Thoughts on ancient famous water sources

I'm starting a new discussion based on my thoughts in another thread, (https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f128/too-much-additives-350739/) where I was given advice about the pros and cons of emulating an ancient water source, such as Burton on Trent.

I'm wondering about this idea: that we do not know what treatment occurred within the brewerys that used these famous ancient water sources. Since almost nothing was known about water chemistry until the late 19th and early 20th century, water treatment was mostly done by physical means (distilling, diluting, or filtering) for as late as the 1950s and 1960s.

So I ask, was the water treatment processes that occurred in ancient brewerys likely done by distillation, dilution, and/or filtration? And, if so, it is the extent of treatment that is unknown, but we do know the likely processes used.

What is also known is this:

1. the water chemistry profile at the source.

2. the challenge and cost of bringing large quantities of water from an alternate source (likely from miles away) would limit the ability to change the chemical content of the source water, except by distillation or filtration. (Dilution with distilled water would decrease concentration but not the ion ratios.)

3. Distillation is a labor intensive process, so it had limited application for changing water.

4. Filtration, in general, does little to change water chemistry profile.

I conclude that it is likely that many, if not all, ancient brewerys did indeed use the water as it came from the source, ie, with no treatment. And therefore, it is important to know the actual ion concentrations of these famous water sources.

How else is there to see this?

SMc0724 said:

I'm wondering about this idea: that we do not know what treatment occurred within the brewerys that used these famous ancient water sources.

Click to expand...

In some cases we do know. Martin has done a fair amount of research on this in coming up with profiles for his spreadsheet. For example, I learned at the NHC earlier this summer, that the Burton brewers heated the water in the HLT before doughing in. Having synthesized Burton water (from a physically feasible profile) I know what happens if you do that. Lots of the carbonate drops out. I still get razzed by a guy that helped me brew an 'authentic' Burton ale by this method. He saw all the salts go in and witnessed the extensive sparging with CO2 necessary to get them dissolved and then watched them drop to the bottom of the HLT. He thought this a great waste of time and so do I. I would only do this for a class and that's exactly why I did it. This is another of the reasons it is generally foolish to try to emulate a given water.

SMc0724 said:

Since almost nothing was known about water chemistry until the late 19th and early 20th century, water treatment was mostly done by physical means (distilling, diluting, or filtering) for as late as the 1950s and 1960s.

Click to expand...

The breweries of yore would not invest the energy required to distill, and had no low ion source of dilution water. As noted in the Burton case, they did invest the energy to heat the water as they had to anyway and this, because their water is super saturated with respect to lime, caused partial decarbonation to take place. As science came into the picture many adopted lime softening and I expect that's still used today though the tendency seems to be more towards RO and microfiltration.

SMc0724 said:

So I ask, was the water treatment processes that occurred in ancient brewerys likely done by distillation, dilution, and/or filtration? And, if so, it is the extent of treatment that is unknown, but we do know the likely processes used.

Click to expand...

I obviously don't know what went on in any particular brewery in the past but as noted above I'd guess that filtration would be the only process used and that wouldn't change the chemistry of the water.

SMc0724 said:

What is also known is this:

1. the water chemistry profile at the source.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is known. I have perhaps 8 profiles for Burton wells. There is definitely more than one well in Burton which has been used as a source of brewing water. As I noted in the other thread most of those profiles don't balance chemically.

You could argue that the chemistry of the Isar has not changed over the years but I would question whether the water I sample out of the tap in a hotel in Munich is more than just broadly similar to the water the monks used to brew the traditional Munich styles. The effects of acid rain in industrial Europe have surely changed the chemistry of this river's water.

SMc0724 said:

2. the challenge and cost of bringing large quantities of water from an alternate source (likely from miles away) would limit the ability to change the chemical content of the source water, except by distillation or filtration. (Dilution with distilled water would decrease concentration but not the ion ratios.)

Click to expand...

Transportation of water is clearly out of the question because of the weight. This is why we have the beer styles we do today - they were in large part driven by the qualities of the available water. Breweries were located where the water was good but without the abilities we have today the kinds of beer that could be brewed were limited.

Filtration does not change the ion content of water. There were no ion exchange resins in those days. Xeolites did, of course, exist then but I don't believe ion exchange technology was available outside the laboratory until well into the 20th century.

SMc0724 said:

3. Distillation is a labor intensive process, so it had limited application for changing water.

Click to expand...

I'd guess none. It is not only labor intensive but requires energy and capital equipment.

SMc0724 said:

4. Filtration, in general, does little to change water chemistry profile.

Click to expand...

True

SMc0724 said:

I conclude that it is likely that many, if not all, ancient brewerys did indeed use the water as it came from the source, ie, with no treatment.

Click to expand...

Other than decarbonation by heating that's probably true. But certainly we must allow that the Munich brewers, for example, in the development of Helles, figured out some way to beat the bicarbonate. Now did they do that by decarbonation by heating, by lime treatment, by the use of sauergut (lactic acid) or a combination of these? I don't know.

SMc0724 said:

And therefore, it is important to know the actual ion concentrations of these famous water sources.

Click to expand...

I don't think you can draw that conclusion. Even if you could there is no way to get the info you want as analytical techniques were crude in the earlier days. Sørenson didn't even come up with the concept of pH until 1909 so there isn't going to be any alkalinity data on any water samples taken before that. And, as mentioned before, the water data that we do find in textbooks and elsewhere is frequently demonstrably flawed.

SMc0724 said:

How else is there to see this?

Click to expand...

I advise people setting out to brew, for example, a Burton beer, to learn as much as possible about the water with which this beer was brewed. Research will hand you a bunch of 'profiles' for Burton water which vary widely in reported bicarbonate content but less so in sulfate. We know that the ales brewed with this water were pale and so we must conclude that the bicarbonate was somehow dealt with. RA calculations show that the suite of profiles had RA's ranging from 0 to as low as -100. Thus we know that the water's must have had a lot of permanent hardness - no surprise given the high sulfate levels. We conclude that Burton water must have been very gypseous. Experience shows that if one synthesizes Burton water heating will cause precipitation of much of the bicarbonate (with all that calcium to balance all that sulfate this is no surprise). So the only question is as to whether the Burton brewers doughed in cold and heated the mash (this would cause the chalk to precipitate in the mash) or heated to strike in an external vessel which would cause the chalk to precipitate in the HLT and not reach the mash. I got confirmation recently that it is the latter (which really only makes sense as it's easier to heat water than mash). Thus we conclude that we can make up a suitable water for brewing Burton beers by adding some gypsum and calcium chloride to low ion water. The question is 'How much?' and the answer is 'As much as is necessary to get you the optimum beer by whatever your criterion of optimality may be.' That last phrase is in italics because many people don't think about this aspect of it. Some optimality criteria are:

1. You like it
2. Your spouse likes it
3. Your buddies like it
4. It wins BOS
5. It sells (commercial operations)
6. It is authentic

Beers that satisfy these different optimality criteria can be quite different but still all be Burton ales. I mentioned earlier classes I have given where I synthesized 'authentic' Burton water, brewed an ale with it and then brewed the same ale (or as nearly the same as I could) with my untreated well water. Tasters mostly found the Burton water beer more authentic (though how they knew that I can't fathom) but the less gypseous water ale a much better beer.

