A Brewing Water Chemistry Primer

SSBrew - 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brewbuzzard said:
https://www.brewersfriend.com/2017/11/19/brewing-water-basics-part-1/
See if this link helps.
Click to expand...
Hi Brewbuzzrd. Thanks for the link. However, I feel that I'm already fairly knowledgeable about brewing water basics, and was instead particularly asking about what A.J. deLange meant in the first message of this thread ("Primer") as modified by his later comments, particularly regarding "minerally" beers.

He provided a baseline, and said that the subsequent types of beers were to be "deviated" by the amounts he suggested. The only type of beer that didn't make any sense regarding "deviation" is the last one - "minerally beers". He said that the chloride and gypsum were to be doubled. Since no gypsum is added to the baseline beers, how can you "double" the amount? Thus, I assumed he was actually not referring to the "baseline" beer in this particular case, but rather to the previous type of beer (British beers), where gypsum IS mentioned. This makes sense since a more minerally type of beer would certainly be more than the previous type of beer by about that amount.

I just asked for clarification, which likely only A.J. deLange can himself provide. (There was a comment during the discussion that he made, which seems to generally confirm my interpretation, although not specifically).

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough before.
 
ajdelange said:
Hefeweizen: Baseline

Baseline: Add 1 tsp of calcium chloride dihydrate (what your LHBS sells) to each 5 gallons of water treated. Add 2% sauermalz to the grist.

Deviate from the baseline as follows:


Hefeweizen: For soft water beers (i.e Pils, Helles). Use half the baseline amount of calcium chloride and increase the sauermalz to 3% (you can make great Hefe with soft water too).

Porter: For beers that use roast malt (Stout, porter): Skip the sauermalz.

Light Ale: For British beers: Add 1 tsp gypsum as well as 1 tsp calcium chloride

IPA: For very minerally beers (Export, Burton ale): Double the calcium chloride and the gypsum.



If you follow just the baseline without any of the deviations you won't make a 'dumper'. That's the whole idea behind the primer. Should get you a decent beer whatever the style.
Click to expand...


Soooo, in a pinch for the baseline, if you have Phosphoric acid instead of saurmaltz at 10% solution how would you recommend a substitute? assuming R/O water.
 
brian320fo said:
Hi,

I have been developing a new water calculator (oh no, not ANOTHER one......!). With some input it calculates a good water profile for most styles of beer. It also calculates acid or alkalinity additions, salt additions and target pH. If interested it's located here:

https://watercalc.azurewebsites.net/
Click to expand...
I wish I had seen this last weekend...
 
brian320fo said:
Hi,

I have been developing a new water calculator (oh no, not ANOTHER one......!). With some input it calculates a good water profile for most styles of beer. It also calculates acid or alkalinity additions, salt additions and target pH. If interested it's located here:

https://watercalc.azurewebsites.net/
Click to expand...

Hey Brian,

Used the calc and found it to be very user friendly. Good work.

Brooo Brother

BTW - Is that you on the 'boom or in the KC? Never yanked gear on the 320 but did fly from the left side for 8 years. Lots of good times.
 
Brooothru said:
Hey Brian,

Used the calc and found it to be very user friendly. Good work.

Brooo Brother

BTW - Is that you on the 'boom or in the KC? Never yanked gear on the 320 but did fly from the left side for 8 years. Lots of good times.
Click to expand...

BTW, if you do use the calculator, any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks!
 
Question from someone new to home brewing. Reading earlier posts from aj it seems that water calculators vary tremendously in accuracy and add difficultly. Does anyone not use calculator software and instead use the approach given by aj , dividing into differenr categories of beer ( English, hoppy, balanced) and having a baseline of salts and minerals for each, then tweaking.
 
Actually, some people do just that.
And some don't measure what their base tap water is, and make or don't make any mineral/pH adjustments.
And some don't bother measuring pH.
And you know what? Beer is still made and enjoyed.

You decide what feels right for you.
 
balrog said:
Actually, some people do just that.
And some don't measure what their base tap water is, and make or don't make any mineral/pH adjustments.
And some don't bother measuring pH.
And you know what? Beer is still made and enjoyed.

You decide what feels right for you.
Click to expand...
"Do what is needed to brew great beer, and not much more. Set your system up to be as complex as necessary, but no more." I really wish I could remember where I got that quote from. If anyone knows, please let me know!
 
