Side by side water modification test

Since I'm going to try peddling the virtues of water analysis and correction to my homebrew club in the near future, I thought it would be a good idea to confirm the benefits for myself and allow them to taste it first hand.

I know my water is pretty bad for light pale ales because not only is my chloride to sulfate ratio 4:1, but they are both low. I brewed two small 1/2 gallon stovetop batches today with one unmodified and one touched up with gypsum and epsom salt to get my sulfates up to about 200ppm and leaving my Cl at 55ppm.

My regular RA is also more suited to beers in the 12 SRM area so I had to reduce that a bit too. I'm really looking forward to seeing if we can all taste the difference and more importantly that the modified water was better.

Hi Bobby,

Is it possible for you to post your own water data for us as well as the specifics of what you added to the test brew?

^^
Yes, please. Full water profiles for both batches would help me understand what's going on.

Sorry, yeah, I meant to do that.

[size=+2]Water Test APA #A Treated[/size]
[size=+1]10-A American Pale Ale[/size]
Author: Bobby
Date: 10/1/2009



Size: .5 gal
Efficiency: 82.32%
Attenuation: 75.0%
Calories: 220.46 kcal per 12.0 fl oz

Original Gravity: 1.066 (1.045 - 1.060)
|==============================#=|
Terminal Gravity: 1.016 (1.010 - 1.015)
|============================#===|
Color: 5.62 (5.0 - 14.0)
|=========#======================|
Alcohol: 6.51% (4.5% - 6.2%)
|==========================#=====|
Bitterness: 47.2 (30.0 - 45.0)
|==========================#=====|

[size=+1]Ingredients:[/size]
18 oz Maris Otter Pale Ale Malt
.125 oz Centennial (9.0%) - added during boil, boiled 30 min
0.125 oz Centennial (9.0%) - added during boil, boiled 10 min
0.25 oz Centennial (9.0%) - added during boil, boiled 0.0 min

[size=+1]Schedule:[/size]
Ambient Air: 70.0 °F
Source Water: 60.0 °F
Elevation: 0.0 m

00:03:00 mash in - Liquor: 0.75 gal; Strike: 160.05 °F; Target: 154.0 °F
00:04:00 mashout - Water: 0.25 gal; Temperature: 166.7 °F; Target: 157.0 °F
00:04:00 Strain - Untitled Sparge: -0.13 gal sparge @ 168.0 °F, 0.0 min; Total Runoff: 0.75 gal

[size=+1]Notes[/size]
Batch A mash was modified with .8g Gypsum and .3g MgSO4 Epsom Salt.

Calcium Magnesium Sodium Chloride Sulfate Alkalinity
(Ca ppm) (Mg ppm) (Na ppm) (Cl ppm) (SO4 ppm) (CaCO3 ppm)
94 20 28 53 213 60
50-150 10-30 0-150 0-250 50-350 See RA below

Residual Best for Chloride to Best for
Alkalinity this color Sulfate Ratio this style
-19 4 to 8 SRM 0.25 Very Bitter

Mash varied between 148 and 151 for an hour, then a 10 minute ramp up to 160F.

Sample A was 11brix preboil, B 10.5 brix.

[size=-1]Results generated by BeerTools Pro 1.5.3[/size]


[size=+2]Water Test APA #B Untreated[/size]
[size=+1]10-A American Pale Ale[/size]
Author: Bobby
Date: 10/1/2009



Size: .5 gal
Efficiency: 71.09%
Attenuation: 75.0%
Calories: 189.88 kcal per 12.0 fl oz

Original Gravity: 1.057 (1.045 - 1.060)
|====================#===========|
Terminal Gravity: 1.014 (1.010 - 1.015)
|=====================#==========|
Color: 5.62 (5.0 - 14.0)
|=========#======================|
Alcohol: 5.61% (4.5% - 6.2%)
|==================#=============|
Bitterness: 47.2 (30.0 - 45.0)
|==========================#=====|

