Am I the only one that uses epsom salt (MgSO4) in my water profile?

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.

ryanj

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2017
Messages
250
Reaction score
93
Everyone talks about adding Calcium Chloride and Gypsum, but I never hear of anyone adding epsom salt (which effects the Magnesium levels in the resulting water profile). According the EZ Water Calculator, Palmer recommends a Magnesium level of 10-30ppm which usually means about 4 grams of epsom salt.
 
I use it. Not as large of an addition as the other two you listed usually, but it adds sulfate as well...
 
Malt provides plenty of magnesium and additional is not necessary, but I generally do add epsom salt to my water. While it’s typically less than 20 ppm Mg that I’m adding, its useful when sulfate is desired without Ca.
 
I’ve recently heard Mitch Steele talk about using Epsom salt to raise Sulfate levels without CA. John Kimmich has been referenced in saying he prefers to use Mgs04 in his Belgian beers. Hill Farmstead saisons test higher in Magnesium than what could be provided by the malt. I saw it on the salts table at Treehouse the other day when I was there, albeit the bag was much smaller than the bags of Gypsum and CaCl. There’s some good evidence that it’s used by some of the highest regarded brewers/breweries in the US. To what extent it’s used? I’m not sure. It’s the one salt I haven’t really experimented with. Might have to split a beer and up the MgSo4 content in half to see if it’s effects are noticeable.
 
Malt provides plenty of magnesium and additional is not necessary, but I generally do add epsom salt to my water. While it’s typically less than 20 ppm Mg that I’m adding, its useful when sulfate is desired without Ca.

Can you give an example of a scenario where it’s preferred to add more Mg than Ca?

I used to use Epsom in my IPA water but in the last couple years I’ve simplified all my salts to just calcium chloride, calcium sulfate (IPA only) and sodium chloride.
 
Can you give an example of a scenario where it’s preferred to add more Mg than Ca?

I used to use Epsom in my IPA water but in the last couple years I’ve simplified all my salts to just calcium chloride, calcium sulfate (IPA only) and sodium chloride.

Sure. Using a Mg salt is helpful when you would have to add significant Ca salts to achieve your desired Cl or SO4 levels. Ca has proven to be detrimental to the fermentation performance of lager yeasts and it probably also adversely affects ale yeasts that haven't been acclimated to high Ca water. Ca ions preferentially displace Mg ions from yeast cell walls and that can have an adverse metabolic effect on the yeast. High Ca content in brewing liquor is NOT always a good thing.

I often use a minor addition of epsom salt in most of my brews and I definitely use it when targeting water for pale ales and IPAs.
 
Sure. Using a Mg salt is helpful when you would have to add significant Ca salts to achieve your desired Cl or SO4 levels. Ca has proven to be detrimental to the fermentation performance of lager yeasts and it probably also adversely affects ale yeasts that haven't been acclimated to high Ca water. Ca ions preferentially displace Mg ions from yeast cell walls and that can have an adverse metabolic effect on the yeast. High Ca content in brewing liquor is NOT always a good thing.

I often use a minor addition of epsom salt in most of my brews and I definitely use it when targeting water for pale ales and IPAs.
Interesting! What would you say is a non detrimental ca level for all yeasts?
 
I add Epsom Salt to my pale beers and use NaCl for all my chloride in pale beers, as i have very soft water which is totally devoid of Na and Mg. I'm very happy with the results too.
 
I use it to get sulphate levels up and also aids in MG levels as people have said. I also use NaCl to help chloride levels when needed.
 
I do, usually to supplement the sulfate level when used in conjunction with gypsum. My water has sufficient Ca, so unless I'm looking for elevated Ca, I hold back a bit on the gypsum.
 
Interesting! What would you say is a non detrimental ca level for all yeasts?

All yeasts?? I don't think that such a level can be stated. However, its been apparent that many lager yeasts are known to perform better in lower calcium water. That's probably due to the liklihood that that yeast variant has acclimated to the low calcium water that was used for its historic beer production.

There may be some ale yeast variants that would also prefer lower calcium content. For example, there are some yeasts that are known for flocculating too early. Since increased calcium content is directly correlated to how well yeast tends to flocculate, it is feasible that those 'early flocculators' should be used in worts produced with low calcium water.

There is no minimum calcium level in water needed for yeast metabolism since the malt provides all the calcium that the yeast need for their metabolism. But there are other reasons to have calcium in your brewing liquor: enhanced enzyme activity, oxalate precipitation, pH reduction. But probably the most recognizable reason is for the delivery of chloride and sulfate for beer perception.

