Fifty pound sack = catastrophic mash failure. Ten Pound bag is fine.

[GuitsBoy]

So yesterday I had my first real mash failure on 2 of the 3 batches I brewed. Im talking super low efficiency in the ~30% range. All three batches were done concurrently (3 MTs, 3 kettles, etc.) The only difference that stands out is that the batch that hit my target spot on was primarily great western 2 row in a ten pound bag. The two low efficiency batches came from my first fifty pound sack of the same.

They were milled the same way, and mashed side by side by side. Temperatures were nearly spot on at 152, for 45 to 50 minutes. Its my own fault for only performing an iodine test on the first batch, which happened to be the one that converted well. Had I done a pre-boil gravity reading, I might have caught the problem, but sadly I didnt realize anything was awry until I took the SG reading on all three. When the refractometer read so low, I double checked with the hydrometer. I had a 3 lb bag of DME that helped me get some lost gravity back, but it certainly wasn't enough to hit my targets.

Any ideas why the big bag of malt didnt convert as well?


Batch 1 - Sierra Nevada Clone
11# 2-row, 1# 40L (10 lb bag)
Target: 1.052
Measured: 1.051
Efficiency:65%

Batch 2 - Amber Ale
8# 2-Row, 2# Munich, 1# 60L, 1# 90L (Big Sack)
Target: 1.052
Measured: 1.024
Efficiency: 28%

Batch 3 - Pliny the Elder Clone
14 Lbs 2-Row, .75 CaraPils, .75 40L, .75 Dextrose (Big Sack)
Target: 1.075
Measured: 1.044
Efficiency: 35%

 

[Hello]

It makes little sense. All of my grain comes from 50# bags, whether I buy the bag myself or I am buying it from the LHBS. Where was your 50# stored and for how long? Even if not stored in ideal temps, it still doesn't make total sense. Are you sure your crush was good?

 

[GuitsBoy]

It makes little sense. All of my grain comes from 50# bags, whether I buy the bag myself or I am buying it from the LHBS. Where was your 50# stored and for how long? Even if not stored in ideal temps, it still doesn't make total sense. Are you sure your crush was good?

Stored in basement, sealed, for maybe a month or so? Bought from morebeer.com, and I assume drop shipped direct from great western or somewhere in CA, so who knows what temps it hit on the truck to NY. The 10 pound bag was uncrushed, so the crush was the same. Its a corona mill, but ive been using it for some time typically with 60% to 70% efficiency.

Its almost as if there are no enzymes left in the bulk sack. How could that happen?

 

[bigdongsr94]

I am not familiar with corona mill but my monster mill opens up over time. I'm assuming all that use opened up the grind. Still seems really low but check your gap now. This might account for some of the low eff but I kinda don't think it would account for all or you would have noticed it drop straight grain.

 

[GuitsBoy]

Corona mill is that cheap plate mill everybody buys when theyre too cheap for a roller. It doesnt really open up much over time, and you feel the loss of resistance in the drill if its not crushing.

Anyway, on visual inspection, the grain looked like it was cracked well, without being too fine. I dont think the gap would have changed between the three batches.

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

I assume you are not topping off with water after the boil? Your problem sounds like bad mixing of top off water when you took your samples for measuring.

That or somehow you denatured all of the enzymes as soon as the grain hit the water.

 

[GuitsBoy]

No top off water. The beer smith calculations for mash and sparge volumes are pretty dialed in now. I do add water to grain instead of the usual doughing in, but Ive been using the method for a while without issues, and it worked for the good batch this past brew session too. The strike water was 168 on the nose. It drops immediately on contact, so I don't think its enough to denature anything.

 

[donbrew]

I will bet that the spent grain had big lumps of wet dough in it that never got exposed to the enzymes or the sparge. That is the reason you add dry ingredients to hot water rather than the other way around. Done that!

 

[GuitsBoy]

No dough balls. Mash is relatively loose, and a couple of stirs with the mash paddle, and everything is well mixed. Its obviously working well enough to get the 65% efficiency on a least the one good batch, and Ive been deep in the 70's in the past. I don't think the answer is as simple as doughballs.

 

[RmikeVT]

I find it hard to believe that the grain could be the variable that caused the low efficiency unless it was 2+ years old or something like that, but still. Have you checked for proper calibration on your equipment? Check your scale? Check your thermometer? If you still have the sack of grain, give Great Western a call and see if they had any problems with batches of grain, the lot# along with other identification info is probably somewhere on the sack.

