# Mash And Water Ph Adjustment: 'traditional' Water Profiles?



## manticle

Just interested in the perspective of those who adjust their water or mash with ionic salts or other means as to whether you try and replicate reported famous water profiles such as Dublin, Burton or Vienna or whether you try and build a profile to push flavours you want in your final beer?

Do you focus on pH first and flavour second or simply try and build a profile from a specific city?

Whichever you do - why and how? Do you adjust mash, mash and boil, mash and sparge or total brewing liquor?


----------



## [email protected]

Start with rain water that is as good as pure distilled water for me - yes it probably has some very low ionic concentration but its as good as nothing in my books, it makes crap coffee and does not quench thirst(goes straight through you) so i supplement with mineral water or weak powerade.

I actually tried copying sydney nth beaches tap water for brewing my coffee and it works very well.

As for brewing beer, these days i just treat the entire brewing liquor beforehand with gypsum and calcium chloride, then adjust ph using dilute phosphoric acid and the desired starting ph will depend on how dark the grain bill is. 

I always treat with 0.5g total salts / L water. I usually use equal parts gypsum and calcium chloride but have have previously done experimentation with more gypsum for hoppy beers and vice versa for malt driven. A lot of beers i will just use chloride but generally i prefer the 50/50 additions. I have found an improvement in how assertive my bitterness is using more gypsum.

If i am unsure about something or feel the need to check now and then i will run things through ezywater calc and check my mash ph with strips.


----------



## seamad

On very clean tank water with typically under 15ppm TDS
Don't try to emulate brew city water profiles as most nowadays would treat their water anyway.
I have a single vessel system and start with full volume more or less, usually quick "sparge" with up to a litre of water whilst draining grain just as a rinse.
Use mainly CaCl and CaSO4. Sometimes a touch of epsom salt ( not really for pH more flavour)
I use acid malt in a few brews anywhere from 1-3%. Iirc at these levels no taste effects.
Cl:So4 ratio varies on beer type, from no So4 in subtle pale beers to a 1:2 ratio for hoppy beers. 
I check pH with a bench top meter accurate to 2 decimal places and ATC and record readings to help fine tune future brews.
I add some CaCl and if using some CaSO4 to the mash to get pH correct and then some more to the boil as some Ca is retained in the grain ( and the trub later on). From some reading need @ 50ppm for yeast flocculation, allowing for losses need @ 100ppm to start with, which is a minimum amount to aid in protein break formation as well, so most brew have @100-150ppm Ca.
With dark beers I either hot/cold steep the dark grains to avoid having to use carbonates to manage pH. Liquid added at end of boil or into fermenter.
Hope this makes some sense,
chhers
sean


----------



## manticle

I started this thread because I'm really interested in the disparity between the Palmer/BJCP pushed idea that we should all try and make our water the same as Vienna in 1865 or London in 1828 or Dublin in 1884 (or wherever, whenever) and the fairly (to my mind) more commonly sensible approach of manipulating water and mash to provide the flavours we want.

Water profiles in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth change over time and that's with water being manipulated by our water authorities. Why would Vienna water be the same in 1884 and 1897? Why would it even be the same between 1884 and 1885? We get told that stout must be brewed with hard water because that's how it was in Dublin but modern dublin water is now soft. 

Brewers often manipulate their water (commercial brewers I mean although some HB people do too) but it's not just something that someone started doing yesterday. Dortmunder export in the BJCP is often spoken of as requiring hard, minerally water yet brewing science texts suggest it is made with soft water and that German brewers are among some of the early practitioners of water and mash manipulation - in order to get the results they wanted.

Burtonising water may lead to a dry, minerally, hoppy beer but will it lead to the best dry, hoppy minerally beer? Some yeasts contribute a mineral character, dryness and hoppiness can be accentuated and manipulated without a bucket of sulphate. Dry stout can be smooth and beuatiful without a chalk quarry thrown at it. I've had some UK beers that are way too minerally and out of balance and the best ones - Fullers ESB, Tim Taylor's etc don't taste overly minerally or sulphatey to me.

I'm not suggesting people don't add lots of sulphate etc if they know what it does and that's what they want but the idea of replicating water profiles seems very outdated, wrong headed and I'm surprised to see it still get pushed by organisations like BJCP. It should be used as a reference as to why certain beer styles evolved in the places they did.

Personally, I add salts according to the beer style I want to make so calcium for yeast health, enzymatic activity and mash pH control, acid where necessary for pH control and my calcium salts are chosen for their effect on flavour and added to mash (pH mainly) and to the boil (flavour mainly).

Hopefully get some more interesting discussion going.


----------



## Muscovy_333

Water chemisty is my new frontier. 
Having said that I am only working on adjusting mash pH and calcium additions for yeast ATM.
Mainly using Calcium sulphate and Epsom salts at this point in time. 
If i need to sour for flavour i generally use one of the commercially available food acids, depending on the type of sourness I'm after.
I really dont have much substance to add to this thread, only to say that my brewing at this point in time is more about what I am able to create. 
Don't feel the need to re-create old school water profiles yet.


----------



## stevem01

I inherited a spa when I moved house a few years ago. I spent years taking advice from pool shops trying to balance the water, they just use three adjustments, PH up, PH down and total alkalinity. Trying to adjust these I was just chasing my tail.

