Does any serious brewer use Malic, Tartaric, Citric or Acetic acids?

[ajdelange]

Definitely interesting from an historical perspective. Some errors, of course, but it was written in 1955 and as such it is also naive in several regards in terms of what we now know about brewing water chemistry. But one place or another he seems to pick up all the advantages of calcium I gave in the list in No. 27.

Most interesting is his early explanation of the phosphate calcium recognition and failure to mention that the same reaction occurs with calcium and bicarbonate until much later when he mentions using it as a means of decarbonation IOW he is aware that pH is lowered in the mash tun by the phosphate reaction but unaware that this can happen with carbonate in the HLT too. Perhaps in commercial brewing where the volumes of liquor are so large relative to the home brewing scale the reaction is impeded by the inability of CO2 to escape.

He also mentions in a couple of places that precipitation of phosphate reduces the buffering of mash and wort seeming to be unaware that mash and wort pH are where the buffering of the phosphate system is mininimum i.e. about half way between the first two pK's of phosphoric acid.

WRT to sulfate to chloride ratio: It is quite clear that he understands, from his description of what those two ions do, that their concentrations represent two degrees of freedom. Thus when he talks about ratios he is talking about the relative amounts of the independent effects of those ions desired.

He also seems unaware that liquor decarbonated by lime treatment is not excessively alkaline (about 1 mEq/L) if the treatment is properly carried out. It is thus not necessary to add additional acid or an acid salt unless alkalinity below 1 mEq/L is desired.

He indicates that not all liquor alkalinity should be neutralized. All liquor alkalinity (WRT mash pH - not titration end point pH) should be neutralized in cases where the alkalinity of the grist requires it. In cases where the converse is true of course the alkalinty of the liquor should not be completely neutralized. In some cases it actually needs to be augmented.

 

[cire]

Fascinating. Kills me I probably can't get ahold of their products to try the regime out. One question I have, and it may be a noob question, but when they indicate the g/L of beer to be made, of the salts, to be added into the mash; I don't have the math in front of me but I presume the figures in green reflect this?

In other words, what I've done (until your suggestion, actually), is build a "cistern" where liquor is just liquor, for the whole brew. Acids and salts are in to get, say, TA=32, calcium, SO4, Cl to be at the level suggested. It looks like I should be adding these salts into the mash; the sparge water gets no salts; and the figures in green are for cast-volume of wort (i.e., batch size). Is this correct? Not ppm of the MLT or HLT liquor?

Not sure which of the two you refer to as they are in some respects different to one another

The green shaded numbers are the theoretical levels of ions prior to fermentation. Of course in practise none of those amounts will be remotely correct, calcium will be at most half ot the quoted quantity, magnesium vastly more as will be chloride while sulphate somewhat less enhanced while alkalinity if artificial from sodium or potassium will be correct while any from calcium will have been deposited in the kettle from boiling.

The g/L salt additions is straight forward really although it conflicts with most spreadsheet calculators. If the salts are evenly distributed through the liquor, then those salts in the latter part of the sparge remain in the mash while when added to the grains in the mash will mostly be rinsed through by unsalted sparge liquor and it will be unsalted sparge liquor which will remain in the grist.

You will see that had AMS been used to partially reduce the liquor alkalinity in the lager with a lesser quantity of lactic acid, then with less gypsum and calcium chloride flake the same sulphate and chloride levels could be achieved but with a lower level of calcium which might fit better some needs.

It's a different way of looking at the same problem.

 

[user 246304]

OK, thanks Cire. I think I get it. Ignoring losses in the mash tun or kettle, it was just a very basic question that the nominal "400 ppm SO4," let's say, would obviously be different if dropped into a mash liquor of 12 gallons, than if dropped into the entire 20 gallons of mash + sparge liquor (still 400 ppm, maybe 40 grams). If it truly was based on only 12 gallons, I had the question of whether by adding the salt-less sparge, you've diluted the ppm of the salt in question, so you end up with a far lower final beer concentration of the desired salts.

In my case, with a TA of 280 or so, adding in enough HCl to bring it down to 30; I'd planned for this next brew, a strong bitter, to bring the total MLT + HLT liquor to an SO4 of 349 and Cl of 229 by 45 g CaSO4. And merely acidify the sparge.

