# Why do people try to mimic historic water profiles?



## fungrel (18/11/16)

I assume it was common knowledge that even breweries that have been established last century treated their water sources before brewing. 

So why do I often read that people are trying to mimic certain water sources (like Burton) and not the profile of the brewery or breweries in the area?


----------



## Radshoes (18/11/16)

I might be wrong here, but my understanding is that we have different beers due to the different water and different yeasts of different areas.

So "Burtonising" water will accentuate the hops. So historically the ales from this area were a bit hoppier than old mate in the next county who used the same recipe but had a different water source.

but also YOLO.


----------



## manticle (18/11/16)

Make the water/mash minerals appropriate to the beer style or desired result.

Replicating alleged profiles (which change through history) and discounting brewery water treatment is an arse about approach in my estimation.

I would say they 'why' lies in a common approach to explaining water chem.


----------



## SBOB (18/11/16)

>Replicating alleged profiles (which change through history) and discounting brewery water treatment is an arse about approach in my estimation.

+1 to that


----------



## good4whatAlesU (18/11/16)

Speights down in UnZUD rave about their mineral groundwater used in their historic brewery. They allow locals to take water from the bore tap for free (recommend a gold coin donation). 

They reckon that the kegged beer (from Dunedin) tastes different to the Auckland bottled product (same label) brewed with the same water profile .. but not the same water.


----------



## fungrel (18/11/16)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Speights down in UnZUD rave about their mineral groundwater used in their historic brewery. They allow locals to take water from the bore tap for free (recommend a gold coin donation).
> 
> They reckon that the kegged beer (from Dunedin) tastes different to the Auckland bottled product (same label) brewed with the same water profile .. but not the same water.


That's interesting, it makes total sense.


----------



## idzy (18/11/16)

> Why do people try to mimic historic water profiles?


To mimic historic beers.

I don't know a heap (read anything) about water chemistry, given it is one of the four ingredients for beer, a lot of people have dedicated a lot of time to understand it and treat it to get the most out of their beers and/or accomplish what they are looking for in the final product/taste.

https://www.amazon.com/Water-Comprehensive-Brewers-Brewing-Elements/dp/0937381993


----------



## fungrel (18/11/16)

idzy said:


> To mimic historic beers.
> 
> I don't know a heap (read anything) about water chemistry, given it is one of the four ingredients for beer, a lot of people have dedicated a lot of time to understand it and treat it to get the most out of their beers and/or accomplish what they are looking for in the final product/taste.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Water-Comprehensive-Brewers-Brewing-Elements/dp/0937381993


I read a lot about fermentation science and water chemistry, and this is why I am wondering who would copy the source water rather than the brewer's profile.


----------



## MHB (18/11/16)

I often wonder the same.
Ones you know what the various salts bring to the beer, just design the profile you want adjust the pH and go for it.
About the only benefit to historic water profiles is that it gave us some clues what the various salts do, back before we could analyse the water and build it to speck.
Mark


----------



## manticle (18/11/16)

idzy said:


> To mimic historic beers.
> 
> I don't know a heap (read anything) about water chemistry, given it is one of the four ingredients for beer, a lot of people have dedicated a lot of time to understand it and treat it to get the most out of their beers and/or accomplish what they are looking for in the final product/taste.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Water-Comprehensive-Brewers-Brewing-Elements/dp/0937381993


Question is "why mimic (alleged) historical profiles" rather than ""why treat mash/water at all?"

It's a valid question. 

1. Water profile being mimicked may be inaccurately reported or only accurate for a given point in history (could be a day, a month, a year or a decade).
2. Even if a reported profile were accurate over a lengthy period of time, there is no reason to believe breweries have used that source only and used it without treating in any particular way. In fact brewery records in many instances point to the opposite.
3. Even if reported profiles were accurate AND breweries used it untreated does not automatically make it the best water for that particular beer.

We understand the chemical effects of various minerals so as MHB suggests - let's use those to their full advantage to make the best beer possible. Mimicking an historical beer properly will need more than just tricking up water according to a table found on the net or trying to emulate a river that once ran next to an open sewer in 1709.

