I really don't want to start a flame war...

[japhroaig]

...but I have a couple of questions that will probably elicit some strong reactions

First, have there been any double blind tests regarding water treatments in brewing regarding taste? I personally have never really believed in trying to mimic the source water of a particular style, since I generally can't taste the difference between the treated water and untreated (given a neutral water source to begin with). Additionally, this double-blind-but-informal pizza test basically confirmed what I believed about water treatment in regards to dough--there is little to zero relation: http://slice.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/01/does-nyc-water-make-a-difference-in-pizza-quality.html

Second is about sparging. I noticed awhile back that sparge temperature and bread gelatinization temperature are almost exactly the same, give or take a few degrees around 180F. I posited to a friend that it might be if you got your grain bed up to say 180F, you could sparge with colder water since the grain bed had been gelatinized. His response was, "180F for liquifaction!". My question is, liquifaction of what? I've read that term in a couple of home brew books, but it is never explained. Is ~180F the magic number because the gelatinized grain bed holds together better thus a better filter (that's my theory), or that sugars are more efficiently extracted at that temperature (his theory). Or a combo of the two?

Anyway, would love to hear some insight.

 

[JefeTheVol]

...but I have a couple of questions that will probably elicit some strong reactions

First, have there been any double blind tests regarding water treatments in brewing regarding taste? I personally have never really believed in trying to mimic the source water of a particular style, since I generally can't taste the difference between the treated water and untreated (given a neutral water source to begin with). Additionally, this double-blind-but-informal pizza test basically confirmed what I believed about water treatment in regards to dough--there is little to zero relation: http://slice.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/01/does-nyc-water-make-a-difference-in-pizza-quality.html

Second is about sparging. I noticed awhile back that sparge temperature and bread gelatinization temperature are almost exactly the same, give or take a few degrees around 180F. I posited to a friend that it might be if you got your grain bed up to say 180F, you could sparge with colder water since the grain bed had been gelatinized. His response was, "180F for liquifaction!". My question is, liquifaction of what? I've read that term in a couple of home brew books, but it is never explained. Is ~180F the magic number because the gelatinized grain bed holds together better thus a better filter (that's my theory), or that sugars are more efficiently extracted at that temperature (his theory). Or a combo of the two?

Anyway, would love to hear some insight.

I have no comment on the sparging question because I dont brew AG so I am not qualified to answer. I would like to comment on the article though. First of all, the experimental design, with double blinding, is the best way to go about any type of tasting experiment but what this experiment lacks is sample size, along with a number of other biases that limit its external validity. For one, all the people tasting the pizza dough were from the same geographical area exposed to the same environment. This works to decrease the experiment's external validity and therefore is less applicable to other geographical areas.

Water DOES make a difference, because when you change geographical locations you are changing many variables about the water and simple chemistry will tell you that you are going to change the profile of your finished product. pH and solutes DO matter when it comes to chemical reactions and solubility, both are factors used in mashing.

Now, since water differences will make a difference in the beer, that doesnt mean that they are detectable to everyone. Taste is subjective, as anyone here will tell you, so you are free to use whatever water you want in your beer. But those with bad water, for instance our brewing friend in Croatia, will tell you that it does matter.

Also, a pizza dough tasting does not in any way translate to beer tasting. What if drug companies used data from a statin and translated it to a diabetic medication? Doesnt hold much "water".
-Jefe-

 

[remilard]

Water:

1. Mash pH is important, period.
2. It isn't as hard to hit your mash pH as some (homebrew) texts suggest.
3. Calcium and sulfate may be important. Narziss really thinks so, Bamforth not so much.

Sparging: Cold water sparging works okay, malted barley gelatinizes well below 180. The primary advantage to sparging hot is that sugar is simply more soluble in hotter water. The secondary advantage is that you have to heat the water to boiling anyway so why not heat it to 180 before the sparge?

 

[japhroaig]

Thanks for replying, and I understand that pizzawater != beerwater. What I am concerned about though is a 'placebo-like' effect that happens with things like water when it comes to cooking/brewing/baking/etc. While I can taste the different between Evian and distilled water, I really don't think I can between two beers brewed with those waters. So, I am really curious if this kinda of study has every been performed for beer brewing?

I am not saying that water quality doesn't matter (brew water from the Liffey river, are you MAD?!?), but I am just afraid that too much of homebrew technique may be derived from superstition as opposed to science.

 

[japhroaig]

Water:

1. Mash pH is important, period.
2. It isn't as hard to hit your mash pH as some (homebrew) texts suggest.
3. Calcium and sulfate may be important. Narziss really things so, Bamforth not so much.

Sparging: Cold water sparging works okay, malted barley gelatinizes well below 180. The primary advantage to sparging hot is that sugar is simply more soluble in hotter water. The secondary advantage is that you have to heat the water to boiling anyway so why not heat it to 180 before the sparge?