To summarize: the way to look at this is that the styles usually have some characteristics driven by the water available to the original brewers. While you don't know the details of what the original water chemistry were nor how the brewery processed it you can learn the general characteristics of the water and as you have infinite control over the water you brew with (assuming you start with DI or RO) you can synthesize a water with the general characteristics and then tweak the ion contents in order to meet your optimality criterion. It is possible for you to make a better Burton ale than the Burton brewers ever did.

Way to kill a thread, AJ. Excellent write-up. I believe you covered all the bases, probably the outfield too. Having said that . . .

I find it a little ironic that different styles evolved largely to address the shortcomings of the local water. Before chemistry, it was all trial and error.

I think the hagiography of traditional beers is a bit misplaced. Those old brewmasters would have killed for something like RO water.

Of course if you’d showed up with a pH meter, you would surely have been burned as a witch. Keep the motor running on that time machine.

I’ve watched “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” like ten times, and I still can’t get the damn thing to work.

Wynne-R said:

I find it a little ironic that different styles evolved largely to address the shortcomings of the local water. Before chemistry, it was all trial and error.

Click to expand...

How is that ironic?

Ironic that people get all worked up trying to produce something ‘authentic’ when they could easily have brewed something better with modern techniques.

A little off topic, but I was reminded of something when AJ was talking about his Burton on Trent mineral bomb. If I boil my mash water, will all the calcium carbonate precipitate go back into solution? Or will I have tiny little rocks at the bottom of the mash tun?

Wynne-R said:

A little off topic, but I was reminded of something when AJ was talking about his Burton on Trent mineral bomb. If I boil my mash water, will all the calcium carbonate precipitate go back into solution? Or will I have tiny little rocks at the bottom of the mash tun?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're asking, but heating water with high temporary hardness will cause CaCO3 to precipitate. It'll be a chalk consistency, not rocks, though.

Boiling will certainly keep anything that precipitated out of solution by preventing any CO2 from dissolving. If you left the water exposed to the air and allowed it to cool some of the precipitate would redissolve - enough to establish equilibrium between atmospheric CO2 and calcium carbonate i.e. about 50 ppm alkalinity and 50 ppm calcium hardness (assuming there was no permanent hardness).

Well, I did say ‘ tiny little rocks.’ That’s what they look like in a San Antonio coffee pot. Anyway.

My question is, Will the precipitate dissolve in the mash? If there’s some left then it will reduce my alkalinity.

Wynne-R said:

My question is, Will the precipitate dissolve in the mash? If there’s some left then it will reduce my alkalinity.

Click to expand...

The purpose of producing the precipitate is to remove the alkalinity from the water. Once the precipitate forms you would normally rack off the water on top, leaving the precipitate behind.

Yeah but I don’t rack it off. I’m trying to figure out if the precipitate will re-dissolve in the mash, or if some of it stays out of solution.

They say the mash happens pretty quickly, fifteen minutes or so. I guess at least some the precipitate would remain. Trying to get a handle on the speed of the reaction at normal mash temp and pH.

SMc0724 said:

therefore, it is important to know the actual ion concentrations of these famous water sources.
How else is there to see this?

Click to expand...

It isn't important to me. Another way to see it is very simple. The brewers of those regions did what was necessary to make good beer. Whether it was an acid rest, decoction mashing, or adding or decreasing dark malts to affect pH, it was all for the end result of good tasting beer with their available resources.

So, I don't need to perform a bunch of steps to make good beer. I can get hoppiness in an IPA from ~70-100 ppm of SO4. I can get maltiness in an o'fest from a moderate CaCl2 addition. I can get soft malty character of a bopils from very small mineral addition to RO water. I can lower mash pH with acid malt or phosphoric acid.

Matching water profiles isn't valueable to me to improve my beers. A bunch of mineral additions that may or may not have been in classic brewing regions water sources wont help me at all.

Well it all very interesting, especially the long and detailed response from AJ. A lot of good information there, and since I am starting with distilled water, I will be studying up more on the mineral additions for the styles. I'm getting Palmer's spreadsheet to start on this. Plus I plan to be much more careful before adding any additives to my beer in the future. Thank-you.

I'm not sure what RC means by, "It isn't important to me." and "Matching water profiles isn't valueable to me to improve my beers." I'm not able to use my tap water for brewing so I buy distilled. Now, I've got to decide where to go with it. As a BIAB brewer, I understand that the malt will have minerals in it. But, why should I live with that. I mean the door is wide open for me to go in any direction from distilled, which is empty of minerals. So why not study ideal water profiles, and the historically great ones?

To me, the past is prologue and I hope to avoid (any more) stupid mistakes by learning from the past. Per Winston Churchill, the further back you can look, the further forward you are likely to see.

Ahh yes, but Isaac Newton uncharacteristically modestly said he could see a little farther because he was standing on the shoulders of giants.

It would be equally dumb to ignore the past or be stuck in it. Take what you’ve learned and move on.

SMc0724 said:

I'm not sure what RC means by, "It isn't important to me." and "Matching water profiles isn't valueable to me to improve my beers." I'm not able to use my tap water for brewing so I buy distilled. So why not study ideal water profiles, and the historically great ones?

Click to expand...

Because they aren't ideal. The brewers in those regions manipulated the water and ingredients to be able to use less than ideal water.

I use RO water for every brew. I add very conservative mineral additions to achieve the character I want from the beer. When I brew an IPA I don't try to match Burton's water profile. When I brew Vienna lager, I don't try to match Vienna's water profile.

I add small additions of gypsum and or calcium chloride to accentuate the characteristics I want out of the beer then adjust mash pH if necessary with lime or acid. Read the stickied primer on water chemistry at the top of the page. Its a great way to start.

Trying to match the world's water profiles is not the way to approach water chemistry.

RCCOLA said:

Because they aren't ideal.

Click to expand...

Far from it. Most of them aren't even physically possible.

RC thanks for the clarification of your view.

Wynne, I believe we are saying the same thing. Standing on the shoulders of giants is also a reference to the past, albeit past successes. I never said ignore the past! In fact just the opposite! I'll say it again: The past is prologue.

I'm not convinced that studying past profiles is unimportant, even if they are partially flawed. I've learned so much already with this discussion. I do understand the limits of doing so.

