Why Is So Much Emphasis Placed On Water Chemistry?

[Mindsculptor]

I've been reading a lot on water chemistry lately and while I have enough education in chemistry that it's understandable to me, I can't figure out the why. Take IPAs, for example, where everybody seems to want to emulate the water profile of Burton-On-Trent. I understand that's the home of IPAs, but to my way of thinking it simply doesn't matter unless you're trying to emulate a historical recipe. Hell, the first beer I ever brewed was Mr. Beer's WCPA and that came out fine with tap water that was heavily chlorinated, which according to the water heads should have completely ruined the beer.

I think what I'm trying to understand is why brewers, home or professional, can't let their water stand on its own merits like they would the hope profile and malt bill of their developed recipe. I don't believe there's any such thing as an ideal water chemistry any more than there is an ideal beer recipe, although I'm prepared for someone to convince me.

 

[orangehero]

You use acids or bases to get your mash pH within range depending on the grain bill, get your calcium up if necessary, then you tweak the flavor ions (chloride, sulfate, magnesium, sodium) to whatever you prefer.

Not sure what you mean that you don't believe there is an ideal water chemistry. Brewers don't let their water stand on its own because not every grain bill will react the same in the mash. A water profile that is ideal for a stout is not ideal for a cream ale. For some people it doesn't matter, not everyone can tell a good beer from a bad one.

I recommend you read the Water Primer sticky at the top of this forum to see how simple the approach to water chemistry can be. Then read Water by Palmer and Kaminsky to learn everything a homebrewer needs to know.

 

[HopSong]

I'm sure there is no problem with what you are doing and thinking. You can break the "rules" and drink white wine with dark meats and vice versa. You can brew beer with whatever water you like.. and if you like it.. who is to say it sucks? I want water that will help me brew a beer that fits "my" idea of what that beer type should taste like. For instance, I've been asking questions about water recently for a Stout. I love stouts.. but there are commercial stouts I absolutely LOVE and others that are meh. How, besides the grain bill, yeast and temperature, can I approach the possibility of reaching that goal. Sure I can experiment with the listed three and improve to the point that I may reach my goal.. but, there is a reason that micro and big breweries have people with a lot of knowledge of chemistry on board. Probably, part of that is the ability to replicate a winner once found as grains and hops change from year to year, maltster to maltster, etc. Getting a water profile to an constant for a style removes one variable.. heck, it might be a big variable for the feather in your cap.

That's my guess...

 

[Larso]

I've been reading a lot on water chemistry lately and while I have enough education in chemistry that it's understandable to me, I can't figure out the why. Take IPAs, for example, where everybody seems to want to emulate the water profile of Burton-On-Trent. I understand that's the home of IPAs, but to my way of thinking it simply doesn't matter unless you're trying to emulate a historical recipe. Hell, the first beer I ever brewed was Mr. Beer's WCPA and that came out fine with tap water that was heavily chlorinated, which according to the water heads should have completely ruined the beer.

I think what I'm trying to understand is why brewers, home or professional, can't let their water stand on its own merits like they would the hope profile and malt bill of their developed recipe. I don't believe there's any such thing as an ideal water chemistry any more than there is an ideal beer recipe, although I'm prepared for someone to convince me.

I have an ion exchange water softener that resulted in terrible efficiency and mash ph way out of range among other problems. I now use RO water because its my only real alternative option and I treat it to get my mash ph in the correct zone. Its resulted in a huge imrpovement in my beer

 

[Mindsculptor]

For some people it doesn't matter, not everyone can tell a good beer from a bad one.

I can assure you that's not me, I didn't even like beer until I tried a Sam Adams Hefeweizen. Actually, I didn't really like hoppy beers because of a bad experience at a restaraunt involving a too cold Boston Lager served in an iced over mug, yet I started to appreciate them when I brewed that WCPA. It's gotten to the point where I'll spend a couple hours sipping a beer to enjoy the flavor nuances as it warms up.

And if water profile is that important, why is it the absolutely last thing professional brewers worry about? If it's as you say that a given grain bill won't react the same way to a water source from batch to batch, then water profile really doesn't matter because you can't control for the reaction anyway. The only bad beers I've ever had were because of skunkiness, which I've been told by a liquor store owner are a bigger reason for QC issues of the end product than any other factor and can't be controlled for in production.

Maybe it's because I've never had two theoretically same beers that were radically different because of water profile, but I'm not seeing it.

 

[JonM]

Maybe try an experiment with one-gallon test batches. Make the same recipe twice using the same process with the only difference being water chemistry. Use tap water for one and, for the other, use reverse osmosis distilled water with appropriate mineral additions to get the ideal pH and to enhance the flavor. Try them side by side. That's probably the best way to get a good understanding of why water chemistry is important.

 

[ajdelange]

I've been reading a lot on water chemistry lately and while I have enough education in chemistry that it's understandable to me, I can't figure out the why. Take IPAs, for example, where everybody seems to want to emulate the water profile of Burton-On-Trent. I understand that's the home of IPAs, but to my way of thinking it simply doesn't matter unless you're trying to emulate a historical recipe.

