45-minute mash not enough for conversion at 156F?

Did the third brew of my robust porter recipe this weekend, and per BeerSmith, did a 45-minute 156-degree mash.

Since this discussion, I've become downright religious about taking lots of SG readings, and using Kai Troister's efficiency spreadsheet (from his efficiency article) to check my progress at each step of the process.

This weekend was the first in some time where I had lousy mash efficiency (88%, as opposed to the 95% or so I've come to expect). My temps were dead on, and my volumes were right. I stirred the mash like stirring would win me fame and fortune.

The major departure from recent brews (which I've mashed low, for attenuation-to-style purposes) was that I mashed at a higher temperature, and as a result BeerSmith advised me to go for a 45-minute mash instead of my recent standard of 60 or 90 minutes. The theory being, I guess, that at higher temps the enzymes work faster.

And yet my efficiency was low when I tested by first runnings post-vorlauf. The thing to do in these cases is to stop, dump the runnings back in and let the mash continue for another half-hour or so. I was pressed for time, so I decided to just let it ride, continue my lauter and go on to sparge.

As it was, the brew went fine and I was only 4 SG points low by the time it came to pitch, so little harm was done, but I was just wondering, with modern malts etc., whether it's common to have 45 minutes not be enough for total conversion.

Any thoughts?

-Rich

How thick was your mash? Mash thickness can affect enzyme activity. I believe that Kai also has some information about that on his wiki.

See here: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Attenuation

PistolsAtDawn said:

How thick was your mash? Mash thickness can affect enzyme activity. I believe that Kai also has some information about that on his wiki.

Click to expand...

Very good question. I always mash at 1.25 qt/lb unless I'm doing a step mash or something, which I wasn't this time.

So: 1.25 qt/lb.

-Rich

Echoloc8 said:

Very good question. I always mash at 1.25 qt/lb unless I'm doing a step mash or something, which I wasn't this time.

So: 1.25 qt/lb.

-Rich

Click to expand...

I'll bet that was where your four points went then. Which is not a big deal really.

I usually mash a bit thinner than that so I don't have to go a full hour for conversion to complete, somewhere between 1.75 and 2 qt/lb. This is mostly just to save time during a brew day. You know how those can get unintentionally long sometimes.

Interesting I just recently mashed thicker (then normal around 1.25qt per pound) and for only 30 min and got full conversion (checked with iodine) and actually got better efficiency (82% vs 75%) I am going to try it again to see if it was just a fluke.

Ply318ci said:

Interesting I just recently mashed thicker (then normal around 1.25qt per pound) and for only 30 min and got full conversion (checked with iodine) and actually got better efficiency (82% vs 75%) I am going to try it again to see if it was just a fluke.

Click to expand...

At what mash temperature? That comes into play as well. From Kai's site:

Another mash schedule factor is the length of the mashing time and the time the wort spends below 175 *F (80 *C). Below that temperature the alpha amylase is still active and can produce fermentable sugars, though not as effective and quickly as the beta amylase which is quickly denatured at temperatures above 156 *F (70 *C). See Starch Conversion.

Water to grist ratio: the enzymatic activity of the amylases is affected by the thickness of the mash. However, during the Limit of attenuation experiment it was observed that mash thickness has no significant impact on the fermentability. This is likely the result of a balance of two factors: thin mashes cause enzymes to be denatured faster but they also cause enzymes to work more efficiently, thus being able to produce the same amount of fermentable sugars even though they aren't active as long.

What was your base malt, and at what percentage? Just wondering about the diastic power of the mash. With my stouts, I have to ad AM. 2 row to the english malt to get the efficiency up.

The other thing is what was your OG?

Finally, 95% efficiency? I bow down to your mighty mashing powers sir!

gointomexico said:

What was your base malt, and at what percentage? Just wondering about the diastic power of the mash. With my stouts, I have to ad AM. 2 row to the english malt to get the efficiency up.

Click to expand...

That's a good point. On mashes with a lot of specialty malts or with non-well-modified malts (some German malts for instance), the overall diastatic power of the mash is something good to consider.

The other thing is what was your OG?

Finally, 95% efficiency? I bow down to your mighty mashing powers sir!

Click to expand...

I know, right? That's a pretty awesome figure. I think I've only hit that maybe one time. Unless of course we're talking about conversion efficiency and not just overall mash efficiency (conversion + lauter eff.). Then I think I hit that almost every time.

