Heady Topper Results From Ward Labs

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yes, you can't avoid the pH lowering effect of adding calcium to wort, whether its in the mash or in the kettle. Sure, you can reserve some calcium from the mash and produce a decent pH in the tun, but when you add the rest of the calcium to boost the sulfate level, the kettle wort pH will be reduced. In a hoppy beer, that can take the edge off the bittering and hop expression.

If you are adding a bunch of gypsum to reach a high sulfate target and your starting water doesn't have much alkalinity, it can depress the mash or kettle pH below the desirable hoppy beer target of about 5.4. Adding a bit of lime or baking soda can correct that.

Thanks for the reply, Martin. Any insight as to why I'm getting wildly different results when inputting the exact same parameters into both Bru'n Water and Brewer's Friend? I do have a pH meter on order but the difference in predicted mash pH between the two has me completely stumped. I generally use Bru'n Water as my go-to but was double checking results with Brewer's Friend and was caught off guard. I'll spare the input details as I assume they're arbitrary given that they are consistent between programs?
 
Reviving an old topic, but thought some might be interested to see lab results obtained for a clone attempt using a recipe put together from the most current information in this thread. All things considered, I'd say it's pretty close...my results are in red.

pH - 4.3, 4.35
TDS - 1584, 1444
Electrical Conductivity, mmho/cm - 2.64, 2.20
Cations/Anions, me/L - 36.6/20.6**, 31.5/19.3

ppm
Sodium, Na - 25, 35
Potassium, K - 802, 740
Calcium, Ca - 110, 87
Magnesium, Mg - 113, 82
Total Hardness, CaCO3 - 746, 553
Nitrate, NO3-N - 17.6, 14
Sulfate, SO4-S - 156, 181
Chloride, Cl - 339, 282
Carbonate, CO3 - <1.0, < 1
Bicarbonate, HCO3 - <1, < 1
Total Alkalinity, CaCO3 - <1, <1
Total Phosphorus, P - 278.10, 374
Total Iron, Fe - 0.37, < 0.1
 
Reviving an old topic, but thought some might be interested to see lab results obtained for a clone attempt using a recipe put together from the most current information in this thread. All things considered, I'd say it's pretty close...my results are in red.

pH - 4.3, 4.35
TDS - 1584, 1444
Electrical Conductivity, mmho/cm - 2.64, 2.20
Cations/Anions, me/L - 36.6/20.6**, 31.5/19.3

ppm
Sodium, Na - 25, 35
Potassium, K - 802, 740
Calcium, Ca - 110, 87
Magnesium, Mg - 113, 82
Total Hardness, CaCO3 - 746, 553
Nitrate, NO3-N - 17.6, 14
Sulfate, SO4-S - 156, 181
Chloride, Cl - 339, 282
Carbonate, CO3 - <1.0, < 1
Bicarbonate, HCO3 - <1, < 1
Total Alkalinity, CaCO3 - <1, <1
Total Phosphorus, P - 278.10, 374
Total Iron, Fe - 0.37, < 0.1

Awesome! There are some interesting numbers there like the huge Mg amounts and having both the SO4 and Cl2 quite high. Also the Potassium and the Phosporus. Are those came from the malt?
What was your base water like?
 
Yes, there is a big contribution of ions from the malt, see Martin's post earlier in this thread.

My starting water is given below; I used 22g of CaSO4 in 4.77 gal of strike water. I did not adjust the sparge water at all. My mash pH was 5.2 and my pre-boil kettle pH was 5.1.

Vital specs:

OG - 1.074
FG - 1.014
IBU - 120
Yeast - ECY29
Batch size - 5.25gal. All carbon-filtered water

Ca - 22
Mg - 6
K - 2
Na - 20
Cl - 35
SO4 - 13
HCO3 - 68
 
Yes, there is a big contribution of ions from the malt, see Martin's post earlier in this thread.

My starting water is given below; I used 22g of CaSO4 in 4.77 gal of strike water. I did not adjust the sparge water at all. My mash pH was 5.2 and my pre-boil kettle pH was 5.1.