 

[Hello]

Hmmmmm

So what I do know is that the goal of the malting process is to achieve maximum production of enzymes. Is it possible that the sack when malted was done wrong? If so, I assume there are more than just one sack that is affected and I would call Morebeer to at least explain. You can't just tell them it was a bad sack, it would be prudent to research how exactly a sack of brewer's grain can be bad. Morebeer may try to say it was your fault and you didn't dough-in correctly, and maybe it was, but right now, I'm wondering if this is a bad batch of grain as a whole. By telling the place you bought it from, they can maybe see if others have complained.

I've never looked, but if there is a batch number on the bag, I would record it and give it over to Morebeer.

As for the bad malting process, I think it is during the germination process where enzymes are produced. But before that, you're steeping your grain which is adding moisture to the grain (I am sure there is more to it but this is all I know). I think you can add too much or too little moisture and then the germination process is also adversely affected. The rest is just drying and kilning and I am not sure if it is that.

I think there are target moisture ranges and of course kilning make up the character of the malt. As you roast more, you obviously get a malt that is more roasty. I know that speciality grains are nearly all the way converted. I can mash speciality grains until I am blue in the face, but they're not going to convert anymore than they already can. I usually add mine at the last 15 minutes of the mash. So that brings me back to wondering if your sack was already converted quite a bit and therefore, you got the efficiency you got.

I don't know if this is right or even makes sense, but if you isolated this to one sack of grain, I think it is worth the research.

I'm actually kind of interested in this, even though it is at your expense.

 

[IslandLizard]

+1 ^

If you have any of that sack malt left, do a small test mash with a pound (or half) in a pot in the oven. Check for gravity (refractometer) and conversion (iodine) at 15' intervals.

 

[Gavin C]

Just a theory but here goes.

• You used 3 kettles and 3 mash-tuns. I'm guessing and assuming you used only one HLT. That would make sense.
  
  
• HLT water is up to your desired strike temp (168 seems very high to me but that is beside the point).
  
  
• Heat is still on to the HLT low enough to keep temperature.
  
  
• You dough-in your first batch. (water added to grain at that high temperature leaves little wiggle room for error. A little hotter and those enzymes are denatured)
  
  
• Few minutes later you dough in your second and a few minutes later your third batch,
  
  
• All the while the heat is on the HLT and/or residual heat in the body of the HLT is adding more heat to the ever reducing volume of water in the HLT. Temperature is rising and goes up a few degrees.
  
  
• Now you are doughing in with water at 170+. Ezymes toast, efficiency drops off a cliff.

Again all of this is just me piecing together a mental image of how this may have gone down.

I think with efficiency in the first batch that low (65%) it points to this overly hot strike water and the water to grain process. Anytime I see systems where the brewer is adding water to the grain in the mash tun they are usually doing some form of mash heating and bringing the temeperature up to the desired rest(s) with direct or indirect heating of the mash. Usually the latter.

I think the grain quality is not the cause and would argue it's the least likely solution.

Easy way to eliminate it would be to perform a small test mash in a pot. (1lb of finely crushed grain and 2.5-3 quarts of water at 152F in a pot for 45 mins).

It should look clear, taste sweet, and have a gravity consistent with good extraction of sugars) Iodine will add another confirmation but is not crucial to eliminate the grain as the problem.

 

[GuitsBoy]

Welp, I dont think it was a problem with the 2-row.

I just did a small test batch, with one pound of 2 row and 1.62 quarts, and mashed in a sauce pan on the stove for an hour. I did iodine and refractometer samples every 5 minutes. It still looks like there was some starch even at 60 minutes, but it wast as dark black an indication as it was earlier, so im sure it was almost complete. At 30 minutes I had about 12% Brix, at 45 minutes it was 22% and at 60 minutes it was 23%. After diluting it down with an additional quart to bring it to an estimated 1/2 gallon wort for a pound of malt, I had roughly 11 brix, which is 1.044.

1.044 seems about right for 10 pounds of grain for a 5 gallon batch, pre boil, no boil off or trub loss.

I guess I just need to mash a full hour at least. 45 minutes simply wasnt enough. Still, I wouldnt think the efficiency would have been cut in half. But at least I know the grain isn't bad.

 

[Gavin C]

Sounds like the grain is fine.

Crush finer

Mash thinner

Add grains to water

Your problems will go away and your conversion efficiency will improve

I do no-sparge brewing so it differes a little from what you do. I brewed an Alt yesterday. With these things being done as part of my routine the brew nets me...

