A Brewing Water Chemistry Primer

[Broothru]

That's true of my digital electronic refractometer as well. The only physical difference between the two products appears to be the color of the external case and the logo.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

I have been using my Hanna HI98121 pH tester for over six years now and love it.

 

[Birrofilo]

That's true of my digital electronic refractometer as well. The only physical difference between the two products appears to be the color of the external case and the logo.

If we look at the manuals, the Hanna's says "two drops" and the Milwaukee's says "2-3 drops". Response time: Hanna: 1,5 seconds. Milwaukee: 2 seconds.

I think this is marketing tweaking in order to artificially differentiate two identical products. Accuracy is 0,2 Brix for both (they state 0,2 % but that's obviously wrong, they certainly mean 0,2 Brix, which is a percentage. Although I have to see it would have been more honest to say 0,2 Brix).

 

[Broothru]

If we look at the manuals, the Hanna's says "two drops" and the Milwaukee's says "2-3 drops". Response time: Hanna: 1,5 seconds. Milwaukee: 2 seconds.

I think this is marketing tweaking in order to artificially differentiate two identical products. Accuracy is 0,2 Brix for both (they state 0,2 % but that's obviously wrong, they certainly mean 0,2 Brix, which is a percentage. Although I have to see it would have been more honest to say 0,2 Brix).

A little off-topic, but maybe someone can answer. My work area for brewing and wine making has incandescent lighting (8' ceiling, 100W bulbs), but the work area where I usually take refractometer readings has a suspended fluorescent fixture. I've noticed a slight variation between readings registered under the two light sources. This seems odd since I'd have thought that the refractive indices would only (at least predominently) dependent on the media they were passing through, rather than the light source being refracted.

The differences are not great, perhaps only a 1/1000th of a derived SG point (Novotny calculation). Still more accurate than I can do with a narrow range calibrated hydrometer, and uses a lot less sample.

A difference between hand held and bench mounted electronic devices is the sample size. Although the directions says "1or 2 drops" I've found that I get more consistent readings when I flood the well of the electronic refractometer. It still takes only 1ml or less, but when I use a 1-2 drop sample, if I take multiple readings of the same sample over a period of several minutes I can get some "drift" in the readings that's not there when I flood the sample well.

None of these are deal breakers for me, and I genuinely favor refractometers over hydrometers. Much easier to chill a shot glass of boiling wort down to 16°C during a brew session than trying to do the same with a hydrometer sample jar. Less wasteful, too.

 

[Birrofilo]

For what I know, manual refractometers are calibrated for "daylight" (supposing such a thing exist, I imagine a certain high-quality light source with a very broad spectrum) and whenever they are used in a different light source they might give an imprecise result.
I suppose, though, that the error is minimal, especially if one takes the precaution to "zero" the instrument in the same light of the reading.
In the last decades or so, both incandescent lights and fluorescent lights have become much better in mimicking sun light.

Digital refractometers have their own light source, which is constant, and one must only take the precaution to cover the sample with one hand, or a cardboard etc. during measurement, because the instrument must not be "blinded" by ambient light.

The drift of measurement might be due to evaporation. When one only puts 1 or 2 drops, the evaporation is much faster than if one "floods" the pit. On the other hand, flooding has other disadvantages if the liquid is not very clear and if it is at a different temperature as the instrument. I now use a coffee filter and I filter the samples, I find the results much more consistent, with minimal drift between measurements.

I move the refractometer a couple hours in advance in the room, and I put at the same time the distilled water in a couple coffee cups (for zeroing and cleaning) so as to have those at the same temperature. If I measure the density of a beer from the fermenter, I also move a coffee cup in the room together with the rest.

After I drop the drops on the measuring lens, I wait for 4 or 5 seconds before taking the density so as to allow the temperatures to equalize.

 

[BrewerE]

For what I know, manual refractometers are calibrated for "daylight" (supposing such a thing exist, I imagine a certain high-quality light source with a very broad spectrum) and whenever they are used in a different light source they might give an imprecise result.

this is probably in reference to the light's "temperature" in Kelvin.
Very important in digital photography and can see examples if you search 'LED light temperature'

 

[Birrofilo]

this is probably in reference to the light's "temperature" in Kelvin.
Very important in digital photography and can see examples if you search 'LED light temperature'

Very important in analogue photography as well! That's why I say "supposing such a thing exist", instruments are probably calibrated to the emission of the "black body" heated to 5600 °K, just like it was standard for daylight film, but daylight actually varies from 5000 to 7000 °K in full light (in the shade with a clear blue sky the light is very bluish).

Fluorescent lamps and incandescent lamps don't have the spectrum breadth of the daylight and so, even if they "hit" the °K rating, they might not give exact results on a refractometer.

 

[WhoDatDad78]

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.