As long as your brewing conditions are not in a state of flux as to initial water, added mineralization, acidification, recipe, water to grist ratio, etc... you should be able to find your own ideals, even if merely by trial and error. It is when things change that it gets a bit trickier. For example, many water authorities blend greatly differing water sources, whereby each time you turn on the tap you have no idea what blend is coming out. And if you change your water to grist ratio without also changing your mineralization levels you are not going to make the same beer. There are twice as many calcium and magnesium ions in 10 gallons of water as for 5 when the very same water and recipe and grist and overall volumes/weights are being used (such as for the case of sparge vs no-sparge).
 
CatsCradle said:
Does anyone not use calculator software
Click to expand...
Currently, I brew with RO/distilled water and I do not use "calculator software" for "water chemistry".

If you are brewing with RO/distilled water and are willing to spend money on some additional resources, I can make some time to write up a "point in time" snapshot of what I do (and what I've learned).
 
BrewnWKopperKat said:
Currently, I brew with RO/distilled water and I do not use "calculator software" for "water chemistry".

If you are brewing with RO/distilled water and are willing to spend money on some additional resources, I can make some time to write up a "point in time" snapshot of what I do (and what I've learned).
Click to expand...
That would be awesome !
 
Silver_Is_Money said:
As long as your brewing conditions are not in a state of flux as to initial water, added mineralization, acidification, recipe, water to grist ratio, etc... you should be able to find your own ideals, even if merely by trial and error. It is when things change that it gets a bit trickier. For example, many water authorities blend greatly differing water sources, whereby each time you turn on the tap you have no idea what blend is coming out. And if you change your water to grist ratio without also changing your mineralization levels you are not going to make the same beer. There are twice as many calcium and magnesium ions in 10 gallons of water as for 5 when the very same water and recipe and grist and overall volumes/weights are being used (such as for the case of sparge vs no-sparge).
Click to expand...
I guess I was just confused with the first post by aj giving a RO baseline with the addition of 1 tsp of calcium chloride for every 5 gallons of water and 2% sauermalz, and then tweaking this baseline for different beer styles. Reading through that post it seemed like he skipped online water calculators all together. I’m just unsure whether to use that approach or use a program like Bru’n
 
As more people are transitioning to no-sparge in one way or another (example, BIAB) the old "rule of thumb" mineralization adages to add "this" level of minerals across the board become less efficacious. Rules of thumb are merely "conditional" ballpark solutions at best.
 
Last edited:
CatsCradle said:
Reading through that post it seemed like he skipped online water calculators all together.
Click to expand...

The intent of the approach, written 10 years ago, was/is to provide a KISS to brewing water chemistry. Take a look at #1404, #1471, & #1568 for some additional insights. There are similar approaches (#1619, Zymurgy magazine, HomeBrew Con presentations).

From #938: "If you are using the Primer, forget the spreadsheet(s). If you are using a spreadsheet, forget the Primer".

I’m just unsure whether to use that approach or use a program like Bru’n
Click to expand...
Pick one and start.

The advantage of starting with this approach is that you don't need to learn a new piece of software. Order some malt and some minerals - and start brewing.
 
BrewnWKopperKat said:
The intent of the approach, written 10 years ago, was/is to provide a KISS to brewing water chemistry. Take a look at #1404, #1471, & #1568 for some additional insights. There are similar approaches (#1619, Zymurgy magazine, HomeBrew Con presentations).

From #938: "If you are using the Primer, forget the spreadsheet(s). If you are using a spreadsheet, forget the Primer".


Pick one and start.

The advantage of starting with this approach is that you don't need to learn a new piece of software. Order some malt and some minerals - and start brewing.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response! Sounds like trial and error is the way to go. On a side note aj mentioned adding 1tsp of calcium chloride, what’s the conversion to ppm? I ask because he listed ppms to describe the baseline profile of RO, and was curious what 1tsp would add to the profile in ppm
 
ppm is a totally flawed means to the measurement of mineralization. It is what I was speaking of when I mentioned "conditional" above. The "condition" being the mashes water to grist ratio. For example, if you sparge, and my process uses no sparge (such as it does), and for the intentionally simplified case whereby you therefore mash in half the water that I mash in, my mash liquor at 50 ppm calcium will expose the grist to twice the calcium that your mash water (also at 50 ppm calcium) exposes it to. That's a massive difference, which simply looking at ppm's totally ignores and effectively thereby denies.