Sorry to respond so late but I mashed between 145-150.

gointomexico said:

What was your base malt, and at what percentage? Just wondering about the diastic power of the mash. With my stouts, I have to ad AM. 2 row to the english malt to get the efficiency up.

The other thing is what was your OG?

Finally, 95% efficiency? I bow down to your mighty mashing powers sir!

Click to expand...

Okay, here's the grain bill:

9.00 lb Pale Ale (Crisp) (4.0 SRM)
1.00 lb Amber (Crisp) (27.5 SRM)
1.00 lb Brown Malt (Crisp) (65.0 SRM)
0.75 lb Chocolate Malt (450.0 SRM)

OG was 1.059.

And it's 95% conversion (well, mash efficiency), not 95% brewhouse efficiency. I typically get between 75 and 78% brewhouse.

-Rich

What was the pH of the wort after strike?

Ply318ci said:

Sorry to respond so late but I mashed between 145-150.

Click to expand...

I think then at those temperatures, you can expect to get a highly fermentable wort fairly quickly. You maximized the beta amylase activity by keeping the mash temperature kind of low.

Conversion doesn't have to take a full hour. You can be done in 20 minutes if the conditions are correct. It's all a balance, and the time it takes will depend on many things, including the total diastatic power of the grain bill, the crush of the grist, the mash thickness, your chosen mash temperature rests, the pH (a big one!) of the mash, etc.

One more thing: these terms are easy to confuse, and therefore they're often used incorrectly, but when you say you were getting 82% efficiency, are you talking about brewhouse efficiency, conversion efficiency or mash efficiency?

You should almost always get 95ish% conversion efficiency, assuming you don't have too many malts that are low in diastatic power (and don't add additional base grains or even extra enzymes to compensate). Once you lauter, you will have a lauter efficiency measure, and those two together give you your mash efficiency.

Brewhouse efficiency accounts for equipment losses.

aiptasia said:

What was the pH of the wort after strike?

Click to expand...

This I do not know; I don't have a pH meter yet. This is my darkest beer in a while, so it might well be that pH wasn't where it should have been.

-Rich

Echoloc8 said:

This I do not know; I don't have a pH meter yet. This is my darkest beer in a while, so it might well be that pH wasn't where it should have been.

-Rich

Click to expand...

I had problems with astringency when I first went to all-grain brewing, but only with my lighter ales. My darker ales came out fine.

Turns out that my source tap water was a bit high on the pH side (7.5 - 8.0), and the darker roasted grains were helping to lower the mash pH.

So I would still think - without knowing anything about your source water - that the likely culprit was the shorter mash with a thick grist. But pH could definitely have affected this too if the enzymes were working a little bit outside their preferred range. Then they would take longer to fully convert, especially with a thick mash.

Somebody touched on it earlier:
The reason why the shorter mash time was suggested is because given enough time, beta amylase will continue to gnaw on all the dextrins created by the alphas at that higher mash temperature. The shorter time frame helps to ensure that you get the body that you are looking for.

That said, this does not explain why you had lower than average efficiency. Not without performing a starch conversion test anyway. An iodine test could be used to make sure that all starches have been converted. I suspect your problems were elsewhere in your process.

Assuming that starch conversion was completed, then all the talk about mash pH would also be moot. And I am forced to ask questions like "Was the grist crushed differently?" or "What sparge technique was used and was there a variance in run-off time?" or "What were your final runnings measured at?"

With all that pale malt in there, there's no reason real reason to believe that full conversion wasn't completed. I hope you can get to the bottom of it!

Yeah, ultimately it looks like I'm still not measuring my mash enough.

Starch conversion test, pH meter here I come.

-Rich

tjpfeister said:

Assuming that starch conversion was completed, then all the talk about mash pH would also be moot. And I am forced to ask questions like "Was the grist crushed differently?" or "What sparge technique was used and was there a variance in run-off time?" or "What were your final runnings measured at?"

Click to expand...

FWIW, same LHBS crush as usual, slow batch sparge (> 10 min, because I knew first runnings were low) and SG of the final runnings was 1.034.