I'm brewing Jamil's Dunkelweizen from Brewing Classic Styles, since it utilizes some roasted malts do I follow the roast malt profile or the soft water profile? Apologies if this has already been answered, I did try to find a similar post.

 

[WhoDatDad78]

I'm brewing Jamil's Dunkelweizen from Brewing Classic Styles, since it utilizes some roasted malts do I follow the roast malt profile or the soft water profile? Brewing with 100% R/O if that matters.. Apologies if this has already been answered, I did try to find a similar post.

 

[Tyler B]

I'm brewing Jamil's Dunkelweizen from Brewing Classic Styles, since it utilizes some roasted malts do I follow the roast malt profile or the soft water profile? Apologies if this has already been answered, I did try to find a similar post.

What kind of water are you starting with? Do you use any brewing software?

 

[WhoDatDad78]

What kind of water are you starting with? Do you use any brewing software?

R/o water I have bru'n water

 

[Tyler B]

I use Brewers friend (free) for my recipes. You can add all if the salts as well. Then I confirm that my numbers are correct in EZ water calculator for pH. I'd imagine bru'n water is similar.

When using software you can choose whatever profile you want and make sure pH is right. After that it mostly comes down to flavor preference. You'll have to experiment to figure out what you like. I don't have enough experience to tell you how one profile will taste vs another.

Just try one out and see for yourself.

 

[balrog]

DUnkelweizen doesn't have that high a percentage of dark malts typically so personally I would aim for baseline. If it's half dark munich, aim for an amber ale profile--more chloride than sulfate to accentuate the malt.

I will note that years after he did the original post, AJ said he'd halve things as "current" trend was toward less minerally beer.

In the brew your best series, Josh Weikert uses simply wheat and Munich, with only 6oz C120 2oz CarafaII. I've followed his guidelines for great results on several styles, fwiw.

 

[seabrew8]

DUnkelweizen doesn't have that high a percentage of dark malts typically so personally I would aim for baseline. If it's half dark munich, aim for an amber ale profile--more chloride than sulfate to accentuate the malt.

I will note that years after he did the original post, AJ said he'd halve things as "current" trend was toward less minerally beer.

In the brew your best series, Josh Weikert uses simply wheat and Munich, with only 6oz C120 2oz CarafaII. I've followed his guidelines for great results on several styles, fwiw.

So the numbers suggested in the original post in the thread should be cut in half? Both the calcium and acid malt?

I never went down the brewing water hole far, yet!

 

[balrog]

So the numbers suggested in the original post in the thread should be cut in half? Both the calcium and acid malt?

I never went down the brewing water hole far, yet!

see this post in this thread where he now recommends half the salt; he does not mention acid malt change and I would presume acid malt is for pH balance and not flavor anyway and would not change his original recommendations.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/a-brewing-water-chemistry-primer.198460/post-8454299

 

[1634_Racine]

HI All. I'm just starting to dabble a bit more in the water chemistry and would appreciate any advice on the following. I'm looking to adjust my base water for a pale ale recipe.

Source water as follows:

Calcium (ppm)	Magnesium (ppm)	Alkalinity as CaCO3	Sulfate (ppm)	Chloride (ppm)	Sodium (ppm)	Water pH
26	5	79	40	51	62	7.7

So I figured a generous addition of Gypsum would bump up my calcium and sulphates. Then a smaller addition of Epsom salts to bring me to the following:

Final Calcium (ppm)	Final Magnesium (ppm)	Final Total Alkalinity as CaCO3	Final Sulfate (ppm)	Final Chloride (ppm)	Final Sodium (ppm)	Final Residual Alkalinity as CaCO3
88	15	79	228	51	62	7

However, when I use that target water profile in Beersmith I get an estimated mash pH of 5.64. Grain bill is just MO + small amount of crystal.

If I include an acid addition to remove at alkalinity I get a very low RA and Beersmith says it only reduces estimated mash pH to 5.53

Final Calcium (ppm)	Final Magnesium (ppm)	Final Total Alkalinity as CaCO3	Final Sulfate (ppm)	Final Chloride (ppm)	Final Sodium (ppm)	Final Residual Alkalinity as CaCO3
88	15	-1	228	108	62	-73

Any thoughts on what a good approach would be to get a suitable water profile and mash pH?

 

[jerrylotto]

Mash pH should be in the 5.2 - 5.6 range
pH shift = 0.00168 * RA (as CaCO3) or pH shift = 0.084 * RA (as mEq/L)
So nothing wrong with a negative RA to lower the pH.

 

[VikeMan]

Then a smaller addition of Epsom salts to bring me to the following:

If I were starting out with 5 ppm magnesium, I wouldn't add any more. In fact, I usually build from distilled water and don't add any magnesium.

