---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


***************************************************************
       THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY: 

          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
        http://www.northernbrewer.com  1-800-681-2739

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********


Contents:
  RE: Why I Decoct when I mash ("Bridges, Scott")
  Theakson Old Peculiar Yeast ("Dan Listermann")
  Liquid Level Control ("Reddy, Pat")
  The Definitive History of Rennerian Coordinates (Jeff Renner)
  RE: decoction (Michael Hartsock)
  re: Extremely high ABV ("-S")
  Thanks!! (Bill Tobler)
  Re: float valve ("Rob Dewhirst")
  Torrified Wheat ("Jay Wirsig")
  starch haze, continued...and very long (Marc Sedam)
  Residual Chlorine (Kevin White)
  re: Why I Decoct when I mash ("-S")
  Mash Ph Questions ("Dave Larsen")
  mash level control ("Stephen Weiss")


*
* Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge! 
* http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping
*
* The HBD Logo Store is now open!
* http://www.cafeshops.com/hbdstore
*
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
*

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!

To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
  "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org FROM THE E-MAIL
  ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
  the digest as we cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
  for the automation - that's your job.

HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.

The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright 
  HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK 
  before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content 
  cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.

More information is available by sending the word "info" to 
req at hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.

JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)



----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 08:16:04 -0400 
From: "Bridges, Scott" <ScottBridges at sc.slr.com>
Subject: RE: Why I Decoct when I mash


Caryl (sounds like Carl) writes:

>Why do I spend 4 hours mashing why I could produce the same beer with a 2
>hour, maybe even 1 hour mash?
snip
>According to Eric Warner's book,  "German Wheat Beer" (#7 of the Classic
>Beer Style Series):
snip
>This above paragraph (along with the rest of this book) and a conversation
>or two with some German relatives who own and operate a small town brewery,
>are the main reasons why I go through the trouble.  But, nevertheless, I'm
>going to attempt to brew the same beer twice (as close as I can) and just
>change the mash schedules to see which I prefer.

Caryl,
I agree that Eric Warner's work is very good.  I have read it although I
admit it was some time ago.  I wonder if there has been any change to the
world of commercial German brewing since it was written.  I'm guessing it is
maybe 10 years old??  Of course your other reference is current, so that is
at least one negative data point to my question.  I'm not questioning your
logic, I'm just curious if the information in the book is still relevant to
the majority of commercial German weizen breweries.

I'd be interested in hearing the results of your experiment.

BTW, even when I make hefeweizens I don't decoct.  I guess that makes my
beers somewhat less than authentic.  :)

Scott
Brewing in Columbia, SC



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 08:57:47 -0400
From: "Dan Listermann" <dan at listermann.com>
Subject: Theakson Old Peculiar Yeast

 "Jay Wirsig" <Jay.Wirsig at usa.dupont.com> asks about a yeast recommendation.
I developed a kit to brew this beer based on Wheeler's book and, if I may
say so myself, back to back tasting showed that it is real close.  While the
yeast may not have cool numbers in its name, require days of preplanning
with sterile things or cost a lot, I found that Muntion's Gold does a great
job.  I can't recommend it enough.

Dan Listermann

Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com

Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.






Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 08:25:21 -0500 
From: "Reddy, Pat" <Pat.Reddy at mavtech.cc>
Subject: Liquid Level Control

<A friend of mine wants to control the level of his mash tun during
sparging. He is looking for some kind of level controller to control the
liquid above the grain bed during sparging.  He wasn't happy when I told him
to go buy a toilet boil water controller and use it.  I was just wondering
if anybody was doing this and if you are, I could use some details.  My
friends computer is off line for an unknown period of time, so he can't ask
himself. Thanks in advance!>

Bill,
Is the system in question PLC controlled?  If so, you have an endless amount
of options.  I use 4 proximity sensors that are designed specifically for
level control in a vessel with site tubes.  The are very small, clamp on the
site tube, and run anywhere from $30 to $100.  Or, you can be patient and
keep an eye out for things like this on eBay.  I got mine for $12 - for all
4!  Industrial controls are extremely cheap on eBay.  If anyone is
interested in very small, food grade plastic, threaded float switches
capable of switching 120V AC, I have about 12 that I don't plan on using.
If interested, send me an email and I'll send pics.  Will trade for beer!