For this case your mash water must contain 100 ppm calcium if the two of us are attempting to brew the same beer. But a couple centuries worth of ppm use, and many hundreds of brewing books and magazine articles can't be wrong, right?
 
Last edited:
Silver_Is_Money said:
ppm is a totally flawed means to the measurement of mineralization. It is what I was speaking of when I mentioned "conditional" above. The "condition" being the mashes water to grist ratio. For example, if you sparge, and my process uses no sparge (such as it does), and for the intentionally simplified case whereby you therefore mash in half the water that I mash in, my mash liquor at 50 ppm calcium will expose the grist to twice the calcium that your mash water (also at 50 ppm calcium) exposes it to. That's a massive difference, which simply looking at ppm's totally ignores and effectively thereby denies.

For this case your mash water must contain 100 ppm calcium if the two of us are attempting to brew the same beer. But a couple centuries worth of ppm use, and many hundreds of brewing books and magazine articles can't be wrong, right?
Click to expand...

You mean to tell me that if we both use 7 gallons total, but you mash with 7 and me 3.5, that your more dilute mash will be exposed to twice the calcium for an equivalent dose? I’d have to see the numbers on that. Unless I’m missing something, while the mEq/l would vary, the mEq, and this the part that would affect the mash from a mineralization standpoint, is equivalent no matter the mash volume.
 
Big Monk said:
You mean to tell me that if we both use 7 gallons total, but you mash with 7 and me 3.5, that your more dilute mash will be exposed to twice the calcium for an equivalent dose? I’d have to see the numbers on that. Unless I’m missing something, while the mEq/l would vary, the mEq, and this the part that would affect the mash from a mineralization standpoint, is equivalent no matter the mash volume.
Click to expand...

There are twice the Ca++ ion mEq's in 7 gallons of 50 ppm calcium water as for 3.5 gallons of 50 ppm calcium water. It is the mEq's/L that is a fixed quantity.
 
Silver_Is_Money said:
There are twice the Ca++ ion mEq's in 7 gallons of 50 ppm calcium water as for 3.5 gallons of 50 ppm calcium water. It is the mEq's/L that is a fixed quantity.
Click to expand...

So your telling me that 3 g of Gypsum in 7 and 3.5 gal of mash volume, respectively, yields the same mEq/l?
 
Confusion around how ppm is related to concentration is not uncommon when people read a water report. Mostly because the 'parts' unit of parts per million is not clearly stated. The number of particles in suspension can be expressed as the total volume, or as the total mass, of particles in a unit volume of water.
 
Big Monk said:
So your telling me that 3 g of Gypsum in 7 and 3.5 gal of mash volume, respectively, yields the same mEq/l?
Click to expand...

No, for that case it yields the same mEq and differing mEq/L. But though you and I understand this, the average Joe will likely not. And it is the average Joe who is most likely to use natural water from a mineralized source.
 
Big Monk said:
So your telling me that 3 g of Gypsum in 7 and 3.5 gal of mash volume, respectively, yields the same mEq/l?
Click to expand...

No, I'm telling you that in 7 gallons of 50 ppm calcium ion water there are twice the mEq's of Ca++ ions as for 3.5 gallons of 50 ppm water.
 
Silver_Is_Money said:
No, I'm telling you that in 7 gallons of 50 ppm calcium ion water there are twice the mEq's of Ca++ ions as for 3.5 gallons of 50 ppm water.
Click to expand...

So, for the sake of posterity, let’s make that distinction here and now. You are referencing source water with mineralization, and I’m talking about mineralization added to RO/Distilled.
 
Big Monk said:
So, for the sake of posterity, let’s make that distinction here and now. You are referencing source water with mineralization, and I’m talking about mineralization added to RO/Distilled.
Click to expand...

Many people who make their own water up to a certain ppm level of Ca++ (etc...) (be it from RO or otherwise) subsequently mash in only some portion of it. They do so because myriads of books and magazines said to them that a certain level of ppm (I.E., a water profile) is what is required. They are rarely guided to the world of mEq's unless they go much higher in their educational development as to water chemistry. They are thus both completely deceived by called for "water profiles" and left to be clueless of such deceit. I'm merely trying to open their eyes to the deceit.
 
