Hi kai,
Thanks for weighing in. I have learned a lot from you and wondered what your thoughts were on this subject.
I'm quoting sources (Priest, Handbook of Brewing, 2006) for the "Germans add calcium" and bicarbonate is precipitated out (Wotring, Zymurgy, 1995, Grain issue, pp. 33-37). However, I do not fully understand the data and was hoping someone like you would add your expertise.
I'm currently involved in a thread elsewhere (
http://www.probrewer.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=46012&posted=1#post46012) where this is being discussed. There does seem to be a contradiction between theory and reality on its face.
Q1: Are you up for some experiments on this subject? You are a trusted source.
I have always been confused by Palmer's repetition of the common suggestion to raise your RA for dark beers when using Pilsner type water. I use "5.2" to address pH and add calcium and brewing salts to address the chloride to sulfate ratios. As I understand it the phosphate buffers in that product work with any grain bill and my experience thus far seems to validate that. Regardless of grist, my mash pH is 5.2. So I don't use salts to adjust pH. If I follow the brewing experts I need to have a residual amount of calcium AFTER I eliminate the majority of the bicarbonate/carbonate hardness. So,
Q2: If using 5.2 to address pH, what does the addition of bicarbonate actually do for the brew, taste, end result? Does it actually effect taste or mouthfeel somehow? It seems like you add it to get rid of it. What's the point (outside of pH adjustment)?
Q3: Is it, as I think I understand, something I can ignore with my soft water, regardless of beer style because my pH is addressed elsewhere?
Q4: Why is it we all want to Burtonize our water (high sulfates) for stouts, e.g., when Briggs' publication of the average ion content in the UK beer samples indicates that chlorides are double that of sulfate (p. 665). Doesn't that suggest that brewers there are adjusting their water to get away from the high sulfates?
Also, "Wired" on the other thread indicates that his Dublin water profile is NOTHING like the ones we see so commonly in reputed brewing sources, to wit:
FAMOUS BREWING WATERS
SOURCE Ca Mg Na CO3 SO4 Cl
Antwerp [DeKonick] 90 11 37 76 84 57
Beerse region [Westmalle]41 8 16 91 62 26
Brugse [Brugs Tarwebier] 132 13 20 326 99 38
Brussels region 100 11 18 250 70 41
Burton-upon-Trent 1 268 62 - 280 638 36
Burton-upon-Trent 2 270 60 30 200 640 40
Burton-upon-Trent 3 295 45 55 300 725 25
Burton-upon-Trent 4 268 62 54 200 638 36
Chico [Sierra Nevada] 16-50 10-32 8-34 100est. 0-19 0-37
Dortmund 1 225 40 60 180 120 60
Dortmund 2 250 25 70 550 280 100
Dublin 1 119 4 12 156 53 19
Dublin 2 118 4 12 319 54 19
But Wired has only 20 mg. calcium. His response to the question about this contrast makes sense to me:
"My numbers come from the local water authority. There are three treatment facilities serving the Dublin area: Leixlip, Ballymore Eustace (mine), and Ballyboden.
None of them delivers water even remotely resembling the published profiles.
These standard profiles are truly mythological. I don't know who started it, but they have been copied and regurgitated endlessly in books, articles, and brewing software and have become Gospel because "experts" have reproduced them without actually checking their accuracy. Always consult your local authority."
Major thanks for visiting these questions, Kai. You are a gift to us all.
BTW, Priest's information is almost all from the typical professional brewing digests from around the world, Narziss, etc. His work is the update of Hardwick's tome published some years back.
General References:
Priest,
Handbook of Brewing, 2006
Briggs,
Brewing: Science and Practice, 2004
Bamforth, Lewis:
Essays in Brewing Science, 2006
Fix,
Principles of Brewing Science, 1999
Various Zymurgy, Brewing Techniques, BYO issues addressing water modification