Too much additives

Brewed a double ipa last night with distilled water, 2# BIAB, 7# extract safale 04. Just realized I added the full 1.5 oz vial of Wyeast Yeast Nutrient instead of 1/2 tsp. and added 2 tblsps of Burton Salts. What have I done to the brew?

Don't know. The nutrients are usually DAP, urea, yeast hulls and zinc sulfate or some or all of the above. I can't see the urea or yeast hulls hurting anything but I don't know what the DAP or zinc might do in excess. If it ferments I guess you can conclude that you didn't kill the yeast. If it contains zinc I'd want to know how much to be sure that the beer doesn't contain more than is recommended for human consumption.

As to the Burton salts what they do to the beer will depend on what is in the water you started with. For 5 gal of RO or other low ion water 1 tsp would be more suitable. As you are at least 6 times over this I'd expect the beer to be pretty minerally.

Thanks. Wyeast does not post the specific contents of this product. I sent them an email.

For Burton Salts, some say to use 1 tsp per gallon, others 1/2 tsp per gallon. I'm over the hig side, but I think I'm ok there.

SMc0724 said:

For Burton Salts, some say to use 1 tsp per gallon, others 1/2 tsp per gallon. I'm over the hig side, but I think I'm ok there.

Click to expand...

Those amounts would produce what Gordon Strong would refer to as 'AlkaSelzer beers'.

Here is the response that i got from Wyeast: At that dosage rate, assuming all of the nutrients carry over into the finished product (which is not likely), I would have some concerns about some of the nutrient levels. I like to error on the safe side though and would recommend it you do drink the beer that you keep it to about 1 liter/day.

Wyeast Laboratories, Inc.

SMc0724 said:

added 2 tblsps of Burton Salts. What have I done to the brew?

Click to expand...

You added around 25 grams of salts to the beer. Looking at Burton's mineral content, I can only guess that the salts are mostly gypsum and epsom. I can't find any reference to what amt of each they contain, but to make Burton water, you need around 2X as much gypsum as epsom.

Awhile back, before I knew anything about water mods, I brewed an IPA and added 22.5 grams of salts to a 7 gallon batch. After it finished fermenting I tasted it and it tasted like alka-seltzer and salt. I tasted every week or so with no change and at one point, I had the fermenter at the edge of the sink about to open the spigot.

I decided not to and bottled the beer. It's been about 2 years and nothing has changed. Every now and then I'll grab one, check it and either drink it or dump it depending on my tastebuds at the given moment. Still tastes like salt and alka-seltzer though.

TLDR: Taste this batch after it finishes fermenting and had dropped clear. Probably ~ 2 weeks. If it tastes bad, check it in another week. If it isn't improving within 4 weeks then make a decision at that point. "Is this beer something that I care to suffer thru?" If the answer is "No" then sit it on the edge of the sink and open that spigot--I wish I had.

From http://www.brewerslair.com/index.php?p=brewhouse&d=water&id=&v=&term=1

Vital Statistics about Burton-on-Trent water profile:
Calcium (ppm):294
Sulfates (ppm): 800
Magnesium (ppm):24
Sodium (ppm):24
Chloride (ppm):36
Carbonates (ppm):200

I figure I added about 20 gms of salt.
This site http://morebeer.com/view_product/5955/102199/Burton_Water_Salts_-_2oz
says:
30g per 5 gallons will provide:
266 ppm Ca
63 ppm Mg
159 ppm Carbonate
631 ppm Sulfate

I think I'm ok with it? Am I wrong?

