Randy Mosher's Water Profiles by style
Does anyone happen to have these water profiles that can be input into TH's spreadsheet? Or do I need to buy the book;)
I've be trying to dig up the same information as you. I didn't have much luck finding anything on Randy's profiles. I did however run across a dated but helpful link of different water profiles throughout the world. I found it helpful.
Several years back I pulled together a collection of profiles and developed recipes for them. They can be found at www.wetnewf.org. The "server" (an old Mac Mini) and my ISP's attempts to prevent its customers from operating websites can sometimes conspire to make access difficult so don't give up if you don't succeed at first try.
There is a good chart in Palmer's book on what style to use for each major brewing city
Water Chem by Styles
OK, two things:
I did not make these up, I've collected them from the net and books over the years. If you don't think they are correct, please help me adjust them.
Second, I've tried to make everything line up but I really can't. I know it makes it hard to read but if it's in tables, tabs or just a ton of spaces, I can't make it work. Feel free to fix as well.
Calcium Magnesium Sodium Sulfate Chloride Carbonate Hardness BicarbonateHCO3 Alkalinity
Ideal Alt 38 0 28 90 45 0 26.8 0 0
Ideal Bitter 90 10 28 240 38 0 70.2 0 0
Ideal Bock 60 0 50 45 75 60 42.9 60 49
Ideal Brown Ale 23 0 50 53 75 0 16.1 0 0
Ideal Burton Pale Ale 111 18 35 337 32 38 89.9 37.82 31
Ideal Dark Lager 83 0 50 53 75 90 58.9 90 74
Ideal Dark Lager 73 13 52 125 80 63 59.8 129.32 106
Ideal Dopplebock 78 0 55 45 85 90 55.4 90 74
Ideal Dortmunder 75 0 53 175 80 0 53.6 0 0
Ideal English Ale 52 10 6.2 65 9.6 63 43.0 129.32 106
Ideal Light Lager 45 0 28 108 45 0 32.1 0 0
Ideal Light Lager 21 5.2 18 21 16 51 18.1 84.18 69
Ideal Maerzen 45 0 35 105 53 0 32.1 0 0
Ideal Medium Lager 74 5.2 10 21 16 111 55.9 225.7 185
Ideal Mild 38 10 35 133 55 0 33.0 0 0
Ideal Mild/Dark Lager 75 12 35 120 100 100 60.6 100 82
Ideal Munich Dark 63 0 10 28 13 60 44.6 60 49
Ideal Pale Ale 125 20 25 363 40 0 101.1 0 0
Ideal Pale Ale 110 18 17 350 50 0 89.2 0 0
Ideal Pale Ale 110 18 17 350 50 57 89.2 57 47
Ideal Pale Ale 126 19 18 281 48 66 101.2 66 54
Ideal Pale Lager 1 0.5 1.05 5 0 0 1.0 0 0
Ideal Pilsner 7 5 2 6 5 15 7.9 15 12
Ideal Porter 65 0 40 60 60 60 46.4 60 49
Ideal Scottish 25 0 16 60 24 0 17.9 0 0
Ideal Stout 50 12 60 46 175 0 42.8 0 0
Ideal Stout (Dry) 90 10 15 73 24 130 70.2 130 107
Ideal Stout (Sweet) 65 0 15 45 24 70 46.4 70 57
Ideal Weizen 23 0 10 53 15 0 16.1 0 0
Looking at the Bock:
You state Ca++ at 60 and Mg++ at 0 but then list the hardness as 42.9. If the 60 number is ppm as CaCO3 and there is no Mg then the hardness in ppm as CaCO3 is 60. If the 60 is ppm as the ion then the hardness is 50*60/20 = 150 so there is a discrepancy there. You also list CO3 as 60, HCO3 as 60 and alkalinity as 49 and you do not specify a pH. For CO3-- and HCO3- to be equal the pH would have to be 10.38 and that's an impossible amount of CO3-- so I don't think that's what those really mean. If the bicarbonate really means bicarbonate and the pH is reasonable then the alkalinity would be approximately 50*60/61 = 49 and that's what is listed. Interpreting it that way the profile is pretty badly balanced (by 1.2 mEq/L) if the calcium is interpreted as the ion. If interpreted as CaCO3 it's still imbalanced (0.6 mEq/L) but not quite so badly.
So there is something I'm obviously not understanding here. Can you check the column headings and tell me what the units are for each column? Without that info all I can do is fiddle around trying to figure out what these numbers mean. I think it's clear what the bicarbonate/alkalinity relationship and the CO3, whenever given, seems to be the same as the bicarbonate which, as noted above, only occurs at pH 10.38.
I've started look at things from a different angle basing things on some minimums, maximums, Cl:SO4 ratios, and RA based on what the particular style demands for color/balance and not on where the beers originally came from.
Since the Bock was the first one brought up:
From the Quickie Water Chemistry Primer
Dark Lagers -- Bocks, for example. Model: Mosher's "Ideal Mild Ale / Dark Lager"
SRM Low 9.0
SRM High 13.8
Based on the style description:
Traditional Bock 5B
SRM 14 to 22
Mean OG 1.068
Mean FG 1.016
Mean IBU 23.5
BV Balance Slightly Malty
*RTE = 0.82 x FG + 0.18 x OG
**BV = 0.8 x IBU / RTE
This would show that the two don't really align.