-Rich

Cirsp has a pretty low diastic power of 55L, which is higher than mine (bairds) of 45L. I get mixed reports of the DP of crisp, so its hard to tell:
http://bsghandcraft.com/index.php/w...alts/10-lb-bags/crisp-crushed-pale-10-lb.html

so, if i got the equation right, it would be:
(9*45)/(9+1+1+.75)=34.5 ish

You would want a DP of the mash of 40 ish for quick ish conversion. I beleive that you can convert all the way down to 20, but it takes longer to do it, and you have to grind the gris coarser. at 40 mash DP you can convert in an hour. SO, in your case, if you add 1lb of am. 2 row, like gambrinus (dp of 120) you would have a mash dp of:
(9*45+1*120)/(9+1+1+1+.75)=41.2 ish

Now with that setup, you can mash in an hour, or less Well, you might want to SUB 1lb of crisp for gambrinus or whatev.

Echoloc8 said:

FWIW, same LHBS crush as usual, slow batch sparge (> 10 min, because I knew first runnings were low) and SG of the final runnings was 1.034.

-Rich

Click to expand...

The crush has a huge impact on the amount of time needed for conversion because you have to get the water to the enzymes to activate them. When you say that you have the same crush as usual, if that crush was just a little coarser, it would affect the conversion time.

As an experiment I bought iodine to see how long it took to get conversion to the point that I couldn't detect the presence of starch in my wort. I use a Corona style mill and I mill very fine for BIAB so your conversion time will likely be different. I took a sample when I mixed the grains in just to see the color change when iodine was added to the small sample I removed and it immediately turned a dark blue. My intent was to sample every 5 minutes during the mash until I could no longer detect starch with the iodine. I got distracted and missed my 5 minute sample and got it at 7 minutes instead. No starch at all that I could detect with iodine. Mash temperature was 154.

I am never sure what efficiency is actually measuring. But with my system (batch sparging), I get way better efficiency with a 2 hour mash time than an hour mash time. I think that it all depends on how you go about the mash/sparge and what works for you with your equipment. For me, it is longer mash times, for others, it is obviously different.

jdooley said:

I am never sure what efficiency is actually measuring. But with my system (batch sparging), I get way better efficiency with a 2 hour mash time than an hour mash time. I think that it all depends on how you go about the mash/sparge and what works for you with your equipment. For me, it is longer mash times, for others, it is obviously different.

Click to expand...

Change the crush and your mash time can go down while efficiency goes up. If you can't get water to the center of the particles of grain you can't convert the starches nor can you leach the sugars back out. Your long mash is compensating for a coarser crush by letting your water get soaked farther into the grain particles. I can get 85%+ efficiency with a 30 minute mash with the very fine crush/grind I get with my Corona style mill and mashing in a bag.

PistolsAtDawn said:

How thick was your mash? Mash thickness can affect enzyme activity. I believe that Kai also has some information about that on his wiki.

See here: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Attenuation

Click to expand...

For some reason (I duh-know) when I started mashing I sort-a went with 1.5 quarts per pound and found by doing the starch test that I was well done in 30-40 minutes but I figured I was doing something wrong and let it go a bit longer each time.

Since then I trust the starch test more but my three batches (3 weeks ago) I just let go an hour and never checked, same malt from the same bags so I trusted it.

So I agree with PistolsAtDawn that this could be your issue.

If it had been me and I thought conversion was not complete (and it was possible to finish up later) I would have raised the temp a degree or two, covered it, gone off to do my stuff and... like I said finish up later.

RM-MN said:

The crush has a huge impact on the amount of time needed for conversion because you have to get the water to the enzymes to activate them. When you say that you have the same crush as usual, if that crush was just a little coarser, it would affect the conversion time.

As an experiment I bought iodine to see how long it took to get conversion to the point that I couldn't detect the presence of starch in my wort. I use a Corona style mill and I mill very fine for BIAB so your conversion time will likely be different. I took a sample when I mixed the grains in just to see the color change when iodine was added to the small sample I removed and it immediately turned a dark blue. My intent was to sample every 5 minutes during the mash until I could no longer detect starch with the iodine. I got distracted and missed my 5 minute sample and got it at 7 minutes instead. No starch at all that I could detect with iodine. Mash temperature was 154.

Click to expand...

Nice! There's a fine example of how fast conversion can be complete under the right conditions. How thick was your mash, and did you measure pH by any chance?

DPBISME said:

For some reason (I duh-know) when I started mashing I sort-a went with 1.5 quarts per pound and found by doing the starch test that I was well done in 30-40 minutes but I figured I was doing something wrong and let it go a bit longer each time.

