EZ Water Adjustment spreadsheet

[ddknight]

Is there a way to figure out the bicarb if I do not have it already? I only ask b/c I have all the other info but the water company did not have the bicarb level. I tried to also enter my data into Beersmith and it asks only for the bicarb not a choice of entering Alkalinity. Just thought I'd see if anyone had any suggestions.

The spreadsheet is awesome by the way and it is making understanding the water calculations much easier. Thanks for all the hard work!

 

[Bigscience]

Big fan of the EZ, makes water calcs less painful. I do have one question however. I notice that the sparge additions are being calculated off the mash amounts. The mash amount is calculated per gallon and then multiplied by the sparge volume.

(Mash grams/Mash Vol)x Sparge Volume=Sparge grams

Since the sparge water itself is not treated and the additions are added to the kettle, wouldn't this be incorrect though since the sparge volume does not all make it to the kettle? This would cause an over treatment.

Wouldn't it be more correct to have a mash volume and a preboil volume and only treat the difference for the sparge?

Example: I have a 7.5gal mash and use 10.8gal of sparge water to make a preboil volume of 14.2gal (based on grain absorption and other losses). If I treat all this water this way I get:

Starting Water (ppm):
Ca: 10.48
Mg: 0.4
Na: 1
Cl: 2.6
SO4: 1.2
CaCO3: 18.9

Mash / Sparge Vol (gal): 7.5 / 10.7
Dilution Rate: 0%

Adjustments (grams) Mash / Boil Kettle:
CaCO3: 0 / 0
CaSO4: 2 / 2.853333333
CaCl2: 5 / 7.133333333
MgSO4: 3 / 4.28
NaHCO3: 0 / 0
NaCl: 0 / 0
HCL Acid: 0 / 0
Lactic Acid: 0 / 0

Mash Water / Total water (ppm):
Ca: 74 / 74
Mg: 10 / 10
Na: 1 / 1
Cl: 88 / 88
SO4: 82 / 82
CaCO3: 19 / 19

RA (mash only): -40 (2 to 7 SRM)
Cl to SO4 (total water): 1.07 (Balanced)


If I were to treat the mash the same but only add salts to the remaining wort in the kettle (14.2preboil - 7.5gal mash = 6.7gal "sparge") I'd treat 4 gallons less and end up with this:

Starting Water (ppm):
Ca: 10.48
Mg: 0.4
Na: 1
Cl: 2.6
SO4: 1.2
CaCO3: 18.9

Mash / Sparge Vol (gal): 7.5 / 6.7
Dilution Rate: 0%

Adjustments (grams) Mash / Boil Kettle:
CaCO3: 0 / 0
CaSO4: 2 / 1.786666667
CaCl2: 5 / 4.466666667
MgSO4: 3 / 2.68
NaHCO3: 0 / 0
NaCl: 0 / 0
HCL Acid: 0 / 0
Lactic Acid: 0 / 0

Mash Water / Total water (ppm):
Ca: 74 / 74
Mg: 10 / 10
Na: 1 / 1
Cl: 88 / 88
SO4: 82 / 82
CaCO3: 19 / 19

RA (mash only): -40 (2 to 7 SRM)
Cl to SO4 (total water): 1.07 (Balanced)


If I do it the original way BUT put in the correct “sparge” and hardcode the initial values that were calculated I get this. I think this is actually what the water would be if all salts were added to the kettle based on the total sparge volume:

Starting Water (ppm):
Ca: 10.48
Mg: 0.4
Na: 1
Cl: 2.6
SO4: 1.2
CaCO3: 18.9

Mash / Sparge Vol (gal): 7.5 / 6.7
Dilution Rate: 0%

Adjustments (grams) Mash / Boil Kettle:
CaCO3: 0 / 0
CaSO4: 2 / 2.9
CaCl2: 5 / 7.1
MgSO4: 3 / 4.3
NaHCO3: 0 / 0
NaCl: 0 / 0
HCL Acid: 0 / 0
Lactic Acid: 0 / 0


Mash Water / Total water (ppm):
Ca: 74 / 93
Mg: 10 / 13
Na: 1 / 1
Cl: 88 / 111
SO4: 82 / 105
CaCO3: 19 / 19

RA (mash only): -40 (2 to 7 SRM)
Cl to SO4 (total water): 1.06 (Balanced)

Here are the side by side results

Mash Water / Total water (ppm) Current Way/ Other Way
Ca: 74 / 74 / 93
Mg: 10 / 10 / 13
Na: 1 / 1 / 1
Cl: 88 / 88 / 111
SO4: 82 / 82 / 105
CaCO3: 19 / 19 / 19

Please let me know if I’m missing something here and again, thanks for your hard work on this valuable tool.

