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

[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]

The otherway around?

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

 

[RobW]

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]

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]

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]

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sulphate etc if they know what it does and that's what they want but the idea of replicating water profiles seems very outdated, wrong headed and I'm surprised to see it still get pushed by organisations like BJCP.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]

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]

[*]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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

..... 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.