Since then I trust the starch test more but my three batches (3 weeks ago) I just let go an hour and never checked, same malt from the same bags so I trusted it.

So I agree with PistolsAtDawn that this could be your issue.

If it had been me and I thought conversion was not complete (and it was possible to finish up later) I would have raised the temp a degree or two, covered it, gone off to do my stuff and... like I said finish up later.

Click to expand...

In Echoloc8's situation, mashing at 156 F would greatly denature the beta amylase enzyme, leaving the alpha amylase enzyme to do most of the conversion work. Add in that the mash was thick - so conversion will be slower - and I believe this is why the conversion efficiency suffered. pH could have slowed down the enzymatic activity too if it was too far outside of the enzymes' optimal pH range.

Echoloc8, if you think about it, can you give us the finishing gravity and even maybe some tasting notes once carbonated? If your beer comes out at a high FG and tasting sweet, then I'll bet you produced a lot of unfermentable sugars by mashing at that temperature. Which is totally fine if that's what you're going for.

I actually did a very similar mash a couple weeks ago on an amber ale. 156 F and 45 minutes total mash time. SG of 1.058 (was shooting for 1.054) and FG of 1.008 (my target FG). My mash thickness was 2 qt/lb and I direct fire my MLT, so I believe that the beta amylase had enough time to produce fermentable sugars while the tun was heating up (as the mash rose through beta's optimal temperature range), despite the fact that it was at 156 F for 45 minutes.

PistolsAtDawn said:

In Echoloc8's situation, mashing at 156 F would greatly denature the beta amylase enzyme, leaving the alpha amylase enzyme to do most of the conversion work. Add in that the mash was thick - so conversion will be slower - and I believe this is why the conversion efficiency suffered. pH could have slowed down the enzymatic activity too if it was too far outside of the enzymes' optimal pH range.

Echoloc8, if you think about it, can you give us the finishing gravity and even maybe some tasting notes once carbonated? If your beer comes out at a high FG and tasting sweet, then I'll bet you produced a lot of unfermentable sugars by mashing at that temperature. Which is totally fine if that's what you're going for.

I actually did a very similar mash a couple weeks ago on an amber ale. 156 F and 45 minutes total mash time. SG of 1.058 (was shooting for 1.054) and FG of 1.008 (my target FG). My mash thickness was 2 qt/lb and I direct fire my MLT, so I believe that the beta amylase had enough time to produce fermentable sugars while the tun was heating up (as the mash rose through beta's optimal temperature range), despite the fact that it was at 156 F for 45 minutes.

Click to expand...

This is a porter of my own design, and a decent mouthfeel is definitely part of the plan. I will definitely post my FG; I've made this recipe several times before, but my technique has changed a lot (I've learned a lot about mashing, water chem and other things since 6 months ago), so I have no idea what the FG will be this time. BeerSmith forecasts 1.018, so we'll see.

On top of that, the wort was a *lot* lighter than I expected based on my grain bill. I have a sneaking suspicion that the LHBS may have forgotten my 3/4 lb of chocolate malt. OTOH, the OG was pretty close to what I expected, so who knows? Without a really dark malt, what would the beer be? A "brown porter," per the BJCP? I guess again, we'll see.

-Rich

PistolsAtDawn said:

Nice! There's a fine example of how fast conversion can be complete under the right conditions. How thick was your mash, and did you measure pH by any chance?



In Echoloc8's situation, mashing at 156 F would greatly denature the beta amylase enzyme, leaving the alpha amylase enzyme to do most of the conversion work. Add in that the mash was thick - so conversion will be slower - and I believe this is why the conversion efficiency suffered. pH could have slowed down the enzymatic activity too if it was too far outside of the enzymes' optimal pH range.

Echoloc8, if you think about it, can you give us the finishing gravity and even maybe some tasting notes once carbonated? If your beer comes out at a high FG and tasting sweet, then I'll bet you produced a lot of unfermentable sugars by mashing at that temperature. Which is totally fine if that's what you're going for.

I actually did a very similar mash a couple weeks ago on an amber ale. 156 F and 45 minutes total mash time. SG of 1.058 (was shooting for 1.054) and FG of 1.008 (my target FG). My mash thickness was 2 qt/lb and I direct fire my MLT, so I believe that the beta amylase had enough time to produce fermentable sugars while the tun was heating up (as the mash rose through beta's optimal temperature range), despite the fact that it was at 156 F for 45 minutes.

