Heady Topper video - 750 total hardness??

[MrHadack]

I worked it a few different ways in the spreadsheet and this is what I arrive at using 4 gallons of distilled water for the mash:

15.4 grams calcium sulfate
1 gram calcium chloride (only because I was shooting for the 35 ppm Chloride in the screen shot)
1.2 grams Pickling Lime

Which results in:

Ca: 297
SO4: 619
Cl: 35
TH: 743
Mash pH: 5.2

I've used up to 350 ppm Sulfate in an IPA before and it was fantastic-- my best one to date. I guess other people have used more and liked it. So why not?

But here's an alternative. This is probably a bad way of doing things. I suppose the acid would start to impart flavor at some point:

8.8 grams Calcium Sulfate
0.7 grams Calcium Chloride
4.0 grams Pickling Lime
6.8ml Lactic Acid to bring mash pH down to 5.2

Resulting in:

Ca: 290
SO4: 493
Cl: 35
TH: 727
Mash pH: 5.2

Either way, if I brew this beer I will not pay attention to the hardness of 750. I'm just going to raise sulfates up to about 350 and get the pH to settle in on the lower end of things (5.2 or 5.3)

 

[PlinyTheMiddleAged]

I started a thread some time ago after watching that Kimmich video (http://youtu.be/LdfySDN2mF0) where he discussed mash pH. Here it is: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f128/mash-ph-465320/

I ended up doing two things - one easy thing and one hard thing. The hard thing I did was to brew to "identical" one gallon IPAs where the only thing that I adjusted was the mash pH. One batch had a mash pH of about 5.3 and the second had a mash pH of 5.4. My brew partner and I agreed that the 5.4 batch was the hands down favorite of the two - it wasn't even close.

The easier thing that I did was to email Kimmich about his pH recommendation - was he referencing pH at mash temperatures or at room temperatures (like most homebrewers do). He wrote back saying that his pH statements were referenced to mash temps. Therefore, is recommendations end up being in line with the homebrewers' standard of a pH of 5.4.

I'm curious though about the hardness/sulfate levels that folks are looking at here...

 

[Calichusetts]

I did about 4 batches with pH in the 5.2-5.35 range. Nope, 5.4 or higher easily lets the hops shine. Which is nice, since i won't need minute amounts of acidulated malt anymore.

 

[PlinyTheMiddleAged]

Agreed, Cali. The 5.4 really highlighted the hops without becoming overbearing. The 5.3 batches were just a muddled mess. There was a "brightness" there, but it was not pleasant - hard to describe. Maybe I'd describe it as a harshness. The 5.4 was really nice though.

 

[brewski09]

Close. I think HopJuJu has the edge on that one. I'm not turning either down if offered. And I think I give the edge to Abrasive, Chillwave, and Permanent Funeral over Heady. IMHO

Heady over Chillwave (still like the alchemy hour name better) over hop juju (just a bit) and head hunter isn't even an honorable mention for me. Enjoy by also makes this list and white rajah IF it's FRESH. Looking for some surly and other IPAs I've yet to try.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[The_Glue]

Agreed, Cali. The 5.4 really highlighted the hops without becoming overbearing. The 5.3 batches were just a muddled mess. There was a "brightness" there, but it was not pleasant - hard to describe. Maybe I'd describe it as a harshness. The 5.4 was really nice though.

This makes me sort of nervous about something. Is there an optimal ph range for like every recipe and we should brew every recipe at like five different wort phs to find the best?
Because i am pretty sure that not every excellent beer was brewed at ph 5.4 which means that different recipes have different ph sweetspots.

 

[Braufessor]

This makes me sort of nervous about something. Is there an optimal ph range for like every recipe and we should brew every recipe at like five different wort phs to find the best?
Because i am pretty sure that not every excellent beer was brewed at ph 5.4 which means that different recipes have different ph sweetspots.

