Calcium levels effected by mash?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

dstar26t

If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,145
Reaction score
62
Location
Ridley Park
I read in a post on another board (second and last paragraph here) that the grain in the mash adds 50ppm calcium and that there's a 50% loss of calcium in the wort leaving the mash. Anyone else heard of this? If it's true or possible, adding a little extra calcium to my water additions in the boil may be necessary.
 
I adjust my water depending on style. If my adjustments are changing because the grain contributes 50ppm but then soaks up 50%, I'll have to add extra gypsum/chalk to the boil to compensate depending on the style.

Anyone heard of this? I can't take one reference and use it as gospel.
 
Course, I'm just a noob, but to me it makes no sense. If the style requires a certain amount of calcium then that will be in the water going into the mash (where the Ca2+ can affect the pH and profile of the mash etc). I have never heard of anyone adjusting the levels of minerals AFTER the mash. If the grain soak it up, well, the grain soak it up. That must be part of the style too.
 
Typically there are 2 additions. One in the mash just after dough-in and one in the boil to compensate for all the sparge water added. To properly modify your water for the style, the total volume of wort in the boil kettle must be treated, not just the mash.
 
I know that calcium is precipitated out in the husk of the grain. I know that the grain contributes calcium and magnesium. I believe it also can be participated out with the cold break. I am not sure of the numbers. I assume the 50ppm contribution must be based on some standard mash water to grain ratio, seems like that would be important. I know Palmer advocates a minimum 50ppm calcium in the water used to brew, so that is what I go with. He seems to know what he is talking about. :)

It is important though, because the fermentation and yeast need a certain amount of calcium to produce nice, clear, stable beer.
 
yeah, Palmer knows a thing or 2.

All the cold break goes into my fermenters...CFC.

So if my water has 27ppm Ca (which it does) and I add gypsum to get it up to 50, the grain adds another 50 bringing the total to 100. But, after the mash it's back down to 50 since the grain absorbed half. So we're even.

But if I want a larger amount like 125ppm, then in the mash there's 175 and after lautering there's 87 so I have to make up another 38ppm in the boil kettle. I wonder if it's even that important.
 
There's always the ol' "give it a try and tell us what you find" approach. My guess is that in a double blind test of one way vs. the other, most people would not be able to tell if the calcium was at 50ppm or 100ppm. But I'd be interested to hear what you find in actual application.
 
I think I remember the brewers from Lagunitas mention something about calcium levels being affected by your mash in one of the recent Brewing Network shows. Not sure if it was the latest interview on the Sunday Session or one of the "Can You Brew It?" shows.
 
I lean towards believing that, roughly speaking, any Ca adsorbed by the grain is also added by the grain. This is probably why one doesn't see this discussed much in the brew science literature (i.e., the grain's contribution and detraction of Ca from the mash).

I don't think one can just say that the grain adds 50 ppm to the mash. That depends on so many things: the Ca content in the grain (soil where it was grown, etc.), the mash thickness, the amount of grain, water/mash pH, etc.
 
Back
Top