This is somewhat different than I did for the previous brew, the intended RIS. I acidified to get the mash liquor to TA = 100 or so, MLT to 50 or so, but salted both to get the proper mineral levels. Sounds like that's not best practice.

 

[ajdelange]

Kills me I probably can't get ahold of their products to try the regime out.

When we did my club's 25th aniversary beer (a barley wine) I just made some up. As I indicated above its a matter of adding enough HCl to a volume of DI water to render it 1.8 M in HCl and enough H2SO4 to render it 0.9 M in H2SO4 when made up to the desired final volume.

 

[MSK_Chess]

I still cannot get over how much salts we British are contemplating putting in our beers. My goodness i would need to hire a JCB to shovel in Calcium Sulphate to reach Murphys levels. Ok I exaggerate, but still, when I try to reach them with Martins bru'n'water a hand reaches out of the fibre optic and slaps me across the back of the head for being silly.

 

[ajdelange]

According to cire you must be drinking beers this salty every time you attend your local (unless you stick to Tetly's -ugh). So what's your take on them? Like to get the thinking of more than one resident of the sceptered isle on this.

 

[user 246304]

When we did my club's 25th aniversary beer (a barley wine) I just made some up. As I indicated above its a matter of adding enough HCl to a volume of DI water to render it 1.8 M in HCl and enough H2SO4 to render it 0.9 M in H2SO4 when made up to the desired final volume.

Thank you AJ. And I must have spaced it, sorry. To be honest, I like the idea of CRS for its convenience, but don't understand why the use of HCl and sulfuric separately isn't employed more commonly (maybe they are) for the flexibility this gives.

 

[ajdelange]

Clearly AMS/CRS is aimed at the small to medium sized operation that doesn't have chemists or people with knowledge of chemistry on staff. It eliminates the requirement to hire such people as it provide a solution in a can (or, actually a drum). The brewer doesn't have to think about or otherwise deal with any of the annoyance of having to source and safely store food grade concentrated acids nor deal with the mess, math and safety issues of calculating (this includes measuring the properties of what comes out of his mains/wells) how much of each is necessary, measuring them out and dosing them. Murphy's does almost all that for him including diluting the acids down to the point where they are much safer to handle than the concentrated acids and telling him how much to use according to their conception of what is appropriate for a particular style of beer. Yes, AMS is mostly water! The key word from your post is 'convenience'.

In a larger operation that does have laboratory staff I think that we can be pretty confident that the proper doses of the two acids are calculated by that staff based on liquor analyses made by that staff.

There is an additional benefit in being able to change the relative amounts of the two acids and that is that one can often match a profile with specified sulfate, chloride and other ion concentrations quite closely and automatically. A knowledgeable person can do this with no more powerful software than Excel and, of course, he can specify whatever profile he wants according to his own requirements - not Murphy's.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

It appears many believe that British brewers actively reduced high mineral contents of their liquor supply while the greater proportion didn't and sold their beers on those merits.

You have to remember that Britain is one of the most geologically diverse countries in the world - being on the edge of the European continental plate over the years it's picked up bits of the Appalachians and Norway, had volcanoes punched through it by Africa smashing into Europe, and then the whole country has been tipped on its side so that London is built on very young chalk rocks, whereas NW Scotland has rocks that are some 50x older. Even in one place, brewers could chose between low-mineral surface water and mineral-rich well water, and different levels of minerals from wells at different depths. Ron Pattinson has lots of historical data on this stuff - for instance the two main Worthington wells, deep and shallow, had 70.994gpg (1215ppm) and 25.48gpg(436ppm) calcium sulphate (plus sodium and magnesium sulphates) and both around 10gpg(170ppm) NaCl, they'd sometimes use the latter to dilute the former a bit. The main Bass water was 54.4gpg (931ppm) CaSO4 plus 13.28gpg (227ppm) CaCl, Allsopp's just 18.96gpg(325ppm) CaSO4. That may explain where Murphy's are coming from.