Your perspective is a very reasonable one and, in fact, represents how the most advanced home and craft brewers look at things today. Your assumption that people are trying to emulate the profile of Burton every time they brew a Burton style ale is a bit dated. That definitely was the case a few years back and it all started when a fellow named Dave Draper posted a collection of water profiles he had garnered from various sources on HBD. These got spread far and wide and then some guy got the bright idea that he could write a computer program that could try to match those profiles from low ion water by adding common salts and those 'recipes' got propagated and people started developing spreadsheets and we were off and running. Some noticed, however, that a lot of the profiles being bandied about did not balance electrically and others noticed that if they went to the considerable trouble it took to synthesize one that often all the work they went to was undone immediately the water hit the HLT when all the chalk precipitated back out. It occurred to these folks that maybe all the chalk precipitated out in Burton too and that, therefore, traditional Burton beers were not made with the published Burton water profile but with a decarbonated Burton profile. Still others noticed that Burton style beers were better with less sulfate than what was in the published Burton profiles and began to think that perhaps the Burton brewers would have used lower sulfate levels if they could get them. This is where we are now. It is recognized that local water had influence, a lot of influence, on the various beer styles and that one should brew those styles with recognition of the general characteristics of that water without slavish adherence to duplication of a particular water chemistry that was probably bogus on the one hand and didn't produce the best beer on the other. So today when one approaches a Burton ale he uses some sulfate to give that Burton hop character but he uses as much as he thinks gives him the best beer and feels quite free to adjust that sulfate level over a wide range. And he also feels free to adjust chloride levels as long as doing so improves the beer. Does authenticity suffer? Perhaps, but if you want authenticity you can always go back to the older approach. And being authentic doesn't suggest that the product was good. On the Bahrani dinar there is a depiction of two guys drinking beer from a jug (I always thought this was interesting as it is a Muslim country). I expect, knowing what I know about how beer was brewed in that part of the world in the days that image represents, that an authentic replica of that beer would taste pretty horrible by today's standards.

Hell, the first beer I ever brewed was Mr. Beer's WCPA and that came out fine with tap water that was heavily chlorinated, which according to the water heads should have completely ruined the beer.

Was it Helles or Pale ale? Doesn't matter. Chlorine is not usually a problem because heating or standing for a few hours is usually sufficient to let it escape the water. Chloramine is a problem because these methods are not sufficient. Even so, chloramine is sometimes a disaster and in other cases it has not noticeable effect. You don't know which until you get a beer that smell/tastes like hot plastic so it is always wise, if you know your water is chloraminated, to throw in a Campden tablet.

I think what I'm trying to understand is why brewers, home or professional, can't let their water stand on its own merits like they would the hope profile and malt bill of their developed recipe.

In fact some craft breweries do exactly as you suggest and this was taught as the proper thing to do in UCD's brewing programs when Michael Lewis ran them. We call these brewers, by analogy with vintners, adherents to the terroir school. I recently addressed the District Mid Atlantic MBAA group on water chemistry and polled the audience to see how many terroir adherents were present. Three hands went up. Out of how many? Don't really know as there were about 70 people there but each one didn't represent a different brewery (i.e. some breweries sent several people and there were manufaturers reps there as well) but certainly at least 15. The reason the terroir school adherents are becoming rarer is easily seen by looking at the board in any craft brewery. Most offer a tremendous diversity of styles and you can't brew a good Pilsner and a good Export with the same water.

I don't believe there's any such thing as an ideal water chemistry any more than there is an ideal beer recipe, although I'm prepared for someone to convince me.

There is an ideal recipe and an ideal water chemistry for each beer and those are the ones that make the best beer. Keep in mind that best means different things to different people. To you it means tastes best. To your investors it mens sells best. etc. In striving to come up with the best beer, whatever your criterion, you have wide flexibility in your recipe formulation and you have wide flexibility in your water treatment but your water chemistry and your grist composition must work together such that pH when they are mixed is within a rather narrow band. There are lots of ways to insure that this happens and so, overall you still have lots of flexibility.

With ready availability of RO water (which trivializes water treatment), ease of pH measurement and a blurring of the distinction between water treatment and grist adjustment (do we add lactic acid to the water or sauermalz to the mash?) I think we may be approaching a new paradigm with respect to brewing water. I think it may come to be thought of as just another grist component.

 

[SilverZero]

You say things like "the absolutely last thing professional brewers worry about" which makes me think you're trying to build an argument that doesn't exist. Quote us some professional brewers saying that, because i frankly don't believe it.

In my experience (which is what homebrewing is all about), knowing my starting water profile and building different chemistries for different styles is not only fun (I also have a chemistry education, and now I teach it) but it's useful in predicting my mash pH and accentuating certain elements of the recipe.

You can certainly make fine beer without worrying about chemistry, and you can screw up an otherwise good brew with the wrong water additions. You can also use it as another tool to improving your beer making process. Your water probably won't turn your crappy bitter stout into a world-class brew, but it will improve it if you do it right assuming your water needs any real treatment - some local waters don't.

As others have mentioned, some people have pretty poor water and have to start with RO or even distilled water from the store. In these cases, it really helps the mash enzymes to have a proper ion balance. And treating for chlorine and chloramine may not be necessary for your water or for your taste, but I like to share my beer so I choose to think about other peoples' tastes as well.

Most people never worry about water chemistry (although I'm skeptical that pros don't), and there's a lot of good tap-water beer out there, but better water will make better beer.

 

[orangehero]

AJ you are a machine.

 

[Yooper]

And if water profile is that important, why is it the absolutely last thing professional brewers worry about?

It's not.