[size=+1]Ingredients:[/size]
18 oz Maris Otter Pale Ale Malt
.125 oz Centennial (9.0%) - added during boil, boiled 30 min
0.125 oz Centennial (9.0%) - added during boil, boiled 10 min
0.25 oz Centennial (9.0%) - added during boil, boiled 0.0 min

[size=+1]Schedule:[/size]
Ambient Air: 70.0 °F
Source Water: 60.0 °F
Elevation: 0.0 m

00:03:00 mash in - Liquor: 0.75 gal; Strike: 160.05 °F; Target: 154.0 °F
00:04:00 mashout - Water: 0.25 gal; Temperature: 166.7 °F; Target: 157.0 °F
00:04:00 Strain - Untitled Sparge: -0.13 gal sparge @ 168.0 °F, 0.0 min; Total Runoff: 0.75 gal

[size=+1]Notes[/size]
Batch A mash was modified with .8g Gypsum and .3g NaCO4 Epsom Salt.

Calcium Magnesium Sodium Chloride Sulfate Alkalinity
(Ca ppm) (Mg ppm) (Na ppm) (Cl ppm) (SO4 ppm) (CaCO3 ppm)
94 20 28 53 213 60
50-150 10-30 0-150 0-250 50-350 See RA below

Residual Best for Chloride to Best for
Alkalinity this color Sulfate Ratio this style
-19 4 to 8 SRM 0.25 Very Bitter

Mash varied between 148 and 151 for an hour, then a 10 minute ramp up to 160F.

Additional .3g Gypsum and .1g Epsom Salt added to Batch A boil.

[size=-1]Results generated by BeerTools Pro 1.5.3[/size]

Looking forward to the report. This water modification stuff can become mind numbing. I've got really light water in Seattle so I don't really have much of a choice once I move outside very light beers. I haven't had the opportunity to do any comparisons, but I know the first IPA I modded water on immediately tasted exponentially better than the ones I had done previously.

What caused the drop in efficiency on Batch B? The untreated RA?

Batch A mash was modified with .8g Gypsum and .3g NaCO4 Epsom Salt.

Click to expand...

Prob just a typo but Epsom is MgSO4.

Will be very interested in the results!

Looks cool! I have very high chloride so I tend to dilute and then add back in gypsum, for sulfate/chloride ratio as well as RA issues. It really seems to have helped my IPAs

Thanks, you're right. Typo. Ok, now that I'm at work I have a second to post more..

The water mods according to TH's spreadsheet:

Starting Water:
Ca: 30 ppm
Mg: 10 ppm
Na: 28 ppm
Cl: 53 ppm
SO4: 15 ppm
HCO3: 73 ppm
RA: 33 (8 to 13 SRM)
Cl to SO4: 3.53 (Very Malty)


Mash Vol: 0.75 gal
Dilution Rate: 0%

Mash Adjustments:

CaSO4: 0.8 grams
MgSO4: 0.3 grams
Vol: 0.75 gal

Boil Adjustments:
CaSO4: 0.3 grams
MgSO4: 0.1 grams

Results:
Ca: 94 ppm
Mg: 20 ppm
Na: 28 ppm
Cl: 53 ppm
SO4: 213 ppm
CaCO3: 60 ppm

RA: -19 (4 to 8 SRM)
Cl to SO4: 0.25 (Very Bitter)

The difference in efficiency is really baffling. Just to make sure people don't start attributing to all kinds of other things, here's what I did.

Crushed each batch's grain one at a time. In other words, I didn't crush 36 oz and try to split it up from there. That could have resulted in different amounts of husk/flour so I avoided it.

The mash vessels were 1g milk jugs with the tops cut off. Both sat in a hot water bath inside a cooler to keep the mash temps consistent.

The strike water was derived from the same pot, measure in a measuring cup, then poured into the grain.

Salts were added directly to the sample A mash.