 

[-TH-]

Big fan of the EZ, makes water calcs less painful. I do have one question however. I notice that the sparge additions are being calculated off the mash amounts. The mash amount is calculated per gallon and then multiplied by the sparge volume.

(Mash grams/Mash Vol)x Sparge Volume=Sparge grams

Since the sparge water itself is not treated and the additions are added to the kettle, wouldn't this be incorrect though since the sparge volume does not all make it to the kettle? This would cause an over treatment.

Wouldn't it be more correct to have a mash volume and a preboil volume and only treat the difference for the sparge?

Example: I have a 7.5gal mash and use 10.8gal of sparge water to make a preboil volume of 14.2gal (based on grain absorption and other losses). If I treat all this water this way I get:

Starting Water (ppm):
Ca: 10.48
Mg: 0.4
Na: 1
Cl: 2.6
SO4: 1.2
CaCO3: 18.9

Mash / Sparge Vol (gal): 7.5 / 10.7
Dilution Rate: 0%

Adjustments (grams) Mash / Boil Kettle:
CaCO3: 0 / 0
CaSO4: 2 / 2.853333333
CaCl2: 5 / 7.133333333
MgSO4: 3 / 4.28
NaHCO3: 0 / 0
NaCl: 0 / 0
HCL Acid: 0 / 0
Lactic Acid: 0 / 0

Mash Water / Total water (ppm):
Ca: 74 / 74
Mg: 10 / 10
Na: 1 / 1
Cl: 88 / 88
SO4: 82 / 82
CaCO3: 19 / 19

RA (mash only): -40 (2 to 7 SRM)
Cl to SO4 (total water): 1.07 (Balanced)


If I were to treat the mash the same but only add salts to the remaining wort in the kettle (14.2preboil - 7.5gal mash = 6.7gal "sparge") I'd treat 4 gallons less and end up with this:

Starting Water (ppm):
Ca: 10.48
Mg: 0.4
Na: 1
Cl: 2.6
SO4: 1.2
CaCO3: 18.9

Mash / Sparge Vol (gal): 7.5 / 6.7
Dilution Rate: 0%

Adjustments (grams) Mash / Boil Kettle:
CaCO3: 0 / 0
CaSO4: 2 / 1.786666667
CaCl2: 5 / 4.466666667
MgSO4: 3 / 2.68
NaHCO3: 0 / 0
NaCl: 0 / 0
HCL Acid: 0 / 0
Lactic Acid: 0 / 0

Mash Water / Total water (ppm):
Ca: 74 / 74
Mg: 10 / 10
Na: 1 / 1
Cl: 88 / 88
SO4: 82 / 82
CaCO3: 19 / 19

RA (mash only): -40 (2 to 7 SRM)
Cl to SO4 (total water): 1.07 (Balanced)


If I do it the original way BUT put in the correct “sparge” and hardcode the initial values that were calculated I get this. I think this is actually what the water would be if all salts were added to the kettle based on the total sparge volume:

Starting Water (ppm):
Ca: 10.48
Mg: 0.4
Na: 1
Cl: 2.6
SO4: 1.2
CaCO3: 18.9

Mash / Sparge Vol (gal): 7.5 / 6.7
Dilution Rate: 0%

Adjustments (grams) Mash / Boil Kettle:
CaCO3: 0 / 0
CaSO4: 2 / 2.9
CaCl2: 5 / 7.1
MgSO4: 3 / 4.3
NaHCO3: 0 / 0
NaCl: 0 / 0
HCL Acid: 0 / 0
Lactic Acid: 0 / 0


Mash Water / Total water (ppm):
Ca: 74 / 93
Mg: 10 / 13
Na: 1 / 1
Cl: 88 / 111
SO4: 82 / 105
CaCO3: 19 / 19

RA (mash only): -40 (2 to 7 SRM)
Cl to SO4 (total water): 1.06 (Balanced)

Here are the side by side results

Mash Water / Total water (ppm) Current Way/ Other Way
Ca: 74 / 74 / 93
Mg: 10 / 10 / 13
Na: 1 / 1 / 1
Cl: 88 / 88 / 111
SO4: 82 / 82 / 105
CaCO3: 19 / 19 / 19

Please let me know if I’m missing something here and again, thanks for your hard work on this valuable tool.