Vital specs:

OG - 1.074
FG - 1.014
IBU - 120
Yeast - ECY29
Batch size - 5.25gal. All carbon-filtered water

Ca - 22
Mg - 6
K - 2
Na - 20
Cl - 35
SO4 - 13
HCO3 - 68

So the Chloride levels increased with no Calcium Chloride addition?
 
Yes, there is a big contribution of ions from the malt, see Martin's post earlier in this thread.

My starting water is given below; I used 22g of CaSO4 in 4.77 gal of strike water. I did not adjust the sparge water at all. My mash pH was 5.2 and my pre-boil kettle pH was 5.1.

Vital specs:

OG - 1.074
FG - 1.014
IBU - 120
Yeast - ECY29
Batch size - 5.25gal. All carbon-filtered water

Ca - 22
Mg - 6
K - 2
Na - 20
Cl - 35
SO4 - 13
HCO3 - 68

I plugged your numbers into Bru'n Water and 22g CaSO4 into ~5gal seems high. The water ended up with ~200 Ca and ~500 SO4, are you sure you added that much CaSO4?
 
I plugged your numbers into Bru'n Water and 22g CaSO4 into ~5gal seems high. The water ended up with ~200 Ca and ~500 SO4, are you sure you added that much CaSO4?

Yes, I'm positive. 22g CaSO4-2H2O in 4.77gal of strike water is equivalent to 299ppm Ca or 748ppm as CaCO3. I was shooting for 750ppm calcium hardness in the mash, per the screen shot of the brew sheet.

Keep in mind my sparge water (~ 4.5gal) was untreated, so the final ion concentrations in the boil were ultimately about half of what was in the mash. However, it is clear from the results that malt adds back some anions and cations, namely K+, Mg+, Cl-, and SO42-
 
Keep in mind my sparge water (~ 4.5gal) was untreated, so the final ion concentrations in the boil were ultimately about half of what was in the mash.

Yeah but if you boiled away most of your sparge water (if it as a 5gal batch) then your final water profile was even harder than your mash water cause the water evaporates but it leaves the salts behind like when you distill stuff.
So if your brewing water was around 500ppm SO4 i don't know how it could go down to 180ppm in the final beer.
 
Yeah but if you boiled away most of your sparge water (if it as a 5gal batch) then your final water profile was even harder than your mash water cause the water evaporates but it leaves the salts behind like when you distill stuff.
So if your brewing water was around 500ppm SO4 i don't know how it could go down to 180ppm in the final beer.

Again, keep in mind that in the format that Ward Labs reports SO4-S, the number is multiplied by 3 to get the resulting concentration in ppm.
 
Reviving an old topic, but thought some might be interested to see lab results obtained for a clone attempt using a recipe put together from the most current information in this thread. All things considered, I'd say it's pretty close...my results are in red.

pH - 4.3, 4.35
TDS - 1584, 1444
Electrical Conductivity, mmho/cm - 2.64, 2.20
Cations/Anions, me/L - 36.6/20.6**, 31.5/19.3

ppm
Sodium, Na - 25, 35
Potassium, K - 802, 740
Calcium, Ca - 110, 87
Magnesium, Mg - 113, 82
Total Hardness, CaCO3 - 746, 553
Nitrate, NO3-N - 17.6, 14
Sulfate, SO4-S - 156, 181
Chloride, Cl - 339, 282
Carbonate, CO3 - <1.0, < 1
Bicarbonate, HCO3 - <1, < 1
Total Alkalinity, CaCO3 - <1, <1
Total Phosphorus, P - 278.10, 374
Total Iron, Fe - 0.37, < 0.1

Thanks for the post. Looks like you were indeed pretty darn close. Speculating here but perhaps of bit of CaCl2 would've gotten you right on the money.
 
So from my limited water knowledge, that is a high level of magnesium and chloride. In Bru'n water, the Mg limit is 30 ppm and the chloride limit is 100 and he's tripling those. Also surprised the sulfate is so low. Who wants to brew it with this profile?
42.gif
63.gif

This is the analysis of FINISHED beer. Malt adds a lot of minerals. They are trying to reverse engineer the profile of the brewing water.