I dumped each batch into pots to heat to mash out temps and I checked to make sure the temps were rising equally up to about 160. I also added another quart each to the mash to make up for absorption. Then dumped the mash into a strainer and let drain for 5 minutes each.

I did test the mash pH but I unfortunately only have the colorpHast 5-10 range and both appeared to be the same pH (around 5.4).

The boil off between the two pots was identical. I used the same exact 1 gallon jug fermenters and the levels are the same.

Seriously though, I'm baffled. Could it really be sample A's in-range calcium level that boosted 10% efficiency?

Awesome! Looking forward to results of a blind tasting.

Thanks for doing this Bobby!

subscribed

Bobby,

Nice experiment. I like how you are controlling the mash environment of both mashes.

Bobby_M said:

Seriously though, I'm baffled. Could it really be sample A's in-range calcium level that boosted 10% efficiency?

Click to expand...

I don't know either. My experiments have shown little to no impact of the Ca levels on efficiency if the mash pH is kept constant.

But you have a RA difference of about 50 ppm CaCO3 (3 dH) between the two batches. In my experience that translates to a pH difference of about 0.1. That can make a difference in mash performance if you are already on the fringes of the optimal mash pH range. Your strips would not have picked that up. Do you have first wort gravity numbers. Those would allow us to see the conversion efficiency w/o the blurring effects of lauter efficeincy. If you batch sparged, lauter efficiency was unlikely different between the two batches.

With all your enthusiasm about brewing experiments, you should seriously look into geting a pH meter.

Kai

Kai, thanks. I'm already scoping them on Ebay and looking for the cheapest one with .1pH resolution and replaceable probe.

Unfortunately I didn't take preboil gravity but I also didn't sparge at all. It was a no sparge that I drained through a colander over a pot. I let both sit in the strainer for the same 5 minutes so I'm relatively sure the same amount of liquid drained out. I should have threw a sample from each mash on my refractometer but I was distracted.

I was a little disappointed with the resolution of my little scale for measuring .1 gram increments. I'm not 100% confident in my additions but I also didn't target any kind of extremes so the taste effect should be discernible.

Bobby_M said:

Kai, thanks. I'm already scoping them on Ebay and looking for the cheapest one with .1pH resolution and replaceable probe.

Click to expand...

Go for one with 0.01 precision. 0.1 is a little low. I don&#8217;t know about your budget but I&#8217;m very happy with my SM101 which you can get for <$80 here (http://www.eseasongear.com/mismsmphmesm1.html). Add the storage, calibration solution and shipping and you can get everything for less than $100. If you don&#8217;t like that it doesn&#8217;t have ATC, read this: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=PH_Meter_Buying_Guide

Unfortunately I didn't take preboil gravity but I also didn't sparge at all. It was a no sparge that I drained through a colander over a pot. I let both sit in the strainer for the same 5 minutes so I'm relatively sure the same amount of liquid drained out. I should have threw a sample from each mash on my refractometer but I was distracted.

Click to expand...

Given that you did a no-sparge, your efficiency should be indicative of the conversion efficiency and the higher RA water was 16% more efficient than the low RA water.

I was a little disappointed with the resolution of my little scale for measuring .1 gram increments. I'm not 100% confident in my additions but I also didn't target any kind of extremes so the taste effect should be discernible.

Click to expand...

I&#8217;m using a scale just like this one and am very pleased with it:

http://cgi.ebay.com/100-x-0-01-GRAM-DIGITAL-JEWELRY-SCALE-Carat-0-001-Ounce_W0QQitemZ250504421426QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item3a533a2032&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

Look around if you can find a better price, I just picked the first link that looked like my scale.


I know, a lot of unsolicited advice in this post, but maybe it helps.

Kai

Heh, I don't get pissed off when people offer more advice than I asked for (yes, I'm referring to another thread I've stayed out of recently).