Long answer:
Since I do no-mashout batch sparging, the amount of water I sparge with does make it into the kettle. For example I might dough in with 4 gal of water, but first runnings might produce 2 gallons of wort in the kettle. I would then batch sparge with the amount of water needed to give me the desired pre-boil volume. So for example if I sparged with 5 gallons I would end up with very close to 7 gallons in the brew kettle. Now I suppose the sparge water mixes with the water that is in the dead space of the mash tun, and when drained, some portion of the actual sparge water is indeed left behind, but I think if we tried to compensate for that, we might be making things more complicated that what is necessary. After all, we are shooting for some fairly large ranges here. Also keep in mind that sparge/boil salt additions are strictly for the purpose of enhancing flavor, which means the ranges we are targeting are subjective to begin with.

Short answer: It probably doesn't matter much either way.

 

[Bigscience]

Long answer:
Since I do no-mashout batch sparging, the amount of water I sparge with does make it into the kettle. For example I might dough in with 4 gal of water, but first runnings might produce 2 gallons of wort in the kettle. I would then batch sparge with the amount of water needed to give me the desired pre-boil volume. So for example if I sparged with 5 gallons I would end up with very close to 7 gallons in the brew kettle. Now I suppose the sparge water mixes with the water that is in the dead space of the mash tun, and when drained, some portion of the actual sparge water is indeed left behind, but I think if we tried to compensate for that, we might be making things more complicated that what is necessary. After all, we are shooting for some fairly large ranges here. Also keep in mind that sparge/boil salt additions are strictly for the purpose of enhancing flavor, which means the ranges we are targeting are subjective to begin with.

Short answer: It probably doesn't matter much either way.

I don’t think the issue is the sparge water that is left behind, it’s that the salt that was in the initial mash water that was held back is being rinsed to the kettle by the sparge. This would work if the actual sparge water was being treated but since the salts are going in the kettle, you’re adding the salt for 9 gallons into 7 and are off at the end by ~+20%.

While I agree about the flavor aspect of the non-mash salts, I think a more accurate way of calculating the sparge addition would be:

(mash grams/mash volume) x (preboil volume – mash volume)

This way we are only treating the water that is making it to the kettle. Just a thought.

 

[jmo88]

I've been trying to find the answer to this same problem for a while, Bigscience. The problem I see is, how can we be sure the sparge is fully rinsing the salts from the grain? If so, how much water does it take to fully rinse the salts from the mash? Are all salts rinsed at the same rate? etc. There are many variables. So I've always worked under the assumption that the salts that are retained in the mash, stay in the mash. No one seems to be able to answer this question in my research.

EDIT: re-read the post and realize my issue is different. The problem is not with the spreadsheet but the way we treat the kettle additions. Since there is water retained by the grain, we actually add salts to the beer for more than the initial boil volume. I'll often add salts for 4 gallons of strike and salts for 6 gallons to the kettle while my initial boil volume is 7 gallons.

 

[-TH-]

Keep in mind we are trying to modify our water to match the water which would be best for the beer we are brewing. So if Smallsville Michigan had perfect water for an IPA, I would try to match that. And I would want to adjust for the total amount of the water I was going to use, say 9 gallons, just like if it were perfect to begin with. Mash water is adjusted during the mash, so I want to adjust for all of my mash water, even though some of that water is left behind. Sparge water is adjusted in the kettle, but since most of that water is not left behind, I want to adjust for all of it as well. Therefore making it very similar to if you had perfect water to begin with.

 

[Bigscience]

I've been trying to find the answer to this same problem for a while, Bigscience. The problem I see is, how can we be sure the sparge is fully rinsing the salts from the grain? If so, how much water does it take to fully rinse the salts from the mash? Are all salts rinsed at the same rate? etc. There are many variables. So I've always worked under the assumption that the salts that are retained in the mash, stay in the mash. No one seems to be able to answer this question in my research.

EDIT: re-read the post and realize my issue is different. The problem is not with the spreadsheet but the way we treat the kettle additions. Since there is water retained by the grain, we actually add salts to the beer for more than the initial boil volume. I'll often add salts for 4 gallons of strike and salts for 6 gallons to the kettle while my initial boil volume is 7 gallons.

Keep in mind we are trying to modify our water to match the water which would be best for the beer we are brewing. So if Smallsville Michigan had perfect water for an IPA, I would try to match that. And I would want to adjust for the total amount of the water I was going to use, say 9 gallons, just like if it were perfect to begin with. Mash water is adjusted during the mash, so I want to adjust for all of my mash water, even though some of that water is left behind. Sparge water is adjusted in the kettle, but since most of that water is not left behind, I want to adjust for all of it as well. Therefore making it very similar to if you had perfect water to begin with.

Here’s the scenario:
Assumptions - total dissolution of all salts. i.e. everything dissolves in the mash and doesn’t stick to the grain or precipitate out of solution. The absorbtion factor of the grain does not change after subsequent batch sparges.