Since beer is made up mostly of water, it's generally one of the first things pro and good homebrewers worry about.

However, worrying about it doesn't necessarily mean doing much about it. Some breweries are set up right where they are simply because the water is great for brewing. Few (if any) brewers adjust their water to match a certain profile- they instead may adjust their water to enhance the flavor of the beer.

Good water tends to make good beer, and knowing more about the water and mashing process interactions can make great beer. Bad water will always make bad beer.

 

[mabrungard]

The great thing about brewing is that virtually any combination of malt and water is going to create something resembling beer. As we know, some are better than others.

Clearly before brewers understood water chemistry, they brewed with what they had. They tweaked their recipes and methods to improve the resulting taste. That is the origin of many styles. But even with that, today's brewers can fall into the trap of trying to emulate a particular water profile without understanding what those historic brewers did to make it work for them. As AJ pointed out, you can still screw up an 'accurate' water.

AJ mentions that the avaiability of RO water use in brewing trivializes water treatment. In some ways this is true because removing excess mineralization is very difficult. Adding minerals is far easier. However, it needs to be clear to any brewer that you CAN still screw up a batch when using water like RO. Even brewing with a pure water can get you into trouble. I've had plenty of bland beers that start with water like RO.

Brewers need to understand that all the great brewers and breweries DO pay attention to their water. However, in some cases they just don't recognize that it's actually a water chemistry adjustment they are creating. Using a particular malt or process could have a water chemistry origin.

Brewers need to understand that no matter how great their water is, there is no water that is suited for ALL beer brewing without some water adjustment to better suit a particular beer.

A brewer can get by without adjusting their water. Its just that they won't be able to create a wide spectrum of great beers without knowing how to treat their water.

 

[Mindsculptor]

You say things like "the absolutely last thing professional brewers worry about" which makes me think you're trying to build an argument that doesn't exist. Quote us some professional brewers saying that, because i frankly don't believe it..

Just to be clear, I'm not building any argument. I'm trying to figure out why I should invest in equipment for water treatment, now that I'm back in Michigan and have to invest in a new setup anyway, when my own admittedly limited experience with absolutely ****ty water (I wouldn't drink it unless I had no other option) seems to suggest it doesn't seem to matter. Now, I'm not aiming to open a brewery or enter my beers into any competitions, I just want to drink beer that's better than the mediocre crap on most shelves and cheaper than the truly spectacular stuff.

 

[ajdelange]

For you we have the Primer. It's approach to all this is to make things as simple as possible and it achieves that by having you make nominal salt additions to RO or other low mineral content water. This relieves you of the worry of having to monitor seasonal or other variations in the mineral content of your source water or any other concern related to your water. If you have really terrible water then it solves that problem too. It will pretty much always get you a good beer but to get a very good or great beer you will have to invest more effort. Depending on what your water quality is there is a good chance that switching from blindly using your tap water to blindly using what the Primer recommends will result in noticeable improvement in your beers.

 

[Mindsculptor]

Depending on what your water quality is there is a good chance that switching from blindly using your tap water to blindly using what the Primer recommends will result in noticeable improvement in your beers.

I was living in Rhode Island, where the water quality is so bad it had to be heavily treated to make it safe for drinking. Now I'm back in Dearborn Heights, which is served by the Detroit water system and is (from what I can gather) actually rather good water for brewing.

 

[ajdelange]

Remember that good for drinking, good for pils and good for stout are all different things. I used to brew beer which I thought was pretty damn good using water from the outlet of a water softener. Now I know better. As I said, whether you see improvement or not depends on the style and the chemistry of water you are replacing. I think you are seeking an answer that says "It doesn't really matter". It does and anyone who tells you otherwise is not a very sophisticated brewer. Water treatment does not have to be complicated or difficult and as long as you grant recognition to broad style guidelines you will be fine but you have to grant that recognition.

'Good for brewing' is an incomplete statement. Good for brewing what?

 

[bctdi]

Try brewing all grain beers of all styles with straight up r/o water that has been treated with chloramine. That's basically what comes out of my tap, so for me (and I don't want to settle for mediocre beer) water treatment has become an important subject. If what comes out of your tap is already good to go with what you are brewing, then I can see focusing on other areas.

 

[Yooper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbqRWec7dFc&feature=share&list=UUzrSfJztggg8KhgBgNILORg

Just to be clear, I'm not building any argument. I'm trying to figure out why I should invest in equipment for water treatment, now that I'm back in Michigan and have to invest in a new setup anyway, when my own admittedly limited experience with absolutely ****ty water (I wouldn't drink it unless I had no other option) seems to suggest it doesn't seem to matter. Now, I'm not aiming to open a brewery or enter my beers into any competitions, I just want to drink beer that's better than the mediocre crap on most shelves and cheaper than the truly spectacular stuff.

I'm not sure why the link to Palmer is in here (didn't watch the video), but here's something you probably don't know.

Some people who are responding to you on this thread are named as sources/experts in this book and contributed to the book. So I'd take what they say pretty seriously!

If you want to do "better than mediocre beer", you can probably do that with your tap water if you take care of chlorine. If you want to drink good beer, you probably can do that as well with your tap water, if you follow some easy guidelines.

There shouldn't be any investment or equipment to buy.

 

[Mindsculptor]

I think you are seeking an answer that says "It doesn't really matter".