Then there's the historical legacy of Burton's reputation for "beer" based on its "water" - that Deuchars label is perhaps a fairly rare example of a company exploiting that folk memory in modern times, but there's no question that "minerals = good beer" was a thing 100+ years ago.

It's certainly true that British brewers tend to go for inorganic acids whereas North American brewers seem keener on organic acids. I'm not sure how much that is based on culture and marketing, and how much on geology - in Britain there's large swathes of the country that have beautifully soft water surface water that needs little pH adjustment but does need extra minerals, or groundwater with lots of sulphate or chloride; in contrast the chalk country in the southeast needs acid by the bucketload, enough that you're probably hitting the flavour detection thresholds of organic acids (and HCl/H2SO4 were readily/cheaply available from nearby industry back in the day).

 

[ajdelange]

It's certainly true that British brewers tend to go for inorganic acids whereas North American brewers seem keener on organic acids. I'm not sure how much that is based on culture and marketing, and how much on geology...

If I had to I'd guess it derives from the fact that brewing in the US is ultimately derived from German brewing culture. The journal of the MBAA (Master Brewers Association of America) used to be published in German. In German brewing the only acid that could be used was derived from lactic fermentation of wort.

The general culture in the states has also become nanny/police. Strong acids are considered dangerous and those who fiddle with them are suspected as drug manufacturers or bomb manufacturers. If one owns over x pounds (I don't remember what x is) he must register with the federal goverment. Then there are the safety regulations. And the litigious nature of Americans. I thought long and hard before posting that I made up some AMS at home for fear that some idiot will see this, go out and buy battery acid from the auto parts store and hydrochloric acid from the hardware store, make up AMS and sue me 10 years from now when he gets prostate cancer. Maybe not everyone is as paranoid as I but I suspect this may have something to do with brewers preference for acids which are GRAS.

One more recollection: I've seen lots of craft brewers advertise that they do not put sulfuric acid and other chemicals in their beers as the big breweries do and lots of articles in the greenie type publications which reveal that mega brews contain sulfuric acid. That may be another factor.

 

[user 246304]

Clearly AMS/CRS is aimed at the small to medium sized operation that doesn't have chemists or people with knowledge of chemistry on staff. It eliminates the requirement to hire such people as it provide a solution in a can (or, actually a drum). The brewer doesn't have to think about or otherwise deal with any of the annoyance of having to source and safely store food grade concentrated acids nor deal with the mess, math and safety issues of calculating (this includes measuring the properties of what comes out of his mains/wells) how much of each is necessary, measuring them out and dosing them. Murphy's does almost all that for him including diluting the acids down to the point where they are much safer to handle than the concentrated acids and telling him how much to use according to their conception of what is appropriate for a particular style of beer. Yes, AMS is mostly water! The key word from your post is 'convenience'.

In a larger operation that does have laboratory staff I think that we can be pretty confident that the proper doses of the two acids are calculated by that staff based on liquor analyses made by that staff.

There is an additional benefit in being able to change the relative amounts of the two acids and that is that one can often match a profile with specified sulfate, chloride and other ion concentrations quite closely and automatically. A knowledgeable person can do this with no more powerful software than Excel and, of course, he can specify whatever profile he wants according to his own requirements - not Murphy's.

Very interesting perspective, thanks AJ. I have backburnered since coming to this whole notion using acids solely for both alkalinity adjustment and salt manipulation. For no other reason that I thought it would be interesting. I must admit I'm essentially cheating however, by relying on calculations to be performed by others' spreadsheets. I need to commit to sitting down and working out the math/chemistry (I keep saying, "once I have a few brews down..." which means, possibly kicked down the road permanently).

 

[MSK_Chess]

Its super interesting, culture, history, geography all conspiring to provide reasons for the disparity between British and American brewing habits. For me personally the pH of my water is 6.5 and comes across granite hills about 1000ft above sea level, its just super soft, it has only 10ppm of calcium, 8 ppm of calcium chloride, 12 ppm of sulphate and negligible amounts of Mg and Na. For me to get those kind of levels advocated by the Murphy's report would call for huge additions.