I don't think EVERY recipe has something totally different. But, for instance, beers with a high proportion of very acidic dark/roasted grains (stouts, porters, etc.) can benefit from a pH that is higher ..... I generally shoot for 5.5-5.7 range. Seems to round out the flavor and roastiness some.

 

[ajdelange]

This makes me sort of nervous about something. Is there an optimal ph range for like every recipe and we should brew every recipe at like five different wort phs to find the best?
Because i am pretty sure that not every excellent beer was brewed at ph 5.4 which means that different recipes have different ph sweetspots.

There is little doubt in my mind that each beer has its optimum pH and that yes, you should try different pH's to find it. What I am not sure of is how sharp the peak is for any individual or class of beers. Why would pH be different from any other parameter. You can make good beer with half a gram of calcium chloride per liter of water and pH adjusted to 5.5. That doesn't mean you won't get better beer with 0.3 gram CaCl2 and pH 5.6 (an at the same time it doesn't mean you will).

Our senses and the rest of nature seem to respond on a log scale. A 3 db change (doubling or halving) of a stimulus seems to be approximately what it takes to generate a clearly discernible change in perception. For a salt it is obvious what doubling or halving means. pH is already on a log scale. A change of 0.3 pH means double or half the hydrogen ion activity.

 

[zwiller]

Dosed a pint with gypsum. What a foamy mess... It definitely didn't make it undrinkable. What it seemed to do to me was really mute the fresher hop character and by this it made some of the fruit stuff more prevalent. I personally didn't care for it but maybe that's the secret to HT. Which brings me to point, I do not care for danky hops. I am firmly in the simcoe is cat **** camp. So I think that biases me from certain IPA's.

 

[pickles]

How much did you add to your pint? What was your target sulfate level?

 

[zwiller]

I added .2g gypsum. Target was around 600ppm sulfate. Already had 350ppm in there from what I brewed with. Hopefully I was close...

 

[mosaicbrewer]

anyone have any ht to send to ward labs? you know you can have finished beer tested right?

 

[dstar26t]

I started a thread some time ago after watching that Kimmich video (http://youtu.be/LdfySDN2mF0) where he discussed mash pH. Here it is: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f128/mash-ph-465320/

I ended up doing two things - one easy thing and one hard thing. The hard thing I did was to brew to "identical" one gallon IPAs where the only thing that I adjusted was the mash pH. One batch had a mash pH of about 5.3 and the second had a mash pH of 5.4. My brew partner and I agreed that the 5.4 batch was the hands down favorite of the two - it wasn't even close.

The easier thing that I did was to email Kimmich about his pH recommendation - was he referencing pH at mash temperatures or at room temperatures (like most homebrewers do). He wrote back saying that his pH statements were referenced to mash temps. Therefore, is recommendations end up being in line with the homebrewers' standard of a pH of 5.4.

I'm curious though about the hardness/sulfate levels that folks are looking at here...

Did you also measure pre-boil kettle pH? This is the key measurement for hops...most of them go into the kettle. Different sparging techniques will result in different pre-boil kettle pH.

 

[zwiller]

I always acidified sparge from the days of Dave Miller. He advocated 5.7. I feel it was the reason my beers were always better than my friends'. They were always freaked out by acid, I was intrigued and understood the science...

Took a break from brewing since it was so time consuming. Came back after learning of batch sparging and unfortunately was under the impression I didn't need to acidify sparge with the new technique. Brewed a bunch of less than spectacular beers. Bought a new pH meter (my 3rd) and measured sparging and immediately went back to acidifying sparge. (first runnings were 5.8 and 2nd were over 6) Since the days of Bru'n water I started to acidify sparge to the pH of the mash. No need to measure preboil pH...

 

[PlinyTheMiddleAged]

Did you also measure pre-boil kettle pH? This is the key measurement for hops...most of them go into the kettle. Different sparging techniques will result in different pre-boil kettle pH.

The measurements were of the mash pH only. I kind of got lost in the mash process and didn't measure the pre-boil pH. However, both batches were dunk sparged with treated distilled water (I brew in a bag). I can look up the salt additions if needed - however, they were identical additions for both batches. The only differences were introduced during the mash-in.