Also, 350+ ppm sulfate is not a small number. Ward reports the mass of the sulfur atom only, multiply by 3 to get sulfate.
 
Yes, it should be stressed that the analysis is on the BEER, not the starting water.

Malt adds a ton of minerals - I started with 5ppm Mg and ended up with 82ppm with no Mg salt additions. K went from 2 to 740.

The take-away here is that the Alchemist is adding a relatively large amount of gypsum to their mash water, which is initially low in mineral content. This has the dual effect of aggressively driving down RA so that the mash, boil, and final beer pH are on the low end of normal ranges, and ending with high finishing SO4 values, which as we all know compliments hoppy beers well.
 
I think it's worth to mention that in that long q&a with kimmich he says that their final runnings are of quite high gravity, which translates to less sparging and therefor higher mineral concentration from the malt, which would affect your mineral additions.
 
Surprised nobody has gone and purchased an iDip and done some testing on all of this. As much as everyone keeps tweaking and trying different methods, it would be great to see the impact of water treatment profiles on final readings vs. what the known final readings from the HT ward labs read out is. Hmm good idea. I'll go buy one.
 
Interesting thread necro here. Surprised I haven't seen this thread before.

If you look at the conversation in posts ~42-50, it looks like g-star is adding enough gypsum to get calcium levels around 300-350ppm, and sulfate levels around 700-750ppm. Yet in his finished beer the calcium level is 87ppm and the sulfate level is ~540ppm (~180*3). And if we are to believe the evidence, the Alchemist is doing something similar with Heady Topper and getting similar final results. So where did the missing calcium and sulfate go? Did the yeast take it up? Did it precipitate out at some point, perhaps some sort of complex with phosphates or proteins from the grains?

If g-star had added "normal" hoppy IPA gypsum levels, like to get to ~150ppm Ca++ / ~300ppm SO4--, then would the final calcium and sulfate levels be proportionately lower? Or would they not because of the aforementioned possibility that excess levels simply precipitate/complex out?

Also it seems clear throughout this thread that the grains are adding large loads of potassium (>700ppm added), chloride (>200ppm added) and magnesium (>70ppm added). Now I don't know what potassium is or isn't supposed to do in brewing (anyone?), but according to the water chemistry lore we're supposed to keep chloride in check in our hoppy brews to keep the sulfate:chloride ratio up, and we're always supposed to keep our magnesium in check for reasons that are not fully clear to me (laxation?). So how have we been doing that? By cutting (or totally replacing) our tap water with RO or DI water. But if the grains are adding these kind of ion loads, then why bother? These chloride and magnesium levels are dwarfing anything anybody's tap water is going to add. And if we are in fact adding that much chloride from grains, then maybe we MUST add that huge load of gypsum to keep the sulfate level up where it needs to be?

Or again, does a lot of the excess calcium and sulfate eventually precipitate out, and its only real purpose is to get mash pH where we want it?

Is all this stuff already well-known and in some book(s) somewhere? Or is this some super-secret that only world-class IPA makers know about?

I think it may answer one lingering question I've always had...how did San Diego become such an IPA capitol, when our water is so hard and high in minerals, and apparently terrible for IPA's? Maybe because it doesn't really matter as much as we thought?

I do know my next hoppy brew is gonna be all-crappy San Diego tap water (instead of my normal 80-90% dilution with RO) with the chloramines taken out with metabite, with a big, big load of gypsum (2-3x what I normally add) to get calcium and sulfate levels like HT or g-star's and to put mash pH where I want it (~5.2-5.3). Be interesting to see what that does for me.
 
Interesting thread necro here. Surprised I haven't seen this thread before.

If you look at the conversation in posts ~42-50, it looks like g-star is adding enough gypsum to get calcium levels around 300-350ppm, and sulfate levels around 700-750ppm. Yet in his finished beer the calcium level is 87ppm and the sulfate level is ~540ppm (~180*3). And if we are to believe the evidence, the Alchemist is doing something similar with Heady Topper and getting similar final results. So where did the missing calcium and sulfate go? Did the yeast take it up? Did it precipitate out at some point, perhaps some sort of complex with phosphates or proteins from the grains?