5.4 gallons in the FV at OG1.050 ~9.4 pounds of grain used

 

[Owly055]

It probably is process............. I can see if you lived in Arizona, and the malt sat for a couple of days in a closed van trailer in the hot sun, the temps could easily get high enough to denature the amylase.

I often mash for 30 minutes or even 20 minutes and get complete conversion with a fine crush........... I get most of my grain in 50 and 55 pound sacks. (Malteurope brand)



H.W.

 

[Hello]

Welp, I dont think it was a problem with the 2-row.

I just did a small test batch, with one pound of 2 row and 1.62 quarts, and mashed in a sauce pan on the stove for an hour. I did iodine and refractometer samples every 5 minutes. It still looks like there was some starch even at 60 minutes, but it wast as dark black an indication as it was earlier, so im sure it was almost complete. At 30 minutes I had about 12% Brix, at 45 minutes it was 22% and at 60 minutes it was 23%. After diluting it down with an additional quart to bring it to an estimated 1/2 gallon wort for a pound of malt, I had roughly 11 brix, which is 1.044.

1.044 seems about right for 10 pounds of grain for a 5 gallon batch, pre boil, no boil off or trub loss.

I guess I just need to mash a full hour at least. 45 minutes simply wasnt enough. Still, I wouldnt think the efficiency would have been cut in half. But at least I know the grain isn't bad.

It is definitely the process then.

Sounds like the grain is fine.

Crush finer

Mash thinner

Add grains to water

Your problems will go away and your conversion efficiency will improve

I do no-sparge brewing so it differes a little from what you do. I brewed an Alt yesterday. With these things being done as part of my routine the brew nets me...

5.4 gallons in the FV at OG1.050 ~9.4 pounds of grain used

This exactly. It really helps to isolate the issue by knowing your grain is good, which you now did, and then giving lots of details on your process.
At least you know there's not an issue with bad sacks of grain floating around.

 

[GuitsBoy]

Yes, I suppose it HAS to be process. However, I dont know why two batches of teh same grain would preform markedly differently. Both the 10 pounder as well as the 50 lb sack were both Great Western 2-row pale. Both were un-milled. Both went through the same milling and mashin process. One converted completely in the 45 minutes, but the other did not.

Though it seems to be more of a work around, at least I know I can make beer with the remaining 175 Lbs I have on hand. I just have to mash a bit longer than usual.

 

[Gavin C]

Yes, I suppose it HAS to be process. ...... I just have to mash a bit longer than usual.

It is your process but I really don't believe that mashing time is the issue here based on what you have described for your brews.

A 45 minute mash with everything else done correctly will not result in the poor conversion you got.

I've tried mashing for 30 minutes as many others have and gotten complete conversion and 80+% brewhouse efficiencies.

Edit: Your test mash even shows low efficiency. This points to crush quality and mashing too thick.

 

[GuitsBoy]

I completely accept tgat theres room for improvement on my process, But blaming the crush size and mash thickness does not explain why one had perfectly reasonable efficiency. They were mashed identically next on one another.

 

[Gavin C]

I completely accept tgat theres room for improvement on my process, But blaming the crush size and mash thickness does not explain why one had perfectly reasonable efficiency. They were mashed identically next on one another.

Agreed but adding the water at that planned temperature (mash-out temperatures) could tip the scales and prevent a mash completelly (if the water got a little hotter) as seems to have occured.

That explains it perfectly to me. I see no other likely cause.

 

[signpost]

You keep claiming that the process for the three batches was exactly the same. It is obvious from your results that they weren't. You won't identify the problem unless you are open to the idea that you did something slightly different for the three mashes.

My guess after reading what others have suggested is that you started running off your wort in the opposite order from how you filled the mash tuns. In other words, you filled them up 1, 2, 3 and then emptied them 3, 2, 1. That could account for a huge variation in the total mash time for each batch.

Whether that was your actual specific mistake or not, insisting repeatedly that the process was exactly the same will make it impossible to identify the problem and correct it. Just be aware that something that might seem like a small, inconsequential thing might actually have a large impact on your results.

 

[GuitsBoy]

Just because my process is non standard by most people's routine doesnt mean I'm disorganized or haphazard in my mashing or brewing. I'm actually fairly fastidious in my timing and temps. I'll walk you through it.