Silver_Is_Money said:
Many people who make their own water up to a certain ppm level of Ca++ (etc...) (be it from RO or otherwise) subsequently mash in only some portion of it. They do so because myriads of books and magazines said to them that a certain level of ppm (I.E., a water profile) is what is required. They are rarely guided to the world of mEq's unless they go much higher in their educational development as to water chemistry. They are thus both completely deceived by called for "water profiles" and left to be clueless of such deceit. I'm merely trying to open their eyes to the deceit.
Click to expand...


A few thoughts:

1.) ppm or mg/l is a perfectly acceptable form of telling how much of an ion is in the brewing water. Hopefully we can agree there. That there needs to be a distinction with respect to source and added mineralization for tallying charge is something I agree with.

2.) You can’t dismiss water profiles outright. For instance, if I want to brew a Rochefort clone, I am going to actually use thier water profile verbatim. Should we be more conscious of how certain profiles are treated? Absolutely.

3.) Deceit is a strong word. Homebrew Dogma and misunderstanding has existed, still exists, and sometimes goes by the wayside. That people writing in this sphere are purposefully deceiving people is something I can’t get on board with.
 
Big Monk said:
A few thoughts:

1.) ppm or mg/l is a perfectly acceptable form of telling how much of an ion is in the brewing water. Hopefully we can agree there.

2.) You can’t dismiss water profiles outright. For instance, if I want to brew a Rochefort clone, I am going to actually use thier water profile verbatim. Should we be more conscious of how certain profiles are treated? Absolutely.

3.) Deceit is a strong word. Homebrew Dogma and misunderstanding has existed, still exists, and sometimes goes by the wayside. That people writing in this sphere are purposefully deceiving people is something I can’t get on board with.
Click to expand...

1) No, we do not agree. mEq's/L, leading to the requisite of mEq's in and of themselves is perfectly acceptable, but ppm's are flawed (as in being merely partial truth) and thereby ppm's are not in and of themselves worthy of being proclaimed "perfectly acceptable".

2) You will need to know their water to grist ratio whereby to totally duplicate their process. Knowing only their water mineralization as regards ppm's is not in and of itself sufficient.

3) Deceit does not necessarily imply outright "intent" (to deceive). It also implies flaw, error, and primarily ignorance of intent, and thereby blind perpetuation from ignorance to ignorance, whereby achieving the perpetuation of a negative while blindly believing it to perpetuate a positive.

Conclusion: I can indeed dismiss water profiles based solely upon ppm's.
 
Silver_Is_Money said:
1) No, we do not agree. mEq's/L, leading to the requisite of mEq's in and of themselves is perfectly acceptable, but ppm's are flawed (as in being merely partial truth) and thereby ppm's are not in and of themselves worthy of being proclaimed "perfectly acceptable".

2) You will need to know their water to grist ratio whereby to totally duplicate their process. Knowing only their water mineralization as regards ppm's is not in and of itself sufficient.

3) Deceit does not necessarily imply outright "intent" (to deceive). It also implies flaw, error, and primarily ignorance of intent, and thereby blind perpetuation from ignorance to ignorance, whereby achieving the perpetuation of a negative while blindly believing it to perpetuate a positive.

Conclusion: I can indeed dismiss water profiles based solely upon ppm's.
Click to expand...

We can at least agree the savvy brewer typically needs to have pertinent information in order to use the data they possess.

You’re starting to sound like a curmudgeon by the way!
 
Big Monk said:
We can at least agree the savvy brewer typically needs to have pertinent information in order to use the data they possess.

You’re starting to sound like a curmudgeon by the way!
Click to expand...

Yes, we can agree that the savvy brewer needs to have pertinent information in order to use the data they possess.

I'd prefer to think of it more positively, as in becoming more objectivist oriented and less subjectivist oriented as I age. With age and infirmity comes the realization that one only has so long remaining whereby to pass along wisdom. And as such, limited time requires a more directly objective approach. An elder and mentor, Thomas Sowell, expressed it this way:

Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.
Click to expand...

And then also this way:

There are few things more dishonorable than misleading the young.
Click to expand...
 