Smc, I suggest you download EZ water calculator, plug in some recipes, and get a feel for what salts do to mash pH. I think it will really help you out.

RC, Good thoughts. I local microbrewer friend of mine sent me his, and I've heard Palmer's is good as well. So, I'll look at them all. Give a chance to brush up on my water chemistry course from college.

Wynne-R said:

I find it a little ironic that different styles evolved largely to address the shortcomings of the local water. Before chemistry, it was all trial and error.

Click to expand...

The evolution of styles had much more to do with malting and fermentation technology than water. Everyone's beer was dark and sour until malting technology allowed for pale beers, the knowledge of microbiology allowed brewers to isolate brett and other souring organisms and refridgeration gave rise to lager beer.

Not really. Brewers could change malts, change hops, have malt and hops shipped in etc but they couldn't change their water nor have it shipped in. What makes Pilsner Urquel Pilsner Urquell is the water. What makes Export Export is the water. Brewers had to adapt to the water they had available. At Pilsen they found the best beers were made with pale malts by triple decoction mashing using an acid rest, Saazer hops, bottom fermenting yeast and lagering given the water they had available. Were they working in Dublin they would have used darker malts, an ale strain, different hops and an infusion mash because that made the best beer given the water they had.

ajdelange said:

Not really. Brewers could change malts, change hops, have malt and hops shipped in etc but they couldn't change their water nor have it shipped in. What makes Pilsner Urquel Pilsner Urquell is the water. What makes Export Export is the water. Brewers had to adapt to the water they had available. At Pilsen they found the best beers were made with pale malts by triple decoction mashing using an acid rest, Saazer hops, bottom fermenting yeast and lagering given the water they had available. Were they working in Dublin they would have used darker malts, an ale strain, different hops and an infusion mash because that made the best beer given the water they had.

Click to expand...

They did change their water - they boiled to precipitate carbonate and added gypsum. And I'm not denying that certain water profiles may have been better suited for some beer styles but I don't think it really influenced the creation of the style. I don't know much about lager history but did they invent pilsner lagers or did the style rise in popularity and it just happened that it worked best with pilsen water? Burton on Trent didn't become a big brewing centre until pale ales became popular and possible due to malting advances and the water there happened to great for the style. When guinness started brewing porter in dublin, they had to brew dark beers because brown malt was all they had and everyone was brewing porter regardless of their water....and what is the water guinness uses anyways? Apparently its soft wicklow mountain water not the ridiculously high carbonate water you see in tables like this http://www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter15-2.html

gbx said:

They did change their water - they boiled to precipitate carbonate and added gypsum.

Click to expand...

Ah you mean 'Burtonizing salts'. They certainly didn't add Burtonizing salts to the water at Burton. Burton water is already very gypseous. This is one of the things that makes Burton Ales what they are. The brewers that add Burtonizing salts to their water are the ones that want to brew Burton style beers but who don't have Burton-like water. The water drives the style.

It is, of course, impossible to brew beer without heating the water and therefore the decarbonation that occurs in the HLT is not, IMO, treatment of the water. At Burton they heated the water before adding the malt. This is sufficient to precipitate carbonate as Burton water obviously contains lots and lots of permanent hardness. This characteristic of Burton water is what makes Burton beers Burton beers. At least from the perspective of someone trying to brew a Burton Beer. He must add Burtonizing salts but, of course, he must also use pale ale malt, the proper crystal malts and a suitable hops cultivar.

gbx said:

And I'm not denying that certain water profiles may have been better suited for some beer styles but I don't think it really influenced the creation of the style. I don't know much about lager history but did they invent pilsner lagers or .....

Click to expand...

The city fathers of Pilsen wated a brewery that could compete with the German lager breweries and so the Burgerlisches Brauhaus was constructed starting in 1853 (?). It happens to be located over deep very soft wells. After some experimentation they discovered that the available water allowed them to brew a soft, flavorful, intensely (without harshness) bitter beer that is the basis for most of the beer drunk in the world today. They did not treat the water. They adjusted materials and techniques to fit the water they had. The water defines Pilsner Urquell and Budvar (which also has access to soft water). The other Pilsners of the region are also defined by their water which isn't so suitable for this style of beer. Ever heard of any of them? Actually some of them are quite good but not as good as PU or Budvar. The best Pilsners world wide are brewed with very soft water. This is what defines the style. Of course Pilsner wouldn't be Pilsner if it weren't brewed with decoction mashing and lager yeast and if it weren't lagered so there are other factors at play.

gbx said:

...did the style rise in popularity and it just happened that it worked best with pilsen water?

Click to expand...

Consumers loved the clean taste of the lagers and the soft water made it posssible to brew a clean, soft lager without the use of dark malts. As the Czech glass industry was developing at the time the availability of clear drinking vessels made it possible to see the beer and this gave PU with its light color a tremendous marketing advantage. You can say none of this would have happened without refrigeration, none would have happened without bottom fermenting yeast and maybe even none of this would have happened without clear glass so of course those are factors. But clear glass would have been a factor for Burton too. It would not have happened without the water as Saazer hops, which are definitetely a big part of Bohemian Pils, could not have been used. I guess we could do the chicken and egg debate here but as I am a water guy I focus on the water and it certainly is a sine qua non for many if not most styles. Thus I, and most other people I talk to about such things, consider water to be the thing that drove beer styles.

The question I answer more than any other is: 'Here's my Ward Labs report. What styles of beer can I brew?' I can usually answer that question pretty easily. The fact that people ask that question and that I am able to answer it suggests strongly that water is major factor in beer style.

But then I suppose someone could ask 'I have some Saazer hops. What styles of beer can I brew?' and again this would be easy to answer as certain styles of beer are associated with certain hop cultivars. So water is not the whole story by any means.

gbx said:

Burton on Trent didn't become a big brewing centre until pale ales became popular and possible due to malting advances and the water there happened to great for the style.

Click to expand...

It didn't become a great brewing centre until perhaps the 18th century (again no reference materials available) but brewing has been going on there since the abbey was established in 1002 and here the high sulfate levels are mainly what defines the style though the low to negative RA also meant that it was not necessary to use dark malts to obtain the pH necessary for good beers. Burton is the classic example of the style being defined by the water.

gbx said:

When guinness started brewing porter in dublin, they had to brew dark beers because brown malt was all they had and everyone was brewing porter regardless of their water and what is the water guinness uses anyways? Apparently its soft wicklow mountain water not the ridiculously high carbonate water you see in tables like this http://www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter15-2.html

Click to expand...

I don't know but I have called BS on the commonly published Dublin water profiles as a basis for stout brewing because I have found that even a modest alkalinity cannot be overcome by the typical roast barley (10%) content of a typical dry Irish stout grain bill. So if you try to brew stout with one of those recommended profiles you come up with a stout that is not very good. It's not that the water doesn't determine style characteristics, it's that you used the wrong water and so missed the style. Again, the style is defined by the water it was made with.