I suggest that any brewer that has problems with premature yeast floccing, look at the calcium level they have in their brewing liquor and try reducing it, if possible.
 
Is there a range where added calcium should become a concern and magnesium is then preferred?
 
In most brews, I add 1/8 tsp or more. Depending on the brew, if I'm adding Calcium Carbonate, I may add more Epsom salt to add sulfate without increasing the calcium.
 
Last edited:
All yeasts?? I don't think that such a level can be stated. However, its been apparent that many lager yeasts are known to perform better in lower calcium water. That's probably due to the liklihood that that yeast variant has acclimated to the low calcium water that was used for its historic beer production.

There may be some ale yeast variants that would also prefer lower calcium content. For example, there are some yeasts that are known for flocculating too early. Since increased calcium content is directly correlated to how well yeast tends to flocculate, it is feasible that those 'early flocculators' should be used in worts produced with low calcium water.

There is no minimum calcium level in water needed for yeast metabolism since the malt provides all the calcium that the yeast need for their metabolism. But there are other reasons to have calcium in your brewing liquor: enhanced enzyme activity, oxalate precipitation, pH reduction. But probably the most recognizable reason is for the delivery of chloride and sulfate for beer perception.

I suggest that any brewer that has problems with premature yeast floccing, look at the calcium level they have in their brewing liquor and try reducing it, if possible.

Thanks. I saw that coming, as always, many factors to look at. Would be boring if everything would be easy, wouldn't it? :D

Good to know that initial calcium levels of the water are not a factor of yeast health, at least it gives us more options to play.
 
Do we know of any especially beneficial levels of magnesium? Is there a rough ballpark threshold of mins and maximums that we can put down here?
 
Though I add a small amount of Epsom salt to most brews, it is not really necessary for all grain. The malt contains plenty of magnesium. If I were using extract, I would shoot for 10-30 ppm Mg as yeast nutrient. Having said that, I should add that I add a small amount of Fermaid O yeast nutrient to nearly all my brews. More for colder ferments such as lagers.
 
Last edited:
Related to this topic, how many of you have utilized magnesium chloride (MgCl2) as one of your brewing minerals?
 
Related to this topic, how many of you have utilized magnesium chloride (MgCl2) as one of your brewing minerals?
I've thought about it to the point of making some up but don't think I ever actually used it. I mention this because No. 21 jogged my memory. This side of the pond Epsom Salts are used for foot baths and so are available (in USP grade ??) at any pharmacy by the pound cheap. To make MgCl2 dissolve a bunch of MgSO4 in DI water and add some lye pellets until a heavy gel forms this is Mg(OH2). Decant the liquid and wash the gel a couple of times with more DI water and then don't decant after the last DI addition. The washing gets rid of sodium sulfate (sodium from the lye; sulfate from the epsom salts) and any excess lye. Carefully add HCl until the gel is all dissolved and the pH is approximately neutral. You now have a solution of MgCl2 but how strong is it? You can get a rough estimate by assuming that all the Mg from the epsom salts was precipitated and that no Mg(OH)2 got washed away or you can use a hardness test kit to determine the magnesium hardness of a dilution of your solution. You can also boil away the water leaving the powder MgCl2.nH2O but then there is a question as to what n is. If you continue to heat beyond where all the water is boiled off you will have mostly MgCl2.6H2O.
 
I just saw what was listed as "USP (Pharmaceutical Grade)" magnesium chloride on Amazon.com. No need to make it.
 
For some reason, people are reluctant to add Epsom salt. It adds magnesium, and sulfate, so what's the big deal? There is magnesium in malted grains, and if you're adding gypsum, you're adding sulfate. As long as your salt additions are within the correct range for the style you are brewing, why does it matter what the source of your magnesium or sulfate additions?
 
It adds magnesium, and sulfate, so what's the big deal? There is magnesium in malted grains,
The big deal is that added magnesium beyond quite modest levels imparts an unpleasant sour/bitter flavor to the beer with the paradox being that such amounts are quite small relative to the huge amount of magnesium already in the grain. It must be an bound/available thing.

and if you're adding gypsum, you're adding sulfate.
Now that I don't like.
 
Magnesium tastes horrible, and is easily overused/misused. Its uses to increase sulfate and reduce mash pH are also extremely limited. Anyway malt itself contains plenty of magnesium on its own. We don't need to add any more than is already there. As such I really don't recommend its use by anyone. If you absolutely must dick around with your water, go ahead and use it, I can't stop you. I myself don't use it anymore; I see no need at all.
 
