Factors Affecting Water Chemistry Calculations

[Peebee]

We measure our water salts to what we think is one hundredth of a gram (two decimal places of a gram). If we do that accurately we must be getting the water additions as originally intended for the style of beer being brewed. Should we not?

Yes, you should ... If your mash to water ratio is identical to the original's. If, your sparge water (and any top-up water) is treated to be identical to the original's. If, you collect identical proportions of wort as the original. If, your "boil-off" is identical to the original. If, ... is there more?

Otherwise, your "accurate" weighing out water salts is meaningless? Even tenth of a gram, or within a gram, makes little sense.

Water chemicals are described as a concentration (grams per litre, etc.). Chemical reactions are described as an amount reacting with a specific amount. Flavours (with flavouring enhancers, such as already in the water) will depend on concentrations. Malt, sugars, hops, etc., (the source of reactants and flavours) will also be described as concentrations ... but in entirely different "units" (pounds per gallon, kilos per "batch", etc.) and those units not converted.

Why are so many of us obsessed with weighing things (like water salts) out to miniscule proportions? And other directly related things not weighed or measured to the same degree of accuracy?

 

[Miraculix]

Because we simply do not understand that.

 

[mabrungard]

A hundreth of a gram is overkill. However, for the typical small homebrew batch sizes, measuring to the nearest tenth is wise. The smaller the batch size, the more you need to make sure you aren't overdosing. But with that said, I still wouldn't worry about reproducing water ion concentrations perfectly. If you can get them to within 10 or 20 ppm, you probably wouldn't notice a difference in the finished beer. Do pay attention to acid additions though.

 

[MaxStout]

Then there's the "close enough for government work" approach of just adding a teaspoon of this and that.

 

[Deadalus]

What you are describing is sometimes referred to as the "effect size", which is the consideration of the magnitude different factors have on a dependent variable/outcome/product. But you are biasing your thinking because you consider the measurments of water salt mass small. Each significant factor that does affect some outcome (beer taste) will do so at differing magnitudes that will depend on how much that factor is changed. Simply thinking measurment accuracy at one-hundredth of a gram is a small effect isn't necessarily a given.

You also seem to be considering the water salt additions are an attempt to match a specific beer (original's) and not a style range?

 

[Peebee]

... But you are biasing your thinking because you consider the measurments of water salt mass small. ...

Yes, I am "biasing" my opinion. But you are describing the "biasing" as a negative thing ... I'm saying "hundredths of a gram" has no value in the context being discussed. Such small measurements are swept into insignificance by our subsequent actions.

No-one is providing any reason to measure things so fine, yet they are condemning people to attempting to measure things to such miniscule degrees (and "they" take it all in believing it to be the reason for x, y, and z issues they are having ... or will have if they don't comply).

There needs to be some rationalization of scale of the things we do, else waste bags of time carefully doing something only to wipe it out with the next process to be performed. Using an example from the original post: Chloride is a flavour enhancer. Its valued role is played in the final beer, not during the making. It is measured out as a salt to "hundredths of a gram". Fine so far ... and then the wort is boiled for a rough amount of time, with an undetermined boil-off ... what has happened to that careful weighing out? Will it have magically transformed into an equally precise (undetermined) amount of flavour enhancement?

Obviously not. So why did we bother to weigh it so precisely in the first place?


I never "attempt to match a specific beer", nor a specific "style range". But some do. And I do want people to understand why they need to measure things so accurately. Then they can tell me


I am going somewhere with this! So, I welcome anyone's input to prevent me drawing conclusions I then try to force on anyone else.

 

[Bobby_M]

There are X number of things other brewers care about and sometimes argue for that you don't have to pay attention to. I don't think anyone would ever argue that brewing salts need to be measured to a hundredth of a gram. The only reason to be precise is to remove whatever variables you can for subsequent brew sessions if the beer comes out amazing.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

Back around 2018, I bought a digital scale (Amazon US) that was 50g ± .01 and discovered that it didn't weight small (< .5 g) amounts consistently. The 50g ± .001 scales that I bought have the ability to weigh small amounts consistently.