Pat Reddy
MAVERICK Technologies
(618)281-9100 x134
pat.reddy at mavtech.cc
 



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 09:28:37 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: The Definitive History of Rennerian Coordinates

Caryl Hornberger Slone <chornberger10 at comcast.net> in Ft. Wayne, IN is

>Curious how/why Renerrian(sp) coordinates came to be.

This question comes up every once in a while.  Here is an updated 
version of what I posted in January, 2002.

Rennerian Coordinates is (are?) a bit of silly fun that goes back 
about six years.  It all grew out of my semi-annual request that 
posters tell us their name and location.  It fosters community and 
might help answer questions.

After one such request, Dan McConnell, a former HBDer and owner of 
the late Yeast Culture Kit Co., poked some gentle fun at my requests 
and signed his post something like, "five miles south-east of Jeff 
Renner, the center of the homebrewing universe."*  Spencer Thomas 
(host of the HBD archives) then posted that he was one mile 
south-east of Dan, or six miles southeast of the center.**  It took 
off from there.  Soon more and more people were relating their 
location to the center of the homebrewing universe.  Hey - as long as
they included their actual location, it accomplished what I was after.

Then Jason Henning, self appointed "Senior Rennerian Coordinate 
Developer," who by an amazing coincidence now lives only 12 miles 
from here*** but at the time lived in Portland, OR, regularized it by 
defining "Rennerian Coordinates," the first number the distance in 
miles from [0,0] Rennerian, and the second the bearing in degrees. 
There was some discussion that the first number should be the 
bearing, but the readership seems to have agreed with Jason's 
original definition.

Then a couple of years ago, Steve Jones and Brian Levetzow independently
developed Rennerian Coordinates calculators.  Steve beat Brian by 
hours, but his has some bugs for some locations, so Brian's 
calculator is now at the HBD FAQs 
http://hbd.org/rennerian_table.shtml. BTW, when using the calculator, 
be sure to use a negative number for west longitude or you'll get 
weird numbers).

[BTW, if you click on the "Geo Coords" button, you'll go to the 
government's Tiger Maps http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/gazetteer, 
which are way cool.  Also, it's fun to check out 
http://www.topozone.com/, which gives lat/long coordinates of your 
cursor as you move it].

About three years ago Jason defined [0.0] Rennerian as me, not my 
brewery, and as such, a mobile coordinate.  In HBD in 8/00, he wrote, 
"Only when we plant you will [0,0] Rennerian be static."  I replied 
that I could wait.

But a bit later, HBD janitor Pat Babcock****** decided that [0,0] 
should be static, and defined my brewery (N 42* 17" 47.0", W 83* 49' 
34.2") as [0,0] Apparent Rennerian.

It's all been fun.  The main thing is to include your name and 
location when posting.  Rennerian Coordinates are optional.

Jeff

* Dan's actual coordinates are [3.6, 115.9] Rennerian
** Spencer's actual coordinates are [5.1, 116] Rennerian
*** Steve is at [422.5, 169] Rennerian
**** Brian claims to be precisely at [426.641261,118.44861064] Rennerian
***** Jason is at [12,30] Rennerian
****** Pat is at [18, 92.1] Rennerian
- -- 
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 07:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Hartsock <xd_haze at yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: decoction

While I'm a single step infusion mash guy, I do want
to know more about decoction.  Most books don't really
address it, and honestly, I wouldn't know how much to
pull or how long to boil, so a thread on some basics
of decoction would be great!!

mike

=====
"May those who love us, love us.
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if he doesn't turn their hearts,
may he turn their ankles
So we'll know them
by their limping."