Click to expand...

My mash was about 2.6 qts/lb since I was doing the batch BIAB with minimal sparge to achieve preboil. I suspect that I was too busy to remember adding the acid blend so the pH was likely about 5.7 but I know I wouldn't have had time to measure it with the iodine test going on.

PistolsAtDawn said:

Nice! There's a fine example of how fast conversion can be complete under the right conditions. How thick was your mash, and did you measure pH by any chance?

Click to expand...

Well at 1.5 quarts it is a bit more loose that what I see now that I am using BeerSmith ((and it's recommended 1:1.25 I think)) like I said a few times recently I did not even check since I was using grain from a couple of good bags of the stuff.

PH Readings...No sorry, I was an Extract brewer for years and rarely if ever took a lot of readings and I have been having a hard time "remembering" to take them.

I am in Alexandria VA and 13 years ago when I started this hobby up again I found that I was making good Stouts and Summer Ales with no mods to the water profile... though I plan to "Burtonize" when I do my BASS CLONE very soon... Then again I am not a HOPHEAD and tent to brew English Style Ales with low hop counts.

On the readings ---> I am trying to do better (more scientific) and trying to remember to take all the reading a "real brewer" but now I fit in the Artisan Brewer category (sounds better than "seat of you pants brewer"...

RM-MN said:

Change the crush and your mash time can go down while efficiency goes up. If you can't get water to the center of the particles of grain you can't convert the starches nor can you leach the sugars back out. Your long mash is compensating for a coarser crush by letting your water get soaked farther into the grain particles. I can get 85%+ efficiency with a 30 minute mash with the very fine crush/grind I get with my Corona style mill and mashing in a bag.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that info. I have converted a spaghetti roller which I run with a drill. It works well. I can adjust it to a finer crush, but will probably have to run some of the grain through twice to achieve this. I will give it a try and see what it does to my efficiency. I have been really happy with the efficiency on my last few brews, so a further improvement would be impressive, to say the least.

jdooley said:

Thanks for that info. I have converted a spaghetti roller which I run with a drill. It works well. I can adjust it to a finer crush, but will probably have to run some of the grain through twice to achieve this. I will give it a try and see what it does to my efficiency. I have been really happy with the efficiency on my last few brews, so a further improvement would be impressive, to say the least.

Click to expand...

From what I've been told, you change the crush finer each batch until you get a stuck sparge, then open it one notch. With a conventional mash tun, if you mill too fine/damage the husks too much you cannot get a proper filter bed to form before the fine particles clog the false bottom or manifold. Using the paint strainer bag increases the area of filtering and allows you to use pressure to force the wort out. You can line a conventional tun with a paint strainer bag or "Swiss voile" to allow you to use the finer crush.

Echoloc8 said:

This is a porter of my own design, and a decent mouthfeel is definitely part of the plan. I will definitely post my FG; I've made this recipe several times before, but my technique has changed a lot (I've learned a lot about mashing, water chem and other things since 6 months ago), so I have no idea what the FG will be this time. BeerSmith forecasts 1.018, so we'll see.

On top of that, the wort was a *lot* lighter than I expected based on my grain bill. I have a sneaking suspicion that the LHBS may have forgotten my 3/4 lb of chocolate malt. OTOH, the OG was pretty close to what I expected, so who knows? Without a really dark malt, what would the beer be? A "brown porter," per the BJCP? I guess again, we'll see.

-Rich

Click to expand...

There's always more to learn about this hobby! I know that's part of why I like it. I think I remember reading somewhere that mash pH can affect the final color of your beer as well as starch conversion (I don't meant that the color of the grain will affect pH). So maybe that's why you were getting a lighter wort than you expected. But don't quote me on that last part as I couldn't find any information about that specifically. Or maybe the LHBS did forget something after all. pH testing (or at least ballparking it) is so very important with all-grain brewing.

I was off on my FG numbers for my amber ale, by the way. I was thinking of the previous batch of beer when I reported 1.008 as the FG. BeerSmith predicted 1.054 as SG/OG (I got 1.058), and 1.014 as FG (I got 1.017). So I still hit the same ABV that I was after at least. Might be a little bit sweeter than I intended, but hopefully that won't make a huge difference, especially on a malty amber ale.