If I include an acid addition to remove at alkalinity I get a very low RA and Beersmith says it only reduces estimated mash pH to 5.53

Final Calcium (ppm)	Final Magnesium (ppm)	Final Total Alkalinity as CaCO3	Final Sulfate (ppm)	Final Chloride (ppm)	Final Sodium (ppm)	Final Residual Alkalinity as CaCO3
88	15	-1	228	108	62	-73

Any thoughts on what a good approach would be to get a suitable water profile and mash pH?

If you want a lower pH after getting the minerals where you want them, add more acid.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

Any thoughts on what a good approach would be to get a suitable water profile and mash pH?

Might have been better to start a new thread with your question. Why did the Chloride number change in your last profile?

 

[1634_Racine]

If I were starting out with 5 ppm magnesium, I wouldn't add any more. In fact, I usually build from distilled water and don't add any magnesium.



If you want a lower pH after getting the minerals where you want them, add more acid.

i thought Magnesium was good for yeast. I may be wrong. Agree it is not an essential addition though

 

[1634_Racine]

Might have been better to start a new thread with your question. Why did the Chloride number change in your last profile?

Yeah I wasn’t sure of the protocol so ended up with a bit of a thread hijack.

The Chloride number increases as I add more carbonate reducing acid. And then that creates a problem for me because I want to keep a high sulphate/chloride ratio. To keep the ratio I need to pile in more Gypsum and start looking at 300ppm +

 

[balrog]

Malt itself brings Mg to the table, @1634_Racine , with specialty grains more, adjuncts much less.
See for instance, this, esp starting page 8.

 

[1634_Racine]

Malt itself brings Mg to the table, @1634_Racine , with specialty grains more, adjuncts much less.
See for instance, this, esp starting page 8.

Funnily enough I was just listening to an old Brulosophy podcast that was talking about the importance of magnesium for the Maillard reaction

 

[jerrylotto]

Magnesium ion is essential for yeast physiology, but in trace amounts along with Barium, Iron Cobalt, Nickel and Copper.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Mash pH should be in the 5.2 - 5.6 range
pH shift = 0.00168 * RA (as CaCO3) or pH shift = 0.084 * RA (as mEq/L)
So nothing wrong with a negative RA to lower the pH.

But the very notion of RA itself has been rather thoroughly debunked at least as regards the Mash. First (and partially) by AJ deLange, and then (thoroughly and totally) by Chemists Barth and Zaman. The formerly presumed fixed Ca and Mg divisors are actually wildly variable variables.

 

[jerrylotto]

Still useful as a back of the envelope kind of calculation IMHO. YMMV

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Still useful as a back of the envelope kind of calculation IMHO. YMMV

Indeed it does vary. That's the entire point. And if you don't know the direction or magnitude of the variance(s), the usefulness isn't logically very useful.

Barth and Zaman looked at only 3 nominally 'base' malts. Kolbach said the Ca++ divisor is a fixed 3.5. Barth and Zaman found it to be roughly 7.2, 12.3, and 14.2 (from memory) depending upon which malt they repeat tested. And what is the truth for the myriads of malts they didn't test? 3.5 as a divisor value isn't even in the ballpark.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

AJ deLange determined (as guided by translations he made of Kolbach's actual research) that Kolbach's 3.5 divisor (I.E., every extant 3.5 mEq of Ca++ ions will liberate 1 mEq of H+ ions) was intended for post boil and cooling. AJ guessed that perhaps 50% of this might occur within the mash proper. I.E., AJ determined that the Ca++ divisor is approximately 7 for the mash proper. Barth and Zaman's 'Pale' malt lot agreed with AJ. Their other two malts (Pilsner and Munich as I recall) did not agree with a divisor of 7.

 

[1634_Racine]

Thanks for the advice all. I've been doing a bit more reading and listening to a few podcasts on water treatments. From all of that my conclusion is that I will not get too hung up on precise numbers - just going to make sure I have sufficient calcium and good sulphate/chloride ratio. Mash pH might still be a bit too high but I'm not going to die in a ditch over it.

@balrog and @jerrylotto - one thing I came across that might be of interest to you was John Palmer talking briefly about magnesium in this podcast - Beersmith 237

Towards the end he talks about importance of magnesium for yeast and some new theory on why calcium/magnesium ratio is important for yeast health. This might include bringing up magnesium levels up to 50ppm in the mash liquour

 

[VikeMan]

Towards the end he talks about importance of magnesium for yeast and some new theory on why calcium/magnesium ratio is important for yeast health. This might include bringing up magnesium levels up to 50ppm in the mash liquour

I have three comments on this (and no, I didn't listen to the podcast).

1) At 50 ppm, magnesium is very likely to come across as bitter and/or sour.
2) I would bet a paycheck that 99% of best of show beers have been brewed with much lower (or no) magnesium levels from the water.
3) "Yeast health" (depending on context) is not always synonymous with "best beer." The goal is to make the best possible beer, not the best possible pile of yeast.