 

[cire]

Its super interesting, culture, history, geography all conspiring to provide reasons for the disparity between British and American brewing habits. For me personally the pH of my water is 6.5 and comes across granite hills about 1000ft above sea level, its just super soft, it has only 10ppm of calcium, 8 ppm of calcium chloride, 12 ppm of sulphate and negligible amounts of Mg and Na. For me to get those kind of levels advocated by the Murphy's report would call for huge additions.

It would take an addition of about three quarters of a gram of calcium salts per litre to reach those levels, not that huge.

You don't have to use Murphy's recommendations, I don't, but it's wrong to believe that such levels were not used and are uncommon today in UK to make UK beer styles.

Your water is fine for brewing beer, ideal for delicate lagers, but if used as is with British malts the result will not be representitive of the beers they were made to produce using a single infusion mash.

If you are happy with your beer and it looks bright and tastes crisp or sublime, you've achieved your objective. If however that isn't the case, increasing the amount of calcium in your liquor should be considered in full knowledge that calcium is the most important ion in brewing.

 

[MSK_Chess]

It would take an addition of about three quarters of a gram of calcium salts per litre to reach those levels, not that huge.

You don't have to use Murphy's recommendations, I don't, but it's wrong to believe that such levels were not used and are uncommon today in UK to make UK beer styles.

Your water is fine for brewing beer, ideal for delicate lagers, but if used as is with British malts the result will not be representitive of the beers they were made to produce using a single infusion mash.

If you are happy with your beer and it looks bright and tastes crisp or sublime, you've achieved your objective. If however that isn't the case, increasing the amount of calcium in your liquor should be considered in full knowledge that calcium is the most important ion in brewing.

it would take for an average 23litre (5 gallon batch) 12g of calcium sulphate and another 12g of calcium chloride to reach 200ppm of calcium. To put that in perspective at present i use roughly about a maximum of 3g of each, sometimes even less.

 

[ajdelange]

...full knowledge that calcium is the most important ion in brewing.

And another thing that most people don't realize is that the left front wheel (maybe it's the right front wheel in the UK) is the most important wheel on your car.

 

[cire]

it would take for an average 23litre (5 gallon batch) 12g of calcium sulphate and another 12g of calcium chloride to reach 200ppm of calcium. To put that in perspective at present i use roughly about a maximum of 3g of each, sometimes even less.

Yes, 12g of gypsum and the same of calcium chloride flake would supply 200ppm calcium to 30 litres of water, 3g of each providing 50ppm. British pale malts from barley varieties such as Marris Otter, Golden Promise, Pipkin, Halcyon and several more have low levels of nitrogen. Used in a single temperature infusion mash with a minimum calcium ion level of 50ppm in the brewing liquor can make ales that drop bright and are without haze.

Your water has 10ppm calcium and a further 50ppm is added, so at your levels it is possible your beers sparkle and are totally haze free. However, as calcium gets deposited in the mash, using minimal levels risks having insufficient reach the kettle to deposit break and subsequently aid yeast flocculation. Protein rests at 50C and filtering the otherwise finished product will solve such problems, but neither are processes of traditionally brewed British ales.

Murphy's figures are high, but are no higher than have been used in UK and they work. Imagine yourself in Murphy's shoes if you'd advised a lower level and had breweries from all around the country complaining their beers were cloudy when the cause was a slightly increased nitrogen level in some malts due to weather conditions in Norfolk in autumn. Then the brewer whose brew didn't clear and had to be sent for bottling and now has no beer to satisfy his customers. Like it or not, without a protein rest and filter, that's the way to make clear beer in a couple of weeks. Even my NEIPA wasn't cloudy although it had hop haze as one might expect.

 

[MSK_Chess]

Yes, 12g of gypsum and the same of calcium chloride flake would supply 200ppm calcium to 30 litres of water, 3g of each providing 50ppm. British pale malts from barley varieties such as Marris Otter, Golden Promise, Pipkin, Halcyon and several more have low levels of nitrogen. Used in a single temperature infusion mash with a minimum calcium ion level of 50ppm in the brewing liquor can make ales that drop bright and are without haze.

