Sulfate level and mineral additions for the Midwest Palate

So I've been toying around with sulfate levels and mineral additions with my PAs and IPAs and I do understand there is no ideal level for everyone but it got me thinking about the local commercial breweries and the audience they are targeting in terms of their water profiles for Minnesotans and the Midwest that they distribute.

I know people will come on here and say, well it's dependent on what YOU like, but I disagree in that I brew a crap ton and I love to share my beer (and simply because I can't physically drink it all) with people so it's no longer about me but my audience (friends, family, random people who try it) and I would like to brew to the tastes they are becoming accustomed to, if that makes sense..

I have had the luxury of talking with some local head brewers and owners of very popular and successful breweries here in Minnesota (I will withhold their names/breweries) but I was shocked to hear that they don't bother with sulfate or mineral additions and really only focus on the water (carbon filtered) and Mash PH for target brew style. Now it maybe cause they are in the mindset of "don't fix what is not broken", but being an engineer I'm very analytical and I feel like everything has to be precise so I'm constantly thinking/worrying about my mineral additions (Mash PH coming first of course) and now I'm starting to think maybe I shouldn't as much? Or maybe they weren't being full disclosure? or maybe even I was misinterpreting what they were articulating?

I know Minneapolis has really nice brewing water but I'm interested what other peoples opinions are on this in terms of water mineral additions specifically in hoppy style beers such as IPAs and PAs and the region they are brewing for, especially sulfate levels.

Thoughts?

One of the local Indy breweries took that philosophy to an extreme and used RO water and did nothing to it. Their PA and IPA were pitifully bland AND astringent due to tannin extraction. All brewing requires some form of acid to produce an appropriate mash pH. They didn't do that and had the typical 5.7 to 5.8 pH you should produce with pale malt.

But the blandness was the real issue. As a member of my homebrew club, I do have the occasion to drink the frequent newby beer. I recall having a similar bland beer when a member gave me his PA made with distilled water and no mineral additions. Blandness is the price paid for failing to properly mineralize your brewing water. In some styles, the malt is all that is desired and blandness can be OK. But in PA and IPA, that falls by the wayside. You really do have to include some sulfate in that beer to help the flavor. The question is how much? I like 300 ppm, but others don't. That is where you as the brewer, get to decide what you prefer and brew.

mabrungard said:

One of the local Indy breweries took that philosophy to an extreme and used RO water and did nothing to it. Their PA and IPA were pitifully bland AND astringent due to tannin extraction. All brewing requires some form of acid to produce an appropriate mash pH. They didn't do that and had the typical 5.7 to 5.8 pH you should produce with pale malt.

But the blandness was the real issue. As a member of my homebrew club, I do have the occasion to drink the frequent newby beer. I recall having a similar bland beer when a member gave me his PA made with distilled water and no mineral additions. Blandness is the price paid for failing to properly mineralize your brewing water. In some styles, the malt is all that is desired and blandness can be OK. But in PA and IPA, that falls by the wayside. You really do have to include some sulfate in that beer to help the flavor. The question is how much? I like 300 ppm, but others don't. That is where you as the brewer, get to decide what you prefer and brew.

Click to expand...

Thanks Martin for the insight. I find it funny that some new "pro brewers" don't even understand the brewing science that takes to make high quality beer, especially at the commercial level. It's funny to me because I feel like if one is in the business of making beer than you should damn well be producing top quality beer coming out of the gate, especially in this craft boom where competition is becoming very intense. I just don't get how one could open a brewery and not even understand basic mash ph?!

Somehow people managed to brew beer, and some pretty good beer too, without thermometers, pH meters, hydrometers or spectrophotometers. How were they able to do this? Trial and error and luck.

I remember once chatting with 3 brew masters from 3 Gordon Biersch stores and naturally thought it would be interesting to see what these guys did about their water. The answer was "nothing" though one guy said he had worked at a location where the water was so hard/alkaline that he had to have his liquor trucked in. The comment was made that home brewers worry about water much more than commercial brewers do. Take that with a grain of salt. It was several years ago and I definitely get the feeling that this is changing.