FWIW, with my 2.5 gal batches, I calculate salt additions to ⅒ g or ¼ g based on the water profile I'm targeting for the recipe.

 

[Deadalus]

Yes, I am "biasing" my opinion. But you are describing the "biasing" as a negative thing ... I'm saying "hundredths of a gram" has no value in the context being discussed. Such small measurements are swept into insignificance by our subsequent actions.

No-one is providing any reason to measure things so fine, yet they are condemning people to attempting to measure things to such miniscule degrees (and "they" take it all in believing it to be the reason for x, y, and z issues they are having ... or will have if they don't comply).

There needs to be some rationalization of scale of the things we do, else waste bags of time carefully doing something only to wipe it out with the next process to be performed. Using an example from the original post: Chloride is a flavour enhancer. Its valued role is played in the final beer, not during the making. It is measured out as a salt to "hundredths of a gram". Fine so far ... and then the wort is boiled for a rough amount of time, with an undetermined boil-off ... what has happened to that careful weighing out? Will it have magically transformed into an equally precise (undetermined) amount of flavour enhancement?

Obviously not. So why did we bother to weigh it so precisely in the first place?


I never "attempt to match a specific beer", nor a specific "style range". But some do. And I do want people to understand why they need to measure things so accurately. Then they can tell me


I am going somewhere with this! So, I welcome anyone's input to prevent me drawing conclusions I then try to force on anyone else.

You are just talking through what are saying without referencing any real data otherwise. One measures that finely because they are interested in duplicating a specific water profile and the amounts necessary to do that are on fine scale for the batch size needed. If whatever salt you need requires 0.5 g and you measure to 0.1 you might be +/-10%. The scale is reading 0.5 for <0.55 down to >0.45. And it would be worse if you went with 0.4 or 0.6g. The possible variation will increase for required amounts less than 0.5 and will be less for larger amounts. But you haven't considered it in such a manner, you are just saying because hundredths of a gram seems small that it won't matter. It's your hypothesis prove it. You could work up some water profiles and show what happens when you tweak them by 0.1, 0.5, 0.1, 0.2g etc for various salts and see where the water profile ends up. That would be like a sensitivity analysis.

And you were discussing some original recipe or something in your arguments. Whatever on that but right after you are talking about other variables that one would hold constant and being recipe specific (wort collected). Boil-off isn't hard to keep constant if your pot has gradations on it. Same for top-off water. And if you think those are inexact or people are inexact about it, you could again tweak the water profile to see what happens when you are off by a cup or a pint or a quart. As it sounds though, you don't seem to have given it much numerical consideration. Arm yourself with some actual numbers for some actual water profiles to make your point.

 

[Peebee]

Ha! I did "like" your previous post (@Deadalus) 'cos I knew from that you'd be providing a decent conversation on the subject .

... But you haven't considered it in such a manner, you are just saying because hundredths of a gram seems small that it won't matter. It's your hypothesis prove it. You could work up some water profiles and show what happens when you tweak them by 0.1, 0.5, 0.1, 0.2g etc for various salts and see where the water profile ends up. ...

I can't provide the latter on that just yet, but this is my way of raking in the material for it. But on the former I'm fairly comfortably on-track (hardly "comfortably", the work is a PITA) ... I'm in the process of dragging myself out of the hell-hole of measuring salts to hundredths of a gram (two decimal places). For example:

(And there's loads of that to draw from). Not anything worth drawing from in that example, just illustrating it is an ongoing project. Using "Bru'n Water" as a simulator to model and try things out with. I'm attempting to simplify water calculations by limiting mash additions to a fixed level of calcium, and predictable levels of alkalinity (everything else goes in the boil). Hardly ground-breaking, but I can find no instruction on the process, And not quite as far as:

Then there's the "close enough for government work" approach of just adding a teaspoon of this and that.

... but not far off (teaspoons aren't excluded).

Anyway, that's for later.

I'm not against measuring things to 2DPs of a gram (personally, I think we do it because the water companies report watery things to 2DPs and we don't want to be out done) ... I rant because those suggesting measuring to such miniscule levels then trash their hard work by not measuring things like volumes in equally tiny fractions of a litre (when the batch is 4 gallons, 19 litres, or whatever). I'm not suggesting measuring batch sizes in millilitres either!