Your water has 10ppm calcium and a further 50ppm is added, so at your levels it is possible your beers sparkle and are totally haze free. However, as calcium gets deposited in the mash, using minimal levels risks having insufficient reach the kettle to deposit break and subsequently aid yeast flocculation. Protein rests at 50C and filtering the otherwise finished product will solve such problems, but neither are processes of traditionally brewed British ales.

Murphy's figures are high, but are no higher than have been used in UK and they work. Imagine yourself in Murphy's shoes if you'd advised a lower level and had breweries from all around the country complaining their beers were cloudy when the cause was a slightly increased nitrogen level in some malts due to weather conditions in Norfolk in autumn. Then the brewer whose brew didn't clear and had to be sent for bottling and now has no beer to satisfy his customers. Like it or not, without a protein rest and filter, that's the way to make clear beer in a couple of weeks. Even my NEIPA wasn't cloudy although it had hop haze as one might expect.

Actually its quite interesting, British Ale yeasts are fairly flocculant, drop fast and quickly and the chances of getting haze from yeast is pretty minimal if one crashes and lagers for even a short time. However the sources of haze in beer are generally not particulates from yeast and/or excessive starch but of polyphenol-protein complexes, like flavinoids which if they oxidize and polymerize can form longer chains which eventually become insoluble. I suspect like most homebrewers I suffer from this so called 'chill haze' and thus either need to fine or filter to remove these elements (or pretend that they don't matter and clear beer is artificial). Personally I use Polyclar 730 plus a PVPP and silica mix in conjunction with a fining agent like gelatin, after use the beer is European Pilsner bright. However if I could do away with these additives and have a process that was entirely natural I would do so, but at present I cannot get a grasp on how to combat this effectively with my present brewing process. So many things have been proffered, use of low polyphenol content malt, use of hop oils for bittering, use of gallotanins in the mash. If you have any solutions or if you know how any of these processes may effect a beer please let it be known.

 

[ajdelange]

A quick cautionary note to US readers (may apply to other countries too). The Calcium Chloride Flake being discussed here must be different from that sold in the US which is obtained in bags and is intended for deicing roads, sidewalks etc and use in oil well drilling. This isn't what we want for brewing. That is usually obtained from the LHBS in prill form. Deicing grade flake clearly isn't food grade and can vary in calcium chloride content (usually around 80%). As noted in the Sticky at the head of this forum whenever calcium chloride is involved there is a question of its 'purity' with respect to contamination by water of hydration. Fortunately it is a simple matter to determine the actual calcium chloride content of a solution by means of a simple specific gravity measurement. See the Sticky.

 

[cire]

Actually its quite interesting, British Ale yeasts are fairly flocculant, drop fast and quickly and the chances of getting haze from yeast is pretty minimal if one crashes and lagers for even a short time. However the sources of haze in beer are generally not particulates from yeast and/or excessive starch but of polyphenol-protein complexes, like flavinoids which if they oxidize and polymerize can form longer chains which eventually become insoluble. I suspect like most homebrewers I suffer from this so called 'chill haze' and thus either need to fine or filter to remove these elements (or pretend that they don't matter and clear beer is artificial). Personally I use Polyclar 730 plus a PVPP and silica mix in conjunction with a fining agent like gelatin, after use the beer is European Pilsner bright. However if I could do away with these additives and have a process that was entirely natural I would do so, but at present I cannot get a grasp on how to combat this effectively with my present brewing process. So many things have been proffered, use of low polyphenol content malt, use of hop oils for bittering, use of gallotanins in the mash. If you have any solutions or if you know how any of these processes may effect a beer please let it be known.

Adding more calcium when you have been told and believe it will harm your beers takes courage. I don't crash my beers, my chiller is for lagers and in summer to slowly drop my beers to 12C prior to casking. The old style Irish moss was the order of the day, but Protafloc tablets are more convenient and do a better job. After that I do nothing and the beer clears naturally.

I've a beer on at present from Maris Otter, torrified wheat, torrified barley, caramalt and crystal 120, so it has no low nitrogen adjucts or invert sugars to reduce potential haze. It was fermented with a moderate flocculating yeast from Brewlab and casked without finings at 1011.

