BeerBorg

Whamolagan wrote:So if the PH of the dirt is different wouldn't that change the ph of the grain?

I do think the growing conditions, particularly the magnesium and calcium levels of the soil, would definitely influence the pH of the grain that's grown in it. I am no botanist either, but I have had experience growing vegetables and working in gardens for some time.

I do believe that the malting process of various maltsters each effect their own grain pH differently. Differences in the type of water used to germinate the grain and the level of color the grains are roasted to affect the grains pH too. I have everything needed to do it but have not found the time yet to do a DI pH evaluation of the malts that I use most often.

I would imagine growing condition matter, considering how different that Fuggles and Goldings grown in different parts of the UK and/or America and/or Slovenia (IE Styrian Goldings, which are Fuggles, but don't taste like Fuggles).

Malting process of course also matters, the amount of modification, etc.

Thing is, I don't know how either of those things could be that far off if the so called "malt analysis" says they are similar, unless the malt analysis itself was flawed.

Then again I have no idea how "malt analysis" is done, but it doesn't seem like it would be much of an analysis if big PH or protein or moisture content differences were there.

And in any case - just brewing a small test batch would tell them what basic water adjustments were needed. And I'd think even in a big batch they'd be monitoring the wort PH so it would have stuck out like a sore thumb anyways.

And you can always test and adjust mash PH on the fly. All you are doing is trying to do from an efficiency standpoint is optimize enzyme activity by getting PH into a desired range. There is no PH your going to get out of the box with grain and water in normal amounts used that's going to denature the enzymes and wreck the potential amount of conversion before you can adjust the PH. It's not like high mash temps where if you start too high you blow up the alpha amylase and end up with a malt bomb, or if you start too low you get more simple sugars converted before you have time to bring the temps up and get the beta active and end up with a thinner beer more alcoholic beer then desired. As long as you are not denaturing the enzyme and you are in the enzymes active temp range and you move the PH into the right window (or the mash itself buffers it into that window which it can over time) you will get good enzyme activity. I don't think you can achieve a PH that will damage the enzymes through any normal method we use. Acid rests worked. People did them (there would never have been good "pilsner" without them back in the day). That is "on the fly" adjustment to a T, but without chemicals.

Ultimately the PH of the final product is going to change the flavor / how the hops, malt are perceived certainly, but that doesn't necessary make any difference to the "efficiency" as long as it's in the right range/window for the enzymes targeted. Unless you have Pilsen water coming out of your tap, that's not likely going to happen.

At least that's my understanding.

And I can't imagine that someone brewing 5 bazillion gallons of beer doesn't have a mechanism in place test and adjust stuff every step of the way. That would just be dumb.

evily wrote:

Malt Extract Loss Case Study
You are the brewing manager responsible for the operation of a brewhouse of a 200,000 bbl brewing operation. Recently your brewery shifted malt suppliers. The malt you were receiving and your new malt supply had similar malt analysis and was also similar in the barley varieties. When you started using the new malt you noted a significant drop in recovered extract in the brewhouse. Explain what approach you would take to identify, verify and correct this loss of extract.

Here's another scenario for S&Gs.

The narcissist brewing manager in charge of a 200,000 bbl brewing operation receives the detailed report about the new malt on his desk. Since he has been attending to personal business lately and not paying much attention to the brewing operation he decides the report indicates there is a current problem with the latest batch. He instructs a number of his cronies to make changes and adjustments to various equipment and processes. When the new grain arrives and is brewed the batch is not up to specs. The narcissist brewing manager immediately calls in equipment suppliers and outside maintenance people to "go over the system". When asked what the issue is he tells them their equipment is not working properly and that they should fix it. A few vendors suggest small issues that "might have made a difference", while others report nothing wrong but they did preventative maintenance. When the crew comes on to brew the next batch they notice some odd changes to some parameters. When they report them the narcissist manager blames the outside maintenance people for the changes. The next batch turns out fine. The narcissist manager reports to the higher ups that all the equipment has been completely gone over and that company personal has corrected some issues caused by the outside maintenance people. He also mentions that even when people work for the company for many years they sometimes make mistakes. He will be keeping an eye on all of this. No one else is ever asked to investigate as in evily's scenario.

So for some reason, I stopped receiving email notifications of responses on this thread, so I thought (wrongly) it had died. Boy was I wrong! I really like your spirited discussion of this issue!

And you'll be pleased to know that our team mentioned everything you guys discussed (in addition to others). There are so many factors that could affect extract loss, and those of you who mentioned that it might not necessarily be the new malt supply were on the same wavelength as our team. We decided to pursue a "plot twist", where there was not actually anything wrong with our malt, mill, or process, but in fact, our hydrometer was cracked. Of course, we went through each and every potential issue in great detail before finally arriving at the cracked hydrometer.

Our presentation went so well, in fact, that we were asked to publish our case study in the MBAA Technical Quarterly newsletter!!! As the team lead, I now have the responsibility for putting our presentation into a publishable document, and I am truly honored!

And I greatly appreciate all of your input! Maybe I should mention you all by name in the acknowledgements.

You actually use hydrometers vs. some fancy automated measuring do-hicky?

mashani wrote:You actually use hydrometers vs. some fancy automated measuring do-hicky?

Absolutely, yes. I didn't meet a single brewer at my class that doesn't use a hydrometer in the brewhouse.

With that said, very large breweries also confirm these results in a lab with a densitometer. That's $$$, and most small-medium breweries won't have one.

Glad to have been part of the conversation. So that's Whamolagan with a capital W for the acknowledgements

Having taken an auto mechanics course once, I learned that replacing an engine when your car doesn't start, isn't necessarily the best way to diagnose the problem. Here's to all of us 'over-thinkers' out there!

Whamolagan wrote:Glad to have been part of the conversation. So that's Whamolagan with a capital W for the acknowledgements

BeerBorg.com forum is easier to spell! Just saying.

LouieMacGoo wrote:

Whamolagan wrote:Glad to have been part of the conversation. So that's Whamolagan with a capital W for the acknowledgements

BeerBorg.com forum is easier to spell! Just saying.

^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm too late to the party, but my first thought was maybe the janitor is unplugging it to clean, and forgets to plug it back in. My next thought was:

Good one alb!

I have this one.

I blame Swen too. So that's what I'll put in our publication. *nods head decidedly*