My small scale has a capacity of 500grams with .1 gram resolution and I ended up with that one because my previous one wouldn't hold a 16oz plastic cup on the platform. The new one does so that's good for measuring whole hop additions. Ugh...where does it end ;-)

I guess the good news is that in normal batches, the salts additions are closer to the full gram increments.

Bobby,

I use afromentioned scale for hops and salts and another 2000g/1g (max/precision) scale for malt. That works well for me. 0.1 g should be sufficienct for salts. When I measure them and am within 0.05 gramm (or even more) of the target, I leave it at that and don't waste time trying to hit it on the spot.

I'm suprised how easy it is to make a scale that precise. Otherwise I don't think you would be able to get them for that cheap.

Kai

It is sort of tough to get a single scale that can do gram measurements for salt additions, and can andle hops and grain. The problem with a 500 gram scale is most of the small digital scales are based on load cells, and they are only rated to full accuracy at a certain percentage of full scale value (even though the cheaper ones don't tell you that) So lets say you are measuring 2 grams on a 500 gram scale, you are only exercising the load cell to 0.4% of it's capacity and are getting beyond it's useable sensitivity. Sort of like trying to measure less than a pound on a 200 lb bathroom scale.

I picked up a 50g jewelry scale off the bay pretty cheap that I tested to repeat in the 1-2 gm range with some precision weights at work. I then picked up another 20 gm scale with .001 g readability off the bay from china for pretty cheap as well. It also repeats very well in the 1-2 gm range but starts to become susceptible to air currents at that sensitivity. I definitely would hesitate to reccomend a scale with a full scale value of over 100g for measurements in the 1-2 gm range.

I forgot I snapped a few pics:

When I have needed to use really small amounts of brewing salts, I (fully) dissolve 10x what I need (they aren't that expensive) in a 100g of water and then just discard 90g of that solution. Hate to justify it to a Lab TA but, its probably close enough.

davemb said:

When I have needed to use really small amounts of brewing salts, I (fully) dissolve 10x what I need (they aren't that expensive) in a 100g of water and then just discard 90g of that solution. Hate to justify it to a Lab TA but, its probably close enough.

Click to expand...

What you can also make, are concentrated solutions of each salt (e.g 1%). You can then use either your large scale or even a measuring cup to dose them into your brewing water. It's best to start with mixing the brines first and add water until the desired volume is reached. But there are some salts, like chalk, that won't dissolve and you end up with a suspension that you'll have to even out every time you pour it.

Kai

subscribed.

I was down at the local brewpub on Tuesday for a tasting, stayed around to try some homebrews with a couple other guys and the brewmaster. We'd asked him about water modifications and he said that all they do is filter it really well. They make a great IPA (what I'm striving for) and also do a great oatmeal stout. He said his mash PH is always right around 5.4. I'm not positive he has the same water as me, (being about a mile from my house) but on the other side of the river. I have really really hard water, he said they do as well.

How hard is really really hard?

Sadly, I know from experience that one cannot make good beer with my "hard" water.
HCO3 - 687ppm.

I think my Mg - 84ppm, probably had a part in destroying those early beers as well.

I started to put the results my mash pH experiments to use and just today plotted a collection of randomly created recipes in a RA over SRM chart:



there is more info in this thread on the AHA forum:http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=548.0

the conclusion is that there is a correlation between SRM and RA needed for a good enough mash pH but that correlation is loose and not linear. The RA changes needed to shift the pH up or down are fairly large (about 100 ppm for 0.1 pH shift at 1.5 qt/lb) and as a result the range of beers one can brew with moderately hard water is pretty wide.

Kai

dfohio said:

How hard is really really hard?

Sadly, I know from experience that one cannot make good beer with my "hard" water.
HCO3 - 687ppm.

I think my Mg - 84ppm, probably had a part in destroying those early beers as well.

Click to expand...