Preboil amount required 14.3 gallons

20lb of grain with a 0.12gal/lb absorption at a 1.5qt/lb mash ratio

Strike water is at 7.5 gallons and 10 grams of a salt is added.

2.4 gallons of water will be held in the grain due to absorption. (I’m assuming the most efficient system with no other dead space or hold back volumes for simplicity sake)

5.1 gallons of run off will make it to the kettle and bring with it 6.8 grams of salt. (10/7.5*5.1)

3.2 grams of salt will be left in the mash with the 2.4 gallons of water. (10-6.8)

Now is where things can get a little trickier. For a batch sparge, the remaining salt will get diluted with each sparge. For a fly sparge, if you are adding the water at the same rate you are removing it AND you are sparging in a reasonable amount of time (not over 12 hours), a gradient will form and the saltier water will be replaced by the “fresh” untreated water from above. I’m not sure of a mathematical way to describe it but I’d bet >95% would be removed. Again, this is an unqualified statement. (As I’ll show below, for a 2 batch sparge, 96% will be removed.)

Back to the batch sparge. This we can describe.

After the first runnings, 3.2 grams of salt are left in 2.4 gallons stuck in the grains. To achieve the 14.3 gallons of preboil volume required, we need 9.2 gallons of sparge water that will be divided into 2 batches. After the first addition, we have 3.2 grams in 7 gallons total in the mash. When we drain away the 4.6 gallons to the kettle, we have 2.4 gallons left with 1.1 grams of salt left in it. When we repeat for the second batch, this salt is diluted out again. Once we’ve collected the 14.3 gallons of wort, there will be 2.4 gallons of water stuck in the mash with 0.376 grams of salt in it.

So of the 10 grams we started with, 9.6 made it to the kettle with batch sparging. To keep the same concentration we had in the mash water in the final kettle volume we need a total of 19.1 grams salt. (10/7.5) x 14.3 So to add to the kettle to get this concentration, we need to add 9.4 grams to the kettle. If we use the EZ method we’d add 12.3 grams. By doing this, we’d adding 29% more salt than we should be to the kettle. In the final concentration, we’re off by 2.8 grams or 15% of the total concentration.

While some may say that 15% may not be that big of a deal for a water profile, I would say, why not be as accurate as we can?

This may also be an issue like religion or bbq. Everybody has their way of doing it and are convinced theirs is the only way. But then again, math is math.

 

[LeeF]

First, I would like to say this spreadsheet is great. I've been using it over the past year and my beers have improved. Thanks TH.

Second, I don't think you have to try and hit the gnats ass with this spread sheet. Use it as a guide but rely on your experience to modify the next batch. This is assuming you try the same recipe again. I've done this with an APA and played with the Gypsum additions and found what I like. As many have said...don't go overboard on any salt, keep the additions simple by using just enough to achieve the effect you're aiming for and don't try to over think. Trust me...I've screwed up a batch by not taking my own advice.

 

[jmo88]

I hear ya, but until someone has some documentation suggesting "all mash salts end up in the kettle" or "x% of mash salts end up in the kettle for xminutes of fly sparge", the kettle additions seem to be a crap shoot. Something along these lines has to have been published...

 

[Bigscience]

I hear ya, but until someone has some documentation suggesting "all mash salts end up in the kettle" or "x% of mash salts end up in the kettle for xminutes of fly sparge", the kettle additions seem to be a crap shoot. Something along these lines has to have been published...

If we assume that a front is maintained that works its way down the mash tun as untreated water is added to the top and treated water is removed from the bottom, we can use residence time calculations to determine how long it takes for the fresh water to make it to the exit of the system.

For a keg mash tun with 20lb of grain, 1.5qt/lb ratio, the mash volume would be 9.2 gal or 11.25 inches in depth. With a flow rate of 1qt/hr, the residence time would be 36.7 minutes. Given the 48 minute sparge time, the first drop of sparge would have left the mash 11 minutes prior. This is the no mixing side of the coin that is probably the most accurate representation.

For the other side:
If we assume that as each drop is added to the top of the mash, the entire mash equilibrates to a homogeneous concentration, the same mash would end up with 20.7% of the original salt remaining in the mash. This will be the MAX salt that could be left in the mash. The following graph shows how the mash ratio affects the remaining salt levels. Note that the starting amounts have changed to maintain the same starting concentrations. For a 1:1 mash, 9.6% is left after 48 minutes, 1.25:1, 15.2%; 1.5:1 20.7%; 1.75:1 25.9%; 2:1 30.6%.