The situation is, of course, changing. Today you can brew any style you want with any water supply. It is apparent that the Burton regions ales are no longer brewed with 'Burton' water as the beers have lost the minerally character that was so much a part of their character. Similarly, Exports no longer have the mineral crispness that was so much a cornerstone of that style. Even BJCP have dropped this mineral character from their guide. This is too bad in one sense as stylistic distinctions are part of what makes brewing fascinating but, OTOH, I really think beers made with low mineral content water are better. Those who feel the way I do are making beers with this soft water. Again, the character of the beer we are making, its stylistic character, is being driven by the water.

It is sort of a chicken/egg argument but the original comment I was disputing was "different styles evolved largely to address the shortcomings of the local water". Clearly water is important to beer styles but if the water is the egg and everything else that influences style is the chicken (technology, available malts and hops, consumer preferences) then clearly the chicken came first. In the industrialized world, brewers would relocate to places with appropriate water for the styles that were popular and rely on shipping to get the ingredients and to export the beer to the markets (like burton and india). The style became possible and popular for other complicated reasons first, then the water was optimized and it became associated with a specific locality with that water. To talk about beer styles from before the industrial revolution is pointless as the technology and available ingredients were so limited that it was clearly more important than the water in determining the local beer.

Low gravity dry irish stout using unmalted flaked and roast barley is a post WWI invention, likely due to available ingredients of the day. Aside from the technical reasons you mentioned, I don't think it is valid to use it as an example of water profile influencing styles as guinness had been brewing porters for more than 100 years by the time of the dry stout style's creation. Prior to that it probably would have been the standard porter grist of pale, brown and black patent malts. The brewers were probably just trying to continue brewing something similar to what they had always brewed.

There are some articles here about historic water treatment: http://barclayperkins.blogspot.ca/search/label/water treatment unfortunately the units are in something like oz/barrel...maybe patto1ro will see this and comment, I'm sure he has some interesting thoughts on this.

Water is a complicated enough topic (which is why I like your water primer) without adding a bunch of myths involving classic brewing center water profiles that are either fantasy or gross oversimplifications.

gbx said:

It is sort of a chicken/egg argument but the original comment I was disputing was "different styles evolved largely to address the shortcomings of the local water". Clearly water is important to beer styles but if the water is the egg and everything else that influences style is the chicken (technology, available malts and hops, consumer preferences) then clearly the chicken came first. In the industrialized world, brewers would relocate to places with appropriate water for the styles that were popular and rely on shipping to get the ingredients and to export the beer to the markets (like burton and india). The style became possible and popular for other complicated reasons first, then the water was optimized and it became associated with a specific locality with that water.

Click to expand...

The only problem with that reasoning is that, AFAIK, Burton brewers did not 'optimize' the water. They took it from the well and put it in the mash tun, heated it and added the grain. Makes sense compared to the alternative: doughing in cold and then heating the mash. Given that they could make a perfectly good beer with the water they had why would they choose malt, hops yeast and process that would require water treatment? Thus it is pretty clear to me that in this case, at least, the water drove the beer. Furthermore they did not relocate to Burton - they had been brewing there since 1002. Those that built the Burton breweries knew that Burton water made good beer and so they located there. Same with Pilsen.

gbx said:

To talk about beer styles from before the industrial revolution is pointless as the technology and available ingredients were so limited that it was clearly more important than the water in determining the local beer.

Click to expand...

Then why did they locate at Burton? "Say, for what are hop yards meant / and why was Burton built on Trent?" If your thesis were correct they could have located anywhere and saved having to dig the canals, build the railroads etc. Similarly with Pilsen. It would have been un necessary to build and run the Vienna "beer train". They could have just brewed the beer at Schwechat and the Viennese would have been happy with it.

gbx said:

Aside from the technical reasons you mentioned, I don't think it is valid to use it as an example of water profile influencing styles as guinness had been brewing porters for more than 100 years by the time of the dry stout style's creation.

Click to expand...

Well the technical reasons can't be dismissed. But as I know very little about what went on at St. James gate I will not argue for Guiness as an example further.

But lets go back to Pilsen - a clear post industrial revolution example of the water driving the design of the beer. Beer had been brewed there since the 15th (?) century but the city fathers weren't interested in brewing those beers. They wanted to beat the Germans at their own game - lagers. They could, of course, have treated their water in any way they wanted to as it is so low in ion content. It's almost like RO water. They could have, for example, added Burtonizing salts, used the less expensive English hops and ale yeast strains but they didn't choose to. Rather they chose ingredients that worked well with the water they had e.g. the previously mentioned Saazer hops, lower kilned malts and a lager yeast strain. The water wasn't optimized for the style. The style was invented right there to fit the water. This was probably done elsewhere too but we know Pilsner because it was such a great success.

Obviously we can go around like this until St. Swithin's day but the discussion and thinking about it have only made it all the more clear to me that in the case of Burton and Pilsen, at least, the water was the main factor in what wound up as what we consider to be Burton and Bohemian Pilsner today. I think 'largely' is exactly the right term to use.

gbx said:

.. without adding a bunch of myths involving classic brewing center water profiles that are either fantasy or gross oversimplifications.

Click to expand...

Which parts of the Burton and Pilsen histories do you consider to be mythical? As noted I don't have access to my library at the moment so I can't come up with chapter and verse but I believe I have stated the cases at those 2 locations essentially correctly. Now I agree that the published Burton profiles may be mythical in the sense that they are not physically possible and I have no problem with cautioning brewers to take such profiles with a grain of salt. But if one is to brew a Burton style beer he'd better use a gypseous water with moderate hardness. On cannot argue much about the Pilsen profiles. If one wants to brew a Boh. Pils successfully he'd better use very soft water.

ajdelange said:

Which parts of the Burton and Pilsen histories do you consider to be mythical? As noted I don't have access to my library at the moment so I can't come up with chapter and verse but I believe I have stated the cases at those 2 locations essentially correctly. Now I agree that the published Burton profiles may be mythical in the sense that they are not physically possible and I have no problem with cautioning brewers to take such profiles with a grain of salt. But if one is to brew a Burton style beer he'd better use a gypseous water with moderate hardness. On cannot argue much about the Pilsen profiles. If one wants to brew a Boh. Pils successfully he'd better use very soft water.

Click to expand...

I think we maybe arguing different things, I don't dispute that there is right and wrong water for brewing certain beer styles, I dispute the notion that styles were invented to match a particular water profile. Part of the problem with this discussion is I know nothing about continental european beer history...but I'll speak to the UK/Irish classic city profiles from how to brew and appearing in multiple brewing books. from http://www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter15-2.html

London - The higher carbonate level dictated the use of more dark malts to balance the mash, but the chloride and high sodium content also smoothed the flavors out, resulting in the well-known ruby-dark porters and copper-colored pale ales.