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 10:58:14 -0400
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: re: Extremely high ABV

Guy says,

>I noticed Dogfish Head brewery produces a 23% ABV
>[...] What type of yeast strains can survive such high
>alcohol levels,

Many brewing yeast will handle 15% abv if you treat them real nice but
you'll probably need to select a particularly sturdy variety and treat it
well.    Maybe finish w/ champagne yeast.  My question is - why do you want
to do this ?

>and is there some special technique they use to
>accomplish this?

Successive feedings and sufficient pitching & repitching are the methods.
Read about Sam Adam's Millenium (~20% ABV I think) on their website - they
seem to have started this trend.  Start
with a fairly conventional gravity wort and just keep adding concentrated
extract along with repitchings.   You'll need truly massive amounts of high
quality pitching yeast.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of hi-alc fermentation beers.   Many are
plagued with offensive fusels, oddly strong esters and unfermented
excessively sweet sugars.  There are exceptions, but beer fermentation above
9%ABV is often a formula for odd tasting results.

I have tasted several beers well above this level made with the eisbock
process, and some of these were quite excellent - smooth and malty without
the stressed fermentation flavors.

 -Steve




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 10:58:00 -0500
From: Bill Tobler <wctobler at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Thanks!!

Thanks to everyone for the great suggestions on the Mash Tun level control
ideas.  I'll pass all this on to him.  He has a three tier RIMS with the
sparge tank on top, Mash Tun in the middle and the HLT and Kettle on the
bottom tier.  His problem is he can't see inside the mash tun without
climbing a ladder and looking in.  I had two suggestions right off the bat.
If he was going to be in attendance all the time, put a small mirror up
there so you can see inside the top of the mash tun or a sight glass might
work, if you could keep the grain out.  That should not be a problem as he
uses a false bottom.  A tee off of the drain would work just fine for the
sight glass.  If you want to go mow the yard during the sparge, then you
need to get a little fancy with the float switches and such.

I'm going to buy a bigger chest freezer today.  I'm out of largering room,
and need to brew some more.  Cheers, and have a great week.

Bill Tobler
Lake Jackson, TX
(1129.7, 219.9) Apparent Rennerian




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 10:59:59 -0500
From: "Rob Dewhirst" <rob at hairydogbrewery.com>
Subject: Re: float valve

> Go to www.grainger.com and enter "float valve" as the product search
> key.  There are a number of items available, and at least some of them are
> quite inexpensive.

just be aware that many inexpensive float valves have galvanized parts on
them.  I bought one from grainger for a chicken feeder and I know it had a
galvanized steel float arm.

I am pretty sure your never supposed to use galvanized metals in brewing.



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 12:29:38 -0400
From: "Jay Wirsig" <Jay.Wirsig at usa.dupont.com>
Subject: Torrified Wheat

I have seen several all grain recipes using torrified wheat as an
ingredient.  What is the intended effect (in the beer) of using torrified
wheat when brewing?  Will using malted wheat provide the same effect?
>>Jay



This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains 
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited.  Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system.  Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer.  This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.

 Francais Deutsch Italiano  Espanol  Portugues  Japanese  Chinese  Korean

            http://www.DuPont.com/corp/email_disclaimer.html




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 14:18:57 -0400
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Subject: starch haze, continued...and very long

I'll start by saying I'm not much into the published journal references. 
 Not because they're not useful, but to find the original source that 
states what types of polysaccharides each particular organism uses would 
take too long and the searches would likely have to be over a 60 year 
period.  So for those who want incontrovertible proof of this position 
will be disappointed.  Sorry.   That being said, let's step back.