 

[Rish]

Why are so many of us obsessed with weighing things (like water salts) out to miniscule proportions?

Why would one be obsessed with others' obsessions?

 

[micraftbeer]

I'm reading all this, and my thinking is aligned with @Bobby_M . If I've got twenty variables and have good control of 10 of them, the range in variation of the end product will be less than if I had good control of only 9 of them. That's just math.

What's also math, is if that 10th variable (that I do have good control over) is tiny in contribution to the end variation, then I might be reducing variability by an insignificant amount of my finished beer. On that, I'm with @Deadalus , share your data to prove it's insignificant.

But this is all so theoretical, not sure it has a practical impact. I don't eyeball my brewing salt additions, I weigh them. If my scale goes to .001, of course I use it. I'm weighing the additions anyway. That said, I just try my best to hit the weights. I don't go fishing out one ball of CaCl because it went over. Maybe that's the "stressing the significance too much" you're referring to.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

I'm attempting to simplify water calculations by limiting mash additions to a fixed level of calcium, and predictable levels of alkalinity (everything else goes in the boil). Hardly ground-breaking, but I can find no instruction on the process

Over on the USA side of the Atlantic, there is

• Brewing Better Beer (May 2011) and Modern Homebrew Recipes (June 2015) or
• Water Chemistry – How to Build Your Water – Bertus Brewery (internet archives, Feb 2012)

No spreadsheets; teaspoons, not grams; different approaches to dark grains; generally more emphasis on "how" than on "why".​

Both are over a decade old, so a fresh perspective from the other side of the Atlantic could be interesting.

 

[Peebee]

... share your data to prove it's insignificant.

Hey ... not fair! It's my thread; I do the asking, and all you helpful souls do the answering?

And I ('cos I'm aging into a Master grumpy git) then argue with the answers that I have solicited. I think that's how it works?


Okay. I'll collect a summary of how I believe the stuff can be dealt with using less effort to achieve far greater accuracy ... but it will take me a few days to string it together and dress it up with some decent "spin". It'll take me longer to organise enough up-to-date practical data, so you'll have to imagine that. Meanwhile I rely on "common-sense" to back me up. I.e. One hundredth of a gram in 4 gallons of brew ... is that significant (if not ... what is)?

 

[Bobby_M]

I don't want to violate your thread rules by asking a question, but when you say

"No-one is providing any reason to measure things so fine, yet they are condemning people to attempting to measure things to such miniscule degrees (and "they" take it all in believing it to be the reason for x, y, and z issues they are having ... or will have if they don't comply)."

Are you attempting to convey an overall feeling you have or have you actually had people beat you over the head about this? Do you have a link to a specific post?

If this is just a thing to justify the thread, it's not necessary or productive. Just start the thread and ask if anyone really thinks precision of this level matters.

 

[MaxStout]

I'm getting a lot of this vibe here.

Everybody has their own tolerance range for what goes into their brewing processes. Some want to carry out measurements to three places. Some do two, some one. Some home brewers use spoons, like suggested in the posting I linked above (a posting written by AJ, who knows a thing or two about water chem). Occam's Razor. Sometimes the simplest solution works the best.

You're only wrong if your beer sucks.

 

[Peebee]

Over on the USA side of the Atlantic, there is ...

I'm no fan of Mr Strong, but what you've posted from "Scott" is reminiscent of Chris Colby's Web post's that I do reference (unfortunately his web site, beerandgardeningjournal.com, has disappeared and needs digging out of the "Wayback Machine" too ... his book "Methods of Modern Homebrewing" is still available but with less water details). Chris includes teaspoons as well!

This side of the Atlantic dropped, or mislaid, the lead with "brewing publications" before the start of this Century. Ron Pattinson perhaps goes on, but he doesn't go into water (beer history only ... if you tell him beer is mainly water, he'll probably refuse to come out of his home ever again).

As for "No spreadsheets" ... but, but ... I need them to tell me which side of the bed to get out of in the morning.