If g-star had added "normal" hoppy IPA gypsum levels, like to get to ~150ppm Ca++ / ~300ppm SO4--, then would the final calcium and sulfate levels be proportionately lower? Or would they not because of the aforementioned possibility that excess levels simply precipitate/complex out?

Also it seems clear throughout this thread that the grains are adding large loads of potassium (>700ppm added), chloride (>200ppm added) and magnesium (>70ppm added). Now I don't know what potassium is or isn't supposed to do in brewing (anyone?), but according to the water chemistry lore we're supposed to keep chloride in check in our hoppy brews to keep the sulfate:chloride ratio up, and we're always supposed to keep our magnesium in check for reasons that are not fully clear to me (laxation?). So how have we been doing that? By cutting (or totally replacing) our tap water with RO or DI water. But if the grains are adding these kind of ion loads, then why bother? These chloride and magnesium levels are dwarfing anything anybody's tap water is going to add. And if we are in fact adding that much chloride from grains, then maybe we MUST add that huge load of gypsum to keep the sulfate level up where it needs to be?

Or again, does a lot of the excess calcium and sulfate eventually precipitate out, and its only real purpose is to get mash pH where we want it?

Is all this stuff already well-known and in some book(s) somewhere? Or is this some super-secret that only world-class IPA makers know about?

I think it may answer one lingering question I've always had...how did San Diego become such an IPA capitol, when our water is so hard and high in minerals, and apparently terrible for IPA's? Maybe because it doesn't really matter as much as we thought?

I do know my next hoppy brew is gonna be all-crappy San Diego tap water (instead of my normal 80-90% dilution with RO) with the chloramines taken out with metabite, with a big, big load of gypsum (2-3x what I normally add) to get calcium and sulfate levels like HT or g-star's and to put mash pH where I want it (~5.2-5.3). Be interesting to see what that does for me.

Some good questions being asked here. Perhaps the resident water experts will weigh in on these concerns because I have nothing of value to offer. Martin? AJ?
 
Another thread:
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=585320

Got me to thinking that the "missing sulfate" (i.e., ~700-750ppm before, ~540ppm after, ~25% reduction) could largely have simply been lost to water not extracted from the grains. But the majority of the calcium loss (i.e., ~300-350ppm before, 87ppm after, ~73% loss) must have another explanation, I am guessing precipitation with phosphates from the grain (maybe the calcium phosphates actually stay in the grains once complexed?)--maybe also something going on with yeast flocculation.

Does have me thinking, if we need to have high sulfate:chloride ratio, not just at the start but also in the finished beer, to get that good hoppiness...I guess then we do have to use obscenely high levels of gypsum. Maybe this is what my IPA's have been missing?

And I'm still thinking that with all the magnesium and chloride being apparently leached out of the grains...to heck with wasting quarters at the RO machine! Especially with all that gypsum now helping reduce pH in my high-bicarbonate tap water.

I also would certainly appreciate the perspective of the water gurus.
 
The mash Ca level is eventually diluted approximately 1/2 after sparging with untreated water. I believe it is further reduced by precipitation with malt phosphates (desired reaction to drive down RA) and possibly with oxalate (beer stone).

The amount of SO42- found in the finished beer is higher than can be accounted for by the gypsum addition alone, thus the malt must be contributing a few hundred ppm.

Finally, it is clear that malt adds a lot of chloride. It drives me nuts when I see the hand-wringing of some people expecting to find taste/mouthfeel differences changing chloride from 100 to 150ppm in their brewing liquor (see the myriad NE IPA threads).
 
The mash Ca level is eventually diluted approximately 1/2 after sparging with untreated water. I believe it is further reduced by precipitation with malt phosphates (desired reaction to drive down RA) and possibly with oxalate (beer stone).

The amount of SO42- found in the finished beer is higher than can be accounted for by the gypsum addition alone, thus the malt must be contributing a few hundred ppm.

