these methods cool, but far from anything I would say conclusive.

 

[RevKev]

I almost want to do 1 gal test batches myself, no sparge BIAB, and adjust nothing other than pH and use a 100% grist of 2-row. I'd collect samples at 15 minute intervals within the mash cool and test pH and also maybe do a MS analysis. During the boil a singular bittering charge should be done at 60 minutes, with either a hopshot or bittering hop that is relatively smooth and no other adjustments made.

There should also be a variety of experiments with increasing SRM, the only issue would be determining what malts to use. I would think three data points would be needed. -pH, recommended pH, and +pH thought would be to be about 4.4, 5.2 and 6.0

 

[bob1852]

Well, technically and pedantically (this is science, pedantry is what we do ), exBeeriments are all either positive results or null results - they test a hypothesis against the null hypothesis. A more complete and accurate statement of the results is "When brewing this no-sparge IPA fined with gelatin, mash pH did not have an effect that could be distinguished from the null hypothesis with this tasting panel."

The old saw of "can't prove a negative" comes back...

But the popular press headline will be "mash pH doesn't matter."

 

[z-bob]

Just the fact that it wasn't a disaster is encouraging. The OG's were the same, and either there were no harsh tannins (etc) extracted or the gelatin dropped them out.

I agree, the gelatin messes up the science a bit. And that's an awful lot of different hops; maybe the tasters' tongues were confused by it. But props to the brulosopher for thinking of this and trying it, even if the recipe was not the best. I'm excited by this.

 

[str1p3s]

A friend of mine brewed with his own well water a month or so ago. It was a Two Hearted clone and it turned out pretty decent except a bit of harshness at the very end. He repeated the same brew and I talked him into using distilled water and build it up from there with bru'n water.

He also ordered a water report (didn't come in in time for his second brew) and when the results came in, sure enough his pH was too high when plugged into the spreadsheet. He's cold crashing the second brew and I'm excited to see the difference.

He also fly sparges and does not use gelatin. Is this exbeeriment problematic because he doesn't sparge and uses gelatin? Or is he showing that no sparge and gelatin is the better method if you want to reduce risk of astringency from high pH?

 

[Barley_Bob]

I had a pretty serious mash pH problem after I had been brewing for a while. The article makes me think that maybe it wouldn't have been so bad if I hadn't sparged or if I'd sparged with cool water, but my notes don't say what my sparge temp was. However, the astringency was 100% real. And the beer from those batches got worse with age! Since adopting RO, I have had no problems.

So, my experience tells me that a high mash pH is detrimental. This exbeeriment says it's not an issue. This is where the rubber hits the road in science. In an actual scientific study, the experiment would be rerun with more experiment groups. We would see see multiple batches of multiple styles at multiple pH's.

This exbeeriment tells us something, but not that it's okay to ignore mash pH. All I see is that it warrants further study.

Personally, I think a more interesting study would look at how different pHs within the acceptable range affect flavor. Is 5.3 really different than 5.4 or 5.5? I think maybe not, and that's just as controversial within the hobby.

 

[ajdelange]

The null hypothesis is "One can do as good a job at assigning a beer to one group or another based on its mash pH by flipping a (fair) coin as he can by having a panel make the determination." This experiment confirms the null hypothesis. But note that two things are variable here. First 'a beer' and second 'a panel'. The results one gets in a test of this hypothesis depends on both. It is entirely possible that with a more highly qualified panel the result might have been different.

If one wants to measure the voltage of a battery he needs a calibrated voltmeter. If one wants to calibrate a voltmeter he needs a standard battery (one whose voltage is known).

 

[Yooper]

My own anecdotal evidence is this:

Many years ago I made a kolsch. It was actually a great (proven) recipe, and well made with fermentation temperatures controlled and lagering at the end.

However, I used my tap water.

The beer had a harsh "bite" to it that was noticeable at the first sip. After a few sips, it was ok, but it wasn't right.

In retrospect, and using Bru'nwater to guestimate the likely mash pH, the mash pH is estimated at 6.19. I batch sparged, with no acidification. My tap water sulfate is 45 ppm and the chloride is 14 ppm. My HCO3 is 252

The beer wasn't as awful as you'd expect- but it wasn't the beautiful smooth and crisp and delightful kolsch I was hoping for.