Click to expand...

The problem with this is those copper-coloured pale ales (bitters) are all done with burtonized water and the copper colour is often a result of E150 caramel colourant, not dark malts. And as you have pointed out the numbers don't add up.

Edinburgh - Think of misty Scottish evenings and you think of strong Scottish ale - dark ruby highlights, a sweet malty beer with a mellow hop finish. The water is similar to London's but with a bit more bicarbonate and sulfate, making a beer that can embrace a heavier malt body while using less hops to achieve balance.

Click to expand...

Edinburgh had multiple water sources, to put it down as one profile is a gross oversimplification. ...and despite what the marketing copy says on the back of a bottle of belhaven wee heavy, the modern idea of a scotch ale isn't really an historic style. ..or maybe it is but it certainly wasn't the only thing they brewed in edinburgh.

Burton-on-Trent - Compared to London, the calcium and sulfate are remarkably high, but the hardness and alkalinity are balanced to nearly the degree of Pilsen. The high level of sulfate and low level of sodium produce an assertive, clean hop bitterness. Compared to the ales of London, Burton ales are paler, but much more bitter, although the bitterness is balanced by the higher alcohol and body of these ales.

Click to expand...

As you have pointed out, the numbers don't add up. As cause precedes effect and IPA wasn't first brewed here, I think that debunks the entire "water causes style" argument for Burton and IPA. Style first, water second. Maybe the Burton water was best for the style, but it did not influence the creation of the style. ...and as you have pointed out, you can brew better tasting burton-style ales without using burton water. Maybe they just liked salty, minerally beer back in the day or maybe more evidence that the numbers in the tables isn't representative of the water that was coming out of the wells back then.

Dublin - Famous for its stout, Dublin has the highest bicarbonate concentration of the cities of the British Isles, and Ireland embraces it with the darkest, maltiest beer in the world. The low levels of sodium, chloride and sulfate create an unobtrusive hop bitterness to properly balance all of the malt.

Click to expand...

As you have pointed out the numbers don't add up and it isnt the right water to brew a dry stout anyways. As previously mentioned, dry stout is a modern style and guinness has been brewing dark beer since long before they had a choice (no pale malt and everyone was drinking/brewing dark porters). Style first, water second.

So that's 4 of the 8 cities listed, did they just get those wrong and nailed it on the other 4? I'm inclined to believe the entire thing is BS.

ajdelange said:

Not really. Brewers could change malts, change hops, have malt and hops shipped in etc but they couldn't change their water nor have it shipped in. What makes Pilsner Urquel Pilsner Urquell is the water. What makes Export Export is the water. Brewers had to adapt to the water they had available. At Pilsen they found the best beers were made with pale malts by triple decoction mashing using an acid rest, Saazer hops, bottom fermenting yeast and lagering given the water they had available. Were they working in Dublin they would have used darker malts, an ale strain, different hops and an infusion mash because that made the best beer given the water they had.

Click to expand...

So if water's what drives beers styles, why did IPA start in London which supposedly has rubbish water for PAle Ales? And why was Burton originally famous from sweet, dark beers if its water should have induced to brew pale, bitter beers?

Basing an analysis all around water chemistry is a very simplistic way of looking at how styles developed.

Because styles evolve. What we think of as IPA today isn't what they brewed in London but rather what they brewed in Burton. Why did they move to Burton? Because Burton water makes better IPA than London water. I never tasted the London stuff, of course, but I'm guessing it's different from what came out of Burton later on. I never tasted the original Burton beers either but I dare say they had that characteristic gypseous quality. I have tasted the more recent versions of Bass. They don't have that quality. Obviously they are being brewed with mains water now (I don't think they are even brewed in Burton) rather than the traditional and Bass Ale isn't Bass Ale anymore.



Yes, of course it's a simplistic model but it is an excellent teaching tool and one that will stay in place until all the traditional styles are long forgotten. And it has a lot of validity. Those of you who can't appreciate that are free to use your own models.

I don't understand how it could have value as a teaching tool aside from serving as an example of how so much that has been written in homebrew books on the subject of water treatment and beer history is incorrect. It isn't "a simplistic model", its an incorrect model. There is more to the profiles than just the Cl:SO4 ratio, How to Brew uses it to support the concept of residual alkalinity but the numbers in the water profiles are questionable if not outright wrong and often don't match the style they purportedly are necessary for (which often are questionable styles to associate with the city). How much of the theory that "water is responsible for beer styles" has to be demonstrated as false before the entire concept is abandoned?

For the theory to be true:
1. The style must originate in the classic brewing city its associated with.
2. The style must originate as a response to the water profile, not other microbiological, technological, economic or cultural reasons
3. The water profile must be plausible - is there evidence that this is/was actually the water profile for the city?
4. The alleged water profile of the city must be appropriate for the style.

If anyone one of these is demonstrated to be false, the entire premise falls. Do you disagree with this assessment? Have you seen any beer style/brewing city profiles that stand up? Definitely none of the UK profiles do.

…and the evolution of beer styles…I guess there should be a 5th point: Is what we are considering as our example of the classic style representative of what it was at the time of its creation. It definitely isn't true for Dublin and Stout. I doubt what we on the west coast consider IPA these days (bong water with cat piss proprietary hop blends) is at all representative of what was brewed in Burton in the 1800's and what they call an IPA in England the enlightened BJCP disciple would probably call a bitter.

gbx said:

I don't understand how it could have value as a teaching tool...

Click to expand...

Apparently not.

gbx said:

....aside from serving as an example of how so much that has been written in homebrew books on the subject of water treatment and beer history is incorrect.

Click to expand...

There are lots and lots of errors in home brewing books especially on water but that really has nothing to do with whether the model is incorrect or not. Models aren't incorrect or not- they are all incorrect to some extent - their value derives from whether they are applicable or not.

gbx said:

It isn't "a simplistic model", its an incorrect model.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. I have previously in this discourse cited several examples of cases where the model and data fit. There is probably a case where it doesn't fit but I haven't found it yet. Maybe something like a Gose which I'd guess derives its nature from added salt - not that the water it was brewed from is naturally salty.

gbx said:

There is more to the profiles than just the Cl:SO4 ratio, How to Brew uses it to support the concept of residual alkalinity but the numbers in the water profiles are questionable if not outright wrong and often don't match the style they purportedly are necessary for (which often are questionable styles to associate with the city). How much of the theory that "water is responsible for beer styles" has to be demonstrated as false before the entire concept is abandoned?

Click to expand...