The average water profile contained 174ppm calcium, 344 sulphate and 231 chloride. Alkalinity was 25ppm as CaCO3 for the mash and lower for sparge liquor. Mash pH ranged between 5.32 and 5.43, first runnings 1080, last runnings 1007 leading to a brewhouse efficiency of 91.5% and OG 1043.

The temperature in what is call my beer cellar is currently 8.5C after the recent cold spell, so the beer is not at it's brightest, but not too far short.

 

[cire]

Just as an addendum to my last post, having had a few moments thought while drinking that beer.

There is a vast amount of information of problems and faults with beers on forums like this including the comprehensive outline of your problems. I read of those problems to learn what is currently happening in homebrew circles. Making clear beers on a regular basis it is easy to forget the complexity of the problem for some and a struggle to make myself understood with clarity.

 

[ajdelange]

Adding more calcium when you have been told and believe it will harm your beers takes courage.

A better attribute than courage is intelligence. The smart brewer contemplating 'improving' a particular beer by the use of higher calcium levels will taste that beer with increments of calcium salts added to the glass. This will give him at least an indication of what higher levels of those salts will do to his beer's organoleptic qualities. He will probably notice the effects of the accompanying anions before he notices the effects of the calcium with regard to flavor and will probably not like the effects as levels become high. Brewers are advised to limit the mineralization of their beers because most people don't like highly mineralized beer. But many people do. The smart brewer will try to find out if he is one of them before committing a batch.

 

[cire]

A better attribute than courage is intelligence. The smart brewer contemplating 'improving' a particular beer by the use of higher calcium levels will taste that beer with increments of calcium salts added to the glass. This will give him at least an indication of what higher levels of those salts will do to his beer's organoleptic qualities. He will probably notice the effects of the accompanying anions before he notices the effects of the calcium with regard to flavor and will probably not like the effects as levels become high. Brewers are advised to limit the mineralization of their beers because most people don't like highly mineralized beer. But many people do. The smart brewer will try to find out if he is one of them before committing a batch.

I've shown you mine, you show us yours.

 

[ajdelange]

I've shown you mine, you show us yours.

I assume you are talking about courage as questioning whether, for example, Nos. 9 and 11 demonstrate at least some level of intelligence would call into question the intelligence of the questioner. Thus the assumption but if this was intended as an ad hominem you need to be cautioned that such is not tolerated here. The administrators will shut you down.

So how do I show my courage here? I guess I don't know. Thinking about it I just keep coming up with the memory of an old flight instructor who once said, whilst in the cockpit, "I don't know if we are two bold aviators or two damn fools".

 

[mabrungard]

I’ve toyed with high mineralization in my beers and ultimately came to the conclusion that it doesn’t benefit beer flavor.

But then I feel there could be some merit to mineralization when the alternative is an unacceptable pH. Maybe this is the best alternative in that case?

I do suggest that our British cohorts consider exploring modest mineralization along with proper pH control to see if the lack of crunchiness is worth the improved perceptions of malt and hops. I found that it is.

 

[cire]

I assume you are talking about courage as questioning whether, for example, Nos. 9 and 11 demonstrate at least some level of intelligence would call into question the intelligence of the questioner. Thus the assumption but if this was intended as an ad hominem you need to be cautioned that such is not tolerated here. The administrators will shut you down.

So how do I show my courage here? I guess I don't know. Thinking about it I just keep coming up with the memory of an old flight instructor who once said, whilst in the cockpit, "I don't know if we are two bold aviators or two damn fools".

Your beers. Surely the administators don't shut people down for showing their beer?

I don't understand this. I show you a picture of my beer, a one brewed with virtually the identical recipe of the top selling beer of well known commercial beer, that is why the recipe was vague with no hop detais. I brewed mine with slightly less mineral content liquor than that particular successful brewery used. I just asked to see one of yours, if such questions merits my removal, this is not a place I wish to be.

 

[ajdelange]

Your beers.