So to circle back around and hit that dead horse one more time:

With a 2 batch sparge, 3.8% of the salt will remain in the mash. For fly sparging, the amount remaining depends on the mash ratio and how much you believe the fresh water added to the top mixes with the treated water at the bottom (I believe very little and by the time it does, most of the salts have been removed). If we draw parallels between wort extraction, fly sparging is more efficient that batch sparging so the amount left would be less that that in the batch scenario.

Bottom line, since mash ratio, grain amount and preboil volume will all affect the total sparge water required (and thus the salts called for in the EZ spreadsheet), we should try to be as accurate as we can with the kettle additions so we can reproduce a specific water for later brews if there are any recipe changes.

Rant=off

 

[shataway]

TH,

Thanks again for the spreadsheet.

What do you use to determine your (mash, sparge, preboil, batch) volumes?

xx qts/lbs for mash?
xx gal/lbs for grain absorbtion?
% gal/hr boiloff?

Thanks,
Steven

 

[jeffmeh]

I just began playing with this tool and I find it outstanding. I am trying to calculate the adjustments for Orfy's Old Speckled Hen clone, and here is what I have come up with:

-----------------------------------------
Starting Water (ppm):
Ca: 9
Mg: 2
Na: 30
Cl: 42
SO4: 2
CaCO3: 14

Mash / Sparge Vol (gal): 9.25 / 0
Dilution Rate: 0%

Adjustments (grams) Mash / Boil Kettle:
CaCO3: 5 / 0
CaSO4: 0 / 0
CaCl2: 0 / 0
MgSO4: 4.5 / 0
NaHCO3: 0 / 0
NaCl: 0 / 0
HCL Acid: 0 / 0
Lactic Acid: 0 / 0

Mash Water / Total water (ppm):
Ca: 66 / 66
Mg: 14 / 14
Na: 30 / 30
Cl: 42 / 42
SO4: 52 / 52
CaCO3: 84 / 84

RA (mash only): 29 (8 to 12 SRM)
Cl to SO4 (total water): 0.81 (Balanced)
-----------------------------------------

I do full-volume, no-sparge, BIAB mashes and start with 9.25 gallons to finish with 5.25 gallons in the fermentor. From what I have read, that should not be an issue with the calculations, particularly if I am at the low end of the recommend ranges. Is this correct?

I expect the SRM to be around 8.9, and for an ESB I am at the bitter end of the balanced Cl:SO4 range. If I increase the MgSO4 to 5g, the SRM moves to 7-12 and the Cl:SO4 moves to 0.73 (at the balanced end of the bitter range). Do either of these sound right for the style, or is there a better target for Cl:SO4?

Many thanks.

 

[jimba009]

TH, if I were to do a multi-rest infusion mash, would I distribute the salts accordingly to the volume of infusions?

thanks

 

[jeffmeh]

I am curious regarding a more objective method of determining the appropriate Cl:SO4 ratio for the style. While I appreciate the scale range labels (Very Bitter, Bitter, Neutral, Malty, Very Malty), which styles fit into each label? Is there a way to correlate Cl:SO4 to something like IBU, or IBU/SG?

 

[crlova2]

SO I am a newb and don't really know which target profile to use for which styles of beers. What target profile would I use for an IPA? Thanks

 

[944play]

There are some water recipes at the end of this page.

I am on a bit of a personal campaign to liberate people from the mistaken assumption that a "balanced" sulfate:chloride ratio must mean 1:1. For almost any style of beer, much more sulfate than chloride is preferable.

 

[ajdelange]

I am on a bit of a personal campaign to liberate people from the mistaken assumption that a "balanced" sulfate:chloride ratio must mean 1:1. For almost any style of beer, much more sulfate than chloride is preferable.

Guess it depends on what kind of beer you are trying to brew. For continental lagers a good sulfate:chloride ratio is 0:1. There are, of course, continental lagers brewed with a fair amount of sulfate but you have to be very cautious with sulfate and noble hops. Doesn't take much sulfate to turn their fine bitterness coarse and unpleasant.

I guess my campaign is to liberate people from the misconception that the Cl/SO4 has the significance so many seem to assign to it. That idea apparently derives from a paragraph in the second edition of Handbook of Brewing (ed. Priest and Stewart). This book is definitely British oriented. The actual statement says that "many" authors have referred to the importance of balance. Every single one of those cited in the references is British The single sentence that has resulted in propagation of this idea reads "It appears that, in many cases, it is the relative ratio of the two ions that has the major flavor influence..." It does not say all cases, or most cases, or the majority of cases. In my experience, "many" does not include any case in which noble hops are involved and my reading of the German texts seems to confirm that sulfate = bad where noble hops are involved. I am not an Anglophobe. It's just that brewing practices from the rest of the world (where they make better beer, IMO, but that's just my taste) need to be taken into consideration.