Additionally a lot of people seem to mimic reported profile, not because they are making Bass xxx but because they are making a UK IPA and that's what the water MUST be.


----------



## timmi9191 (18/11/16)

If one was trying to clone a beer why wouldnt one try to mimic the water profile??


----------



## manticle (18/11/16)

If you have an accurate record of what that water was, along with everything else, fair enough. Beersmith for example contains generic profiles for a number of famous cities - pretty much flying blind if you don't know why and how.

What's dublin water mean? Now? Last year? 1806? 1917 after the big zinc accident?


----------



## timmi9191 (18/11/16)

Its common knowledge that historical water profiles lead to the development of beers for that region. ie Dublin water being so high in bicarbonates lead to the use of roasted grains etc etc

Now if I was doing my best and using as much relevant information as I could to clone that said stout, I would:

1: Use a grist as close as known to the original
2: Use a hop schedule as close as known to the original
3: Use a yeast as close as known to the original

and finally, yes we all know whats next

4: use a water profile as close as known to the original.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (18/11/16)

Not to mention 'back in the day' they used copper and wood for most things (not stainless steel) so undoubtedly that would have contributed to the flavour profiles.

Edit: There was also a heap of smoke and crap floating around in the air during the 1800's which would no doubt have made it into any open fermentation vats.

Edit 2: Correspondingly the consumers lungs and taste buds were fairly fuct. from breathing in polluted air all day. Ahh the good old days, lucky were the ones who emigrated.


----------



## manticle (18/11/16)

timmi9191 said:


> Its common knowledge that historical water profiles lead to the development of beers for that region. ie Dublin water being so high in bicarbonates lead to the use of roasted grains etc etc
> 
> Now if I was doing my best and using as much relevant information as I could to clone that said stout, I would:
> 
> ...


I get the concept. Question is how close to the original as used by the brewery at what point in time?


----------



## manticle (18/11/16)

EG. Dublin water is generally soft these days. So: what's ''Dublin'' water mean?


----------



## technobabble66 (18/11/16)

timmi9191 said:


> 4: use a water profile as close as known to the original.


Amongst their other points, I think this is what manticle and MHB et al is essentially arguing - that the actual water profile of the water used in the beer is NOT known. 
Just because it was the state of the water at one point in a given region on the day of testing does NOT mean it's the same water at the brewery site, let alone the actual water that brewery uses in their BEER. And you'd be surprised how far back records of salts additions in breweries go back. 
As far as "regional" water reports go - total waste of time. The variation from town to town in the same district can be huge. 

Basically they're saying what people are trying to mimic (the reports) are factually wrong, in the sense it's not what was actually used in the beer in the first place. 
The intention is great, but the profiles to replicate are not, in reality, known.


----------



## technobabble66 (18/11/16)

manticle said:


> EG.. So: what's ''Dublin'' water mean?


I know, I know:
It means twice as much water. 


[emoji185]

Boom, tish. 
Here all week, folks!


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (18/11/16)

Make a a good English bitter with soft water

Then, using the same recipe

Make a good English bitter with hard/Burtonised water


This will answer your question


----------



## timmi9191 (18/11/16)

OK, all points taken and accepted.

But...

Pale malt now is different to pale malt then... No doubt fuggles has gone through seasonal and generational changes. The yeasts too would have gone through generational changes.

We use the pale available now and use the hops and yeast available now. we use the information about the water to make a relevant water profile from our water. In that sense its the only ingredient we can significantly alter at the home brew level. We dont use our local water unaltered to make that beer, we alter it. Why not alter it to the specs of what we are informed are relevant to making that beer.

Agree Stu - a very relevant example of the benefit of mimicing water profiles


----------



## manticle (18/11/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Make a a good English bitter with soft water
> 
> Then, using the same recipe
> 
> ...


There's no doubting the difference but that wasn't really the question.

Anyway mimic away. I'm drinking an $8 pint of cascade draught in a shit 'irish' pub, undoubtedly made with the purest unadulterated Tasmanian waters of the Derwent River.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (18/11/16)

Better than VB made from water out of the Yarra


----------



## manticle (18/11/16)

Mildly.