No, I already suspect that and I'm not the sort of person that's going to waste my time or anybody else's by seeking validation. I'm waiting for somebody to provide something as trivial as anecdotal evidence of the improvement in their beer moving from tap, to RO/DI, to treated RO/DI. By that I mean how did the appearance, smell, taste, etc improve? I'm not being style specific, either, any example will do.

It does and anyone who tells you otherwise is not a very sophisticated brewer.

The world's most sophisticated brewing setups belong to the Three American Horses. Sophistication in and of itself is never a reason to do anything and is often enough a reason to explicity avoid doing something.

Water treatment does not have to be complicated or difficult and as long as you grant recognition to broad style guidelines you will be fine but you have to grant that recognition.

I've been doing practical chemistry experiments since I was in the first grade, sometimes with or seeking to create extraordinarily dangerous chemicals. I really rather doubt that screwing around with cation levels in RO/DI water would pose much of a difficulty for me.

I'm prepared to grant anything on this subject if somebody will provide the level of evidence I outlined above, which should be a trivial exercise for the more experienced brewers that are obsessive note keepers. Assertions that modifying your water produce noticable results, "because I said so", don't really fly for me.

'Good for brewing' is an incomplete statement. Good for brewing what?

I took good for brewing to mean that the measured PPM for the four cations did not provide for the possibility of an objectionable brew.

 

[Mindsculptor]

I'm not sure why the link to Palmer is in here (didn't watch the video), but here's something you probably don't know.

Because he outright says in the video that water chemistry is the last thing professional brewers account for. And this is in a video promoting his book. Brewing isn't the US Constitution, weight is given to order.

Some people who are responding to you on this thread are named as sources/experts in this book and contributed to the book. So I'd take what they say pretty seriously!

Yeah, I've always been one of those annoying people that thinks for themselves. Ajdelange is obviously extremely competent in this subject (I'm probably doing him a disservice with that statement, actually), but I want to actually see a modicum of evidence.

 

[FuzzeWuzze]

Because he outright says in the video that water chemistry is the last thing professional brewers account for. And this is in a video promoting his book. Brewing isn't the US Constitution, weight is given to order.



Yeah, I've always been one of those annoying people that thinks for themselves. Ajdelange is obviously extremely competent in this subject (I'm probably doing him a disservice with that statement, actually), but I want to actually see a modicum of evidence.

Do it yourself and try it?

Even doing something as simple as sprinkling a tiny bit of gypsum in a pint of finished IPA shows many people the difference in flavors certain minerals add.

 

[Xtynct]

I just add some 5.2ph and forget about it. I also drink Milwaukee water which is amazing. It's funny how a few hundred thousand cases of cryptosporidium can cause a city to vastly improve it's water system.

 

[Yooper]

Because he outright says in the video that water chemistry is the last thing professional brewers account for. And this is in a video promoting his book. Brewing isn't the US Constitution, weight is given to order.



Yeah, I've always been one of those annoying people that thinks for themselves. Ajdelange is obviously extremely competent in this subject (I'm probably doing him a disservice with that statement, actually), but I want to actually see a modicum of evidence.

Well, I can't believe that Palmer said that water chemistry is the last thing brewers account for, but I haven't watched the video. John knows better, but we've all had plenty of bad commercial beers I reckon.

What is silly is you're asking for a "modicum of evidence", but we're all giving it to you. Your Mr. Beer came out great, and that's good. But that is hardly a scientific reason to question why water might matter.

You want people to say water doesn't matter, but we won't. We all aver that it does, including a noted water brewing expert or two.

How about this? Find people who, on the other hand, say that water DOESN'T matter. You'll find that there is not one reputable brewer who will tell you that.

AJ and Martin, does John really say in "Water" that water doesn't matter to professional brewers? That seems utterly ridiculous, but I haven't read the book yet. He didn't tell me that was in the book, but I didn't really get into that much detail either that last time I talked with him.

 

[HopSong]

Hey Yooper.. I am sure John is not the only expert that has said this.. I believe I heard Colin say that in a lecture/demo at our club earlier in the year. Is this not so because it truly IS complicated?.. Beyond the Primer status? Witness the MANY questions that AJ and Martin put up with to help others.. like me.. understand something about this science.. Maybe Colin referred to it as a "last frontier" can't remember if it was him or John.

 

[Yooper]

Hey Yooper.. I am sure John is not the only expert that has said this.. I believe I heard Colin say that in a lecture/demo at our club earlier in the year. Is this not so because it truly IS complicated?.. Beyond the Primer status? Witness the MANY questions that AJ and Martin put up with to help others.. like me.. understand something about this science.. Maybe Colin referred to it as a "last frontier" can't remember if it was him or John.

Maybe. I was taking to Omar Ansari a while back, and he mentioned that one of the reasons his brewery is where it is is due to the water. He can use Minneapolis (or is it St. Paul?) water. Mark Stutrud told me something similar- that he chose the city he did for his brewery because it meant little water modifications.

But to me, that doesn't mean that it was of low importance. In fact, it meant to me that water was of such great importance that the breweries were founded at a source of water that was appropriate for most beer styles without modification. And I don't think it's laziness, as Mark has a full time microbiology lab onsite at Summit. But since water is such an important part of brewing, he felt that it was the very first consideration and not the last.

 

[ajdelange]

No, I already suspect that and I'm not the sort of person that's going to waste my time or anybody else's by seeking validation.