This is way off the chart and I agree that you will have trouble brewing good beer with that water regardless if style. I think cases like yours is what prompted home brewers interest in water chemistry in the first place while most others have water that works well for most styles and therefore see no need to look into water chem.

Kai

Looking forward to the results of this!

Wow thanks Kia! My RA is right around 100, so it looks like I shouldn't be loosing much efficiency due to my RA (maybe in really light beers) but perhaps to my crush, which I just bought a MM-2 to fix. And really I should be paying attention to my chloride-sulfate ratio more than my RA when doing my IPAs. I have a water softener I bypass when I brew, but I have galvanized pipe (mostly rusted inside) that I bet holds on to a lot of the chloride.

Thanks for the results!

I find it interesting that you found it took 100ppm to change the pH by 0.1. This tells me that Palmer's RA range is flawed when he states that the low range estimates pH of 5.4 and the high range estimates pH at 5.8.

I graphed Palmer's RA range lines onto your RA over SRM with mash pH 5.4 chart and put error bars of 100ppm from the lower RA range line.
The results of that tell me that if I use Palmer's lower RA range then I will be able to secure pH range 5.3 -5.5 regardless of malts used in the 0 -15 SRM spectrum.

That logic fails when moving to 20-40 SRM beer. The line should now have a gentle curve from 15 to 40 SRM with it plateauing at RA of 200ppm. (which I believe I read that Palmer agrees with this.)

Your results have certainly built confidence in my ability to hit an acceptable pH based on SRM without being obsessed with each ppm.

I'm looking forward to what you come up with in terms of typing in a recipe and having an RA prediction based on the types and percentages of malts entered, not just SRM. That application in a Beersmith type program would be great!

dfohio said:

I find it interesting that you found it took 100ppm to change the pH by 0.1

Click to expand...

This was found as a result of my mash pH experiments and it depends on mash thickness. While, in hindsight, that is obvious since more water per grain means that the water has more effect on the pH it was largely believed that an RA change of 100 ppm causes a pH change of 0.16. That was taken from Kolbach’s pH work which was not about mash pH. It was about cast out wort pH instead.

I graphed Palmer's RA range lines onto your RA over SRM with mash pH 5.4 chart and put error bars of 100ppm from the lower RA range line.
The results of that tell me that if I use Palmer's lower RA range then I will be able to secure pH range 5.3 -5.5 regardless of malts used in the 0 -15 SRM spectrum.

Click to expand...

I have done that to. Just to compare and I agree with your findings. But going forward I’ll refrain from direct comparison, though. I don’t want this to be a competition.

That logic fails when moving to 20-40 SRM beer. The line should now have a gentle curve from 15 to 40 SRM with it plateauing at RA of 200ppm. (which I believe I read that Palmer agrees with this.)

Click to expand...

Yes, I do recall that Palmer said not to exceed an RA of 200 ppm. The most striking difference in his and my recommendations is that for the same beer color grist with large amounts of roasted malts will require less RA than grists with large amounts of crystal malt. But it is also true that you can’t really get beyond 20 SRM by using only crystal malts. Theoretically you can, but who wants to brew a beer with 20% C120.

Your results have certainly built confidence in my ability to hit an acceptable pH based on SRM without being obsessed with each ppm.

Click to expand...

That has been one of my goals and the data that I have seems to do a good job explaining why you can brew a given beer with a wide range residual alkalinities and vice versa a wide range of beer colors with given water.

I'm looking forward to what you come up with in terms of typing in a recipe and having an RA prediction based on the types and percentages of malts entered, not just SRM.

Click to expand...

I’ll need some “guinea pigs” eventually

Kai

subscribed for results.

OK, I have been following this dialogue and I am befuddles by RA. What does this acronym represent.

And yes I googled it and was tired of finding only the RA but not the definition

Thanks.

Good discussion BTW.

RA

Click to expand...

Residual Alkalinity

Kaiser said:

Yes, I do recall that Palmer said not to exceed an RA of 200 ppm.