At least they could have coopers.
Positive side is getting change from a 10er for a pint - rare these days.


----------



## welly2 (18/11/16)

timmi9191 said:


> OK, all points taken and accepted.
> 
> But...
> 
> ...


I think that's the exact point. Alter your water to the specs of what are relevant to making that beer. Which doesn't mean copy some Dublin or Burton water profile found on the internet or in Beersmith because those profiles are essentially out of context and pretty much meaningless, if you're hoping your stout you make with a Dublin water profile is going to end up tasting like Guinness.

If you haven't already, do yourself a favour and grab a copy of Bru'n Water - there is a ton of great info in that spreadsheet about water chemistry - as well as the spreadsheet which will help you get your profiles somewhere near what you want to achieve - and the John Palmer "Water" book - that's a bit harder going but well worth a read.

I think you'd be better off doing that and understanding what you're doing than blindly following some Burton water profile hoping you're going to make the next Worthington IPA.


----------



## timmi9191 (18/11/16)

welly2 said:


> If you haven't already, do yourself a favour and grab a copy of Bru'n Water - there is a ton of great info in that spreadsheet about water chemistry - as well as the spreadsheet which will help you get your profiles somewhere near what you want to achieve - and the John Palmer "Water" book - that's a bit harder going but well worth a read.


Seriously??


----------



## welly2 (18/11/16)

timmi9191 said:


> Seriously??


Err, yes. Seriously.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (18/11/16)

He is deadly serious

May as well get "Designing Great Beers" by R Daniels while your at it


----------



## welly2 (18/11/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> He is deadly serious
> 
> May as well get "Designing Great Beers" by R Daniels while your at it


"How to Brew" by John Palmer


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (18/11/16)

DGB is better


----------



## timmi9191 (18/11/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> DGB is better


Aka the bible.. I read it religiously...

Wish there was a head shaking emoji


----------



## Danscraftbeer (18/11/16)

Its just flavour variables as far as my uncultured untraditionally educated experience. Some minerals make everything good.
I use filtered Melbourne water so its like a blank start with a pH of ~5.4. 
I carefully add minerals because its like evolution that minerals are in water that make things happen good?

My Mash water is something like 25% Burton on Trent with a tad of Himalayan salt. pH ~5.4.
Then I sparge with just filtered water that is ~ pH 5.4. Cant say if this is the best but its the best that I can do. Tastes good to me.

Thumbs up to Melbourne water. I'm sure you can use it straight from the tap all the way without worrying too much about additions and its good for brewing.

Added: Pale beers may need ~2% Acidulated malt to the grain bill to get mash pH at ~5.2. 
Dark beers may need a tad of Carb Soda to the mash water to keep the pH ~ 5.2.


----------



## evoo4u (19/11/16)

manticle said:


> There's no doubting the difference but that wasn't really the question.
> Anyway mimic away. I'm drinking an $8 pint of cascade draught in a shit 'irish' pub, undoubtedly made with the purest unadulterated Tasmanian waters of the Derwent River.


Currently sitting very comfortably in a pub just outside Dublin, and have enjoyed a couple of Guinness and a Grafter's Porter (all bottled - not draught). Now one of the Guinness is a "Rye Pale Ale" - beautiful! Is it available in Oz? If it is, try it!

Anyway, back on topic. Totally agree that the historical water quality no longer has any bearing on what Guinness, for example, uses today. Hence the Foreign Extra Stout and the Rye Pale Ale both coming out of Dublin. (And the draught Irish Red Ale this afternoon was memorable too...)

Ahh - so many beers, so little time!


----------



## welly2 (4/12/16)

timmi9191 said:


> Wish there was a head shaking emoji


With all due respect mate, given your comments and questions on this particular thread, one would certainly assume you've not read the resources I suggested. I don't know who you are.


----------



## stewy (4/12/16)

Adjust your water to suit the style you are brewing. Copying a town's water style (before the local brewery adjusts it) ain't gonna help you


----------