Then I started AG brewing and some research showed that Calcium is an important variable, I bought a calcium test kit from an aquarium shop and found Fremantle water has next to no Calcium. (maybe due to the desalination plant just down the road?)

I emptied the spa and started again, my first adjustment was Calcium Cloride up to 150PPM, lo and behold thats all it took, PH correct and stayed there


So to brewing, in Fremantle anyway, the water is almost mineral free and can always use some Calcium. 
I am still experimenting with levels and currently only using CaCl


----------



## Truman42

Ive only ever added Calcium Chloride for my malty darker beers and Calcium Sulphate for my drier hoppier beers. With a bit of both for say an IPA.

I only really add this to mash water not my sparge water or in the boil so would like to know if I should be adding to both and what others do?

I would however like to start adjusting for PH but havent learned that yet..


----------



## sim

I have a perpetual struggle going on to brew an english bitter thats just right, and so far im still not getting quite what i want. So i did the burtonising salts historical-to-the-enth-degree type additions and found it did seem more "on the money" BJCP-perhaps-wise, and yet odd and not so balanced as a beer in its own right. 

So generally i just adjust to hit mash pH, if possible using calcium to do this, sometimes lactic acid. Equal quantities of cal sulph and cal chlor seems nicest taste wise, where one-not-the-other sometimes ends up tasting weird or unbalanced. If its a pale beer i'll treat the sparge water to some lactic. In these and beers i want to be soft I've often cut the total water used with RO 50:50 to get the carbonate content down, and this seems to pay off.

I use a Milwakee pH/temp probe which im really happy with, would like it to go above 70c though.

Pocket beers should pipe up here because he did a brisbane vs RO vs Dublin water profile brewing side by side Dry Stout experiment which was very eye opening.


----------



## Jazzafish

When I dove into the deep end of experimenting with this, I just added all salts to the mash and let 5.2 stabiliser sort pH out. Had a pH meter and it got to the point that I didn't bother using the pH meter any more, as the 5.2 did the job quite well. To be honest, the only beer that I attempted to match historic water reports on was a kolsch. I added all salts to the mash, along with 5.2 and was happy with the result, but I later re-brewed but added the sparge water additions directly to the kettle. I preferred this result.

I have done a few brews without the 5.2 recently, adding all salts to the mash and traditionally leaving my pH meter on the shelf collecting dust. Porters were great. However there was something going on with the pale ale so i'm going to put the sparge additions directly to the kettle and pull the pH meter off the shelf to check it out. Need some calibrating solution.

I think it is important to point out that most breweries modify their water, so the water report doesn't always represent what they brew with. The three important things to consider are the influence of salts on yeast behaviour, the taste of the salts and also the chloride to sulphate ratio. 

The only way to get a grasp is brew a batch with additions and one without. I'm still playing and having fun with it. Also have some recipes that I prefer to have all additions in the mash (porter), and some split (kolsch).


----------



## drsmurto

I use rainwater exclusively for brewing and tested it a few years ago so I knew what i was starting with. 

I prepare my brewing water the day before so all the salts other than CaCO3 (if using) are dissolved. I then fill my HLT from this water which means no multiple measurements of salts (with an error in each measurement these add up) and there is no change in the water chemistry between mash and sparge.

CaCO3 normally goes into the kettle as I am adding it for flavour reasons, not pH.

pH is something i used to measure but rarely do these days as I am yet to see it outside the range (and that included the beer from beer experiment where beer (pH >4) was used as the mash in liquor and the mash pH was still within the desired range - the grain contains natural buffers and will happily adjust your pH up or down as required).

I adjust the water for flavour reasons. I do not adjust it to mimic a 'water profile'. I use a combination of CaCl2, CaSO4 and CaCO3 to adjust the balance of the malt/hop profile in the finished beer. 

All of this works for me, it may not work for you. 

Cheers
DrSmurto

p.s. CaCO3 can be a little contentious. I use it sparingly and for only a few beers. Too high a level and the chalky flavour comes through but don't automatically assume it is required in dark beers to adjust pH unless you have measured your mash pH and is out. I add it to some english bitters in very low levels to add that extra something. Some dark beers may get a little, some may not, it reallys depends on what i want the beer to taste like. I have a vienna lager lagering away at the moment that had a small CaCO3 addition and it is smooth and malty, no chalkiness to it at all.


----------



## ///

Am having a bitch of a time with water at the moment - supposed 'soft' Sydney water is out at pH 8 and hardness through the wazoo ... cant get the pH down below 6.4 without a truck load of acid.

For all 4 reasons, (pH, enzymes, trub, floculation) is why I salt water. I hope this kicks off a more fluid awareness of water manipulation. Easiest correlation is cooking, what difference does the the right seasoning make?


----------



## Bada Bing Brewery

I understand the problems with this question (different styles, different starting profiles etc etc) BUT water for dummies - what should I be aiming for as a general water profile? Gimme numbers brothers ....
Cheers
BBB


----------



## wessmith

I have said this before (and so have others) - you cannot successfully adjust pH after mashin without putting everything out of balance. Get to understand the buffering effect of acids and alkalies. With brewing you need a bit of dead reckoning - you need to know the answer before you ask the question. The amount of acid or calcium you will need to add to the mash needs to be calculated before the event and added to the strike water. After mashin and the subsequent buffering effect, it is all too late.....