You need to understand that if I write
"A better attribute than courage is intelligence. The smart brewer contemplating 'improving' a particular beer by the use of higher calcium levels will taste that beer with increments of calcium salts added to the glass..." and you you quote all that and then write "I've shown you mine, you show us yours." the reader is likely to conclude that you feel you have demonstrated your courage and/or intelligence are challenging (use of imperative) me to do the same. Now if you had quoted just "...contemplating 'improving' a particular beer by the use of higher calcium levels..." and then said "I've shown you mine, you show us yours." it would have been clearer what you have intended but since the appearance of my beer has absolutely no relevance to anything in the quoted post I might still have been confused. It obviously would have been better still had you simply said "Please post a picture of your beer" to which I probably would have responded "What has that got to do with what I am talking about?" But as you want to see a picture of my beer here it is:

Now how does this contribute to the discussion? What does it illustrate other than that it is possible for a home brewer to make an appealing looking beer? Yes presentation is important (as Charlie Bamforth says "We drink with our eyes") but there's lots more to a beer than how it looks. This was brewed with very soft (RO + a bit of CaCl2, ~0 sulfate, ~0 alkalinity) water using a triple decoction mash, the Budvar pilsner strain, and fermented in the traditional way (no diacetyl rest, no crash, long lagering).

Surely the administators don't shut people down for showing their beer? I don't understand this.

It's very clear from the way I phrased things that the problem is ad hominems - not pictures of beer. I have assumed, since you are writing from the UK that English is your first language but realize that that today this may not necessarily be the case.

I just asked to see one of yours,

Well the problem is that it wasn't at all clear that this was what you wanted.

if such questions merits my removal, this is not a place I wish to be.

Of course they don't. What does common sense say here?

 

[MSK_Chess]

Adding more calcium when you have been told and believe it will harm your beers takes courage. I don't crash my beers, my chiller is for lagers and in summer to slowly drop my beers to 12C prior to casking. The old style Irish moss was the order of the day, but Protafloc tablets are more convenient and do a better job. After that I do nothing and the beer clears naturally.

I've a beer on at present from Maris Otter, torrified wheat, torrified barley, caramalt and crystal 120, so it has no low nitrogen adjucts or invert sugars to reduce potential haze. It was fermented with a moderate flocculating yeast from Brewlab and casked without finings at 1011.

The average water profile contained 174ppm calcium, 344 sulphate and 231 chloride. Alkalinity was 25ppm as CaCO3 for the mash and lower for sparge liquor. Mash pH ranged between 5.32 and 5.43, first runnings 1080, last runnings 1007 leading to a brewhouse efficiency of 91.5% and OG 1043.

The temperature in what is call my beer cellar is currently 8.5C after the recent cold spell, so the beer is not at it's brightest, but not too far short.

View attachment 561421

Protofloc, Irish moss and other kettle fining’s do precipitate out break and or protiens, however you can have the clearest wort going into ferment and still get chill haze. almost all beer brew'd with at least a modicum of care will be bright at 12C, chill it to -1C and its a different story. What I am really interested in is how to target these protein polyphenol complexes naturally but my understanding is so limited that its like gardening in the dark. I have so many questions and so few answers. What is clear is that oxygen is absolutely deadly, but knowing this and being able to effectively take measures to combat it is a struggle. For example if there is no dissolved oxygen does that mean that its impossible for things like flavaniods to polymerise? If we lager at cold temps of -1C will the elements which cause chill haze eventually precipitate out? Will the use of biological acidification act as an antioxidant and if so how? How does tannic acid work? So many things I need to know.

 

[MSK_Chess]

You need to understand that if I write
"A better attribute than courage is intelligence. The smart brewer contemplating 'improving' a particular beer by the use of higher calcium levels will taste that beer with increments of calcium salts added to the glass..." and you you quote all that and then write "I've shown you mine, you show us yours." the reader is likely to conclude that you feel you have demonstrated your courage and/or intelligence are challenging (use of imperative) me to do the same. Now if you had quoted just "...contemplating 'improving' a particular beer by the use of higher calcium levels..." and then said "I've shown you mine, you show us yours." it would have been clearer what you have intended but since the appearance of my beer has absolutely no relevance to anything in the quoted post I might still have been confused. It obviously would have been better still had you simply said "Please post a picture of your beer" to which I probably would have responded "What has that got to do with what I am talking about?" But as you want to see a picture of my beer here it is:

View attachment 561598

Now how does this contribute to the discussion? What does it illustrate other than that it is possible for a home brewer to make an appealing looking beer? Yes presentation is important (as Charlie Bamforth says "We drink with out eyes") but there's lots more to a beer than how it looks. This was brewed with very soft (RO + a bit of CaCl2, ~0 sulfate, ~0 alkalinity) water using a triple decoction mash, the Budvar pilsner strain, and fermented in the traditional way (no diacetyl rest, no crash, long lagering).