First I measure out the grain into three homer buckets. Then I'll mill the three in order and return it to the buckets. I measure out my volumes of strike water and heat them in three 5 gallon kettles on the rangetop. Directly across from the stove is a large island where I place my three rectangular cooler mash tons. I have been adding water to grain, so the grain goes into each MT and I want for the matching strike water to heat. I have a dial thermometer in each pot for a quick glance, but use an instant digital for a final reading. Once the strike water is up to temp I pour into the cooler. Time for each is recorded on the printed brewsheet from beersmith. I set the timer in my phone for 45 minutes from when the first mash started. I spend the rest of the time periodically checking temps and occasionally adding boiling water to bring temps up, and subtract the volume from sparge water accordingly. Then once 45 mins is up, I open the valves and drain into the 8 gal brew kettles, while sparge water is heating in the stove again. After the MTs are drained, I sparge, drain, and begin my boils.

Now in my process, there's not a lot of room for variation between one batch and another, since they all happen at the same time, with the same equipment. The variable that stood out for me was the two different base grain sources, which were purchased at different times. While they are the same product, there could be variations the may make them behave differently. One was obviously very flexible and worked well in my process, while the others not so much. If I thought there was a realistic chance there was a major discrepancy in the grind, temperatures or time between my batches, I wouldn't be scratching my head, and certainly wouldn't have posted such a puzzling issue.

Either way, a finer grind and longer mash should allow me to make beer from the grain I have in hand.

 

[IslandLizard]

Thanks for describing your process, it helps us understanding. A few remarks.

First off, that must be some hell of a stove you've got there to heat up 3 pots of strike water all at once. Then do a concurrent full boil of 3 of them too!

Is that thermometer accurate? And are the readings repeatable?

Do you stir the mash well? As in: stir like you mean it for 3 minutes or so? What is the mash temp at that point? That's critical.

It still may have to do with the milled grain, as said before, perhaps the gap opened up. The difference in milling between .034" and .038" is huge!

 

[GuitsBoy]

The stove is a 36 inch 5 burner. I can fit three 8 gal kettles on there staggered. The burners are slightly off center, but it does the job. They're two 15k and one 18k btu. That's plenty to get them up to temp indoors especially if the lids are on.

The 8 gal kettles have thermometers in the bulkheads, but I use a combination of 12 dial thermometers and the digital for the strike water. It's serves as a sanity check. The digital shows a variation of less than a degree at rolling boil, and all athermometers are calibrated as closely as possible.

I do stir the mash. Perhaps not three minutes per batch, but we'll enough for a nice creamy uniform oatmeal consistency. Depending on the beer, I usually keep the mash between 148 and 156. I was shooting for 152 on all three this past brewday.

Not sure what the gap is since its a plate mill not a roller mill. I just go by looking at the output. Finer than simply cracked, but not so fine there are no hulls left. And all three batches were ground at the same time, so there was no adjustment between them.

Thanks again to all that replied.

 

[signpost]

Just because my process is non standard by most people's routine doesnt mean I'm disorganized or haphazard in my mashing or brewing.

...

If I thought there was a realistic chance there was a major discrepancy in the grind, temperatures or time between my batches, I wouldn't be scratching my head, and certainly wouldn't have posted such a puzzling issue.

It is not only people that are disorganized or haphazard that make mistakes. And there doesn't necessarily have to be a major discrepancy to make a significant difference in results.

I was just trying to point out that you won't have much of a chance of figuring out what went wrong, if you refuse to consider that you might have made a small mistake. I know there have been a small handful of times that I actually didn't end up doing exactly what I planned. But that might just be my disorganized and haphazard way of doing things.

So, moving on...

Was the 50 lb. sack made of paper or that woven type material some of the malt companies use? If it was different from the smaller sack, that would obviously explain the poor extraction numbers.

 

[JPicasso]

I think your problem is, as Gavin pointed out, that you are adding water that is at mash-out temp (or almost) directly to the grains. And I bet you are exposing almost all of your grains to this high temperature, before the cooler and the grains can absorb the heat.

Change process to: Load coolers with strike temperature water... temperature will fall as the cooler absorbs the heat. Add grains and stir.
...
Enjoy delicious beer.

 

[GuitsBoy]

I was just trying to point out that you won't have much of a chance of figuring out what went wrong, if you refuse to consider that you might have made a small mistake.

I never claimed that I was perfect or incapable of making a mistake. My process is chock full of half-assed shortcuts. However, what I can confidently claim is that the same mistakes were reproduced to a fairly high degree of accuracy across all three batches.