Finally, it is clear that malt adds a lot of chloride. It drives me nuts when I see the hand-wringing of some people expecting to find taste/mouthfeel differences changing chloride from 100 to 150ppm in their brewing liquor (see the myriad NE IPA threads).

Hmm, yes, OK, I am thinking like a no-sparge full-volume BIAB'er. I can see what you're saying about adding 1/2 your final volume as untreated sparge water, and that therefore there must be some sulfate being picked up, but also still some calcium being lost (but not nearly as much as I was thinking).

Trying to decide whether that changes what I want to do with my planned hellacious gypsum addition...

(I also agree it sounds like trying to finely control chloride would be like herding cats)
 
Hmm, yes, OK, I am thinking like a no-sparge full-volume BIAB'er. I can see what you're saying about adding 1/2 your final volume as untreated sparge water, and that therefore there must be some sulfate being picked up, but also still some calcium being lost (but not nearly as much as I was thinking).

Trying to decide whether that changes what I want to do with my planned hellacious gypsum addition...

(I also agree it sounds like trying to finely control chloride would be like herding cats)

Go for the ridiculous gypsum addition. I recall an interview with Greg Noonan (Kimmich's mentor) in which he said they add so much gypsum to their brewing liquor that solubility becomes a concern.
 
Please approximately define "ridiculous gypsum addition" in regards to a 5 or 10 gallon batch...I am curious. Understand starting water chemistry would affect this number so assume RO water. Also curious as to why Kimmich uses plaster of paris instead of gypsum, as plaster of paris reverts to gypsum when added to water. PoP is made by heating gypsum and releasing water molecules as steam. So is plaster cheaper or more readily available or something? TIA for any replies!
 
Please approximately define "ridiculous gypsum addition" in regards to a 5 or 10 gallon batch...I am curious. Understand starting water chemistry would affect this number so assume RO water. Also curious as to why Kimmich uses plaster of paris instead of gypsum, as plaster of paris reverts to gypsum when added to water. PoP is made by heating gypsum and releasing water molecules as steam. So is plaster cheaper or more readily available or something? TIA for any replies!

If we're going by the screenshot of the Alchemist's brew sheet (several pages back in this thread), the math indicates about 3.5g/gallon of brewing liquor. I treat the full volume of liquor used (not just mash liquor) so for an average 5 to 6 gallon batch, I'm using around 9.5 gallons which would work out to about 33g of gypsum. This is WAY more than I've ever used.
 
BUMP, curious if anyone ever went nuts with a gypsum addition for any of their beers, Heady clone or otherwise
 
Great read. Curious about the pH of those finished IPAs. So what are your Bru'n water profiles these days for various IPAs?
 
Great read. Curious about the pH of those finished IPAs. So what are your Bru'n water profiles these days for various IPAs?

I've been happiest with 150 PPM (target) across the board for calcium, chloride, and sulfate. For example. Most of my IPAs are finishing right around 4.5-4.6. Alter Ego was 4.5.
 
I've been happiest with 150 PPM (target) across the board for calcium, chloride, and sulfate.

Interesting! This is sort of a cross between the heavily chloride-dependent NEIPA water and the typical IPA or PA water. That roughly equates to 1 g/gal gypsum and 0.9 g/gal calcium chloride (anhydrous).

While I still prefer the dryness imparted by the 300 ppm SO4 pale ale profile, I've made IPA's and PA's in Michael's range and found them to be reasonably drying.
 
Would love to know if someone has ever sent in a Pliny?

You can find a brew log of Pliny online that has every last detail including mineral additions and PH throughout the brewing process.

They add more CaCl to Pliny than CaSo4 and they reserve a large chunk of it until the last 10 minutes of the boil.

Santa Rosa’s water report is easy to find online. It’s rather high in alkalinity and it looks like RR adds a ton of acid to adjust it. Plugging numbers into Bru’n water I would think It’s phosphoric not lactic but could be wrong. Not sure if the acid amount on the sheet is just in the mash or is split into mash/sparge.
 
You can find a brew log of Pliny online that has every last detail including mineral additions and PH throughout the brewing process.