SMc0724 said:

From http://www.brewerslair.com/index.php?p=brewhouse&d=water&id=&v=&term=1

Vital Statistics about Burton-on-Trent water profile:
Calcium (ppm):294
Sulfates (ppm): 800
Magnesium (ppm):24
Sodium (ppm):24
Chloride (ppm):36
Carbonates (ppm):200

I figure I added about 20 gms of salt.
This site http://morebeer.com/view_product/5955/102199/Burton_Water_Salts_-_2oz
says:
30g per 5 gallons will provide:
266 ppm Ca
63 ppm Mg
159 ppm Carbonate
631 ppm Sulfate

I think I'm ok with it? Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

That's a bunch of everything. Your tastebuds and bowels will tell you how OK it is. Excessive Mg and SO4 can have a laxative effect

Here's some stuff on how ions affect beer. http://www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter15-1.html

It really isn't a question of being right or wrong. It's a question of whether you like the beer. You have three people, me, Gordon Strong and RCCOLA opinining that the beer will taste like AlkaSeltzer. If you like beer that tastes like AlkaSeltzer then you will be fine. Most people would not be but that shouldn't matter to you. I'll note that the SMCL (secondary maximum contaminant limit) for sulfate in USEPA drinking water regs is 250 mg/L. SMCL's are based on aesthetic, not health, considerations IOW EPA has determined that most people find that water that has more than 250 mg/L sulfate doesn't taste very good. I'll also point out that the 'Vital Statistics about Burton-on-Trent water profile' do not represent any water that ever existed on the face of the earth (or anywhere in the universe) at reasonable pH. The numbers represent 17.7 mEq/L cations and 21.7 mEq/L anions. Cations and anions are balanced in any real water sample. Thus in trying to emulate this water supply you are chasing a phantasm - it never existed. This is why it is usually not worth while trying to duplicate the water of Piffelburg when trying to brew an authentic Piffelburger. The available profile is probably wrong and even if it were right you'd need to know how the Piffelburg brewers treated the water when they made beer. Furthermore it is quite possible that you can make a better Piffelburger than they did because they were stuck with Pifferlburg water and you can have any water you want.

I always recommend that people start out with light mineral content and work their way up. I suppose you could just as well start with high mineral content and work your way down but most people prefer beers with lighter mineral content so you'll probably get to satisfaction quicker starting out low.

Thanks for reminding me of that content in Palmers. And for the advice to all. I'm not trying to be right or wrong ( edit: I know I used "wrong" above but it would be better to say "better") , this was totally an accident on my part, not intentional, due to carelessly reading instructions. I read these pages again in Palmer and Im going to stay optimistic until I drink it.

Edit: my hope is that most of the chemicals fail to get into solution, and/or the IIPA style will be enhanced by the remaining chemicals. Fingers crossed.

ajdelange said:

I'll also point out that the 'Vital Statistics about Burton-on-Trent water profile' do not represent any water that ever existed on the face of the earth (or anywhere in the universe) at reasonable pH. The numbers represent 17.7 mEq/L cations and 21.7 mEq/L anions. Cations and anions are balanced in any real water sample.

Click to expand...

I went through the calculations and got the same thing. Even the numbers in Palmer's book represent an unbalanced solution: 20.1mEq/L cations and 23.0mEq/L anions. It is very interesting that they do not balance. Now, assume that the unbalanced anions dissociate with equivalent H+, by my calculations that would be a pH < 3, which is very low. I think one would reasonably say that pH is too low and further assume either (1) the analysis is totally bogus, or (2) the analysis is incomplete, i.e., there are undocumented cations, such as non-alkaline metal or ammonium, and possibly anions in the solution.

ajdelange said:

Furthermore it is quite possible that you can make a better Piffelburger than they did because they were stuck with Pifferlburg water and you can have any water you want.

Click to expand...

Therefore, so called Burton water profiles are flawed, not only because they are speculative, and we cannot know exactly what was Burton water, but also because more recent studies of "Burton water" have determined what an optimum "Burton water" profile should be, especially for an IPA.

Is that a fair summary of what you (AJ) said above?

SMc0724 said:

I think one would reasonably say that pH is too low and further assume either (1) the analysis is totally bogus, or (2) the analysis is incomplete, i.e., there are undocumented cations, such as non-alkaline metal or ammonium, and possibly anions in the solution.