Starches and sugars (and gums) all fall into the loose category of 
"polysaccharides."  The simplest polysaccharide is glucose (and 
fructose).  All other polysaccharides are collections of glucose 
molecules, bonded together in varied and sundry forms.  Glucose and 
maltose (2 glucoses) are easily fermented by nearly all brewing yeasts 
and other sugar-consuming organisms.  From maltose, there is an inverse 
relationship between length of the polysaccharide chain and 
fermentability, with anything larger than a four glucose chain being 
unfermentable by all but the most bizarre yeasts--none of which being 
common in brewing.  Those that can ferment these longer chains (>4) 
often give off unpleasant byproducts of fermentation and aren't useful 
for traditional brewing.  In some texts, unfermentable short-chain 
polysaccharides are also called *dextrins*.

Let's get more complicated.  Polysaccharides can also be straight 
(amylose) or branched (amylopectin).  In general, amylopectins will be 
less fermentable than amylose due to the branching.  Literally, think of 
a polysaccharide that looks like a tree without its leaves and you get a 
reasonable picture of amylopectin.  In amylose (and the other simple, 
fermentable sugars) the glucose molecules are connected by "alpha 1-4" 
links.  These links are easily broken by both alpha- and beta-amylases. 
 Amylopectin has "alpha 1-4" links also, but the *branch points* are 
connected by "alpha 1-6" links.  These links are NOT broken down by any 
enzymes which exist in all-grain beer brewing or by brewing yeasts. 
 These links can be broken down by other microorganisms and their enzymes.  

In brewing, beta-amylase degrades any straight-chain polysaccharide 
(including dextrins, amylose, and the branches of amylopectin up to the 
branching point) by chopping off two glucose molecules (maltose) at a 
time starting at the very end of the molecule and stopping at a branch 
point.  This is convenient since brewing yeast love to ferment maltose. 
  Alpha-amylase chops up any polysaccharide randomly, ideally creating 
lots of short chains which are either (a) fermentable themselves, or (b) 
straight chains that beta-amylase can further degrade.  Ideally all of 
the amylose was converted to sugars between 1-3 glucose molecules long, 
and the amylopectin is degraded to lots of short-chain amylose (which is 
further fermented or degraded), leaving a few, large "trunks" of 
unfermentable amylopectin behind.  This "trunk" is called the 
"beta-limit dextrin".

Got that?  Good.  But all of the above is only appropriate for yeast and 
beer making and just lays the groundwork for answering the question at 
hand, i.e. why starch haze is bad for beer stability.

So, to finally answer the question asked we need to consider what other 
organisms might be interested in what we're creating.  From this point, 
take your pick.  Many organisms (bacteria, wild yeasts, etc) love to 
"feed" on polysaccharides.  It's why "wort agar" is a very common growth 
medium in microbiology labs.  But these other microorganisms may not be 
as limited in what they can digest/ferment as yeast can.  Lactobacillus 
delbruckii can certainly ferment polysaccharides that brewing yeast 
cannot.  For proof, make a Berliner weiss.  The FG of your standard 
Berliner weiss wort is about 1.033.  You can generally get this to 
ferment down to 1.006-1.008 with regular, well-attenuating brewing 
yeasts.  Add L. delbruckii and the final gravity will drop down to 
1.000-1.002.  Someone has already brought up the many microorganisms 
present in a lambic, whose survival relied on their ability to compete 
for polysaccharides that remained unfermentable by brewing yeasts.

When you create a beer with starch haze you are basically telling any 
stray microorganisms in your wort "Here's some food.  Eat at your 
leisure."  Over time they will degrade these starches/polysaccharides 
because the limitations on what these microorganisms can ferment are not 
the same as the limitations on brewing yeast.  As they ferment, some 
will definitely create CO2...hence, the gushers.  Others will convert 
the polysaccharides into alternate byproducts (like lactic acid). 
 Others will create byproducts so unpleasant that you'll sewer the beer.