Wes


----------



## manticle

Depends what you're brewing Bada.

Ask the same question about yeast, grain or hops and the reply would be similar.

Basically: 

-You need drinkable water that tastes and smells OK.

-You need to know what ions your water contains - particularly calcium, chloride, sulphate, magnesium, zinc, sodium. You need to know the temporary and permanent water hardness and whether it's sanitised with chlorine or chloramine. If it's chloramine, you may need to filter with RO or treat with bisulphites/campden. If it's chlorine, boiling in preparation, allowing to sit overnight or even just bringing to strike temp should be adequate. Charcoal filter works too. Worry about means other than normal heat to strike IF you start tasting band-aids in your beer.

-You need to try and drop out anything excessive, with particular consideration being given to bicarbonates, magnesium and sodium. Palmer talks about ranges of ions and his ranges generally link up with brewing science texts I've read.

-Main things you need to make decent beer after this are - proper mash pH, sufficient calcium and a chloride:sulphate ratio that fits the style of beer you want to make.

Proper mash pH should be between 5.0 and 5.5 when measured at mash temp and between 5.3 and 5.8 when measured at room temperature.
Dark grains raise mash pH, paler grain mash will therefore have a lower pH.

Ionic calcium salts will drop pH with the exception of calcium carbonate as the carbonate will fight the calcium. You need to measure the mash pH at least once with a mid coloured beer to get an idea (I'd say most times you brew a recipe first time would be better if not always). Acid (phosphoric, lactic and citric) are all commonly used to drop pH when necessary. Acidulated malt and some technical process can also be used.

*Sulphate to push hops (in the form of calcium sulphate or gypsum)
*Chloride to push malt (in the form of calcium chloride)
*Zinc to help yeast and head retention (in the form of zinc sulphate, zinc chloride or decent yeast nutrient)
*Magnesium and phospate levels should be provided by the mash so while those ions are important in the right levels, you shouldn't need to add any.
*Play with carbonates in darker beers if you want - my experience hasn't been good but the DR above reports success whn judiciously used. Your experience only can tell but judicious use is key either way.

As you can see - a simplified summary (and I'm not sure if I've covered everything) covers a lot of ground BUT once you learn the principles, water adjustment can be as easy as:

Knowing your water profile and using a calculator like ez water calculator

For me it's usually:

2g of calcium sulphate and 2 g calcium chloride added to a mid coloured 20 L final volume batch that has a good malt and hop balance. Switch to all calcium chloride for malty, all calcium sulphate for hoppy. Add the same amount to the kettle to push extra flavour components

Paler beers: touch of acid, darker beers either add roast grains later or look at calcium carbonate (if pH is low - test first) (carbonate is a possiblity - I don't use it at all).

It also can be made as simple as trying a bit out - as mentioned above, it's like cooking. You cook with salt and a cooking nerd or chef might understand some of the chemical processes that occur as a result but you can easily chuck a bit in and learn 'too much' or not enough' fairly quickly if you are smart.

Wessmith: good point. Knowing your water, mash and recipe is a really good way to start. It's not something to really try and work out on the fly, at least not in regards to pH. Possibly in terms of kettle/flavour additions you can make more snap decisions but presumably (and this I'm not sure of) wort pH is important and may be changed by the wrong salt additions??


----------



## donburke

has anyone used starsan to drop the ph of the mash ?

it contains phosphoric acid and other stuff

any reason to not use it ?

if it were ok to use, any idea what dosage to drop ph by 0.1 per litre ?


----------



## manticle

I did for a bit before I bought some food grade phosphoric. Only worried for pale beers (all pils malt etc)

Star san is food grade and it does drop the pH but I guess it's a bit less accurate and you are adding tiny amounts of other stuff which may or may not bother you.

Didn't bother me or my beer I made using it.

I also used to squeeze a bit of lemon into paler beers for the same purpose - no negative effects but it is a bit of a hack job.


----------



## Bada Bing Brewery

manticle said:


> Depends what you're brewing Bada.
> 
> Ask the same question about yeast, grain or hops and the reply would be similar.
> 
> Basically:
> 
> -You need drinkable water that tastes and smells OK.
> 
> -You need to know what ions your water contains - particularly calcium, chloride, sulphate, magnesium, zinc, sodium. You need to know the temporary and permanent water hardness and whether it's sanitised with chlorine or chloramine. If it's chloramine, you may need to filter with RO or treat with bisulphites/campden. If it's chlorine, boiling in preparation, allowing to sit overnight or even just bringing to strike temp should be adequate. Charcoal filter works too. Worry about means other than normal heat to strike IF you start tasting band-aids in your beer.
> 
> -You need to try and drop out anything excessive, with particular consideration being given to bicarbonates, magnesium and sodium. Palmer talks about ranges of ions and his ranges generally link up with brewing science texts I've read.
> 
> -Main things you need to make decent beer after this are - proper mash pH, sufficient calcium and a chloride:sulphate ratio that fits the style of beer you want to make.
> 
> Proper mash pH should be between 5.0 and 5.5 when measured at mash temp and between 5.3 and 5.8 when measured at room temperature.
> Dark grains raise mash pH, paler grain mash will therefore have a lower pH.
> 
> Ionic calcium salts will drop pH with the exception of calcium carbonate as the carbonate will fight the calcium. You need to measure the mash pH at least once with a mid coloured beer to get an idea (I'd say most times you brew a recipe first time would be better if not always). Acid (phosphoric, lactic and citric) are all commonly used to drop pH when necessary. Acidulated malt and some technical process can also be used.
> 
> *Sulphate to push hops (in the form of calcium sulphate or gypsum)
> *Chloride to push malt (in the form of calcium chloride)
> *Zinc to help yeast and head retention (in the form of zinc sulphate, zinc chloride or decent yeast nutrient)
> *Magnesium and phospate levels should be provided by the mash so while those ions are important in the right levels, you shouldn't need to add any.
> *Play with carbonates in darker beers if you want - my experience hasn't been good but the DR above reports success whn judiciously used. Your experience only can tell but judicious use is key either way.
> 
> As you can see - a simplified summary (and I'm not sure if I've covered everything) covers a lot of ground BUT once you learn the principles, water adjustment can be as easy as:
> 
> 2g of calcium sulphate and 2 g calcium chloride added to a mid coloured 20 L final volume batch that has a good malt and hop balance. Switch to all calcium chloride for malty, all calcium sulphate for hoppy. Add the same amount to the kettle to push extra flavour components
> 
> Paler beers: touch of acid, darker beers either add roast grains later or look at calcium carbonate (if pH is low - test first).
> 
> It also can be made as simple as trying a bit out - as mentioned above, it's like cooking. You cook with salt and a cooking nerd or chef might understand some of the chemical processes that occur as a result but you can easily chuck a bit in and learn 'too much' or not enough' fairly quickly if you are smart.
> 
> Wessmith: good point. Knowing your water, mash and recipe is a really good way to start. It's not something to really try and work out on the fly, at least not in regards to pH. Possibly in terms of kettle/flavour additions you can make more snap decisions but presumably (and this I'm not sure of) wort pH is important and may be changed by the wrong salt additions??


Thanks Manticle. 
Cheers
BBB


----------



## Muscovy_333

/// said:


> Am having a bitch of a time with water at the moment - supposed 'soft' Sydney water is out at pH 8 and hardness through the wazoo ... cant get the pH down below 6.4 without a truck load of acid.
> 
> For all 4 reasons, (pH, enzymes, trub, floculation) is why I salt water. I hope this kicks off a more fluid awareness of water manipulation. Easiest correlation is cooking, what difference does the the right seasoning make?




In a previous life i used to get Melbourne water come and flush the pipes on a regular basis in an Industrial Estate to keep the water that was being used in a food factory within specification. 
I 'd suggest that a pH of 8 is 'out of spec' and something you could potentially contact your water provider about. 

The water was out of spec due to a combination of resonably new pipes leaching minerals and pooling of water as the Factory was located toward the end of the piping in a cul de sac.


----------



## wessmith

Wessmith: good point. Knowing your water, mash and recipe is a really good way to start. It's not something to really try and work out on the fly, at least not in regards to pH. Possibly in terms of kettle/flavour additions you can make more snap decisions but presumably (and this I'm not sure of) wort pH is important and may be changed by the wrong salt additions??
[/quote]

Manticle, not so much by the "wrong" salt additions - simply that once buffering has occurred, you need a lot of anything to force a change. Remember that during the buffering phase at mashin, chemical changes occur in the mash as it "settles" based on the mineral salts already available, the malt phosphates etc and the original water pH. Trying to overcome that "settled" position will almost certainly skew the flavour of the finished beer.

What you can do on the fly is add some Calcium Chloride to the kettle if the mash pH was a little high. Around 2 to 3 gms for a 20l brew would be a good starting point. A good indicator is to watch for the formation of the hot break (not the foam head as the wort comes to the boil) which usually starts to occur about 30 minutes into the boil. A good break will be like snowflakes circulating in the wort. They should not be dusty, or in large clumps. While the break can be affected by the wort calcium, there are other minerals involved but at least you can "calibrate" your future mineral additions. 

All a very simplistic explanation but hope it helps explain.

Wes


----------



## sim

manticle said:


> Dark grains raise mash pH, paler grain mash will therefore have a lower pH.



The otherway around?


----------



## RobW

Does anybody have experience adding sodium chloride (table salt)?

I know some breweries use it but when is appropriate and how much?


----------



## seamad

Have used it in a low alc beer as it gives an impression of more body and sweetness. iirc was @1/4 teaspoon in a 20 litre batch. Used to male gose as well


----------



## ianh

sim said:


> The otherway around?



Yes that's what I thought, I add Acidulated Malt to the grain bill for paler ales.


----------



## RobW

seamad said:


> Have used it in a low alc beer as it gives an impression of more body and sweetness. iirc was @1/4 teaspoon in a 20 litre batch. Used to male gose as well




Cheers. Something else to experiment with.
B)


----------



## mwd

RobW said:


> Does anybody have experience adding sodium chloride (table salt)?
> 
> I know some breweries use it but when is appropriate and how much?



I read somewhere on here not to use iodised salt in brewing but I have no idea why.

I sometimes add a teaspoon to a 23l batch if I remember and also the same of Magnesium Sulfate (Epsom Salts). Does it do anything I have no idea but seemed like a good idea at the time.


