I got Joe's PM regarding my original post. I can only assume that maybe there were some transcription errors in the report at the lab or when it was posted here. A lot of information doesn't agree within the report.
The first curiousity is that there is no calcium reported. Ward Lab always tests for that and would report a value, even if it was zero.
The 19 ppm Mg would provide a hardness of 78 ppm as CaCO3 by itself, so that concentration is probably not correct. Is it 1.9 ppm? That could make more sense. Then a calcium concentration of about 18 ppm would provide the hardness value reported.
The bicarbonate and carbonate values don't agree with the pH and alkalinity values reported. For the alkalinity, bicarbonate, and carbonate values reported, the pH would have to be about 9.9. That is a fairly high pH for a tap water, but its possible. Does the local water have that high a pH? Another possibility is that the lab transcribed the 8.9 pH value and input it as 9.8 when they were calculating the bicarb and carb concentrations.
If these are the true values reported on the Lab report, I'd be pissed and would request a refund. There are too many errors to provide the user with much confidence.
This whole issue of checking and validating laboratory results is central to using any water data and using it for brewing chemistry. That is one reason why Bru'n Water seems a little more intimidating than other programs. That is something that shouldn't be overlooked. The old adage: Garbage In = Garbage Out holds true for brewing water chemistry and mineral adjustments. To my knowledge, there are no other programs that provide this utility to the brewer...the ability to check if a water report is reasonable. Sure, there are EZier programs out there, but GIGO is a hard hurdle to overcome. Consider that when evaluating your water program!
Enjoy!