... attempting to convey an overall feeling you have ...

Yeap! Though the feeling is probably the pain due to being beaten over the head about it?

 

[VikeMan]

Meanwhile I rely on "common-sense" to back me up. I.e. One hundredth of a gram in 4 gallons of brew ... is that significant (if not ... what is)?

AKA an argument from personal incredulity. I'm not saying you're wrong, only that it's a logical fallacy.

But since you're citing "One Hundredth of a gram in 4 gallons of brew," can you provide even one example of where someone said it is significant, for any salt of your choice? If not, this thread is starting to feel like a strawman. If that's the case, kudos on building a strawman argument and then attempting to knock it down with personal incredulity. Were you by any chance on the debate team?

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

@Peebee : as I said earlier, a fresh perspective from the other side of the Atlantic could be interesting.

 

[micraftbeer]

Wait, this just occurred to me. Using brewing water calculator, you can plug in different grams of brewing salts manually and see the results on your key ions in terms of ppm.

This seems like a simple exercise with your brewing water calculator of preference. No need to talk in general terms or figurative/ visual references of hundredth of a gram in X gallons of water.

 

[Deadalus]

Wait, this just occurred to me. Using brewing water calculator, you can plug in different grams of brewing salts manually and see the results on your key ions in terms of ppm.

This seems like a simple exercise with your brewing water calculator of preference. No need to talk in general terms or figurative/ visual references of hundredth of a gram in X gallons of water.

Bingo! This is what I was suggesting earlier. I hadn't tried it in Beersmith and wasn't sure about other apps to suggest a specific one to try it in. Since it is ppm, one could just use the ppm from the water profile and then apply the percentage reductions/additions in weight to see the effect as well. From there however, it is still important to understand what ranges of ppm demonstrate important effects for each type of addition. OP is stuck on measurement scales without demonstrating actual effects-skipping the data section. And OP, I'd present the same argument if someone thought they had to measure to some minute fraction as well. What happens when you do or don't? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I'm just trying to help you to see how to better evaluate the premise more effectively.

 

[sibelman]

Some of us treat brewing like cooking. Others, more like baking where greater precision is thought to be important. Either way, it's possible to obsess over factors that turn out not to require such intense focus. Personally, I'm more cook than baker.

Re water chemistry: what comes out of my tap varies somewhat. Whatever the precision in the reports I get from my water utility, I can't really be sure exactly what's going on next brew day. I speculate that even those with reverse osmosis equipment inevitably use somewhat different water from one brew day to the next. Thus, it seems to me that extreme precision in brewing salts may be a waste of effort unless one uses distilled water.

 

[Peebee]

Wait, this just occurred to me. ...

That's what I'm doing. But the day's ending this side of the Atlantic, and I'm falling asleep on me keyboard. I'm only up to 15SRM, a long way to go to before I get to 50 (5SRM intervals). I would normally criticise anyone using a purpose-built calculator as a "brewing simulator" (which is what I'm doing ) because different calculators often do not agree, and you are effectively "plagiarising" someone else's work to get results that you then use in a "competitive" sense (in this case Martin Brungard's work as I'm using Bru'n Water). But it would require quite a serious stretch of the imagination to think I could compete with Martin's calculator, so I'm just hoping he won't care?

Before I pack up for the day ...

If I succeed in figuring out a simple approach to water calculations (it's not a certainty yet!), it will need packaging up (as in my "Defuddler" spreadsheet) before others could use it (i.e. ages off). The purpose at this stage is to show the futility of measuring water salts to two decimal places, as is being asked of me. Warning! To make something easy, some hard stuff has to go. Some folks will hold such "hard stuff" as precious; they won't like it! (You may also be disappointed; I can't be doing anything "new", at best I'm just retelling ideas that will have already been tried).

 

[micraftbeer]

Killing me. I feel like I'm being scammed into doing someone else's work, but I couldn't wait any longer...