 

[dyqik]

Burton-on-Trent water is often listed as being around 750-820 ppm sulfate, and that is kind of the gold standard for water for English IPAs and bitters. e.g.:

How to Brew 1st Edition - mash pH

I think there's a Zymurgy article (Jan/Feb 2014?) where Martin Brungard points out that this water was likely diluted for use in brewing in Burton-on-Trent, but there's a fair few brewers who have tried to use that original Burton well water profile undiluted. It's quite plausible that Heady Topper uses that profile.

But as mentioned upthread, that number could just be for the mash liquor, with the sparge liquor being much lower in sulfate, giving a more normal profile around 350 ppm sulfate in the boil kettle.

 

[brewski09]

Burton-on-Trent water is often listed as being around 750-820 ppm sulfate, and that is kind of the gold standard for water for English IPAs and bitters. e.g.:

How to Brew 1st Edition - mash pH

I think there's a Zymurgy article (Jan/Feb 2014?) where Martin Brungard points out that this water was likely diluted for use in brewing in Burton-on-Trent, but there's a fair few brewers who have tried to use that original Burton well water profile undiluted. It's quite plausible that Heady Topper uses that profile.

But as mentioned upthread, that number could just be for the mash liquor, with the sparge liquor being much lower in sulfate, giving a more normal profile around 350 ppm sulfate in the boil kettle.

I think these are great points. I just have one theoretical question about the Burton on Trent water. What would the brewers have used to dilute their water all those years ago?

 

[Braufessor]

I think these are great points. I just have one theoretical question about the Burton on Trent water. What would the brewers have used to file their water all those years ago?

They could have boiled it to drop a fair percentage of the hardness out of it.

 

[masonsjax]

Maybe sand filter, or distillation?

 

[mabrungard]

I think these are great points. I just have one theoretical question about the Burton on Trent water. What would the brewers have used to file their water all those years ago?

By the way, what did you intend the 'file' word to be?

I take it that you didn't get a chance to read that Zymurgy article? The essence of the article was that the very mineralized water seeps upward from the deep aquifer into the shallow aquifer. All the breweries in Burton are near the Trent River. When those breweries pump a lot of water from their shallow wells, the mineralized water is diluted by inflow from the river. So the levels of ions in their brewing liquor were lower than some of the historic references report.

 

[zwiller]

Even if the water was treated/boiled the sulfate is not precipated or reduced, right?

Can't someone just send me some HT so I can crack this nut? I am BJCP!

 

[brewski09]

They could have boiled it to drop a fair percentage of the hardness out of it.

Wouldn't boiling just concentrate the ions as water boiled away and heavy ions stay in the kettle? Admittedly a water noob. I just filter and brew and it works for me. Water is on the list with the next equipment upgrade cycle.

By the way, what did you intend the 'file' word to be?

I take it that you didn't get a chance to read that Zymurgy article? The essence of the article was that the very mineralized water seeps upward from the deep aquifer into the shallow aquifer. All the breweries in Burton are near the Trent River. When those breweries pump a lot of water from their shallow wells, the mineralized water is diluted by inflow from the river. So the levels of ions in their brewing liquor were lower than some of the historic references report.

File=dilute. Android autocorrect. It's fixed now.

Nope, I haven't read that one yet, but that makes total sense to me. I assume they were drawing from the deep wells but the shallow wells would be naturally diluted with filtered ground water and lower ion levels allowing the brewers to blend deep and shallow to their choosing based on the style of beer they were making.

 

[brewski09]

But as mentioned upthread, that number could just be for the mash liquor, with the sparge liquor being much lower in sulfate, giving a more normal profile around 350 ppm sulfate in the boil kettle.