My passionate campaign is to get people who publish spreadsheets to take out anything that calculates an RA "requirement" from beer color. The correlation between the two is just too weak. Judging by the posts I've seen here and on other boards the SRM - RA thing has ruined more potentially good beer than anything else I can think of. This relates to the other problem I have with these spreadsheets - they ignore pH and you can't do water chemistry without dealing with pH unless you skip carbonates and caveat that the spreadsheets pretty much fall apart as pH increases much beyond 8.3. If you throw away the notion that you require an RA of 400 to brew a 40 SRM beer you should not find yourself in the position of having to add carbonates to adjust RA and it is immaterial that they don't do the calculations correctly.

For example, if I tell the EZ spreadsheet that I want to brew a 40 SRM Stout (e.g. Guiness) from DI water it tells me I must add 1.955 grams (yes, grams) of calcium carbonate for each liter of water! That should immediately strike anyone as insane. It goes on to tell me that this will produce an alkalinity of 952, an RA of 402 and be suitable for beers 38 - 43 SRM. But 1955 mg/L CaCO3 increases alkalinity by 1955 ppm as CaCO3 - there's a reason why alkalinity is specified "as CaCO3". IOW EZ accounts for about half the buffering capacity of CaCO3 and thus directs the user to add twice as much as it would take to get to the "required" RA. If a brewer were to follow this advice he would presumably realize that this much chalk (37 grams for 5 gallons) is not going to dissolve and add it to the mash or suspend it in the water and mash with the suspension. The pH of such a mash would be way high. The theory behind these spreadsheets would require the roast barley to contain 714 mEq of acid which would dissolve and neutralizes the CaCO3 and lower the pH to 5.2. Believe me, the amount of acid in a pound of roast barley is nowhere close to 714 mEq. To get to pH 5.2 the brewer would have to add about (the roast barley will supply a little) 57.8 mL of 23 Be' (hardware store strength) hydrochloric acid!. Fix the thing to correctly calculate the alkalinity correctly and the required acid goes down to 356 mEq. Still completely absurd.

So my recommendation would be to take out the "Best for this SRM" thing so brewers are not mislead into thinking they need such high RA (I do very nice dry stouts darker than 40 SRM with water with an RA of about 36 and the pH is still a little higher than I'd like) and then take away the CaCO3 input. There is little reason why a homebrewer should ever be adding chalk to brewing water unless he is trying to match a particular profile. Getting a spreadsheet to the point where it can do that correctly takes it beyond "simple" pretty quickly. Removing the carbonate removes the necessity to fix the chemistry in that department. Without carbonate (bicarbonate can stay) ignoring pH will give a pretty fair approximation as long as the pH is below 8.3. Even at pH 9 the error in assuming that all alkalinity is from bicarbonate is only about 10%. My final recommendation is to leave the Cl/SO4 ratio but take out the "Best for this style" field because, while there may be some validity to those recommendations for ales (the type of beer homebrewers do most frequently) they are not valid for lagers, wits, wheats, lambics, abby beers....

Having simple spreadsheets is a wonderful thing but the chemistry imposes limitations on simplified calculations. If those limits are exceeded then the simplified calculation can lead the user down the garden path. This would be the case with ignoring pH: don't go above 8.4 or so and you're OK. But the simple spreadsheet must also be based on sound fundamentals. The simplified chemistry must be applicable at pH below 8.4 (as it appears to be here except where carbonate is involved). The premises behind the SRM/RA relationship and SO4/Cl balance are seriously flawed.

 

[jdieter]

A.J. I agree on the sulfate and noble hops, I had to back off the gypsum and manage the Ca with CaCl2 to reduce the hop bite. In another post you mentioned reliability issues mailing water samples vs. local testing do to the time lag and I think the sample not staying refrigerated. I use Wards and their result for TA (CaCO3) on my RO water is 113. That didn't make sense to me so I did a titration test and get a TA less than 50ppm(the smallest increment my kit could test). All the other results were what I would expect with RO filtration, a 90% plus reduction. Is the high TA a result of the sample draw vs. testing lag?

 

[ajdelange]

113 is totally unreasonable for RO water. At 80% - 90% rejection that would imply an alkalinity of 565 - 1130 in the feed. That's possible if you add, for example, a gram of sodium carbonate to a liter of water (alkalinity 859, pH 10.4) and I trust your feed water is nothing like that! What do they say about the anion/cation balance? Actually, what does the rest of the report say. Something fishy here.