Also please believe me that I get asked questions by professional brewers that are equally as naive as any asked by home brewers.

As for what level of sulfate to put in a beer that has been demonstrated to be a matter of personal taste and as tastes vary there can be no simple answer.

There is a famous anecdote about LaTrobe brewing, maker of Rolling Rock which was essentially creamed corn in a bottle (small bottle fortunately). When they sold the QC people from the head office of the new owner came in and told them they they must reduce DMS and installed equipment to do that. Sales plummeted. The point of the story is that you should set sulfate levels to the point where you customers like it.

ajdelange said:

Somehow people managed to brew beer, and some pretty good beer too, without thermometers, pH meters, hydrometers or spectrophotometers. How were they able to do this? Trial and error and luck.

I remember once chatting with 3 brew masters from 3 Gordon Biersch stores and naturally thought it would be interesting to see what these guys did about their water. The answer was "nothing" though one guy said he had worked at a location where the water was so hard/alkaline that he had to have his liquor trucked in. The comment was made that home brewers worry about water much more than commercial brewers do. Take that with a grain of salt. It was several years ago and I definitely get the feeling that this is changing.

Also please believe me that I get asked questions by professional brewers that are equally as naive as any asked by home brewers.

As for what level of sulfate to put in a beer that has been demonstrated to be a matter of personal taste and as tastes vary there can be no simple answer.

There is a famous anecdote about LaTrobe brewing, maker of Rolling Rock which was essentially creamed corn in a bottle (small bottle fortunately). When they sold the QC people from the head office of the new owner came in and told them they they must reduce DMS and installed equipment to do that. Sales plummeted. The point of the story is that you should set sulfate levels to the point where you customers like it.

Click to expand...

Thanks AJ, I enjoyed reading your post. Good to know.

Elevating sulfate level for hoppier styles is not a Midwestern thing, it goes back hundreds of years to England. I am with Martin, 300ppm SO4. MANY well known hop bombs are documented to go far beyond this. Terry Foster covered this in Pale Ale back in 1990. His recipes include recommended ppm SO4.

zwiller said:

Elevating sulfate level for hoppier styles is not a Midwestern thing, it goes back hundreds of years to England. I am with Martin, 300ppm SO4. MANY well known hop bombs are documented to go far beyond this. Terry Foster covered this in Pale Ale back in 1990. His recipes include recommended ppm SO4.

Click to expand...

I never said elevated sulfate level was a Midwest thing so I'm not sure were you got that. On the contrary, I said that I have found the sulfate levels are not as high as in the Midwest as they are on the West Coast for example. I've been speaking with quiet a few pro brewers lately and many of them in my area (minneapolis) don't bother with it or not as much as homebrewers do.

I recently tried Martian's Pale Ale water profile (well, 260 ppm SO4 and 57ppm Cl) in Schemy's Dales Pale Ale clone (https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=423236).

I was a bit concerned about putting that much gypsum in but I must say it turned out fantastic.

motobrewer said:

I recently tried Martian's Pale Ale water profile (well, 260 ppm SO4 and 57ppm Cl) in Schemy's Dales Pale Ale clone (https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=423236).

I was a bit concerned about putting that much gypsum in but I must say it turned out fantastic.

Click to expand...

I've done 300 SO4 with 50 Cl and it turned out pretty good as well, however, I felt it was a bit mineral so I might try going lower and see where that takes me.

I recently (last weekend) dumped an ESB that didn't turn out. However, I added a measure of gypsum to the glass and it improved dramatically.

i went back to my notes and realized i never added sparge water additions.

motobrewer said:

I recently (last weekend) dumped an ESB that didn't turn out. However, I added a measure of gypsum to the glass and it improved dramatically.

i went back to my notes and realized i never added sparge water additions.

Click to expand...

Ah yes that can happen, I've gotten in the habit of just throwing my sparge mineral additions straight to the kettle instead of the sparging water so I don't forget. It is unnecessary to add them to sparging water.

Sorry I got it backwards. I can tell you the Ohio brewers winning awards are sulfate loading. 300ppm is mid range to me. Top end in Foster's book is 500-600ppm from memory. The elusive HT is documented to have 750ppm.