A few years later, I made the same exact beer with RO water and a smidgen of CaCl2. Fantastic, wonderful, and a near world-class beer.

Probably a bunch of hops would have covered the astrigency, as I made a ton of IPAs back then and never noticed that "flavor" before.

It's anecdotal evidence for sure, but I can definitely say that in that case, the mash pH was a huge factor.

 

[beernutz]

Too Me ( my opinion )

This is one of their more Laughable Experiments

Just look at ALL the hops that were added................ ??

Its gotta taste like = "Bong Water" is the term I use for "Hop Forward" beers


just my 2 cents - that & 1.99 will get you a iced coffee at Mc D's

S

I get ~49 IBUs for that recipe using Beersmith which is on the lower end of the spectrum for American IPAs where 40 is bottom end and 70 is the top.

 

[steveoatley]

I get ~49 IBUs for that recipe using Beersmith which is on the lower end of the spectrum for American IPAs where 40 is bottom end and 70 is the top.

eh... numbers......what do they mean
Magnets - how do they work !~?

5.5 ounces of total hops - in 5 gal
4 different kinds

Its NOT the right recipe to test mash pH on.....
if you look at Most of Marshall Schott's experiments
Most of them are "Hop Forward" beers.....

Maybe its the wrong Person, to do the "pH test"

He seems to have a pattern of recipe formulation.... that leans toward one item........

S

 

[ajdelange]

It's anecdotal evidence for sure, but I can definitely say that in that case, the mash pH was a huge factor.

I'll also attest that as far as my beers were concerned when my LHBS started carrying sauermalz it was as if someone had turned the lights on.

 

[z-bob]

I'll also attest that as far as my beers were concerned when my LHBS started carrying sauermalz it was as if someone had turned the lights on.

Sauermalz has also helped my brewing tremendously. But I still have to buy RO water to sparge with. If I use all tapwater and no-sparge I will have to add so much lactic acid (in whatever form) to reduce the pH, it at least should be above the taste threshold.

The beer I have in the fermenter now has 10.5% acid malt; don't know yet if that's enough to make it taste funny. But if I can shoot for, say, 5.7 pH, I can reduce that to about 6.5%.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

The beer I have in the fermenter now has 10.5% acid malt; don't know yet if that's enough to make it taste funny. But if I can shoot for, say, 5.7 pH, I can reduce that to about 6.5%.

Your tap water must be highly alkaline.

 

[Braufessor]

Some thoughts -

* My own anecdotal evidence mirrors some of the others - I spent a long time brewing beers with my tap water (10-15 years as a matter of fact). Always struggled with lighter styles and low gravity beers - always a "harshness" to them that I would later find out was astringency. When I found out pH "was a thing" and started using RO my beers improved very dramatically, and almost immediately.
I have no doubt in my mind at all that if lots of people were to abandon water additions and pH projections on many styles of beer, many batches with many different processes - A very large percentage of them would have problems with their beers and they would be worse than if they were using what most of us consider best practices when it comes to water.

*I agree that some of the variables like "hoppy beer" and gelatin may not be ideal.

*Everything I have read about astringency has indicated it is more than "only" pH - additional issues like temps creeping too high in conjunction with low gravity final runnings from sparging play a role..... neither of those (temp/sparge/low gravity runnings) were really an issue in this.

* Some of my worst struggles with astringency have been brewing low gravity session beers like milds and bitters where I was trying to get too much wort out of too little grain and final runnings were dropping very low in gravity.

* One big question I have is in regard to where the hardness came from - Does it ever matter where the hardness comes from? Is throwing pickling lime in RO water the "same" as using hard tap water? Will different tap waters give high pH for different reasons and is it at all possible that one type of hardness impacts a beer more or less?? I did a bit of test myself last winter - I brewed 2 porters. One I used my hard tap water, one I used RO water and made it "hard" by adding baking soda to increase pH comparable to using my tap water. Long story short - those two beers were the same recipe, same water profile, same mash pH - they did not taste the same in the end however. They were noticeably different to me. I picked them out every time in multiple triangle tests.