----------



## manticle

manticle said:


> Proper mash pH should be between 5.0 and 5.5 when measured at mash temp and between 5.3 and 5.8 when measured at room temperature.
> Dark grains _*LOWER mash pH*_, paler grain mash will therefore have a _*HIGHER pH*_.



Correction and thanks to Sim for picking up. Proofread the bloody thing about seven times before posting too.


----------



## seamad

No need to apologise twice


----------



## Wolfy

manticle said:


> I'm not suggesting people don't add lots of sulphate etc if they know what it does and that's what they want but the idea of replicating water profiles seems very outdated, wrong headed and I'm surprised to see it still get pushed by organisations like BJCP. It should be used as a reference as to why certain beer styles evolved in the places they did.


But they (BJCP) don't - at least not in the 2012 version that I'm reading (_AABC 2012 Style Guidelines Condensed_):
English Bitter: _Often medium sulfate water is used._
Munich Helles: _Moderate carbonate water._
Dortmunder: _Minerally water with high levels of sulfates carbonates and Chlorides._
Classic American Pilsner: _Water with a high mineral content can lead to an inappropriate coarseness ..._

They are not _directly _suggesting that one replicate _specific _water profiles of _specific _places, but rather to build a water profile suitable for the beer style being made. The only time they mention location specific water profiles is usually in the 'History' part of the beer-profile, which is more than justified as you suggested.

While it might be true that a Dortmunder does not need hard water and English Bitters do not need Burtonised water, that is an error in the guidelines rather a suggestion that one replicate the water profile of a specific location.


----------



## manticle

You have a reasonable point Wolfy but I still think the interpretation that is oushed is a little arse about.

From the current BJCP study guide:



> _ *Water Adjustment *
> The waters at these brewing centers may be reproduced by adding various salts to locally available
> water. For additions meant to improve the buffering capacity of the mash, use the volume of your mash
> for your calculations. For salt additions to change flavor in the finished beer, the target volume of the
> finished beer should be used. The most common salt additions are gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O -- CaSO4
> hydrated with two water molecules), Epsom salts (MgSO4.7H2O), non-iodized table salt (NaCl),
> calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and calcium chloride (CaCl2.H2O). The addition of gypsum and Epsom
> salts is known as Burtonizing, since it elevates the hardness and sulfate concentrations to levels similar
> to that found at Burton-on-Trent. Other salts may be used, but these are by far the most common
> additives in brewing._



Sure it's not insisting that you do reproduce it but I'm unsure why it's ever even suggested and the way a lot of it is phrased in the guidelines pushes that approach (eg:


> Ingredients: Minerally water with high levels of sulfates, carbonates and chlorides[/i] for Dortmunder. Doesn't insist that you replicate the water profile given here: Dortmund 225 ca 40 mg 60 Na 120 180 SO4 60 Cl but where does 'minerally with' etc come from?
> 
> If we leave the BJCP out of it for a minute and just deal with approach A (replicating profiles) and approach B (adjusting pH and adding flavour salts if and when desired), I am of the opinion that approach A leads to confusion among people looking at water adjustment and makes no sense.
> 
> Or something.


----------



## Wolfy

manticle said:


> Sure it's not insisting that you do reproduce it but I'm unsure why it's ever even suggested and the way a lot of it is phrased in the guidelines pushes that approach (eg:
> 
> If we leave the BJCP out of it for a minute and just deal with approach A (replicating profiles) and approach B (adjusting pH and adding flavour salts if and when desired), I am of the opinion that approach A leads to confusion among people looking at water adjustment and makes no sense.


If the Style Guidelines say something specific about the water requirements, I tend to keep that in mind if I'm brewing with the intention of submitting a competition entry. The reason for this is that if it's in the guidelines I presume it's something that the judges will be looking for, or at least keeping in mind - if they didn't want it in the style then it should not be mentioned (or as per your argument incorrectly specified in the first place).

I do neither approach A or B, but use a hybrid:

Salts are calculated for, and will be added to, total water volume, which sits overnight to _hopefully _remove chlorine.
Water profile (Melbourne, Cardinia) is readily available and very low in concentrations of all salts, so first consideration is providing a minimum 50ppm Calcium.
Coloured malt % is added to my heavily edited version of _Palmers Metric RA_ spreadsheet and salts adjusted so the mash lands in the correct pH range.
(_I can never get the RA to sit where he suggests, so tend to ignore that_).
If brewing a 'location specific' beer or one with water requirements outlined in the Guidelines, I'll look at the 'location specific' water profile and throw in some ions that mimic that profile (not usually even close to an exact math but at least _some_ because the base water essentially has none) or keep the ion concentration low if required.
Finally everything is re-adjusted using an iterative approach so the final profile has the desired Chloride to Sulfate balance.

Very interestingly, there were no complaints, or even comments (_other than your prompted/joke_) about my last Case Swap beer where the only salt additions were Chalk and Epsom Salt.


----------



## manticle

Wolfy said:


> [*]If brewing a 'location specific' beer or one with water requirements outlined in the Guidelines, I'll look at the 'location specific' water profile and throw in some ions that mimic that profile (not usually even close to an exact math but at least _some_ because the base water essentially has none) or keep the ion concentration low if required.



I guess this is the bit that I'm most curious about.

How does anyone actually know that the water profile that is reported is either correct or the water the breweries used historically without any modification?