I agree with you that it does add a minerally edge to the beer (I recall Martin calling it crunk) BUT it smooths out the harshness/refines the bitterness. I think this helps make the hop magic "pop", the fruit/dank/etc. I really think it takes the beer to another level. That said, all this is mostly "seasoning to taste" and it assumes all over facets of the brew are dialed, like pH.

Also, I believe Martin recommends those additions to the kettle and not the sparge. Helps preserve Ca for the boil.

zwiller said:

I agree with you that it does add a minerally edge to the beer (I recall Martin calling it crunk) BUT it smooths out the harshness/refines the bitterness.

Click to expand...

That's most interesting because at lower levels it renders fine bitterness harsher. That's why European brewers tend to keep it out of their beers using noble hops. Are you suggesting that this reverses at very high levels (> 300)? Or that this effect is not found with some cultivars?

Never tried 300ppm SO4 in a pils myself, but I have used continental hybrids in my IPA hop blends and there is no additional harshness from the interaction. I think it's apples and oranges, lagers v. IPA, a few ounces of hops v. a pound. I can say with experience that I don't experience harshness using continental hops in saisons with SO4 beyond 50ppm, but I don't take it much farther than 100-150ppm from memory. I think sulfate loading would be something to experiment with if I was a fan alts too.

In a Pils using Saaz 30 mg/L sulfate is way too much (IMO). It just ruins the fine bittering (which can run quite high in a Pils but not nearly to the insane levels that people seem to want in IPAs) of that cultivar.

Other than through Dr. Chloride's palate, I don't find any evidence that modest sulfate levels in the brewing water significantly affect the quality of the hop perception. There are plenty of water supplies with more than 30 ppm sulfate that produce fine lagers (even using Saaz). For example, Jever has around 75 ppm, Dusseldorf has about 80 ppm, Vienna has about 60 ppm, Munich has about 20 ppm.

In addition, we do have confirmation that Pilsner Urquell does add gypsum to their brewing liquor (just don't know how much!). So don't read too much into an anti-sulfate concern. Just don't go adding sulfate at a rate fitting a pale ale when brewing a malt-focused beer. As shown above, less than 100 ppm could be appropriate in some German lagers.

mabrungard said:

Other than through Dr. Chloride's palate, I don't find any evidence that modest sulfate levels in the brewing water significantly affect the quality of the hop perception. There are plenty of water supplies with more than 30 ppm sulfate that produce fine lagers (even using Saaz). For example, Jever has around 75 ppm, Dusseldorf has about 80 ppm, Vienna has about 60 ppm, Munich has about 20 ppm.

In addition, we do have confirmation that Pilsner Urquell does add gypsum to their brewing liquor (just don't know how much!). So don't read too much into an anti-sulfate concern. Just don't go adding sulfate at a rate fitting a pale ale when brewing a malt-focused beer. As shown above, less than 100 ppm could be appropriate in some German lagers.

Click to expand...

Martin, I'm curious to know your thoughts when both ions are elevated. There has been a long discussion in a previous thread regarding Hill Farmstead's water profile and what he is doing to his beers to achieve a pillowy/soft mouthfeel. I've specifically seen him mention that he prefers high levels of chloride in correlation which certain levels of sulfate (levels we don't know for either) in all of his beers. So people are experimenting with this such as doing 100ppm sulfate to 200ppm chloride and vice versa 200ppm chloride with 100ppm sulfate. Are there any negative effects of swaying one way or another? Any idea what he might be doing?

There are a few members of an English forum that I participate in, that assure me that recommendations for keeping chloride at modest levels when boosting sulfate is just not in keeping with their English palate. Some routinely boost chloride into the 100's or more. My perception is that it's minerally, but as AJ repeatedly points out, its your palate that matters when creating your beer. If you like it, then that's all that matters.

I don't see a problem with boosting chloride to fairly high level (say 100 to 200 ppm) when sulfate is modest. This is similar to the recommendation on high sulfate content...keep the other ion at a more modest level. Adding high levels of both ions invites a 'minerally' flavor since you are adding a lot of mineral content to the water. Personally, I prefer to taste malt and hops...not minerals when drinking beer.