The examples you cite (I guess you don't like Palmer's approach and there are errors in it) don't disprove the model. They prove that people can and do make mistakes which result in misapplication of the model. Apparently you don't have much experience with modeling - of course most people don't. If I say there is a duality between energy and matter given by E = m*c that doesn't mean there isn't a duality between mass and energy. It means I have bobbled the expression of what that duality is. Similarly if Palmer publishes a gypseous profile for Burton water that is electrically imbalanced it doesn't mean that Burton water isn't gypseous. It means that Palmer mis-stated the details of Burton water.

gbx said:

For the theory to be true:
1. The style must originate in the classic brewing city its associated with.

Click to expand...

Who ever said that? As I pointed out in my last post what we think of as IPA is definitely a Burton style beer though it was originally brewed in London.

gbx said:

2. The style must originate as a response to the water profile, not other microbiological, technological, economic or cultural reasons

Click to expand...

No, the model does not say that technology etc. aren't factors but only that water was a major factor - the one over which the brewer had least control. Thus the style is largely in response to the water. I weary of explaining this over and over but Pilsner beer, while it would not be Pilsner beer without decoction mashing, wouldn't be Pilsner beer without Pilsen water. And the same for Export, Dunkles, IPA etc.

gbx said:

3. The water profile must be plausible - is there evidence that this is/was actually the water profile for the city?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. When I teach this I don't tell the students that Pilsner beer is what it is because of the nature of its water and that its water is carbonaceous. As noted above, even if I did that it would not invalidate the statement that Pilsner beer is what it is because of the nature of its water. The fact that someone else may misstate what the nature of Pilsen water neither invalidates the model or my teaching of it.

gbx said:

4. The alleged water profile of the city must be appropriate for the style.

Click to expand...

The alleged water profile as treated by the brewery(ies) with which the style is associated must be appropriate for the style.

gbx said:

If anyone one of these is demonstrated to be false, the entire premise falls. Do you disagree with this assessment?

Click to expand...

Yes, most of it as noted above. Also, as noted above, you are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of modeling. A model is a device, physical, mental, computer code... that is used to explain some aspect of the real world when it is impractical or impossible to directly observe the actual world. A common application in brewing is estimation of the mash pH given grist bill and water characteristics. The details of the chemistry are intricate and nobody really cares about them. All the brewer wants to know is if the pH of his mash will be correct. So all that chemistry modeled by gross simplifications that fit into a modest size spreadsheet. It's been interesting to watch the progression in these. They now actually come pretty close to actual mash tun pH's though they are laden with errors, do not consider things like ionic strength etc. The fact that they make these errors, the fact that a guy may have put in the wrong pK for dibasic phosphate ion, the fact that they model malt buffering as a linear function of pH when it is not in no way invalidate the utility of these spreadsheets because they lend valuable information to the brewer.

gbx said:

Have you seen any beer style/brewing city profiles that stand up? Definitely none of the UK profiles do.

Click to expand...

Pilsen, Dortmund, Munich, Ceske Budejovice, Burton, Dublin...

gbx said:

…and the evolution of beer styles…I guess there should be a 5th point: Is what we are considering as our example of the classic style representative of what it was at the time of its creation.

Click to expand...

That is an important point and one I think you misunderstand. Styles definitely evolve. Most of the beer brewed in America in the period after prohibition and before the brewing revolution were 'Pilsners' and they were, from what very little of what I can remember from those long ago days they did resemble Pilsner beer to some extent - i.e. malty, bitter, dark in color but as time passed they became paler, less bitter, less malty as more and more adjunct was added. So what is Pilsner beer today? That depends on whom you ask. To me it is what came from the Ur Quell and that is what is described in the style guidelines - not Bud Light. With IPA the story is essentially the same but in this case IPA is defined not by the Urquell but by the version of it brewed in Burton as that it is from Burton that the world got IPA - not London even though it may have been brewed there first. Therefore, it is not London water that defines what we call English IPA but rather Burton water. Now just as there is Urquell Pils, German Pils, American Pils there is American IPA which bears little resemblance to the defining IPA. And no one would suggest that American Pils or American IPA are other than superficially similar. Yet they are both derivative.

The water of Pilsner was a major driver in Pilsner Urquell and therefore in its derivatives. The water of Burton was a major driver in IPA and therefore its derivatives. The water of Dublin (even if it's not the water quoted in a particular book) was a major driver behind Stout and threfore all its derivatives. QED.


I find your arguments most unconvincing and I'm sure you feel the same way about mine so let's quit wasting our time. I'm sure readers here (if any) have seen enough point and counterpoint to form their own opinions.

ajdelange said:

The water of Pilsner was a major driver in Pilsner Urquell and therefore in its derivatives. The water of Burton was a major driver in IPA and therefore its derivatives. The water of Dublin (even if it's not the water quoted in a particular book) was a major driver behind Stout and threfore all its derivatives.

Click to expand...

It was malting technology that was the real key to Pilsner Urquell.

And Stout was a style that originated and was defined by London, not Dublin. It was old hat by the time Guinness came around.

Mild Ale - which water defined that?

ajdelange said:

The water of Pilsner was a major driver in Pilsner Urquell and therefore in its derivatives. The water of Burton was a major driver in IPA and therefore its derivatives. The water of Dublin (even if it's not the water quoted in a particular book) was a major driver behind Stout and threfore all its derivatives. QED.

Click to expand...

Sure, I'll concede that low ion water is key to the pilsner style as is gypsum to IPA. Maybe as a model for what ideal brewing water for the style is I can accept. As a model of why styles developed (which is what I was originally objecting) I think there would need to be some historical evidence. But Dublin and Dry Stout? Historically there is zero evidence supporting the idea that the style's evolution had anything to do with the water and mountains of evidence that it had nothing to do with the style (aside from the obvious "you can't brew a good beer of any style with ****ty water"). As a predictive model how is it of any value? If I run a "traditional" dry stout grist of pale, flaked and roast barley through Bru'n Water with the Dublin Profile, it returns a predicted mash pH of 6.0 which we know can't be right. So clearly the numbers are way off or they altered the water. But the entire association of dublin water and dry stout is because of guinness but they don't use the hard dublin water but rather soft wicklow water. Is there any way you can claim dry stout's rise as a style has anything to do with the water of dublin and that any practical predictive value can be obtained from the entire concept? To claim there is seems like some sort of circular special pleading: We know the water affected the style but since the water profile doesn't support it, the water profile must be incorrect because we know it influenced the style. The water profile is the one piece of the equation could be verified independently. If it doesn't work in the model, does it make sense to alter the profile fit the thesis or should it be counted as evidence against it?

ajdelange said:

I find your arguments most unconvincing and I'm sure you feel the same way about mine so let's quit wasting our time. I'm sure readers here (if any) have seen enough point and counterpoint to form their own opinions.

Click to expand...