My immediate thought is he was screwing with everyone. I think this is a great point. We don't know where the total hardness was calculated. If this was just for the mash, then they could blend it with anything they wanted to in order to make a different finished product. Pretty much the only way to find out is by brewing consecutive batches and changing the hardness and fermenting side by side. This makes me want to get my hands on some of their water for analysis now (sending the beer to a lab just feels like cheating. So much of the fun here is the process).


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[carvetop]

Planning on shipping a sample of HT over to Ward Labs tomorrow. What have we determined about extrapolating the liquor quality (pre-mash, pre-boil) from the finished product's numbers? From what I understand, at a very minimum the calcium and magnesium numbers will certainly change as the liquor moves through the brewing process. Perhaps our resident water experts can weigh in on this (although I'm sure they already have somewhere on this forum).

 

[dyqik]

My immediate thought is he was screwing with everyone. I think this is a great point. We don't know where the total hardness was calculated. If this was just for the mash, then they could blend it with anything they wanted to in order to make a different finished product. Pretty much the only way to find out is by brewing consecutive batches and changing the hardness and fermenting side by side. This makes me want to get my hands on some of their water for analysis now (sending the beer to a lab just feels like cheating. So much of the fun here is the process).

Well, the sheet in the video shows a total liquor volume for treatment of 776 gallons. If you know their mash tun size or brewhouse size, you could hazard a guess at what portion of the liquor that makes up.

A quick search suggest 15 bbl or 476 gal for the cannery brewhouse, so 776 gallons might be about right for total volume of water before grain absorption, boil-off and other losses?

 

[mabrungard]

Wouldn't boiling just concentrate the ions as water boiled away and heavy ions stay in the kettle?

The boiling is short. I think that it only should take a few minutes, but there are references that state it needs to be 15 or 20 minutes. But this amount of boiling shouldn't be enough to significantly drive off much water and concentrate the ions.

The boiling process actually causes a chemical reaction that precipitates calcium carbonate (aka: chalk) and that reduces the calcium content and alkalinity. You can read more about it here: https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=5792.0

 

[carvetop]

Posted the results here... https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f14/heady-topper-results-ward-labs-481031/
Still not quite sure what to make of them.

 

[adamk816]

Let me preface this post - I am not a water or chemistry expert, and I have not read the entire thread in great detail. However, I submit the following:

Greg Noonan (the mentor for Mr. Kimmich of Alchemist) notes in a BYO article that he adds calcium sulfate to bring the BREWING LIQUOR for IPAs up to 750 mg/L of hardness. See http://byo.com/scottish-ale/item/310-brewing-water-tips-from-the-pros. This is consistent with the Heady Topper brew sheet screenshot taken from the 1000th brew clip on youtube, showing roughly 750 Hardness for the brewing liquor.

Using "Brewers Friend" mash chemistry and brewing water calculator, a water profile of Ca 127, Mg 6, Na 10, Cl 43, So4 268 (a relatively standard IPA water profile) for the entire water amount, with ALL THE SALTS being added into the mash, gives a total hardness (GH) of 763 and an Alkalinity of 51 for the BREWING LIQUOR (i.e. Mash Water). This is consistent with the 750 hardness figure. Further, Using the Grist from the Heady Topper clone on HBT (version 4), this estimates a mash pH of 5.4 with no acid addition.

I also note the El Jefe (India Dark Ale) clone recipe provided by the Alchemist in Mitch Steele's IPA book, says the water should have a total hardness of 400 ppm and alkalinity of 50 ppm. If you take the above profile (Ca 127, Mg 6, Na 10, Cl 43, So4 268), and apply that to the entire water amount (mash and sparge), you would get a total hardness of approximately 400 and and alkalinity of 50.

Conclusion: is it possible the 750 hardness figure is relating to the brewing liquor only, and provided you use RO water for sparging, you would end up with a typical IPA water profile?

 

[ultravista]

How do you get to 750 mg/L of hardness without knowing the water chemistry to begin with?

Are you starting with distilled water and adding to bring it up?

 

[hanuswalrus]

subbing to read this thread later. interesting stuff