It's very clear from the way I phrased things that the problem is ad hominems - not pictures of beer. I have assumed, since you are writing from the UK that English is your first language but realize that that today this may not necessarily be the case.


Well the problem is that it wasn't at all clear that this was what you wanted.


Of course they don't. What does common sense say here?

Incredibly interesting, kind sir how long did you lager and under what conditions? Pilsner should be served in a tall glass of course, please we are European and have certain sensibilities!

 

[ajdelange]

Incredibly interesting, kind sir how long did you lager and under what conditions?

My process isn't exactly conventional but here goes. I make 50 gal (US) batches using RO water to which only a little (35 grams in 50 gal or so) calcium chloride has been added. The chilled wort has oxygen and yeast injected in line as it passes to a cylindroconical fermenter. An RTD in the beer (thermowell) turns a pump on and off to maintain the beer temperature at whatever is set into the controller (deadband). I usually ferment at 48 - 50 °F. When within a degree or so of terminal gravity I spund and start lowering the controller temperature a couple of degrees per day. When I approach freezing I hold for a couple of weeks. At that point I fill into Sanke kegs. Because the chill bands are in operation right through transfer to kegs there are vertical currents maintained in the conical which keeps a fair amount of yeast in suspension. These go into a walk-in that's held between 30 and 40 °F. The kegs sit in the walk in until it is consumed either through faucets on the outside wall of the walk in or by decanting to another keg. So how long is the beer lagered? The first pints are lagered a day. The last ones as much as a couple of years! One of the most interesting things about this is that as pints are drawn off and consumed over time one sees how the beer changes and one of the most fascinating things about the change history is that the beers stay pretty stinky for a couple of weeks and then the jungbuket disappears almost over night. I'd say that in general it is at its best in the first year and then gradually the hops start to fade and a bit of diacetyl starts to creep in. The 'secret' to all this is, of course, that the beer is sitting undisturbed on the yeast. Eventually they run out of steam and are thus no longer able to scavenge diacetyl. Where the acetolactate is coming from at that point I don't know. My guess is that has been there all along but that any diacetyl produced from it is reduced by the yeast as long as they are alive.

Pilsner should be served in a tall glass of course, please we are European and have certain sensibilities!

I've had a lot of pilsners on the continent and trying to think back (its been several years) I would have to say that I think most of them were served in the 300 mL Pilstulpe (Pilsner Tulip). So if I want to be traditional I'll drink it from one of those or from what most Americans think of as being the traditional pilsner glass - the inverted cone but often from the glass closest to the taps which in the case of this photo was a dimple.

I found that picture on my i-Phone. I don't know why I took it - probably to record that head. I have seen it explained that the traditional glide down to freezing is responsible for these meringue heads and that you can't expect to get them with a diacetyl rest and crash. I don't know whether that is true or not. I only wish I could get them to last longer!

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=RHh45U78&id=FD597B599551986B3EABB278B41E4E19A2DDB583&thid=OIP.RHh45U7861Gnyp67OFeIvQHaHa&mediaurl=http://www.drinkstuff.com/productimg/84673_large.jpg&exph=600&expw=600&q=pilsner+tulip&simid=608025160633486420&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

 

[bitteritdown]

I've brewed and enjoyed both British beers (high(er) mineralization) and American Lagers (low mineralization). Each method of water treatment gives a unique character to the beer. Each of you would do well to brew each others beers and exchange them.

This thread, however, is concerning the use of unusual alkalinity neutralizing acids, most of which are only used in the highly sought after beers of the upper Nahi Valley in Swahili.