After some tweaking:
SRM Low 13.9
SRM High 18.8
Now the colors line up as well as the balance.
A good RA for all beers is 0 or less. You should never increase alkalinity (of RA) unless 1) Your mash pH is way low 2) You want bicarbonate taste in your beer. The reason I mention this is because some authors think Bock should have some residual carbonate taste. I don't. The less the better.
A couple of papers were written in the UK suggesting that chloride to sulfate ratio was better correlated with taste panel impressions that the absolute values. This is by no means universally accepted. Among German brewers a good ratio is infinite (i.e. no sulfate).
At this point we have 5 or 6 conflicting ideas as to what sort of water treatment should be used to brew a Bock beer depending on
1)Whether you think Munich Water represents a good model for Bock (that is, after all, the city where the style was brought to fruition even if it was born in Einbeck
2)Which of several reports on the nature of Munich water you choose to believe in (4 are historical but physically impossible, the other is modern but I expect the good burghers of Munich may have improved the city's water treatment in the last century)
3)Whether you think SRM is tightly correlated to water chemistry (it isn't).
4)Given that you think it is which model (slope of 7 in Palmer's or slope of 1 in AJ's or Kai's).
5)Whether you think the brewers of Munich do or did decarbonate the water before they brewed Bock.
The level of sulfate in this profile is totally unacceptable for Bock! Munich water contains less than 10 mg/L sulfate (though 1 of my historical reports says 79 - my guess, given the source of Munich's water, i.e. the Isar, is that this was mis-transcribed or misprinted and should be 7.9 but I certainly can't prove that). A level as high as 125 would be disastrous with the fine hops that we want to give Bock that smooth "The drinker shouldn't know he is drinking bock until he tries to get up from the table" quality. Continental brewers are not really concerned with chloride to sulfate ratio - they want minimum sulfate.
The sodium and chloride are also way high for Munich.
In summary, my philosophy is that there is no "ideal" profile for any style of beer. What I have sketched out here is an approach where we assume that the water of the Isar is responsible for the qualities of Bock and that we should therefore at least approximately try to match Munich water. But then you could argue that I should be trying to match Einbeck and I wouldn't argue back very hard.
If asked what I think the ideal water for bock would be I'd say take RO water (it's much easier to get now than when I started looking at this) and add 1 tsp calcium chloride to each 5 gal. Be sure to use sauermalz to set mash pH and check it. If you think the beer is lacking mineral character that you want (or think a judge might want) then add that mineral next time you brew and see if the resulting beer is better. But then I say that for all brew styles.
Disclaimer: I've used a narrative style here that might be interpreted as meaning that I'm stating proven fact. Certainly there are factual statements in the post but the philosophy definitely represents an opinion based on my experience. It is an opinion that, as it has solidified, is yielding consistently good beer but an opinion nevertheless.
While I understand the certain beers styles were developed out of necessity based on what the region's water supply allowed, it is a bad idea to try to replicate the water exactly. I know that when I want to make an IPA, the Seattle water supply won't provided the crispness but I'm certainly not going 600+ on the Sulphate just because Burton did. We should be examining why these styles were developed and trying to mimic the benefits while staying within moderation.
I think you are missing the point. I'm not saying that the RTE of BV are defined by the water chem but that we should be taking it into account when developing water for styles. We should be looking at adjusting water to it aligns with the balance of the beer.
I don't really care what types of water others are using to brew with. I know what I use and how I do things. I think the goal of this post and others like it was to give some guidance to people who may be new to brewing or at least to water adjustments so when they want to brew a certain style of beer, they know what types of water to use and not have to fiddle around with the numbers too much.
1) You can't - there is not physically realizable profile in the half dozen or so in my collection.
2) Even if you could, there were multiple wells in Burton. Which would you choose?
3) Burton style beers brewed with softer water are better beers than ones brewed with "authentic" water.
In the case of Burton the hardness was sufficient that mash pH settled into a reasonable (if not ideal) range. The sulfate they had was the sulfate they had. If they had any way to take some of that sulfate out they probably would have. And if they had had pH meters they probably would have started adding acid to their mashes earlier than they did.
I looked at data from 4 recently brewed beers (all measured -not calculated) and while that certainly isn't a very big sample there wasn't much of a correlation (Pearsons r = -0.24) between chloride to sulfate ratio and IBU/TE. But note that the correlation is negative. IOW a scatter plot of IBU/TE vs Cl:SO4 is pretty much centered around a horizontal line. I do not take chloride to sulfate ratio or IBU/TE ratio into account when designing brewing water (but I surely do think about TE and hopping levels in planning grist and hop charges) and based on this data I wouldn't. But you are saying perhaps I should? I'm sure as hell not adding any sulfate to my Pils!!! Or my ale - the bitterness is already too harsh for my taste.
1)You can't get data that would let you measure it
2)The data I have measured shows that the correlation doesn't exist (r<1/2 isn't a whole lot better than no correlation at all IMO)
|All times are GMT. The time now is 05:47 AM.|
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.