I started with a Pale Ale recipe I've brewed and had success with. Here's the Brewfather water calculator results:

Increased the Canning Salt by 0.1 grams up:

Put the Canning Salt back to baseline, increased the CaCl by 0.1 grams up:

Put the CaCl back to baseline, increased the Gypsum by 0.1 grams up:

Looks like being off by 0.1 gram of the brewing salts I used here, resulted in variations of 2 - 4 ppm of the various key elements. So it definitely seems precision of brewing salt additions of 0.001 g on a 6-gallon batch (volume into fermentor) would be insignificant.

 

[VikeMan]

So it definitely seems precision of brewing salt additions of 0.001 g on a 6-gallon batch (volume into fermentor) would be insignificant.

 

[Deadalus]

Killing me. I feel like I'm being scammed into doing someone else's work, but I couldn't wait any longer...

I started with a Pale Ale recipe I've brewed and had success with. Here's the Brewfather water calculator results:

View attachment 869199



Increased the Canning Salt by 0.1 grams up:
View attachment 869203




Put the Canning Salt back to baseline, increased the CaCl by 0.1 grams up:
View attachment 869204


Put the CaCl back to baseline, increased the Gypsum by 0.1 grams up:
View attachment 869205


Looks like being off by 0.1 gram of the brewing salts I used here, resulted in variations of 2 - 4 ppm of the various key elements. So it definitely seems precision of brewing salt additions of 0.001 g on a 6-gallon batch (volume into fermentor) would be insignificant.

Being off doesn't happen to just one measurement. So consideration needs to be made for all additions at the same time. Also, the sulfate to chloride ratio is important. You've only made three changes here, and singly, to one water profile. I understand your curiousity was burning but this wouldn't be considered definitive in any way. Monte Carlo simulations use upwards of thousands of runs. Wouldn't be hard to do if one has the equations programmed, then random values could be generated to feed in but I'm not doing the work for the OP either.

 

[Peebee]

... Were you by any chance on the debate team?

No. There was little emphasis on "debate" in my student years. I've only begun to find this debate caper interesting in these last ten years ... too late to be any value work-occupation-wise! I'm not great at it, hence I managed to annoy the administrator of the last brewing forum I frequented so much I got banned (and I was the complainant, not the defendant!). But good riddance ... it's much more fun here (and educational!).

But I've learnt enough to see my room to manoeuvre in this argument being squeezed out: Have I won in that there's little gap left for me to argue about any longer, or have I lost because I never had last word? One thing's for sure, if I try to squeeze a last word in now, I've surely lost! I'll pick up my "strawman" and wander off elsewhere.

And here: I'll finish writing up how I'm proposing to approach water treatment more simply (which I need to continue pushing on with because my brewing continues to be on-hold until I've got it sorted). The results from that should help me sort out my brewing in future, and, stop me weighing out hundredths of a gram, and, put an end to my sub-pH5.0 mashes? Maybe.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

Looks like being off by 0.1 gram of the brewing salts I used here, resulted in variations of 2 - 4 ppm of the various key elements.

Looks right.

The BeerSmith 3 Water Profile tab can be used to "cross check".

5 gal of wort. 0.1 g of salt.

 

[Deadalus]

Looks right.

The BeerSmith 3 Water Profile tab can be used to "cross check".

5 gal of wort. 0.1 g of salt.

View attachment 869247

That's a helpful tool. So final batch size is probably 5 gallons but how much water are you mashing with? A middle gravity beer might be around 4 gallons. Bigger batch sizes than 5 gallons (of mash water) would have a lesser effect than demonstrated. A half size batch more than twice shown.

 

[micraftbeer]

That's a helpful tool. So final batch size is probably 5 gallons but how much water are you mashing with? A middle gravity beer might be around 4 gallons. Bigger batch sizes than 5 gallons (of mash water) would have a lesser effect than demonstrated. A half size batch more than twice shown.

This is the reason I stay at/near 5 gallon batches. When I brew smaller batches, I become more sensitive to errors/ variations in ingredients (weight of salts/ malts/ hops, volumes of water/ wort, AA of hops, etc) and thus makes it harder to duplicate results later.

Maybe if I was brewng 1 gallon batches, I'd need to start weighing my salts to 0.001 g, and crushing CaCl balls...