I guess the reason I'm having trouble letting this go is it was reading your posts that lead me to this opinion. How many times have you answered questions from brewers who are having problems because they were concerned about RA and are trying to replicate classic brewing centre profiles? I was one of them! Your water primer is the best practical guide to home brewing water treatment and it doesn't really on questionable fables. Based off of your information, a superior dry stout (the quintessential dark beer) can be brewed with Pilsen water vs Dublin water. Can any beer be brewed with the levels of bicarbonate shown in the profiles without some serious adjustment? And I'm quoting How to Brew and Palmer partly because it is like the bible of homebrewing these days but mainly because it is online and easy to grab quotes from. Of the books I own, the same basic thing appears in complete form in Noonan's Lager Beer and referenced in Designing Great Beer in various chapters.

ajdelange said:

With IPA the story is essentially the same but in this case IPA is defined not by the Urquell but by the version of it brewed in Burton as that it is from Burton that the world got IPA - not London even though it may have been brewed there first.

Click to expand...

Much of the IPA sent out into the world came from Scotland, not Burton. Younger's IPA was as defining to the style as Bass's.

It seems that you're ignoring any bits of beer history that don't fit in with your water theory.

This is a very entertaining discussion. I note a few points that need correction and explanation.

It's troubling that GBX relies so heavily on texts with very poor knowledge and understanding of brewing water and water sources. I've noted that the same mis-information gets redistributed and repeated in those texts and others. Its unfortunate that this leads to some of the discussion in this thread. As AJ pointed out, there are many water profiles quoted in various forms that are not well researched and not possible ionicly. I suggest that less reliance on those sources and a little more consideration of the profiles that are quoted in Bru'n Water. I've performed extensive research through my engineering channels to define the original sources and the chemistry that was probably their condition.

This discussion also focuses on the chicken and egg scenario of local water and beer styles. Given the unlikelihood of significant water chemistry adjustment or mineral additions a century or two ago, I feel that local water was always the prime factor that drove the evolution of beer styles. Sure, a brewer can brew a pilsner, stout, or IPA with any water source. But to brew a GREAT pilsner, stout, or IPA, the water HAS to have some characteristics that benefit the flavor and perception.

GBX and AJ do point out some inconsistency in the seeming excessive alkalinity of some profiles, particularly Dublin. Fortunately, the moderating effect of decarbonation by boiling corrects that seeming inconsistency. As long as the mashing liquor was heated sufficiently to decarbonate the water, that alkalinity is reduced significantly. That is why Bru'n Water includes 'Boiled' versions of those historic profiles. If AJ plugs in his stout grist and uses a more appropriate boiled version of a Dublin profile, the mash pH will be in a much more appropriate range.

Another thing about brewing in a place with low alkalinity. Its very difficult to brew a great stout or other beer with a more acidic grist without enough alkalinity to moderate the mash pH. Back in the days before an understanding of chemistry and having a way to adjust it, you were probably stuck with what your water would do for you. We know that adding alkalinity to low alkalinity water is a tough thing to do. Chalk doesn't work at all without proper measures and lime is tough to dose accurately. Lime certainly has been available for millenia, but I've not heard of historic brewers using it to alter water chemistry. Therefore, having a source with moderate to high alkalinity and having the ability to reduce it to a usable level to brew a great dark beer is an advantage. The brewers in Dublin and the American Midwest are 'blessed' with water like that and do create excellent dark beers. While its true that Guinness uses water from the mountains to the south of Dublin that is not as alkaline as the rest of Dublin water, the rest of Dublin does have quite alkaline water. The other breweries that don't have access to that less mineralized water that Guinness uses have always had the utility of boiling to create an ideal brewing liquor for their stouts.

I have seen resources in print and on the web that state that over 150 ppm alkalinity is needed to brew a stout and other dark beers. I cannot agree with that. Everything I have examined suggests that 150 ppm would be the highest that would ever be needed. AJ has correctly proven that some stouts can be brewed with far less. But the need for alkalinity can be further circumvented by other brewing techniques. In fact, we know that Guinness uses their 'flavor extract' to add color and flavor to their stout. This sounds a lot like the technique where the dark grains are reserved from the main mash and either steeped separately or added at the end of the mash to avoid having the main mash pH dropping too low. I would not be surprised if Guinness mashes with a primarily pale malt grist, that is well suited to the low alkalinity water of those southern mountains, and the more acidic 'flavor extract' is added to bring the flavor and color into spec for a stout. To tell you the truth, I have preferred other Irish stouts such as Murphy's over Guinness for years. I feel that Guinness is too sharp and less smooth than those other stouts. Guinness' technique may produce that result. I feel that a better stout or porter is made with the appropriate alkalinity to allow the entire grist to be mashed together. There are definite flavor benefits that I term 'smoothness' that arise from that approach. If the overall pH of the resulting beer is depressed too far because a work-around was used due to low alkalinity water, it can affect flavor and perception.

I had not heard an argument that Scotland was known for great IPA's prior to this discussion. Unless there is a locality with a high sulfate water source up there, I'm doubting that this was a 'natural' progression and creation of a similar style to IPA. More likely, it is just a copy of the successful style popularized in London and Burton with the addition of gypsum to the local water. I contend that local styles evolved somewhat to fit local water and most certainly where the local water's character meshed well with that style...great beer could be made.

Surely Dublin is totally irrelevant to the argument, as Stout developed in London. And looking at the composition of modern Guinness is equally irrelevent bcecause that post-dates WW II. 19th-century Guinness was very different. London water is what you should be looking at for Stout.

Alloa and Edinburgh were two of the most important early centres for brewing IPA.

One of the large London brewers, Barclay Perkins, has water treatment details in their brewing records from the 1920's onwards. They treated the water for all their beers with one exception: the Lagers they brewed. Which implies that London really should have developed Lager brewing, rather than the styles theat did originate there, namely Porter, Stout, Pale Ale, Mild Ale and Brown Ale.

Yes, do look at the Barclay data. They brought the mashing liquor to 170F and allowed to cool to appropriate mashing temp. That is all that is needed to get a portion of the alkalinity out of solution.

Indeed, stout porter was apparently developed in London. London's alkalinity does lend itself to these darker and more acidic grists. This is true whether the liquor is decarbonated fully to around 80 ppm bicarbonate or partially decarbonated to some value below its typical bicarbonate content in the 160 ppm range. With the decarbonation of the typical Dublin profile from the sources west of town, this can create a very similar brewing liquor for both places. A partial decarbonation or introduction of a dose of unboiled or less heated water could allow a brewer to target a degree of alkalinity that better suites the grist.

I agree to a point that the Dublin profile is relatively irrelevant to the brewing of stouts since its quite clear that the level of alkalinity presented in the water sources from the west of the city is far more than needed or desired to brew that style. When decarbonated, then that water is well suited to brewing a stout. So, maybe the profile has relevance, but only as a historical starting point for an untreated liquor.