Click to expand...

I've been doing a lot of reading/listening lately trying to understand water in preparation for a RIS this weekend. On Brew Strong's "Waterganza", he recommended topping out at 250 ppm RA, except for the blackest imperial stouts, maxing out at 300 ppm there.

I don't mean to nit-pick or anything, the numbers were just fresh in my head.

Scimmia said:

I've been doing a lot of reading/listening lately trying to understand water in preparation for a RIS this weekend. On Brew Strong's "Waterganza", he recommended topping out at 250 ppm RA, except for the blackest imperial stouts, maxing out at 300 ppm there.

I don't mean to nit-pick or anything, the numbers were just fresh in my head.

Click to expand...

Stone brews their RIS with about 70 ppm RA I guess.

The problem with 200+ ppm RA is getting there. Unless your water is that hard you only have chalk and baking soda. If not dissolved chalk's ability to raise the pH is limited to an increase of about 0.2. I don't know why, but that's what I have observed.

The RA you'll need for that RIS will largely depend on how much color is coming from crystal malts. But I don't think you need to go any higher than 200 ppm. The whole water chemistry thing is sparking my interest to brew one of my own.

Kai

From my experience water chemistry has two functions in brewing:

1. Mash pH
2. Beer Flavor

Obviously in AG you care about both, but even in extract you still care about flavor.

I had a hefeweizen extract beer that came out horribly bitter with filtered tap water because of very soft water and a high sulfate:chloride. When I fixed my water to a desirable profile, I was able to achieve a beautiful hefeweizen (although this one was AG).

But here is the interesting thing, and this has been discussed in other threads, the bad flavor didn't come across until after carbonation. And I found this to be true in two other beers as well (both extract and AG).

So it would be worthwhile to test flavor at different stages.

flyangler18 said:

Residual Alkalinity

Click to expand...

Thank you. Now I can comprehend the conversation.

I'm also interested to see the results since I have pretty water with basically no Ca or Mg in it. The one thing that is missing is what are you doing for fermentation (yeast, vessels, time,etc. )?

Kaiser said:

Stone brews their RIS with about 70 ppm RA I guess.

The problem with 200+ ppm RA is getting there. Unless your water is that hard you only have chalk and baking soda. If not dissolved chalk's ability to raise the pH is limited to an increase of about 0.2. I don't know why, but that's what I have observed.

The RA you'll need for that RIS will largely depend on how much color is coming from crystal malts. But I don't think you need to go any higher than 200 ppm. The whole water chemistry thing is sparking my interest to brew one of my own.

Kai

Click to expand...

If you don't have alkaline enough water for dark brews, would there be a benefit to adding the dark roasted grains in Stouts/Porters toward the end of the mash? I recently did this on a Porter. I just used bottled water which has an RA suitable for ~12-ish SRM (which is what the beer sans roasted malts would yield), then added the Chocolate/Roasted Barley after I had infused up to 160 F (Hochkurz mash schedule). But I forgot to measure pH after adding the dark grains.

SpanishCastleAle said:

If you don't have alkaline enough water for dark brews, would there be a benefit to adding the dark roasted grains in Stouts/Porters toward the end of the mash? I recently did this on a Porter. I just used bottled water which has an RA suitable for ~12-ish SRM (which is what the beer sans roasted malts would yield), then added the Chocolate/Roasted Barley after I had infused up to 160 F (Hochkurz mash schedule). But I forgot to measure pH after adding the dark grains.

Click to expand...

Interesting idea! From what I'm reading your RA doesn't make a big difference to PH unless it is way out of range for the beer, so you might be fine anyway. On the other hand you may want to add brewing salts for flavor anyway which could change your RA and help you out.

We seem to be getting to off-topic with respect to Bobby's initial thread. I created a new thread to continue the discussion: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f128/srm-ra-analysis-150185/#post1718273

Is it possible to move selected posts to that new thread?

Kai