Will this always happen?  No.  Not if the non-yeast microorganism count 
is sufficiently low.  Can you prevent this from happening?  Keeping the 
beer at or neer freezing will reduce the activity of any microorganisms 
in the beer.  Or drink it very quickly.  Witbiers can have a starch 
haze, but these are products best drunk fresh.  But if you want to prove 
the general to yourself, boil a tablespoon of corn flour in two cups of 
water and leave it exposed to the air with a cheesecloth cover.  See how 
it smells in a week...or even two days.

Hope this helps.  Sorry for its length but there's a lot of ground to 
cover to get to the conclusion.  Maybe Steve A. can help with the 
references if he's feeling generous.

- -- 

Marc Sedam
Chapel Hill, NC 




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 15:32:47 -0400
From: Kevin White <kwhite at bcpl.net>
Subject: Residual Chlorine

For the chemists and biochemists among us:

If really scrungy bottles are rinsed in a heavy chlorine solution 
(for example, 1 cup 2.5% sodium hypochlorite to 5 gals water) and 
some chlorine odor remains after rinsing, then is there residual 
chlorine present after the bottle dries? If so, will it more 
easily rinse off after drying? If not, how can it be eliminated?

Kevin White
Columbia, MD



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:34:14 -0400
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: re: Why I Decoct when I mash

Caryl Hornberger Slone writes about decoction and wheat beer,

>According to Eric Warner's book,  "German Wheat Beer" (#7 of the Classic
>Beer Style Series):
>"[...]  If an authentic Weissbier  is desired, however, at least a single
>decoction mash should be employed."

If you want tradition - then sure put on the liederhosen and decoct.    Does
it make a significant flavor difference tho' ?

I've never claimed that decoction makes no flavor difference, but the
chemicals, furanones and related heterocyclics,  that are suspected of being
involved in the flavor difference, and their precursors,  are far more
prevalent in dark malt and crystal malt than in low kilned pils malt, and
even the yeast variety is involved in converting precursors into these
flavor compounds (which may be why some yeasts give a more malty flavor).

I've strongly argued that proteolysis rests, (which are usually part of a
decoction schedule) are no longer of any value with modern malts and
actually damage beers head and foam.    Kunze says the same and suggests a
decoction mash-in at 62C and a decoction steps to 70C and 78C - for barley
malts.

I am not willing to say the same of wheat malt - I just don't have the data
needed.   I have seen Kolbach and SNRs for wheat malts which are typically
quite high (43-50%) but the amount of protein in wheat malt is also 10-40%
higher than barley malt.   Kunze argues that the high modification and high
protein levels in wheat malt aren't good for the beer.   He also states
that, "to obtain a typical wheat beer aroma a *restricted* protein
degradation is preferable.  A relatively low quantity of nitrogen compounds
in the wort leads to a livelier more pleasant wheat beer".   He also states
that an excess of beer FAN and peptides leads to less fermentation
byproducts - which are desirable in wheat beer.  If Kunze's right you should
select a low protein (<14%), low Kolbach or SNR  (<40%) wheat malt.    I
haven't found any in a cursory search.

For wheat beers (aside from Kristallweizen) Kunze suggests a single or
double decoction with a mash-in at 35-37C.  Mash boiling for 20 to 25
minutes, and a main wort mashing ratio of 1:2.8 to 1:3 (1.4 to 1.5 qt/lb),
and final attenuation is very high - 78-85% apparent attenuation.

I think you'd need to avoid any rest in the 45-55C to meet Kunze's req for
limited proteolysis, also extended rests in the low saccharification range
(62-65C) will be necessary to achieve this attenuation.   Getting from 37C
to 62C (or a least 58C) will be quite difficult using decoction.   It might
be better to step from 37C to 62C by a conventional step boost and save the
decoction for a later step.

>But, nevertheless, I'm
>going to attempt to brew the same beer twice (as close as I can) and just
>change the mash schedules to see which I prefer.