I think despite that though, my point on the mash thickness and length still stands. From what I understand, alpha amylase will produce fermentable sugars, just not nearly as many as beta or as quickly either. So the longer a mash sits at 156 F, the longer alpha has to work on the starches, and the more unfermentable and fermentable sugars will be converted. Beta won't be completely denatured at that temperature either. So I think that's why despite the high temperature, I still got a pretty fermentable wort out of the mash. If I had let it sit longer than 45 minutes, I may have gotten a lower FG too.

Okay, so when it comes to measuring pH, it looks like this may be a can of worms.

Based on my research here, it looks like my options are these:

* pH Strips. Cheap, but so inaccurate as to be of dubious use anyway.

* pH Meter. Price from $70 to $120 for anything worthwhile. In any form, requires calibration every brew day, and must be stored such that the probe stays wet so as not to damage it. Basically, delicate, fiddly and a nontrivial pain in the rear end.

Am I mistaken about any of these points?

-Rich

You are not mistaken. It's a pain in the arse either way.

The ColorpHast strips are supposedly much better than regular litmus paper strips for our purposes, but they're expensive and sell out quickly on Amazon.

dont waste time with the cheap PH strips.
Coloplasts strips are much more $ but closer for accuracy
PH meter is nto that hard to keep calibrated if you take the time to do it properly.

There is so many thing that come into play on your mash being done in 45 minutes

i use this type, easier to read quickly:
http://www.williamsbrewing.com/40-to-70-pH-TEST-STRIPS--P1001.aspx

gointomexico said:

i use this type, easier to read quickly:
http://www.williamsbrewing.com/40-to-70-pH-TEST-STRIPS--P1001.aspx

Click to expand...

those are not very accurate

besides going to a ph meter these are your best bet, cut them in half to get mor uses
http://morebeer.com/products/ph-strips-colorphast-40-70.html?gclid=CIL19LrLrLcCFSdgMgodJ34AVA

Thanks for that. I don't have trouble with sparging as I use nylon netting to line the cooler so I can pull the grain away from the ball valve outlet. But I will go for a finer crush and see what happens.

Man, 30 bucks for 100 strips. That's halfway to a meter, but then the meter needs solutions and (infrequent) probe replacement and constant calibration, so I guess the colorpHast strips aren't a bad idea.

The cutting in half option sounds like a very good one.

Are the strips temperature-sensitive? I.e., do they need to be corrected for mash temperatures?

-Rich

Echoloc8 said:

Man, 30 bucks for 100 strips. That's halfway to a meter, but then the meter needs solutions and (infrequent) probe replacement and constant calibration, so I guess the colorpHast strips aren't a bad idea.

The cutting in half option sounds like a very good one.

Are the strips temperature-sensitive? I.e., do they need to be corrected for mash temperatures?

-Rich

Click to expand...

Strips will read 0.3 higher at mash temps. So subtract 0.3 if you read the wort sample at that temperature.

A meter is more expensive, but it's a LOT more accurate too.

Echoloc8 said:

Man, 30 bucks for 100 strips. That's halfway to a meter, but then the meter needs solutions and (infrequent) probe replacement and constant calibration, so I guess the colorpHast strips aren't a bad idea.

The cutting in half option sounds like a very good one.

Are the strips temperature-sensitive? I.e., do they need to be corrected for mash temperatures?

-Rich

Click to expand...

They do seem spendy but they last a while especially when you cut them in half, 30 bucks for 200 beers isnt to bad

these are the only strips that are close. If someone tells you to use those cheap ones dont beleive them, complete waste of money.

PistolsAtDawn said:

Strips will read 0.3 higher at mash temps. So subtract 0.3 if you read the wort sample at that temperature.

A meter is more expensive, but it's a LOT more accurate too.

Click to expand...

That's what I thought. Easy enough to write corrections on the color-ref card.

There's no doubt a (good-quality, well maintained, well calibrated) meter would be more accurate, but when I take into account the babying meters need, at this point in my brewing career I think a bag of strips is the way to go.

-Rich

Echoloc8 said:

That's what I thought. Easy enough to write corrections on the color-ref card.

There's no doubt a (good-quality, well maintained, well calibrated) meter would be more accurate, but when I take into account the babying meters need, at this point in my brewing career I think a bag of strips is the way to go.

-Rich

Click to expand...

taking care of a meter is very easy. I was skeptical how much of a pain it would be. I have a freind who is a microbiologist and they do it daily walked me through it and it is not hard at all. You just need to keep it in a buffer solution when not in use.