----------



## Wolfy

manticle said:


> I guess this is the bit that I'm most curious about.
> 
> How does anyone actually know that the water profile that is reported is either correct or the water the breweries used historically without any modification?


You do more beer-book reading than I, but I thought it was established _fact _that the local water profile had a large impact on the type of beer produced in a specific region:
Soft Pilsen water resulted in the classic pilsner *
High carbonate Dublin water produced dark stouts.
The high mineral content of the water at Burton On Trent responsible for the development of bitters and IPA's.

If that is true**, then there was obviously a time when brewers used the local water and rather than adjusting the water for the beer they are making, the local water dictated the beer they could brew well. Obviously with a modern understanding of water chemistry, even home brewers can adjust their water as required, so it's safe to assume that commercial brewers can and also do, however that is an additional cost and effort that - one presumes - they'd not do unless they had to.

From my perspective one of the objectives of the BJCP Guidelines is to provide historical insight so that home brewers can best emulate specific beers that were often developed in specific places. Hence if the beer is one those iconic and historic beers (Pils, Stout, IPA) that were developed before water chemistry was fully understood, I think it's safe and fair to include that information in the publications. If the home-brewer can brew the 'best' beer of that style using those water-related-suggestions might be another matter, or if they are correct it might be also another matter to debate.

I thought that there was historical information about water and water profiles, including which specific breweries obtained water from local/private wells or from a river or from the municipal supply. While they may have changed over time, especially municipal water supplies, I would assume there is adequate scientific knowledge that could establish at least a good estimation of what water would most likely have been used for brewing in a specific location some time in the past.

(* Prost! page 116-117, _paraphrasing_: In 1842 Pilsen style was created due to the soft water allowing delicate soft palate and dry hoppy finish.
page 119, _paraphrasing_: Dortmunder brews since 1266 with fairly hard water.)
(** Maybe info is in Randy Moscher's book, I forget where.)


----------



## donburke

Wolfy said:


> You do more beer-book reading than I, but I thought it was established _fact _that the local water profile had a large impact on the type of beer produced in a specific region:
> Soft Pilsen water resulted in the classic pilsner *
> High carbonate Dublin water produced dark stouts.
> The high mineral content of the water at Burton On Trent responsible for the development of bitters and IPA's.
> 
> If that is true**, then there was obviously a time when brewers used the local water and rather than adjusting the water for the beer they are making, the local water dictated the beer they could brew well. Obviously with a modern understanding of water chemistry, even home brewers can adjust their water as required, so it's safe to assume that commercial brewers can and also do, however that is an additional cost and effort that - one presumes - they'd not do unless they had to.
> 
> From my perspective one of the objectives of the BJCP Guidelines is to provide historical insight so that home brewers can best emulate specific beers that were often developed in specific places. Hence if the beer is one those iconic and historic beers (Pils, Stout, IPA) that were developed before water chemistry was fully understood, I think it's safe and fair to include that information in the publications. If the home-brewer can brew the 'best' beer of that style using those water-related-suggestions might be another matter, or if they are correct it might be also another matter to debate.
> 
> I thought that there was historical information about water and water profiles, including which specific breweries obtained water from local/private wells or from a river or from the municipal supply. While they may have changed over time, especially municipal water supplies, I would assume there is adequate scientific knowledge that could establish at least a good estimation of what water would most likely have been used for brewing in a specific location some time in the past.
> 
> (* Prost! page 116-117, _paraphrasing_: In 1842 Pilsen style was created due to the soft water allowing delicate soft palate and dry hoppy finish.
> page 119, _paraphrasing_: Dortmunder brews since 1266 with fairly hard water.)
> (** Maybe info is in Randy Moscher's book, I forget where.)



i brewed a decoction pilsner yesterday, and yes i wanted to try keep the water soft

i was concerned about my ph, so i did a very small salt addition in the first decoction, 

in the meantime, the main mash 2/3 sat at 35 degrees for close to 2 hours before adding back the first decoction

i smelt the main mash after these 2 hours and it had definitely started to sour, i wish i had a ph meter, but hopefully it worked in range


----------



## manticle

You're right about a lot of that and it makes for interesting discussion.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I think reported water profiles (as in ppm of x mineral) from a period in history is a bit of a stab in the dark as the following year or decade they might differ. Add to that, water/mash modification has been practised historically (I'm not sure exactly how far back and would be interested to find out) so the reported water profile (already potentially inaccurate) may not be the historical water used anyway. Following that there's the issue of what actually makes the beer the best it can be.

High carbonate doesn't produce dark stouts as far as I understand - it's just that high carbonate water and pale beers are supposedly not good friends and that the use of large amounts of roasted malt is the only thing that will make high carbonate water make beer that is palatable (or high carbonate water will only make palatable beer if that beer uses significant proportions or roasted malt).

The dortmunder thing is the main thing I struggle with because high carbonates and the beers they produce don't seem to correlate. I think that's a furphy and there's some (like the guy from the Barclay perkins blog) who would happily say Prost has been guilty of perpetuating a few of those.

From a judging perspective, it does seem odd that we/they are expected to try and decide how accurately a beer fits a culturally evolving style in a contemporary context when the information used to define that style is often based on bitsy historical information and extraoplated. 

One of the things that attracts me to brewing is the history and culture aspect so I appreciate what the BJCP try and do by maintaining classic/historical styles and I also appreciate that the BJCP do not claim to be the only authority on anything and that they constantly revise and change their information.