Santa Rosa’s water report is easy to find online. It’s rather high in alkalinity and it looks like RR adds a ton of acid to adjust it. Plugging numbers into Bru’n water I would think It’s phosphoric not lactic but could be wrong. Not sure if the acid amount on the sheet is just in the mash or is split into mash/sparge.

Do you have links to these?
 
I've been happiest with 150 PPM (target) across the board for calcium, chloride, and sulfate. For example. Most of my IPAs are finishing right around 4.5-4.6. Alter Ego was 4.5.
Another question on an older post - water adjustments in "For Example" were only to the mash water. do most people making NEIPA's adjust both mash and sparge water? I have been.
 
I would think the same process would apply to any beer regardless of style. Better question would be if you're adding minerals to sparge water or adding those amounts to the end of the boil and simply adjusting sparge to a specific PH with acid.
 
I would think the same process would apply to any beer regardless of style. Better question would be if you're adding minerals to sparge water or adding those amounts to the end of the boil and simply adjusting sparge to a specific PH with acid.

When brewing IPA's (with lots of mineral additions) I add to both mash and sparge water. When brewing dark beers (where the dark grains are already pushing pH down anyway) I add to both mash and sparge.

However, if I am brewing a pilsner, blonde, kolsch or other light beers that call for low amounts of minerals and where pH can be an issue - I take all the minerals and put them in the mash. This helps keep pH down while adding less acid. It also puts more minerals in the mash which can kick up the calcium in the mash which I have felt helps with clarity.

** I am using 100% RO water in these lighter beers.
 
@Braufessor

Have you ever sent any of your beers in to be tested? I haven’t gotten around to it yet but need to.

I’m aware of quite a few professional breweries that add a decent amount of their calcium additions in the boil. I would assume not only for a specific Ph adjustment but also to make sure they’re more likely to carry over into the fermenting wort.
 
Another question on an older post - water adjustments in "For Example" were only to the mash water. do most people making NEIPA's adjust both mash and sparge water? I have been.

My standard IPA process is to add all of the salts to the mash (I have reasonably high carbonate even with a partial dilution with distilled) so the calcium is beneficial, along with a little acid, to get my mash pH to target. Then I sparge with distilled water, as it won't resist the pH drop making tannin extraction less likely. When I quote water profiles it is for the combination of mash and sparge water plus any kettle additions.
 
Getting all my information and planning an ingredients order to brew my take on this beer. Going with bobsbrews later recipe. I know it wont be identical but should be a really good beer none the less. I'm fairly new to water treatment, only started doing it in the new year but have my head around Bru'n Water I think. The 750ppm of hardness scares me and from what I've read, that's the finished beer. I started messing around with differnt profile settings in Bru'n water and namely the Burton one. It has 275ppm for Calcium and 610ppm for Sulfate. For me in a 5 gallon batch I'd have to add

Gypsum - 15.9g in mash water and 18.5g in sparge water
Epsom salt - 5.3g mash and 6.2g sparge

Along with some other minor salt aditions this gets me to a pH of 5.17

I'm really not comfortable with adding all that gypsum so I tried the Pale Ale profile which to me seems safer, so what do you guys think

Calcium - 140ppm
Mag - 18ppm
Sodium - 25ppm
Sulfate - 300ppm
Chloride - 55ppm
Bic - 110ppm

To achieve the Calcium and Sulfate level and a pH of 5.2 I need 9.2g in mash and 10.7 in sparge and Epsom salts of 0.9g in mash and 1.0 in sparge. Other minor aditions as well as some lactic acid is needed. To me these levels look a little safer. Do you guys think this profile will get me in the ball park?
 
What is the intent of the Bobsbrews recipe? If its intended to be a regular IPA, then the pale ale water could be fine for it. But if the intent is NEIPA, then a much lower sulfate content should be employed.
 
Heady is about as far from what people call NEIPA nowadays as you can get in my opinion. If you want to make something similar to Alchemist beers you need lots of Gypsum.

Also why do you list bicarbonate? You’re not going to be adding any chalk are you? Adding chalk and acid kind of defeats the purpose.
 
Back
Top