That's great - but a difficult challenge.   I'll applaud your effort if you
post the results.  See if you can plan a triangle tasting of these and add
in the questions about what is the perceived difference between the two (did
anyone bring that up in discussing triangle recently ?).

>I've read over some of the old posts to this subject, and I don't believe
>that I can just add some specialty malts to accomplish the same beer.

What is the basis for your belief ?   Have you tried & compared side-by-side
brews yet ?  I have and frankly it's difficult to hone in on the real
differences in flavor and aroma in decoction vs infusion beers just because
there are so many variables, like the quality of the fement and the details
of the mash schedule - details which are never identical.   Also the
differences from decoction are a lot smaller than some folks would have you
believe.  Generally folks claim that decoctions give 'maltier' flavor and
sometimes a more aromatic (stronger) malt aroma.    There is no doubt that
you can get these features in large quantity by infusion mashing vienna,
munich and melanoidin malts, as well as darker crystals.   Adding these and
staying true to style is sometimes a challenge in pale beer styles.

Kunze suggest munich and crystal additions are legitimate for wheat beers.
If color is the issue then use vienna malts - several (Durst and Breiss')
come in at around 3 Lovibond.  I don't have any precise formulations, but my
experience w. pils leads me to believe that you could add over a pound of
Durst vienna to replace 1lb of pale malt in the infusion case without ending
up as dark as the decoction wort.  The infusion beer w/ vienna should be
maltier and more aromatic  than the decoction beer too I suspect.  If you
don't believe it that's your business, and maybe you're right in this case -
I certainly haven't compared decocted vs infused wheat malt.   Maybe adding
a little dark wheat malt to the infusion would emulate wheat decoction
flavors better.  Plan to experiment if you are serious about determining if
infusions can match decoction results.   I think that in general the answer
is yes - a little extra dark malt makes a similar flavor/aroma contribution
as decoction without the hassle.

FWIW, lower extraction rates, such as with no-sparge, also improve malty
flavors unquestionably.

Plan on making a serious couple tries at this Caryl, before you condemn the
method.   I think you'll find, as I have that making near identical beers w/
infusion vs decoction is much harder than it sounds.   After making extra
dark malt additions to the infusion there doesn't seem to be any consistent
advantage to decoction - tho' the beers are never identical.

 -S




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 21:56:18 +0000
From: "Dave Larsen" <hunahpumonkey at hotmail.com>
Subject: Mash Ph Questions


When I took the all-grain class at the local brew shop about a year and a 
half ago, one of the things we added to the mash liquor was a little lactic 
acid to adjust the Ph.  I remember we were told that it was recommended to 
be around 5.2 or something to that effect.

For my first couple of all-grain batches, I faithfully adjusted the Ph of my 
mash liquor to around 5.2.  It was about four or so batches later that I was 
doing some reading on the subject when I realized that it was really the 
mash Ph that needed to be 5.2, not the mash liquor, and that I had 
misunderstood what that was about.  As a result, because mash Ph can vary 
from recipe to recipe, the amount of lactic acid that I really should be 
adding also needs to vary.

My questions are this: How do you decide how much or how little acid to add 
to adjust Ph for various recipes?  Is this something that I should even 
worry about?  I know that mash Ph can effect efficiency.   Are there any 
other reasons I should worry about it?  I guess what I'm saying is that I do 
not understand this subject very well.  Any enlightenment would be helpful.

Thanks,

Dave Larsen
Tucson, AZ




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 21:56:48 -0400
From: "Stephen Weiss" <stephen_weiss at emoryhealthcare.org>
Subject: mash level control

I use a Ebay bought masterflex peristaltic pump with 2 heads. 
(cost total about $100).  At setting 2 with 3/8 inch norprene 
tubing it pumps into and empties the mash tun at an identical 
rate, (about 1.5 cups/minute), so level is never an issue.  
I can leave it alone for an hour and have a beer.
Steve



Return to table of contents

---