You can spend a long time trying to prove a negative. You'll spend less proving to yourself that proper water management does make a difference as many here have suggested you do.

I'm waiting for somebody to provide something as trivial as anecdotal evidence of the improvement in their beer moving from tap, to RO/DI, to treated RO/DI. By that I mean how did the appearance, smell, taste, etc improve? I'm not being style specific, either, any example will do.

Well, OK. The first time I got it just right it was a Vienna. As soon as I tasted the first glass I said to myself "This is the best beer I ever brewed." That is a fairly non specific statement and it is a bit hard to be specific. I call often call it the "Ah" factor because that's what the drinker says when he tastes it. As one fellow put it here and I have never been able to say it better "All the flavors become brighter". That's still pretty non specific. In this case the essentials elements were control of mash pH to an appropriate level which I implemented with sauermalz, reduction of total minerals to the lowest possible level consistent with a proper level of chloride and elimination of sulfate. The overall impression on the palate was soft but full bodied, the malt component was delicious and the hops present to the extent necessary to balance the malt sweetness but the bitterness was very fine (as a consequence of zeroing out the sulfate). The beer required less lagering i.e. it dropped clear, the jungbuket evanesced faster than usual and the head became the classic meringue.

The "All the flavors..." quote came from someone reporting back in his experience on following what I essentially set out above in his own brewery and as he did that on his own I guess we'd have to accept that as a second piece of anecdotal evidence. If you look back over the posts I think you will find many that imply that manipulation of their water has improved the beer. More and more professional brewers are moving to the RO route and becoming more sophisticated in their understanding of the interactions of grain, hops and water.

The world's most sophisticated brewing setups belong to the Three American Horses.

I have no idea what that means and a Google search does not help.

Sophistication in and of itself is never a reason to do anything and is often enough a reason to explicity avoid doing something.

I'm not sure you understand what sophisticated means. From the OED:
"(of a person or their thoughts, reactions, and understanding) aware of and able to interpret complex issues; subtle:"

Perhaps you are confusing sophistication with sophistry - same root.

I've been doing practical chemistry experiments since I was in the first grade, sometimes with or seeking to create extraordinarily dangerous chemicals. I really rather doubt that screwing around with cation levels in RO/DI water would pose much of a difficulty for me.

Brewing water chemistry is Henderson-Hasselbalch modified to include Debye-Hückel. Because of the non linearities solutions of even simple problems (what's the pH of a liter of water whose alkalinity is 100 after 2 mL if N acid have been added?) require an iterative approach. Beyond that if we are trying to match an ion profile by adding salts and dilution water we have a linear programming problem with all that implies. You might very well have a problem with some of that stuff if you haven't used it before. Put another way, it isn't the chemistry that's a killer here, it's the math that you need to get quantitative results. But you don't need to do any of that stuff to benefit from treating RO water to improve your beer. Other people have done that for you and we don't as I mentioned in the earlier post, chase profiles any more except in the broadest sense. You can follow the Primer which involves no calculations more complicated than figuring out that if the dose is 5 grams per 5 gallons then the amount to use for 7.5 gallons is 7.5 grams. There are multiple spreadsheets out there to do the work for you if you want to be more sophisticated than that (and most of them ignore the non linearities and ionic strength considerations and get answers that most consider adequately accurate).

You can't screw around with just cations.

I'm prepared to grant anything on this subject if somebody will provide the level of evidence I outlined above, which should be a trivial exercise for the more experienced brewers that are obsessive note keepers.

No one here is actually asking you to grant anything. You have come here and asked why there is so much emphasis on water chemistry. The question has been answered: because proper management of brewing water can improve your beer dramatically.

Assertions that modifying your water produce noticable results, "because I said so", don't really fly for me.

The horse has been led to the water. It is up to the horse to decide whether he wants to drink or not. It would be a simple enough matter for you to brew a batch with modified RO and see for yourself. Depending on the style and the sophistication of your palate it might make a difference that you can detect and it might not.

I took good for brewing to mean that the measured PPM for the four cations did not provide for the possibility of an objectionable brew.

It is actually anions that lead to most of the problems, the main one being bicarbonate which is responsible for the dreaded alkalinity. Excess sulfate will ruin any beer, insufficient sulfate will lead to an insipid ale and any sulfate will destroy a beer that uses noble hops. Low chloride leads to flat, dry beer and high chloride to a pasty taste. Some beers want very little calcium, some want quite a bit but it is pretty flavorless. That's why you can't say a water is good for brewing without saying what it is you want to brew. I guess you could say that RO water is good for brewing because you can easily put anything it needs into it and, by extension, those people in the Pacific North West fortuate enough to have essentially RO water coming out of their taps have water that is good for brewing.

 

[ajdelange]

AJ and Martin, does John really say in "Water" that water doesn't matter to professional brewers? That seems utterly ridiculous, but I haven't read the book yet. He didn't tell me that was in the book, but I didn't really get into that much detail either that last time I talked with him.

I don't think so. It would seem silly to write a book on the subject for professional brewers (and they are definitely in the target audience - he lectured on it at MBAA) if they were unconcerned.

He did say in the video clip posted earlier that it is the last thing professional brewers think of but what he meant there, judging from years of correspondence with him and innumerable phone calls and e-mails as the book was going to press, is that water is often deferred as the thing that gets dealt with after all the other factors have been tamped into place. This is consistent with his theme of "Water - the last frontier". While I think that was the case as recently as a few years ago I don't think that's the case any more. Yes, I met a professional brewer a couple of weeks back who didn't understand the difference between chlorine and chloride ion but I think that's pretty exceptional.