 

[jdieter]

pH - 7.3
C/A - 1.2/2.6
Na - 5
K - <1
Ca - 11
Mg - 5
Hardness(CaCO3) - 48
SO4 - 3
Cl - 4
CO3 - <1
HCO3 - 138
TA(CaCO3) - 113

Needless to say after I put the RO unit in I was disappointed with the test results, my well water TA was 324 ahead of the RO unit. I had some conversations with Raymond Ward about all this but I don't recall too much except that the he couldn't explain the C/A imbalance and some of their values are not actually measured but calculated and that could have lead to the high TA. And of course send another sample in at my cost. Anyway that's why I use the alkalinity test result I get from the tap versus Wards, but use their mineral results.

 

[ajdelange]

I can see why you might have been disappointed in your RO performance unless the feed water is really hard and alkaline. Do Ward Labs give a TDS number? That is usually determined by conductivity whereas the alkalinity is determined by titration. The conductivity based TDS only approximates actual TDS but if it appreciably lower than the sum of the ions in the report (don't include hardness or alkalinity) then that points to the alkalinity measurement being off.

The C/A imbalance largely goes away if you assume the alkalinity is half what the report shows. The factor of half raises an eyebrow. When the titration is done 0.1 N acid is added to 100 mL of sample. The number mL of acid is the number of mEq/L H+ required to bring the sample to the end point pH. This is multiplied by 50 to give the alkalinity "as CaCO3". But some people think you should multiply by 100. If that's what Ward Labs is doing that would, in this case, neatly explain the report you got. I can hardly believe that a modern lab would make that mistake and there may be another reason for what you have in this report but I do remember I bought a test kit once that read out the result with the 100 factor. And the manufacturer stood his ground when challenged. If your are talking to the guy in charge at Ward you might ask him about this. I often wondered why Ward Lab reports don't seem to balance as well as they should.

To help you get a handle on this you need to increase the sensitivity of your test. I'm assuming it's a drop count titration test. To increase its sensitivity 10 - fold just test 10 times the normal sample. If it is like most you have a test tube you fill to a line with sample, then add the indicator and then the acid drops. For increased sensitivity just fill the tube to the line 10 times and empty into a beaker or tumbler. Then add the indicator - more that the usual amount, in fact 10 times the usual amount for the same color depth. Then add the acid one drop at a time until you see the color change. If each drop was worth 50 ppm in normal use of the kit it would be worth 5 ppm with 10 times the normal sample.

 

[jdieter]

Thanks for the method to increase the sensitivity of the alkalinity test. Since I'm getting close to hi-jacking this thread I'll start a new thread with the test results I get with the increased sample size. Also I'll include the complete reports from Ward for the pre & post RO unit.

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

AJ, very interesting posts on brewing/water. I was going to brew a Helles this weekend but don't have any sour malt nor acid so I've changed course to a Dortmunder. Do you know how much Carafoam/Carapils help to lower mash pH? I thought I had read somewhere they help but not sure if it's any more than C10.

I'll be using noble hops. I plan to dilute spring water with distilled (~55%) and add Ca; in your opinion, should I steer clear of sulphate or no? Style has it but you've said sulphate+nobles=harsh. I just want to make the best beer possible but still want it to be in-style to a large degree (i.e. competition-worthy). The spring water I'll be using is relatively low in both sulphate and chloride. I plan to mash relatively thick to try and help lower mash pH too.

 

[ajdelange]

Before his untimely demise George Fix used to send beers to my club's annual contest and I'd often wind up judging them which would frequently result in a nasty-gram from George complaining about his score. The case I remember best was an Export. I graded it down because it lacked that crisp, mineral quality that distinguishes an Export. He'd come back with a list of all the professional brewers he'd given it to who thought it was really good beer. I agreed that it was good beer but that my job was to judge it by the guidelines and the guidelines called for the mineral profile. Note: I just checked the current guide and they've toned it down WRT the minerals - I'll come back to that in a minute. I told George his gripe was with the BJCP and not me and he seemed satisfied with that.

I'll add two more things to consider with the George Fix story:

1. When I brew identical ales (for water workshops) except that one is done with synthetic Burton (high sulfate) water and the other with my much lower sulfate well water the Burton ale is judged more authentic but the other is considered a better beer.

2. In the water chapter of the 2d edition of Handbook of Brewing a finding that taste panels score lower sulfate beers higher than high sulfate beers.

