 |
|
07-16-2012, 02:36 PM
|
#11
|
|
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,091
Liked 39 Times on 34 Posts Likes Given: 34
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlangfo5
Edit!
It appears that water filtration through activated carbon such as a Brita filter removes an average of 90% of the calcium in the water, that could be a problem!
|
I rather doubt that's true...otherwise, why would people bother getting water softeners (which remove calcium) instead of just large activated carbon filters?
|
|
|
07-16-2012, 09:21 PM
|
#12
|
|
Senior Member
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: McLean/Ogden, Virginia/Quebec
Posts: 3,798
Liked 202 Times on 171 Posts Likes Given: 7
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by afr0byte
I rather doubt that's true...otherwise, why would people bother getting water softeners (which remove calcium) instead of just large activated carbon filters?
|
It is true but it isn't the GAC component of the Brita Pitcher which does it. It is an ion exchange resin which is also part of this product.
|
|
|
07-17-2012, 02:15 AM
|
#13
|
|
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,091
Liked 39 Times on 34 Posts Likes Given: 34
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajdelange
It is true but it isn't the GAC component of the Brita Pitcher which does it. It is an ion exchange resin which is also part of this product.
|
Huh, I didn't know a Brita had exchange resins. That makes a little more sense then.
|
|
|
07-17-2012, 04:02 AM
|
#14
|
|
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 103
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts Likes Given: 1
|
Yeah, I think I am going to skip using the water filter in my beer and start boiling my water before I mash with it. Here is a question, it was mentioned before that low calcium can affect mash efficency, how low is to low, and how big of a difference does it make? I had a really bad effiency in my last brew "55%" ! 0.0. I am wondering if my water was a significant factor.
|
|
|
07-17-2012, 05:33 AM
|
#15
|
|
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hell.. er.. Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 152
Liked 14 Times on 12 Posts Likes Given: 2
|
Grind, pH, time, and temperature are much more important from an efficiency standpoint. There are other good reasons to try and keep Ca over 30-40 ppm, but you don't need it for efficiency. Maybe so far as Ca relates to pH, but you could get great efficiency using 0ppm Ca and acid.
|
|
|
07-17-2012, 10:32 AM
|
#16
|
|
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 1,540
Liked 85 Times on 77 Posts Likes Given: 104
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotPushrods
Grind, pH, time, and temperature are much more important from an efficiency standpoint. There are other good reasons to try and keep Ca over 30-40 ppm, but you don't need it for efficiency. Maybe so far as Ca relates to pH, but you could get great efficiency using 0ppm Ca and acid.
|
Not only does alpha amylase requires calcium to function, but it also stabilizes the enzyme at mash temperatures so that it is not rapidly degraded. I don't know why people insist the other parameters are "more important". I had a consistent grind (even run through twice), pH checked by a meter, temperature checked with a Thermapen (and others) and mashed for 75 minutes and had both wildly variable and bad efficiencies ranging from 69 to 53%. Added in a little calcium (my city water is only 4PPM) while changing nothing else and jumped to 75%. Since then I have been at 75, 75, 76, 75 and 74% with the 74% being a high gravity beer. Adjusting your water is so, so easy it just seems silly to not do it.
__________________
Kegged Two Hearted, Dragonmead Final Absolution
Bottled Robust porter, Founder's Breakfast Stout, Ommegawd Hellepin, Ed Wort's Apfelwein
RIP Snake Dog IPA, Biermuncher's OktoberFAST, Falconer's Flight IPA, Two-Hearted clone (Culturing Bell's Yeast), Noberon wheat, Skeeter Pee using dry yeast, Smooth Oatmeal Stout
Simple and easy wort aeration - Harvest yeast from your blowoff - Homebrew Spicy Mustard
|
|
|
07-17-2012, 11:43 AM
|
#17
|
|
Senior Member
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: McLean/Ogden, Virginia/Quebec
Posts: 3,798
Liked 202 Times on 171 Posts Likes Given: 7
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlangfo5
...low calcium can affect mash efficency, how low is to low, and how big of a difference does it make?
|
When we calculate efficiency we compare the amount of extract we pull out of the grain in our mash tun to the amount pulled out in a Congress mash. The Congress mash is done with distilled water. As none of us ever gets as much extract as the Congress mass produces (which would be 100% by the way home brewers reckon it) even when we supplement calcium I guess we can conclude that 0 is not too low i.e. that other factors, such as the fineness of the grind, (look at coarse/fine difference in a malt spec sheet) are more significant.
I think what most people overlook is that malt contains lots of minerals including quite a bit of calcium.
Speaking more practically some very fine beers are made with water that is very low in mineral content (think Budvar, Pilsner Urquell...). Absence of any mineral flavor at all is a major feature in the flavor profile of these beers. I generally brew my beers with very low mineral content water. Were I to supplement calcium my efficiency might go up 0.1% but I don't really care. I'll keep the efficiency where it is and drink 12.9 °P beer instead of 13. I tune for the flavors I like - not efficiency.
|
|
|
07-17-2012, 05:10 PM
|
#18
|
|
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hell.. er.. Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 152
Liked 14 Times on 12 Posts Likes Given: 2
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabloj13
I don't know why people insist the other parameters are "more important".
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajdelange
Were I to supplement calcium my efficiency might go up 0.1% but I don't really care.
|
This is my experience as well... I can get 75% with RO water and acid. I don't because there are other reasons to want more calcium (than the malt provides), but it has not affected me when using almost pure RO water for a light lager and phosphoric acid for pH. Still 75%.
Kai actually did a test specifically about Ca and efficiency. It made very little difference when other variables were controlled. Efficiency was 2% higher at 350 ppm!! Negligible differences under 100 ppm.
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Effects_of_mash_parameters_on_ferm entability_and_efficiency_in_single_infusion_mashi ng#Calcium
I'm not saying it didn't happen, you should keep doing what works for you. But it's probably more the exception than the rule.
I'd like everyone to learn more about water chemistry because it's not as hard and it might first appear. But when someone specifically asks about an efficiency problem, I'd point them in several other directions first.
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
|
|
|