Thanks for pointing out Edinburgh. Its modest sulfate content in the 140 ppm range could be quite sufficient to bring out the dryness desired in an IPA. I concur that they could have been a bellweather. I don't know about the Alloa water quality. It isn't terribly far from Edinborough, but things can change waterwise in short distance.

mabrungard said:

It's troubling that GBX relies so heavily on texts with very poor knowledge and understanding of brewing water and water sources. I've noted that the same mis-information gets redistributed and repeated in those texts and others.

Click to expand...

The 3 books I quoted (Noonan's Brewing Lager Beer, Daniels' Designing Great Beer, and Palmer's How to Brew) are highly regarded books on the subject of homebrewing. Its rare to have a discussion on water treatment or beer history where someone doesn't quote at least one of these sources or recommends listening to John Palmer's hour podcast episode on water that pretty much echos the same thing as his book.

mabrungard said:

GBX and AJ do point out some inconsistency in the seeming excessive alkalinity of some profiles, particularly Dublin. Fortunately, the moderating effect of decarbonation by boiling corrects that seeming inconsistency. As long as the mashing liquor was heated sufficiently to decarbonate the water, that alkalinity is reduced significantly. That is why Bru'n Water includes 'Boiled' versions of those historic profiles. If AJ plugs in his stout grist and uses a more appropriate boiled version of a Dublin profile, the mash pH will be in a much more appropriate range.

Click to expand...

Yup...i just used the Dublin (boiled) profile and its predicting 5.2pH. I brewed a dry stout with Vancouver's 3ppm bicarbonate water and had a pH in the 5.6 range https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f128/brewing-water-chemistry-primer-198460/index27.html#post3834653 ...not that it really proves or disproves anything as my tests are a long way from what anyone would call "scientific"

mabrungard said:

I agree to a point that the Dublin profile is relatively irrelevant to the brewing of stouts since its quite clear that the level of alkalinity presented in the water sources from the west of the city is far more than needed or desired to brew that style. When decarbonated, then that water is well suited to brewing a stout. So, maybe the profile has relevance, but only as a historical starting point for an untreated liquor..

Click to expand...

I would say the profile is irrelevant to the brewing of Stout because Guinness doesn't use Dublin's water, Murphy's and Beamish are both in Cork so its probably safe to say they don't either. If Dublin has the perfect water for dry stout, it would be purely coincidental...but if the water at all worked for brewing (boiled or unboiled), Guinness probably would have used it. Maybe there are local stout brewers in Dublin who use the water, but they are not the reason Dublin is famous world wide for stout.

If we accept the assertion that Arthur Guiness used soft water from another source then that, of course, supports the model. Soft water requires some source of acid because the calcium is not there to lower pH. If you don't know about sauergut or sulfuric acid you get that acid from dark malt.

Michael Lewis, professor (emeritus) of brewing at UCD, instructed his students not to alter their brewing water as water is the brewing equivalent of terroir. Guess he is another fool that subscribes to the theory. What are the consequences of following his advice? Your beers have certain stylistic characteristics which make them uniquely yours and that is why he advocates doing this. Whatever malt, hops ... you used there is something in your entire portfolio that is uniquely yours. And that is precisely what we mean when we say that water is a major style driver. Not the only one by any means but a major one.

Iconoclasm is a fine thing as it brings into question many long held beliefs and finds their weaknesses. In this discussion we have learned, for example, that though the water used by Arthur Guiness doubtless did have a great influence on the beer he brewed it was not the water that everyone says he used with the evidence being that the water he is widely supposed to have used doesn't fit the style. Justifiably or not, Guiness is what most people still think of when they think of stout even though there are many other stouts with their own characteristics determined in large part by the characteristics of the water used to brew them. Same with Pilsner. Plznesky Prazdroj is not the only Pilsner in the world by any means. There are some brewed in Bohemia with much harder water and there are some brewed in Germany with harder waters but they are different beers. The former of these are only known to those who have traveled in Bohemia but the German ones are well known and are considered a separate (but similar) style. According to the BJCP guidelines a German Pilsner is:

"Drier and crisper than a Bohemian Pilsener with a
bitterness that tends to linger more in the aftertaste due to higher
attenuation and higher-sulfate water"

The bottom line is that style is very much an arbitrary thing. Today's Guiness is doubtless very different from the original Guiness and Guiness doesn't define stout any more though it may be a representative example of one substyle. Thus to me the whole idea of styles represents a shaky model but as there isn't really a better system it's pretty much what we are stuck with. If we decide to use that model then we have to accept that a major driver in the nature of a style (but not the sole one) is water. Actually we don't have to accept that at all. Creation 'scientists' don't accept evolution.

I'm going to beat this dead horse because I just listened the Brew Strong podcast episodes on historic water sources:

Part 1 (London and Dublin)
http://thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/1074

Part 2 (Burton and Munich)
http://thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/1084

That was great Martin! So can we say that Dublin's water profile DID NOT influence the creation of "stout"? Can I tear the entire water chapter out of How To Brew?

Glad to hear that you enjoyed it.

Well, we do have myths that persist.

An important recognition is that Stout is an offshoot of the Porter style. After London's success with Porter, other brewers sought to get in on the action. Dublin was one of those places that copied it. The Stout Porter might have grown up in that region and morphed into the dry stout that we know today. The combination of the low alkalinity waters in Cork and a portion of Dublin probably had a great deal to do with the development of that style and its character. Irish dry stout needs low alkalinity water in order to produce the acidic crisp taste and dry finish.

Other stout styles do not rely on that acidic nature and they do require more alkalinity in the brewing water to produce a smoother roast character. Recognize that the entire interior of Ireland has relatively high alkalinity water and I'm assuming that that water may have had a hand in the development of other stout and porter in the country.

mabrungard said:

Glad to hear that you enjoyed it.

Well, we do have myths that persist.

An important recognition is that Stout is an offshoot of the Porter style. After London's success with Porter, other brewers sought to get in on the action. Dublin was one of those places that copied it. The Stout Porter might have grown up in that region and morphed into the dry stout that we know today. The combination of the low alkalinity waters in Cork and a portion of Dublin probably had a great deal to do with the development of that style and its character. Irish dry stout needs low alkalinity water in order to produce the acidic crisp taste and dry finish.

Other stout styles do not rely on that acidic nature and they do require more alkalinity in the brewing water to produce a smoother roast character. Recognize that the entire interior of Ireland has relatively high alkalinity water and I'm assuming that that water may have had a hand in the development of other stout and porter in the country.

Click to expand...

Only problem is that Guinness Extra Stout only took on its current form in the 1950's when the degree of attenuation was boosted from a more normal 75% to 85%. For the 150 years before that, Guinness was no drier than a London Stout.