Hopefully, this will help make things somewhat clearer. Below are the differences between a mash using 9 gallons of treated water and 12 gallons of treated water when using the same grain bill and similarly mineralized RO water.

Mash using 12 gallons of strike water (2.0 qt/lb) having 2.1 cations and 2.1 anions.
12-gal-strike.jpg


Mash using 9 gallons of strike water (1.5 qt/lb) having 2.1 cations and 2.1 anions.
9-gal-strike.jpg
 
Last edited:
My takeaway is that AJ speaks English. I can piece together most of what Monk says. Silver might as well be speaking Klingon. This thread isn't supposed to be written for Chemistry doctorates - if you want to pass on your knowledge, you have to write it for the guy who hasn't had to deal with chemistry since high school in 1988.
 
Silver_Is_Money said:
1) No, we do not agree. mEq's/L, leading to the requisite of mEq's in and of themselves is perfectly acceptable, but ppm's are flawed (as in being merely partial truth) and thereby ppm's are not in and of themselves worthy of being proclaimed "perfectly acceptable".

2) You will need to know their water to grist ratio whereby to totally duplicate their process. Knowing only their water mineralization as regards ppm's is not in and of itself sufficient.

3) Deceit does not necessarily imply outright "intent" (to deceive). It also implies flaw, error, and primarily ignorance of intent, and thereby blind perpetuation from ignorance to ignorance, whereby achieving the perpetuation of a negative while blindly believing it to perpetuate a positive.

Conclusion: I can indeed dismiss water profiles based solely upon ppm's.
Click to expand...

You can choose to dismiss whatever you want, it's your beer. However, the conclusion above cannot be logically derived from the 3 stated premises.

There seems to be two issues here. One is the use of PPM and the other the concentration of ions in a thin mash vs a thick mash.

First of all PPM and mEq/L are both measurements of concentration. A direct correlation exists between mEq/L and PPM for any given element. In the case of Calcium it's 20/1. mEq/L are, however, easier to deal with mathematically.

Secondly, taste perception is largely dependent upon the concentration of the particles in the sample. To ignore them would be foolish.

Thirdly, trying to follow the logic of your arguments was not easy. I had to make a lot of assumptions and re-read your posts numerous times in an attempt to try to understand your point of view. This is what I came up with:

Two beers with the same recipe, one mashed with full boil volume, one mashed with half boil volume. Both beers, though, have the same water profile in the keg. Assuming this also means they had the same water profile post boil, this leads to three different mash options:

A. Full boil volume mash with desired ion concentration (all salts added to mash).
B. Half boil volume mash with desired ion concentration (half salts added to mash, either sparge water is salted or salts added to boil).
C. Half boil volume mash with double ion concentration (all salts added to mash, sparge water untreated).

So in B or C you either have the same concentration or the same number of total ions as A. This I actually found interesting. In A and C we have the same number of ions available to react with the grist. Are you suggesting we should be figuring mEq/Kg of grain instead?

One of the big differences between the mashes is going to be the pH. If we adjust the pH using phosphoric acid (virtually tasteless) so that the pH is the same for all three mashes then the only difference between A and B is the mash thickness and the only difference between B and C is the ion concentration. A thinner mash could be more fermentable but would it be noticeable in the final product? Mash C might be clearer because of the higher calcium concentration but is this a priority? How much is the final taste really going to be effected by the differences in these mashes?

Conclusion: Your argument about using PPM is flawed and certainly not deceitful. In my opinion your logic on this is almost as flawed as saying use "Liters" because "Quarts" are flawed. What's your scientific explanation for PPM being flawed? However, your argument about whether to use all the salts in a thick mash vs keeping a constant ion concentration might have some merit and be worthy of further investigation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
Bru'n water sparge acid and kettle hardness calculations
Replies
15
Views
1K
VikeMan
VikeMan
3
Water Report Question
Replies
4
Views
762
CascadesBrewer
CascadesBrewer
N
Is my tap water usesless for brewing?
Replies
22
Views
2K
CascadesBrewer
CascadesBrewer
Zippy123
Reality check on Water Chemistry
Replies
27
Views
2K
WortMonger
WortMonger
C
Artesian well suitability
Replies
3
Views
605
mabrungard
mabrungard
BrewSwag 300

Latest posts

Back
Top