I think this is one of the areas that they need to examine more closely and possibly change their approach a touch.

Not sure how clear that is but happy to try and nut it out if necessary.


----------



## eamonnfoley

manticle said:


> High carbonate doesn't produce dark stouts as far as I understand - it's just that high carbonate water and pale beers are supposedly not good friends and that the use of large amounts of roasted malt is the only thing that will make high carbonate water make beer that is palatable (or high carbonate water will only make palatable beer if that beer uses significant proportions or roasted malt).
> 
> The dortmunder thing is the main thing I struggle with because high carbonates and the beers they produce don't seem to correlate. I think that's a furphy and there's some (like the guy from the Barclay perkins blog) who would happily say Prost has been guilty of perpetuating a few of those.



Perfectly good pale beers can be brewed with moderate/high carbonate water, provided the mash is acidified to get the correct mash pH, and sparge water is acidified also. Germans traditionally mash thin, so not much sparge water is needed anyway. Most of the carbonates are therefore overcome. It's not recommended for homebrewers though, because lets be honest, how many are good at controlling pH.

Obviously it is better to avoid carbonates (and certainly don't add them for a pale beer). But historically they have dealt with it (i.e. Dortmunder).

There are schools of thought that beer colour and alkalinity don't really need to line up as much as we are led to believe.


----------



## The Gas Man

Last week I attempted to add CaCl2 and CaS04 to my mash (based on the measurements suggested by the 
EZ water calculator) for the first time.

Mash water = 36L
Sparge water = 45L
CaS04 = 6g
CaCl2 = 10g
acid = 6ml

I added the salts to the mash once the mash water had been added.

Then it occurred to me that I wasn't adding any of the salts with the sparge water and potentially this would cause a different pH in the mash.

The ideal thing would be to add the salts to the hot water pot however the pot is not a big enough volume to fit both the mash and sparge water together.

Should I ratio the salt additions in line with the mash and sparge volumes?


----------



## Wolfy

manticle said:


> I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I think reported water profiles (as in ppm of x mineral) from a period in history is a bit of a stab in the dark as the following year or decade they might differ. Add to that, water/mash modification has been practised historically (I'm not sure exactly how far back and would be interested to find out) so the reported water profile (already potentially inaccurate) may not be the historical water used anyway. Following that there's the issue of what actually makes the beer the best it can be.


You're right, however knowing the location (for example if a brewery used ground water from limestone) one still make an _educated guess_ at what the water profile would have been like. And as per many of my brewing practices an _educated guess_ is good enough for me to be happy that I'm close enough to the goal I want to achieve.

As for what makes the best beer, that's another discussion entirely.

PS: Prost! reminds me of an old high school text book; simplistic, easy to read and not always (politically) correct.


----------



## eamonnfoley

The Gas Man said:


> Last week I attempted to add CaCl2 and CaS04 to my mash (based on the measurements suggested by the
> EZ water calculator) for the first time.
> 
> Mash water = 36L
> Sparge water = 45L
> CaS04 = 6g
> CaCl2 = 10g
> acid = 6ml
> 
> I added the salts to the mash once the mash water had been added.
> 
> Then it occurred to me that I wasn't adding any of the salts with the sparge water and potentially this would cause a different pH in the mash.
> 
> The ideal thing would be to add the salts to the hot water pot however the pot is not a big enough volume to fit both the mash and sparge water together.
> 
> Should I ratio the salt additions in line with the mash and sparge volumes?



Salts are ok in the mash only as you have done. You can't add them before you mash in as they will not dissolve. If you were to split the additions, it would have to be 1) into mash, 2) into boil.

If your sparging with RO water, it will not affect the pH set in your mash, as the sparge water has no alkalinity in it. If your sparge water does have alkalinity in it (i.e. tap water), you will may need to add a small amount of acid to it prior to sparging. Or just use your tap water & measure wort pH after the sparge to see that it hasn't gone up too much. I aim for 5.5-5.7 (measured at room temp) mash pH. Post boil it usually drops by 0.1-0.2.


----------



## srcossens

manticle said:


> Just interested in the perspective of those who adjust their water or mash with ionic salts or other means as to whether you try and replicate reported famous water profiles such as Dublin, Burton or Vienna or whether you try and build a profile to push flavours you want in your final beer?
> 
> Do you focus on pH first and flavour second or simply try and build a profile from a specific city?
> 
> Whichever you do - why and how? Do you adjust mash, mash and boil, mash and sparge or total brewing liquor?



I use salts, but don't particularly try to replicate a specific city. I look at what beer I'm making and if I want a stout, then I'll add enough chloride so that the chloride/sulphate ratio is towards chloride (2 to 1). Then I'll look at the colour and add the necessary chalk or bi carb to balance out the pH. If I'm going for an English IPA, then I'll get the sulphate up to about 350ppm (don't care about chloride) as I want the hoppiness to dominate and adjust the chalk or bi carb after. If I'm just making a simple pale ale, then I'll adjust so that the sulphate is around 150, but chloride is 50, so a Cl/SO4 ratio of 1 to 3. I don't particulary go for light coloured beers, so I may add some dark grains, say 100g of black malt in 46 ltrs instead of using some chalk. If you then look at the adjusted water profile, it is going towards the profiles of the various cities, but never really what they say. Dublin supposedly has a low chloride level, but I like stouts with atleast 120ppm of chloride. I've also used acid malt a while ago.