 

[schematix]

Can anyone point to a Brulosophy experiment that was actually well executed and had meaningful results?

 

[RevKev]

Well hardness comes from Calcium and Magnesium Carbonate and Bicarbonate. With your experiences I would have to say yes it matters, I have yet to form my opinion but I can see different polyatomic and atomic ions causing great differentials, that's why I kinda don't approve of the extra hardness in one form of the IPA tested.

 

[Braufessor]

Can anyone point to a Brulosophy experiment that was actually well executed and had meaningful results?

I think the overwhelming consensus has generally been "insignificant" or "no preference" type results.

One thing I would say in support of these experiments that Marshall has been doing is this - He has never claimed to be attempting by the book science. He has never claimed to be using the perfect, lab quality protocol. I agree, that in almost all of these experiments there are probably better ways to truly isolate a particular variable or alter processes to focus on that variable.

However, that is not what he is doing (at least that is not the impression I get). The impression I get is this:

"Here is the way I brew beer....... within my basic set up, my basic process, I wonder what happens if I alter this or that?"

He is not going to revamp his process every time to test a particular variable, because he is going to keep brewing the same basic way. He is not publishing in scholarly journals with lab grade experiments. He is representing an average home brewer and reenacting what might happen if that average home brewer brewed the same beer 2 different ways.

I think the one thing that the experiments do tell us is this - if you have good sanitation and brewing practices - any one variable is probably not going to have a profound effect. Good, bad or great beer is likely the result of a broad interaction of many aspects of brewing - not any one in isolation.

 

[schematix]

I think the overwhelming consensus has generally been "insignificant" or "no preference" type results.

One thing I would say in support of these experiments that Marshall has been doing is this - He has never claimed to be attempting by the book science. He has never claimed to be using the perfect, lab quality protocol. I agree, that in almost all of these experiments there are probably better ways to truly isolate a particular variable or alter processes to focus on that variable.

However, that is not what he is doing (at least that is not the impression I get). The impression I get is this:

"Here is the way I brew beer....... within my basic set up, my basic process, I wonder what happens if I alter this or that?"

He is not going to revamp his process every time to test a particular variable, because he is going to keep brewing the same basic way. He is not publishing in scholarly journals with lab grade experiments. He is representing an average home brewer and reenacting what might happen if that average home brewer brewed the same beer 2 different ways.

I think the one thing that the experiments do tell us is this - if you have good sanitation and brewing practices - any one variable is probably not going to have a profound effect. Good, bad or great beer is likely the result of a broad interaction of many aspects of brewing - not any one in isolation.

I do appreciate that he has an enthusiasm for beer and obviously puts a lot of time and effort into his website. That aspect is to be commended.

However, I do think he portrays his "experiments" in a quasi-scientific way that may lead some readers, especially those without a scientific background, to actually put stock in what he says. Most of his experiments suggest that many well established bad brewing practices don't have negative consequences. That does a tremendous disservice to the home brewing community.

 

[bob1852]

I do appreciate that he has an enthusiasm for beer and obviously puts a lot of time and effort into his website. That aspect is to be commended.

However, I do think he portrays his "experiments" in a quasi-scientific way that may lead some readers, especially those without a scientific background, to actually put stock in what he says. Most of his experiments suggest that many well established bad brewing practices don't have negative consequences. That does a tremendous disservice to the home brewing community.

For example?

 

[Yooper]

For example?

Wasn't one that he brought out in San Diego a lager fermented at 66 degrees vs 50 degrees? Or something like that. I didn't get a chance to try it, but I think the results showed that the experienced tasting panel noticed no differences.

And then later, I read that he did one lager yeast much warmer, I want to say 75 degrees.

 

[Yooper]

And then later, I read that he did one lager yeast much warmer, I want to say 75 degrees.

Oops, it was 50 vs 70 degrees. But, midway through, he said this:
With the cool ferment beer was sitting at 1.032 SG, slightly over 50% to my target FG, I moved it into the chamber holding the warm ferment batch, which had dropped to a steady 68˚F/20˚C once active fermentation was complete.