There's an old story about Rolling Rock, famous for its little green bottles (there was a bar in Happy Valley where we bought them by the bushel basket full) and its DMS. It was bought by a mega brewer (can't remember who) who as a first step in bringing them into the modern world changed the process to eliminate the DMS. Sales plummeted. With that as background I'll mention that there are a couple of beers out there that are brewed with water with high magnesium content. If, for whatever reason, you wish to mimic one of those beers you would have to add a magnesium salt to the liquor. That's the only reason I can think of to do it.
 
The big deal is that added magnesium beyond quite modest levels imparts an unpleasant sour/bitter flavor to the beer with the paradox being that such amounts are quite small relative to the huge amount of magnesium already in the grain. It must be an bound/available thing.

Now that I don't like.
Yes, I agree. That's why I said as long as the levels are in the range appropriate for the style. I brew AG, and the small amount I add is about 3 ppm. At those levels, I don't really taste a difference. I know it isn't necessary, but I got into the habit of adding it for yeast health. When brewing hoppier styles such as IPA, I do like to add a bit more MgSO4, but try not to exceed 10 ppm. To my taste, it seems to be a more rounded bitterness.
 
  1. The waters of Vienna and Burton-on-Trent both have high magnesium levels. So does Milwaukee. I do not like the taste of Epsom salt, nor do I care for the taste of gypsum. With the combined mix of minerals from water and grain, if you add gypsum, you will have magnesium and sulfate in the mash. I guess everyone has different taste thresholds. For me, I like a bit (but not a lot) of MgSO4 in IPAs and also in some darker or heavier styles.
 
Now you guys have me thinking. I'm going to delete the Epsom salt from the brews I use it in, and see if I notice a difference. The truth is, I realize that I've been so busy with other things the last few months, that I have not devoted enough time and attention to my brewing. Thanks for bringing me back to consciousness!
 
Last edited:
Hi all,

First time using a combination of Epsom salt, Kosher salt, and calcium carbonate to my NE IPA—was instead using mostly gypsum. The Washington, DC (Northern VA) area has moderately hard water. I wanted more Mg but not too much, and more SO4 but not too much, and this was the ticket. The malt flavor is quite distinct this time—accentuates the sweetness, and the fermentation was wayyy cleaner (no yeast burn this time).

All I’m saying is there’s something to Epsom salt—I used just 1.8g for the entire batch.
 
Hi all,

First time using a combination of Epsom salt, Kosher salt, and calcium carbonate to my NE IPA—was instead using mostly gypsum. The Washington, DC (Northern VA) area has moderately hard water. I wanted more Mg but not too much, and more SO4 but not too much, and this was the ticket. The malt flavor is quite distinct this time—accentuates the sweetness, and the fermentation was wayyy cleaner (no yeast burn this time).

All I’m saying is there’s something to Epsom salt—I used just 1.8g for the entire batch.

Well using calcium carbonate (chalk) is an error- but it probably didn't do anything anyway if you didn't do extraneous measures to dissolve it.

If 1.8 grams of epsom salt made your beer better, that's great. (But I think it's something else- no way magnesium sulfate accentuated any sweetness! That would be the NaCl- table salt, with the cloride ion.)
 
A triangle test, especially a double blind one, is not the trivial exercise most people seem to think it is. People often think they are doing meaningful triangle tests when they are not. Infamous for this are the Brulosophy experiments. For starters you need a facility in which the tasters can be completely isolated from one another. For another, as an example, if the goal is to determine whether extra magnesium benefits or detriments a beer you must brew two beers, one with the extra magnesium and one without. If, for whatever reason, including an effect of the magnesium, one of the beers should be lighter or darker than the other, the triangle test will report a significant difference - that's all a triangle test can do - because panelists will see the color difference right away, before they even taste or smell the beer. Unless the color change is masked.

Another thing to keep in mind is that a triangle test is a test of the panel - not the beer. Thus a triangle test done with panelists drawn from BJCP Master Judges may give a different result from one drawn from the general public.

As what you really care about is whether augmented magnesium improves your enjoyment of your beer a much easier and more meaningful test is to take samples of your beer brewed with normal magnesium (my well water in McLean runs about 15mg/L IIRC) and taste them after adding in a few drops of an epsom salts solution. This should give you some indication as to whether magnesium with the accompanying sulfate improves or degrades the beer in your opinion. So include you SO, drinking buddy... in these experiments. If the result is that MgSO4 makes a better tasting beer then augment the MgSO4 addition next time you brew. Keep adjusting until you hit the sweet spot.

Yes, it takes time and effort but all I am asking you to do is brew and drink more beer. How onerous is that?
 
Back
Top