He also specifically said in the video and in his talk at Austin that the old saw about any water that tastes good making good beer is false.

 

[Glynn]

Bad water will always make bad beer.

Truer word were never spoken. Some of us have no choice but to make building water important to the style were brewing because our tap water is so bad that it's easier to build from scratch then thin it out with some kind of deionized water

 

[Braufessor]

I'm waiting for somebody to provide something as trivial as anecdotal evidence of the improvement in their beer moving from tap, to RO/DI, to treated RO/DI. By that I mean how did the appearance, smell, taste, etc improve? I'm not being style specific, either, any example will do.

I can provide trivial anecdotal evidence....

I have brewed for 17 (ish) years. From early on my darker beers always turned out better than my lighter/hoppy beers. Never really new why. I have always liked IPA's and had tried to brew them on many ocassions - but they just always came out really harsh. No real hop flavor/aroma - just harsh and astringent. Kind of got to the point that I just quit brewing them.
About 4-5 years ago, I read Palmer's "How to Brew" - even though I had been brewing for over a decade. The water chapter really jumped out at me because I was recognizing things in there that seemed to relate to my brewing. In particular, the information in regard to alkalinity and mash pH with pale/dark grains...... I learned a bit more, got my water tested through Wards and used the information in the book to make some basic water profiles for yellow/amber/dark beers.
My water is very hard and I began to cut it with RO water and add back some minerals if necessary. Took another stab at an IPA and could not believe the beer I brewed - it tasted great. All the hops came through, no astringent harshness - just the way a good IPA should be.

From there, I have gotten a bit more precise using B'run water and getting info from folks on here. I am no expert. But, I know for a fact that I brewed crappy IPA's for over a decade. I changed my water and nothing else - and my pale ales are consistently good-great now.

Funny thing is - I tried changing my water for my stouts and porters by cutting it some and messing with additions - and they got worse. Because of the hardness of my water, it was actually really well suited for the dark beers. Now, I cut 0-100% with RO depending on what I brew and it has made all the difference in the world. In addition to my own perception, the perception of my friends, and feedback from competitions - I can say that learning about MY WATER has made all the difference in the world with my brewing.

I think the degree to which water "matters" is proportionate to what you are dealing with in the first place. Because my water was very hard (270 bicarbonate) it really made it difficult to brew some styles well. If you don't have water that is problematic - it may matter a lot less.

I think everyone should know what they are dealing with in their water though.

 

[Neopol]

I can provide trivial anecdotal evidence....

Concise truth/honesty reality can benefit many! (cant add or decrement empirically)


let the creek runneth

 

[Mindsculptor]

Well, OK. The first time I got it just right it was a Vienna. As soon as I tasted the first glass I said to myself "This is the best beer I ever brewed." That is a fairly non specific statement and it is a bit hard to be specific. I call often call it the "Ah" factor because that's what the drinker says when he tastes it. As one fellow put it here and I have never been able to say it better "All the flavors become brighter". That's still pretty non specific. In this case the essentials elements were control of mash pH to an appropriate level which I implemented with sauermalz, reduction of total minerals to the lowest possible level consistent with a proper level of chloride and elimination of sulfate. The overall impression on the palate was soft but full bodied, the malt component was delicious and the hops present to the extent necessary to balance the malt sweetness but the bitterness was very fine (as a consequence of zeroing out the sulfate). The beer required less lagering i.e. it dropped clear, the jungbuket evanesced faster than usual and the head became the classic meringue.

The "All the flavors..." quote came from someone reporting back in his experience on following what I essentially set out above in his own brewery and as he did that on his own I guess we'd have to accept that as a second piece of anecdotal evidence. If you look back over the posts I think you will find many that imply that manipulation of their water has improved the beer. More and more professional brewers are moving to the RO route and becoming more sophisticated in their understanding of the interactions of grain, hops and water.

Thank you.

I have no idea what that means and a Google search does not help.

It was part joke and part observation that the most sophisticated methods do not necessarily produce even mediocre beer. The Three American Horses is a reference to Bud, Coors, and Miller.

I'm not sure you understand what sophisticated means. From the OED:
"(of a person or their thoughts, reactions, and understanding) aware of and able to interpret complex issues; subtle:"

Perhaps you are confusing sophistication with sophistry - same root.

I understand perfectly well the meaning of sophisticated, it's a fairly basic word in the English language and I'm very far from illiterate.

No one here is actually asking you to grant anything. You have come here and asked why there is so much emphasis on water chemistry. The question has been answered: because proper management of brewing water can improve your beer dramatically.

I came here because I've noticed an undue amount of attention being brought to bear upon water chemistry by novice home brewers who probably don't even have the basic techniques mastered. In every thread where the topic has come up outside this sub-forum, never once have I seen the person inquiring into the topic asked if they're absolutely positive they have every other brewing technique mastered to an adequate degree.

It's an issue when people working on the brewing equivalent of their bachelors (basic all-grain brewing) are worrying about doctoral thesis level (professional brewing) topics. Not only is it premature, but I think it threatens to introduce into the hobby the sort of pretentiousness and snobbery that makes some wine enthusiasts so unbearable.