Not traditional, even for cool fermented lagers.

from his blog page: http://brulosophy.com/2016/02/08/fe...ager-yeast-saflager-3470-exbeeriment-results/

 

[bob1852]

Oops, it was 50 vs 70 degrees. But, midway through, he said this:
With the cool ferment beer was sitting at 1.032 SG, slightly over 50% to my target FG, I moved it into the chamber holding the warm ferment batch, which had dropped to a steady 68˚F/20˚C once active fermentation was complete.

Not traditional, even for cool fermented lagers.

from his blog page: http://brulosophy.com/2016/02/08/fe...ager-yeast-saflager-3470-exbeeriment-results/

I didn't mention "traditional".

Sometimes traditions are done not because they make a distinguishable product, but just because it's tradition....

Remember, triangle tests aren't about which beer is "better", it's about if a statistically significant portion of the samplers can detect which sample is different. If they can't, maybe the "well established brewing practice" has only been done so out of tradition...

 

[schematix]

For example?

The whole concept of his website is trying to demonstrate that commonly held beliefs about brewing are (mostly) wrong. Most of the articles are an example. No need for me to enumerate them here.

 

[bob1852]

The whole concept of his website is trying to demonstrate that commonly held beliefs about brewing are (mostly) wrong. Most of the articles are an example. No need for me to enumerate them here.

So you think "commonly held beliefs" and "well established bad brewing practices" are the same thing?

 

[Yooper]

So you think "commonly held beliefs" and "well established bad brewing practices" are the same thing?

Sometimes; sometimes not.

Fermenting a lager at 70 degrees may be in the "well established bad brewing practices" for all I know.

I like that the dogma "if your fermentation temperature of a lager exceeds 55 degrees your beer will suck" is being challenged. But if you're going to prove that fermenting a lager at 70 is the same as fermenting it at 50, them perhaps raising the temperature to nearly 70 when the beer is only about 50% done may not be the best way to prove that.

A more traditional approach (doing the diacetyl rest at 75% of the way to Fg, for example) may make the doubters take it more seriously. That's all I"m saying.

 

[Frilock]

The one thing that seems the most consistent on that site is that usually people can't tell the difference.

*shower thought*

Perhaps the biggest home brewing myth of all is that there is such a thing as an 'Experienced Tasting Panel'.

 

[rhys333]

My own anecdotal evidence is this:

Many years ago I made a kolsch. It was actually a great (proven) recipe, and well made with fermentation temperatures controlled and lagering at the end.

However, I used my tap water.

The beer had a harsh "bite" to it that was noticeable at the first sip. After a few sips, it was ok, but it wasn't right.

In retrospect, and using Bru'nwater to guestimate the likely mash pH, the mash pH is estimated at 6.19. I batch sparged, with no acidification. My tap water sulfate is 45 ppm and the chloride is 14 ppm. My HCO3 is 252

The beer wasn't as awful as you'd expect- but it wasn't the beautiful smooth and crisp and delightful kolsch I was hoping for.

A few years later, I made the same exact beer with RO water and a smidgen of CaCl2. Fantastic, wonderful, and a near world-class beer.

Probably a bunch of hops would have covered the astrigency, as I made a ton of IPAs back then and never noticed that "flavor" before.

It's anecdotal evidence for sure, but I can definitely say that in that case, the mash pH was a huge factor.

Yooper, do you recall your calcium and chloride levels on that second kolsch? I ask because I've been using both CaCl2 and gypsum on mine, but I'm thinking of using just CaCl2 on my next one.

 

[Barley_Bob]

Can anyone point to a Brulosophy experiment that was actually well executed and had meaningful results?

I'm pretty fond of the trub vs no trub exbeeriment.

I'll grant that the experiments aren't that meaningful. But most of us don't have the time or money to brew batches that have the potential to be poor or even undrinkable. I'm sure pro brewers do a ton of side-by-side tests to perfect a recipe. That's just out of our reach. The exbeeriments give us some hint at the truth which otherwise would remain unknown to us.