I've brewed probably 150 gallons with my current process in 2015 alone. 'Ive brewed with mash temps as high as 156 to 158, and strike water as high as 172. Those are much more severe than the other day's temps. Sure from time to time my expected gravity and measured gravity might be off by 5% or 10%. But I've never seen anything approaching a 50% discrepancy until the other day. The only differing variable that comes to mind between the three concurrent batches was how the base malt arrived. The good batch was a 10 pound plastic bag of unmilled grain from morebeer. The two bad batches were from a bulk sack, which I assume was drop shipped from great western directly.

But yes, as many have mentioned, there are a few more precautions that I will certainly integrate into my next brew day. I will be extra certain my grist is milled finely enough. I will also add grain to water, so that the strike water has cooled by a degree or two thanks to the thermal mass of the plastic cooler and bazooka screen.

Thanks again for all the suggestions guys.

 

[GuitsBoy]

I brewed another three batches this past weekend from a new fifty pound sack (same order and same lot number), and while the suggestions have certainly helped, my efficiency is still sub par. I am still convinced something is off with these bags.

I tightened the plates as much as I could without the drill chuck slipping. It was ground finer than I've ever crushed in the past. Luckily I didnt have a stuck sparge.

I added grain to water, instead of vice versa. I mashed at 1.25 qts to lb thickness.

I stirred the grain for a solid 2 to 3 minutes initially. And again for 60 seconds 3 or 4 times over the hour long mash.

I mashed for a full hour, and kept the temperature within a degree between 151 and 152 degrees, measured with a brand new thermoworks thermometer, and double checked with my older off brand instant read.

I checked the PH and ensured it was as close to 5.2 as I could test.

My efficiency on the three batches were 58%, 61% and 58%

This was about as accurate as I have ever brewed, in my opinion, and my efficiencies are absolutely abysmal.

I'm going to have to add 10-15% more grain just to get through the 130 or so lbs I have left. What a disappointment. Hopefully by the time I run out and need to order more, the lot number will have changed. Or I may try a new source altogether.

 

[kh54s10]

I would check where you bought the grain from to see if anyone else has reported problems.

I disagree with the idea that adding 168 degree water to grain would be any different than adding grain to 168 degree water. There would be very little difference. And the grain will cool the water rapidly. Only a little of the grain would actually be brought to a temperature of 168 degrees.

Though 168 degrees seems really high unless your grain is very cold to start with. My Beersmith is set for a grain temperature is set for 70 degrees since it comes from a heated basement that is pretty close to 70 degrees all year. My highest strike temperature has been 163.3 for darker, malty ales.

How quickly did the mash temperature stabilize? And did you have to cool it to target temperature?

If all three batches reacted the same it leads me to a grain problem.

Have you tried another base grain in the mean time and had your typical results? That would single out the grain as the problem.

 

[GuitsBoy]

How quickly did the mash temperature stabilize? And did you have to cool it to target temperature?

If all three batches reacted the same it leads me to a grain problem.

Have you tried another base grain in the mean time and had your typical results? That would single out the grain as the problem.

My strike water was 163.7, and I did not need to cool. The temp was right on ~152 as soon as I was done stirring.

This past brewday used the same problem grain for all three batches. But the previous brewday from the initial post shows that only two of the three batches used the "problem grain" and those were the two with issues. The one batch that used grain from a 10 pound bag hit my usual efficiency in 20 minutes.

 

[Gavin C]

Any reason you don't want to try mashing thinner? With efficiency that low what you gotta lose by trying.

 

[kh54s10]

No top off water. The beer smith calculations for mash and sparge volumes are pretty dialed in now. I do add water to grain instead of the usual doughing in, but Ive been using the method for a while without issues, and it worked for the good batch this past brew session too. The strike water was 168 on the nose. It drops immediately on contact, so I don't think its enough to denature anything.

My strike water was 163.7, and I did not need to cool. The temp was right on ~152 as soon as I was done stirring.

This past brewday used the same problem grain for all three batches. But the previous brewday from the initial post shows that only two of the three batches used the "problem grain" and those were the two with issues. The one batch that used grain from a 10 pound bag hit my usual efficiency in 20 minutes.

I think this is where some of the discussion about strike temperature denaturing the mash got going.

Since your temperatures seem to be all right, I am back to a grain problem.

Let us know if you contact your supplier about any reports, I am glad I don't have any of that particular malt.

 

[GuitsBoy]

I think this is where some of the discussion about strike temperature denaturing the mash got going.

Since your temperatures seem to be all right, I am back to a grain problem.