All that said, I'm now curious enough to conduct some experiments with one gallon batches of single malt/single hop IPAs to see the end result.

 

[GotPushrods]

I came here because I've noticed an undue amount of attention being brought to bear upon water chemistry by novice home brewers who probably don't even have the basic techniques mastered.

If you replace "undue" with "premature" I might see where you're coming from. But even then you can KISS it enough where it doesn't have to come second to other fundamentals.

I agree it's been pretty well covered that attention to water can and will dramatically improve the end beer. Which I think answers the OP pretty simply.

 

[rpkincaid]

It's an issue when people working on the brewing equivalent of their bachelors (basic all-grain brewing) are worrying about doctoral thesis level (professional brewing) topics. Not only is it premature, but I think it threatens to introduce into the hobby the sort of pretentiousness and snobbery that makes some wine enthusiasts so unbearable.

I think getting suitable mash pH is one of the most fundamental issues in brewing.

It's important to realize that water can vary greatly from one place to another.

 

[Braufessor]

If you replace "undue" with "premature" I might see where you're coming from. But even then you can KISS it enough where it doesn't have to come second to other fundamentals.

I agree it's been pretty well covered that attention to water can and will dramatically improve the end beer. Which I think answers the OP pretty simply.

I don't think it is undue or premature for a beginner to pay attention to water - and I think you are alluding to that with what you say in regard to KISS.

As for the OP wondering "why" it is receiving increased attention - I think part of the reason it is becoming more common is that enough people are beginning to understand water well enough to give some really simple advice that will help - even at the beginner level.

I helped someone get started brewing and gave them very simple water advice - just use RO to start with (instead of your really hard/iron tasting well-water) because the extract already had minerals in it that are needed for brewing.

As people get started into all-grain there is the "primer" post or Palmer's "How to brew color chart" that will easily get you in the ball park.

Water chemistry (for most) has always been overwhelming, confusing, threatening....... Thanks to folks like palmer, martin, ajdelange, yooper, and others.....it has become easy enough, and basic enough that beginners CAN pay attention to it. Simply was not the case a few years ago. Water can, and does, make a difference in homebrew - harshness, phenolic/plastic off flavors, dullness in hops...... I have personally experienced these in my beer and the beers of others. Because it has been simplified, it now makes perfect sense to pay attention to it right off the bat - just like fermentation temperatures, or pitching more yeast.

 

[ajdelange]

It was part joke and part observation that the most sophisticated methods do not necessarily produce even mediocre beer. The Three American Horses is a reference to Bud, Coors, and Miller.

This implies that they produce mediocre or worse beer. Their beers are superb. You just don't like them nor, apparently, have the sophistication to appreciate them for what they are or are, most likely, caught up in this silly home brewer's cultural thing where the large commercial breweries are held in contempt. They can turn out a beer from one of their breweries in Main and another from one of their breweries in Hawaii. The ability to do that with a natural product represents a tremendous technical accomplishment. In order to do that they have staffs of inorganic chemists, staffs of biochemists...

I understand perfectly well the meaning of sophisticated, it's a fairly basic word in the English language and I'm very far from illiterate.

I'm sure you are but given that you do understand what it means and say that it is something to be shied away from one has to assume that you find that not being "aware of and able to interpret complex issues; subtle:" is somehow a good thing. I still think you are confused with pseudo sophistication or sophistry. It is, of course, always a good idea to question the pronouncements of the 'experts'. I've learned a great deal by doing that. But I have also encountered those who know nothing about a subject and vigorously resist attempts to inform. In fact it is all too common.

I came here because I've noticed an undue amount of attention being brought to bear upon water chemistry by novice home brewers who probably don't even have the basic techniques mastered.

Probably not. But why would one care that they are talking water before mastering fermentation and not care that they are talking hops before mastering yeast?

In every thread where the topic has come up outside this sub-forum, never once have I seen the person inquiring into the topic asked if they're absolutely positive they have every other brewing technique mastered to an adequate degree.

Again I ask: why should water be the final thing? The answer has, in the past, been because there are some nuances in the chemistry and because while it was true that one could easily increase the concentration means for decreasing methods were out of reach. Hence John Palmers 'Final Frontier' thing. That is no more.

When learning brewing most of us started with tins of extract because mashing is deemed too complicated for a novice. In those days you put the extract into whatever water you had and a)that didn't make any difference with respect to OG because all the extraction took place before you opened the tin and b) you didn't have any options. Today there is an option which is sort of the aqueous equivalent of extract and that is RO water with a tsp of calcium chloride and perhaps some gypsum in it.

It's an issue when people working on the brewing equivalent of their bachelors (basic all-grain brewing) are worrying about doctoral thesis level (professional brewing) topics.

Why is it an issue? Water chemistry is, as I noted earlier, Henderson-Hasselbalch with Debye Hückel with the latter being optional. This is freshman level stuff. Getting the water right is very much a part of basic all grain brewing and something anyone with a teaspoon, an LHBS that sells gypsum and calcium chloride, and access to RO water can do. Why would you care if people who don't fully understand something discuss it among themselves? This is part of learning.

Not only is it premature, but I think it threatens to introduce into the hobby the sort of pretentiousness and snobbery that makes some wine enthusiasts so unbearable.

If you go to brew club meeting or the AHA convention or any similar gathering you are going to find people talking about things you don't understand. There are two approaches to this. Be offended by it and turn your back or resolve to be able to understand the next time you go back.