I think the specific water profiles of each city are there to give you an indication, but some people mistakenly try to get their water exactly like it. If you have a look at beersmith and pro mash and then look at various sources on the internet, not one of them will be the same. They'll be close, but not the same. You can see Burton on Trent with Sulphate figures of 820ppm (how to brew), 638ppm (pro mash) and 725ppm (beersmith). Now, I've had a beer where the brewer had added sulphate to levels of ~700ppm and the resulting beer was minerally. It was a great beer, but just wasn't right. When I travelled around Europe, I would get a bottle of water from the shop and have a look at what was in it. It was always quite interesting to see how close they were approximately. Austrian bottled water make up was Ca 144, Mg 66, Na 14, HCO3 410, SO4 293 and Cl 8. If you break it down, it has high levels of CaSO4, MgSO4 and HCO3. This is all very similar then to Dortmunder and Burton on Trent. So, if I was going to make a beer from each city that replicated their style (i.e. a hoppy beer), I would just have high Sulphate levels, moving everything around it to get the correct pH.

I was living in the UK a while ago and the water was very hard, so I had to adjust the tap water splitting it with RO water. I didn't like using the carbonate reducing solution (CRS) and dry liqour salts (DLS) that a lot of brewers over there use as I wanted to know specifically what I was putting in to the beer, that's why I used the specific salts. I know it's probably not best practice, but I put the salts straight in to the mash where I know they are mostly going to get dissolved. I would have then used RO water to sparge. It was a lot of trial and error as my first couple of attempts were crap, but I got to a point where I "had a feel" for the water and what I was doing to it. Now moving back home and moving to Sydney (where the water to me is bascially RO), I have to "get a feel" for the water again. As Dr Smurto said, he very rarely measures his pH anymore, so he has his feel for the water.

I think that a pH below the recommended levels is not so detrimental to a beer than a pH above. That's why we can use our soft water and get perfectly good beers that haven't got tannins leached in to it from the grain husks. My highest mash pH was between 6.2 and 6.4 (66c) on a light coloured lager and the resulting beer was crap. I've got a brown stout that I'm drinking at the moment and it had a mash pH of 5.1 (20c or ~4.8 @66c) and it's fine. It also had 7g chalk and 9.8g bi carb in 46ltrs.

To understand why people always spoke about specific water profiles of cities and to help me get a better understanding of the salts, I brewed two TTL clones with different Cl:SO4 ratios. The first I adjusted the chloride to 103ppm* and sulphate to 156ppm*. The other one was adjusted so that chloride was 174ppm* and sulphate was 105ppm*. Both mash pH's were fine and the resulting beers were both lovely beers and tasted like TTL....... I tested this on many occassions at the pub down the road from work!! I had to make sure, so I went back again.............. But the beer with the higher sulphate count, to me, seemed a much better beer as the bitterness and 10minute Styrian Goldings stood out. 

I don't add salts in to the boil because if you have the mash pH correct, then everything should follow on through the boil to the resulting beer. A friend measured these for quite a few brews and found that if the mash pH was low, then it would stay low, but didn't really effect the end beer. If the mash pH was correct, then everything else would be correct without the need for adjustement.

* I put fairly exact figures on these amounts in ppm, but they are probably +/- 10%. It's just that is what I get from the various excel spreadsheets.


----------



## srcossens

ScottC said:


> ..... I don't particulary go for light coloured beers, so I may add some dark grains, say 100g of black malt in 46 ltrs instead of using some chalk.....



Sorry, that should be "I don't particulary go for light coloured beers, so I may add some dark grains, say 100g of black malt in 46 ltrs instead of using some CaCl2 or CaSO4." 

I used this with the harder water that I used to brew with to get the pH down. The beer may go from 10EBC to say 17EBC. From a light coloured beer to a slight copper colour.


----------



## Byran

Not one to be a nark on the scientific side of brewing, but I have a real problem with the chalky and salty taste of beer with additives in it.
Obviously there are definite benefits and often a need for water modification, but I have been to boutique breweries and drank commercial beer that tasted like muddy water. Personal opinion of course but I have tried similar beer styles that did not taste like chalk and can only assume that the brewers might have put in too much? Surely they know what they are doing..........

I have not done any water modification as yet to any of my brews but have friends who do with every brew. 
As such I could say that my brews are all a "control" of sorts as they are not tampered with the beers are all good but there are definitely problems with haze and smoothness. I only use Sydney tap water as I really dont have the time to bother with filtering ect. 
It has a relatively boring amount of base salts and minerals in it compared to what is required in the literature so I think its a good platform to work with. The only main problem of course being the monochloramine they use for purification which is up to 1.42mg/L in the prospect filtration plant system where my tap water comes from.
You can smell it as the water heats to mash temp but I cant taste it in my beer so I assume it is boiled out?

As an observation I am going to do all of my previous recipes as normal but am going to add water modifiers and monitor all of the following:

Mash PH
Salts and adjuncts to adjust for style
Bittering elements
Malt elements
Clarity
Yeast health
Flavour profile
Smoothness
EBC


Ill see how much difference water adjustments actually make to my recipes and hopefully make a better drop too!


----------