The conclusion I draw from this is that Export, Burton ale etc. were conceived to be brewed with the water at hand. The pioneers didn't even know how to remove bicarbonate let alone sulfate. Styles with high sulfate were born and people became used to them. But the beers would have been better beers had their creators been given low sulfate water to work with (does anyone prefer Export to Bohemian Pils?). In the modern day with RO water pretty inexpensive and Burton ales no longer brewed in Burton I think those high sulfate styles are being brewed with lower sulfate water. A bottle of imported Bass certainly is not a minerally - harsh as a Burton ale brewed with Burton-like water (IMO anyway). As evidence of this thesis I offer the fact that the mineral qualities of Export are, in the current edition of the BJCP guidelines, much toned down relative to the way I remember them from 15 yrs ago.

So I'd say it's completely up to you. If want to see what a real Export is like then use the sulfate. If you want to win a ribbon in a competition use less. If you want the best tasting beer use none. Bear in mind that the judges you are likely to face may well not be style Nazis as I was and the best tasting beer might carry the day.

Here, as in every other case, I recommend brewing without sulfate first and then with some sulfate added on a subsequent brew. Decide which you like best and do that in the future. I used to think I was alone in not liking sulfate's effects on hops but the evidence seems to be mounting that many, if not most, people think the same way. There may well be a considerable number of people who do like this synergism. I don't want to be telling people what they should or shouldn't like!

 

[ajdelange]

Forgot to answer the question about Cara malts. They are somewhat higher kilned and so produce a bit of acid but not much - not really enough that you can count on them to have an appreciable effect. I'd say less than 0.05 pH shift if using very low alkalinity (i.e. Pilsen like) water.

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

Thanks for your help and cool story about Fix. I'll try very low sulphate this time and if it's not to style it won't be first time I've 'renamed' a beer after brewing it.

 

[ajdelange]

Interestingly enough it came up again last nite. I judged BOS for the Montgomery County Agricultural Fair which is done in a strange format. The judging was done last Saturday closed to the public and BOS last night open to the public. The panel (4) sits at a long table facing the "audience" and is charged to explain each style as it is given to us, answer questions as we go and deliberate in a loud enough voice so that the room can hear. Educating the public is the Fair's mission. Well we had an Export (field of 20 beers) which was, otherwise, very well done but no mineral profile. I was armed and ready to discuss that one for sure. It probably met the current guidelines but we all agreed it wasn't really an Export and that included a panelist who works on styles for the BJCP. So no sulfate, no ribbon for this fellow from this panel (but don't feel too sorry for him as he got 2nd and 3rd.) He might have fared differently had this thread not turned in this direction.

 

[ajdelange]

I've been trying to figure out why Ward Labs reports didn't look "quite right" and found 2 things one of which is pretty much immaterial and the other is quite significant to users of Ward Labs reports with the EZ spreadsheet. First, the insignificant one: Ward labs calculates bicarbonate ion content by simply assuming that all the alkalinity is caused by bicarbonate ion. Actually, some is caused by the water itself. Thus a water sample with alkalinity determined by titration to pH 4.4 of 87 would have a bicarbonate ion content of 104.2 mg/L. Simply 61*alkalinity/50 (what you get if bicarbonate caused it all) would be 106.14 - not a big deal. Things get trickier at higher pH's. You can still calculate bicarb from the T (total alkalinity) alone but there are other approximations that use the P alkalinity as well. Not at issue if pH is < 8.3.

Much more important, especially in terms of this discussion of sulfates, is that Ward labs reports sulfate as sulfur whereas the EZ spreadsheet calculates sulfate as the ion. To use Ward Labs sulfate data in the EZ spreadsheet you must divide the as Sulfur number by 32.065 (the atomic weight of sulfur) and multiply the result by 96.08 (the molecular weight of the sulfate ion). I only noticed this in another thread where several people had cut and pasted e-mailed Ward Labs reports. There it was, big as life SO4-S. Most people, when they are typing in their reports don't type the -S, nor the -N for nitrate. These are very significant to the analyst. Ward labs reports now look much better to me.

I want to be clear that neither of these things should be taken as a criticism of Ward Lab's services. It is pretty much standard practice to equate alkalinity and bicarbonate for pH < 8.3 and, while it may not be so usual to express sulfate as sulfur in the brewing industry remember that Ward Labs apparently primarily serves the agricultural industry and they may do this as a matter of course. In any case it's like inches and cm. They can equally well convey the same information but it's important to know which system you are in. Ten inches is impressive. Ten cm is not.

 

[cyberbackpacker]

ajdelange, thanks for all the information for continuing to build on the library of information that exists here! It is greatly appreciated, and should help untold numbers of us.

 

[PtotheL]

2. In the water chapter of the 2d edition of Handbook of Brewing a finding that taste panels score lower sulfate beers higher than high sulfate beers.

I would like to hear your take on what is considered low, med, and high sulfate amounts... do you define 50ppm of S04 as high ?