All that said, I'm now curious enough to conduct some experiments with one gallon batches of single malt/single hop IPAs to see the end result.

..und es war Licht!

 

[Epimetheus]

I came here because I've noticed an undue amount of attention being brought to bear upon water chemistry by novice home brewers who probably don't even have the basic techniques mastered.

Guilty as charged. However, after reading much info on the water threads, it finally sunk in I should not worry so much about water until I can execute the basics consistently. Still working on that . Although a little calcium chloride helps my soft water create reasonable dark brews.

never once have I seen the person inquiring into the topic asked if they're absolutely positive they have every other brewing technique mastered to an adequate degree.

In my small experience, the members here with advanced knowledge are very considerate and gently suggest to newbies that they should, essentially, practice more and worry less. I think newbies can be identified by their posted questions, so it is not necessary to ask if they have mastered the techniques.

I do not favor either extreme of beer illiterate or PhD. I am working towards becoming a decent craftsman. In that, I greatly appreciate the advice and time of the experts, and enjoy the experiments of other members (search for brewing Ovaltine).

 

[grathan]

It would be nice to separate discussions about mash ph with those of "water profiles", but that rarely happens. It seems the latter gets attached to the importance of tannins extraction every single time.


Probably safe to assume recipes don't include water profiles because they really aren't that important.

 

[DrWill]

It's not.

Since beer is made up mostly of water, it's generally one of the first things pro and good homebrewers worry about.

However, worrying about it doesn't necessarily mean doing much about it. Some breweries are set up right where they are simply because the water is great for brewing. Few (if any) brewers adjust their water to match a certain profile- they instead may adjust their water to enhance the flavor of the beer.

Good water tends to make good beer, and knowing more about the water and mashing process interactions can make great beer. Bad water will always make bad beer.

I was waiting for someone to point out that since water is the biggest single ingredient in your beer, you might be well advised to give it some thought. And Yooper is spot on in the first line. Water profiles are important to craft brewers, just like malt analysis sheets and hop labels and yeast quality.

 

[ajdelange]

It would be nice to separate discussions about mash ph with those of "water profiles", but that rarely happens.

They are inseparable. There are two aspects to brewing water chemistry. The first is far and away more important and that is getting mash pH right. It doesn't matter how you manage part 2 (adjusting chloride and sulfate for flavor) if you haven't done part 1 correctly or if your management of part 2 has a detrimental effect on part 1.

It seems the latter gets attached to the importance of tannins extraction every single time.

Tannins will be more readily extracted if sparge water pH is high. If the sparge water has appreciable alkalinity the acids in the mash will be insufficient to overcome it and pH will rise. This is easily overcome and is quite a separate matter from mash pH.

Probably safe to assume recipes don't include water profiles because they really aren't that important.

Where a familiar style of beer is being brewed it is often, and usually quite correctly, assumed that the brewer will know the appropriate water composition. Thus there is little need to put information about water in a recipe for, e.g., Bohemian Pilsner. Now if you are writing a book or article about Bohemian Pils there should be a section on water and if you are doing an article about an unfamiliar style (e.g. Gose) then water information should and usually is given. As I am beginning to feel that home brewing has finally turned the corner on water treatment (largely beacause the tools are available to us) I am also seeing much more and much better information about water appearing in the publications, here on the net...

 

[Yooper]

Water chemistry (for most) has always been overwhelming, confusing, threatening....... Thanks to folks like palmer, martin, ajdelange, yooper, and others.....it has become easy enough, and basic enough that beginners CAN pay attention to it. Simply was not the case a few years ago. Water can, and does, make a difference in homebrew - harshness, phenolic/plastic off flavors, dullness in hops...... I have personally experienced these in my beer and the beers of others. Because it has been simplified, it now makes perfect sense to pay attention to it right off the bat - just like fermentation temperatures, or pitching more yeast.

I just have to point out that I am NOT a water expert at all, and should not be considered in the same breath as those folks. I use Palmer's, AJ's, Martin's, and Kai Troesters papers, books, spreadsheets, websites, and articles to try to glean a little bit of knowledge from their writings and experiments myself. I'm many years removed from chemistry and biochemistry, except in specific terms relating to healthcare. I haven't had an advanced chemistry class in 30 years!


A simple answer to the OP's question is just this- since beer usually has four ingredients: water, hops, malt, and yeast- then attention should be paid to all four ingredients. No one ingredient is more important than another, but water does have the ability to ruin the beer quickest oftentimes.

 

[Braufessor]

I just have to point out that I am NOT a water expert at all, and should not be considered in the same breath as those folks. I use Palmer's, AJ's, Martin's, and Kai Troesters papers, books, spreadsheets, websites, and articles to try to glean a little bit of knowledge from their writings and experiments myself.

You may not be an "expert" in the same breath as the others - but you spend a lot of time helping a lot of brewers by posting concise, easy to follow advice in the realm of water (and other areas). You also spend a lot of time directing brewers, new and old, to relevant information on the subject by others. You, and other "nonexperts" on the board have all helped to make this often "intimidating" information so much more accessible to so many more brewers than it was just a few years ago. A person does not need to be an expert to do a great job explaining expert advice to others - I think that is the roll many people play on this board - yourself included.

And, I think that is why people are so curious about water now - they can be.