Click to expand...

Part of the problem is "Carbonates (ppm):200". I don't know what that means. I know it does not mean there are 200 mg of carbonate ion in each liter of the water because that is just unreasonable (there would have to be tons of bicarbonate) and would have the water supersaturated given the calcium level. So I know what it's not but I don't know what it is. Could it be a bicarbonate level? An alkalinity value (expressed as CaCO3 or CaO)? What's the pH?

SMc0724 said:

Therefore, so called Burton water profiles are flawed, not only because they are speculative, and we cannot know exactly what was Burton water, but also because more recent studies of "Burton water" have determined what an optimum "Burton water" profile should be, especially for an IPA.

Click to expand...

One cannot speak of an optimum without saying what the optimality criterion is. Does optimality represent the beer you like best or the one your friend likes best or the one that wins BOS? The answer to that question will drive the mineral content of the water you decide to use. See the thread at https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f128/thoughts-ancient-famous-water-sources-350970/ for more on this philosophy.

I tasted the minerally IIPA this morning. It is very salty! But I think it's salvageable. I would like to add 5 gallons of a 1.04 OG extract IPA to dilute and re-ferment. Any suggestions?

Who's extract are you using in that IIPA? If it was Briess, their malt extract products are full of sodium. At 1.045, there is 100 ppm sodium in the wort assuming you start with RO or distilled water. If your water already has sodium, then add it to the number above. As the gravity goes up, so does the sodium content. If the extract came from a homebrew shop and is their own label, its probably Briess extract bought in bulk and repackaged.

The problem is that the tap water that Briess uses in their brewing and extract production comes from the City of Chilton. Chilton performs ion-exchange softening on their water supply. Sorry for the bad news. This finding applies to both their liquid and dry malt extract products. I'm pretty sad about this since I use their DME for all my starters. Fortunately, my starters have a low gravity and I siphon off all the spent wort prior to pitching the slurry.

I have confirmed that Coopers malt extract does not have this problem. I have not heard back from Muntons yet.

The first thing I would do is get a can of neutral (i.e. American megabrew) beer and fill a glass half full of that and top up with the beer you want to rescue. If the mix still tastes salty then a 1:1 dilution isn't going to be enough. If this does solve the problem then you can brew really anything you like that doesn't conflict with the original plan (e.g. you wouldn't brew a Weizenbier) and blend that in.

MA,
There is an an analysis of Muntons extract here.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f128/muntons-dme-mineral-analysis-140262/

Looks like its mineral content is less than Bries. For 1.045 OG I get about 75 ppm of Na in Muntons extract. So a little better.

AJ, I diluted the beer with an ESB this morning and it tasted fine. So I'm going to either leave it or double the batch to dilute it.

I just saw the post on the Muntons analysis. Thanks for resurrecting it. That is quite a range they provide for the Ca and Na. It's really not helpful for making any evaluation of their extract excepting to say that it appears less mineralized than Briess. Now that I have that information, I can ask Muntons directly to revisit those values with me. By the way, the Mg and K concentrations are due primarily from the malt since malt contributes large quantities to the wort.

Your calculation for 75 ppm Na in the 1.045 wort agrees with my calcs. The good thing with that Muntons analysis is that the Na could be much lower, given the range they provide. The real problem with using these extracts is when you start boosting the gravity with extract and end up with excessive Na in the finished beer. That could be flavor negative since sodium has shown negative synergy when chloride and sulfate are also high. Brewer beware!

This sucks, doesn't it!

It does suck! Have you seem MoreBeer extract. I started a new thread asking if any one has info on its mineral content. I'm hopeful because it's made in San Francisco which appears to have very soft water.

I started the process to make the second beer for blending. Racked salty wort after 12 days into secondary and refrigerated. Tried to harvest yeast, but after two gallons of DI water rinse, and overnight floc, decant still very salty. So discarding salty yeast and making a new starter.