Let us know if you contact your supplier about any reports, I am glad I don't have any of that particular malt.

EDIT: I wasnt mashing at a higher temp. Looking through beersmith I wasn't mashing any thicker, and my recipes were all in the 163-164 strike temp range. It must have been a typo when responding. I probably accidentally referenced sparge temp instead of strike temp and it didnt seem odd to me since I do occasionally mash at 155 to 156.

Regardless, across both brewdays, and all batches therein, the mash temp was indeed 152.

 

[GuitsBoy]

Any reason you don't want to try mashing thinner? With efficiency that low what you gotta lose by trying.

Yeah, I probably will try this next time. Right now I've been heating the strike water in 5 gallon pots, but next time Ill heat the water in the 8 gallon kettles instead and mash a little thinner. I'll probably mash 90 minutes with a half hour batch sparge as well, to be sure I'm not shorting it in any way.

 

[Gavin C]

How is batch sparging taking 30 minutes?

 

[GuitsBoy]

How is batch sparging taking 30 minutes?

I'm saying that I *will* allow it to rest for 30 minutes *next time*, on the off chance that conversion is incomplete after the mash.

I am pulling out all the stops to give this grain every possible advantage just to see what happens.

But to clear things up, no, I dont batch sparge for 30 minutes. I let the grain bed settle for 5 to 10 minutes then let 'er rip, hopefully before an tannins are extracted.

 

[sudbuddy]

The two bad batches were from a bulk sack, which I assume was drop shipped from great western directly.

I guarantee you those bags were not drop shipped from Great Western directly. They went from Great Western's warehouse (in WA) to Country Malt's warehouse (in CA) to Morebeer's warehouse (also in CA) to you (undisclosed). That is a lot of opportunity for mishandling, especially in the summer heat. Perhaps next time you should support your local homebrew shop (which gets it straight from Country Malt) and skip a couple steps in the distribution chain. Plus you'll be helping nice local brewers stay employed. You wouldn't buy liquid yeast online (hopefully) because it gets too beat up, so why buy 200 lbs of grain? Plus the shipping cost must have been crazy. Next time try your LHBS. If you're willing to wait for them to fill a pallet you will probably get a great deal and much fresher, properly handled grain.

 

[GuitsBoy]

I guarantee you those bags were not drop shipped from Great Western directly. They went from Great Western's warehouse (in WA) to Country Malt's warehouse (in CA) to Morebeer's warehouse (also in CA) to you (undisclosed). That is a lot of opportunity for mishandling, especially in the summer heat. Perhaps next time you should support your local homebrew shop (which gets it straight from Country Malt) and skip a couple steps in the distribution chain. Plus you'll be helping nice local brewers stay employed. You wouldn't buy liquid yeast online (hopefully) because it gets too beat up, so why buy 200 lbs of grain? Plus the shipping cost must have been crazy. Next time try your LHBS. If you're willing to wait for them to fill a pallet you will probably get a great deal and much fresher, properly handled grain.

It shipped to LI, NY, so its quite a bit of distance. Even after shipping, it was 10 to 20 dollars cheaper to buy from morebeer than either of my two local shops, neither of which actually stock bulk sacks, and would need to order them anyway.

Unfortunately we dont have any true brew shops ANYWHERE near by. We have a wine rack distributor with a back room with some miscellaneous homebrew items, and the other place is a hardware store with a couple short aisles of grains and a small fridge full of yeast and hops. Both are OK for some general items in a pinch, but neither place would be my go-to for bulk purchases.

 

[sudbuddy]

It shipped to LI, NY, so its quite a bit of distance. Even after shipping, it was 10 to 20 dollars cheaper to buy from morebeer than either of my two local shops, neither of which actually stock bulk sacks, and would need to order them anyway.

Unfortunately we dont have any true brew shops ANYWHERE near by. We have a wine rack distributor with a back room with some miscellaneous homebrew items, and the other place is a hardware store with a couple short aisles of grains and a small fridge full of yeast and hops. Both are OK for some general items in a pinch, but neither place would be my go-to for bulk purchases.

By LI I infer you mean Long Island. You mean to tell me there aren't any good homebrew shops on the most populated island in the country? Yikes. I know there have to be at least a few in NYC, and that's still a lot better than buying from Morebeer. Country Malt's nearest warehouse to you is in Champlain, NY, so you can get super fresh grain if you do your homework. Would you spend $10 on poop when $20 gets you gold? Re-think your priorities brother