Thanks for throwing a wrench in the works with Jever, Martin (my favorite pils so far, but have not made it to Germany yet) I like my NGP dry and I don't think there's much argument that sulfate will dry things up.

Colbizle, if you really want to know, send a sample of Farmstead to Ward Labs or get a LaMotte kit then you test a bunch. That's how we found about HT... Since I gave you the idea, you are required by forum rules to post the results...

mabrungard said:

There are a few members of an English forum that I participate in, that assure me that recommendations for keeping chloride at modest levels when boosting sulfate is just not in keeping with their English palate. Some routinely boost chloride into the 100's or more. My perception is that it's minerally, but as AJ repeatedly points out, its your palate that matters when creating your beer. If you like it, then that's all that matters.

I don't see a problem with boosting chloride to fairly high level (say 100 to 200 ppm) when sulfate is modest. This is similar to the recommendation on high sulfate content...keep the other ion at a more modest level. Adding high levels of both ions invites a 'minerally' flavor since you are adding a lot of mineral content to the water. Personally, I prefer to taste malt and hops...not minerals when drinking beer.

Click to expand...

Great thank you very much for the insight.

zwiller said:

Thanks for throwing a wrench in the works with Jever, Martin (my favorite pils so far, but have not made it to Germany yet) I like my NGP dry and I don't think there's much argument that sulfate will dry things up.

Colbizle, if you really want to know, send a sample of Farmstead to Ward Labs or get a LaMotte kit then you test a bunch. That's how we found about HT... Since I gave you the idea, you are required by forum rules to post the results...

Click to expand...

Ha, funny enough I've never had any of their beers and google maps just informed me that Hill Farmstead is 1400 miles away from me so I won't be heading there anytime soon :cross: I've just been super intrigued by what people have said about his beers and I know that part of the process (not all) has to do with his water profile (He even said blatantly he prefers more chloride than what most brewers think to put in).

Never had any of their beers either, although I love their concept. What I read about the brewery has come from my research about the fabled Conan yeast strain. They are documented to have used it but no longer do (or have isolated a line from it and called it their own I suspect) Not sure if you've had HT, but suffice to say Conan is pretty unique yeast. That's what I think does it, the yeast. IE -I use 3726 for all my saison and as dry as I make them the resulting beer has a "silkiness" about it that I don't get from other strains.

I have done some experimentation with elevated CaCL and was not overly impressed with the results. Personally, I think Cl has less of an impact on flavor than gypsum. I went as high as 350ppm and the beer (a mild) was not overly malty, salty, whathaveyou. It is was just kinda crunky and minerally but I kinda dug it because it added to the english character.

zwiller said:

Never had any of their beers either, although I love their concept. What I read about the brewery has come from my research about the fabled Conan yeast strain. They are documented to have used it but no longer do (or have isolated a line from it and called it their own I suspect) Not sure if you've had HT, but suffice to say Conan is pretty unique yeast. That's what I think does it, the yeast. IE -I use 3726 for all my saison and as dry as I make them the resulting beer has a "silkiness" about it that I don't get from other strains.

I have done some experimentation with elevated CaCL and was not overly impressed with the results. Personally, I think Cl has less of an impact on flavor than gypsum. I went as high as 350ppm and the beer (a mild) was not overly malty, salty, whathaveyou. It is was just kinda crunky and minerally but I kinda dug it because it added to the english character.

Click to expand...

Good to know. Yes, I'm after the concept, not necessarily trying to be the next hill farmstead. I get my jollies from my own experiments and success not cloning other peoples beers/ideas/processes.

zwiller said:

I have done some experimentation with elevated CaCL and was not overly impressed with the results. Personally, I think Cl has less of an impact on flavor than gypsum. I went as high as 350ppm and the beer (a mild) was not overly malty, salty, whathaveyou. It is was just kinda crunky and minerally but I kinda dug it because it added to the english character.

Click to expand...

I took a Porter to 190 ppm Cl and thought it was just a little too minerally. I'm glad to hear of others that have explored the limits.