Not gonna debate pH, making cheese kinda hammered that one into my head

The only point I'd like a clarification on is this--"The primary advantage to sparging hot is that sugar is simply more soluble in hotter water.". Isn't the sugar already dissolved in the mash water? I am in no way a chemist and this is an honest question.

 

[remilard]

Not gonna debate pH, making cheese kinda hammered that one into my head

The only point I'd like a clarification on is this--"The primary advantage to sparging hot is that sugar is simply more soluble in hotter water.". Isn't the sugar already dissolved in the mash water? I am in no way a chemist and this is an honest question.

Not all of the sugar is dissolved in the mash water, if it were, there would be no reason to sparge at all.

 

[japhroaig]

Sometimes when I have too much homebrew, I don't think things through enough remilard

I want to continue this idea tomorrow, so I will post a few ideas shortly

 

[ghack]

1. I adjust my water, I do not mimic a particular water. I use John Palmer's spread sheet to get an appropriate PH range for the target SRM and chloride to sulfate ratio for the style and resulting malt-hop balance. If the source has a particular character I will sometime boost that a little, but I do not try to match the mineral levels. I really don't see any reason to do much more than that. And adding powdered minerals to water is never going to match what is done by months or years of percolation through the ground.

2. Like most things, sparging is a balancing act. Hotter temps will rinse thew sugars out faster, but extract tannins and other undesirable elements. The 168 has been well established as a good cut off where extraction is high and tannins stay in the husks. However in my experience, provided the grain bed starts out in the 168 range, the temperature can drop considerably lower than that without any appreciable loss in efficiency

 

[eriktlupus]

...but I have a couple of questions that will probably elicit some strong reactions

First, have there been any double blind tests regarding water treatments in brewing regarding taste? I personally have never really believed in trying to mimic the source water of a particular style, since I generally can't taste the difference between the treated water and untreated (given a neutral water source to begin with). Additionally, this double-blind-but-informal pizza test basically confirmed what I believed about water treatment in regards to dough--there is little to zero relation: http://slice.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/01/does-nyc-water-make-a-difference-in-pizza-quality.html

Second is about sparging. I noticed awhile back that sparge temperature and bread gelatinization temperature are almost exactly the same, give or take a few degrees around 180F. I posited to a friend that it might be if you got your grain bed up to say 180F, you could sparge with colder water since the grain bed had been gelatinized. His response was, "180F for liquifaction!". My question is, liquifaction of what? I've read that term in a couple of home brew books, but it is never explained. Is ~180F the magic number because the gelatinized grain bed holds together better thus a better filter (that's my theory), or that sugars are more efficiently extracted at that temperature (his theory). Or a combo of the two?

Anyway, would love to hear some insight.

i can tell the difference in untreated and treated water particulary when ipas are involved since the hops are changed by different hardness factors(softer is better generally).

i think your friend misspoke since we really don't want to sparge our grainbeds above 170. we may run a bit hotter coming in but our beds dont get over the 170 mark to prevent tannin extraction from the high temps.

 

[stedtale]

www.basicbrewingradio.com does lots of tests, check through their archives. They might have something.

 

[heywolfie1015]

Thanks for replying, and I understand that pizzawater != beerwater. What I am concerned about though is a 'placebo-like' effect that happens with things like water when it comes to cooking/brewing/baking/etc. While I can taste the different between Evian and distilled water, I really don't think I can between two beers brewed with those waters. So, I am really curious if this kinda of study has every been performed for beer brewing?

I am not saying that water quality doesn't matter (brew water from the Liffey river, are you MAD?!?), but I am just afraid that too much of homebrew technique may be derived from superstition as opposed to science.

My position on this is not that adjusting your water makes your beer better, but prevents certain styles from being bad. If your water chemistry just isn't suited for, say, a pilsner, you adjust it in order to prevent harsh flavors or astringency. On the converse, if you have ultra soft water that is not well suited for a stout, you adjust in order to make the final product palatable.

The fact is that most water will do just fine with most styles. If your process isn't good to start with, adjusting the water isn't going to itself improve the beer.

 

[Yooper]

Before I did any water testing, I noticed that my dark beers were fantastic, but my lighter beers like kolsch were a bit harsh and astringent. Not really bad, just not very good with a noticeable aftertaste. I got a water report, and started building my water. I don't mimic a particular profile, but I now use spreadsheets so that everything is in line for the color of my beer. I'm usually adjusting by diluting my tap water with RO water to adjust the residual alkalinity.

It's made a HUGE difference in the quality of my lighter beers.

 

[SC_Ryan]

^I have had the exact same experience as Yooper. My water is very soft and highly alkaline so I was getting the harsh bitterness in the aftertaste of lighter beers that Yooper is describing. My water tastes just fine from the tap but the mineral content isn't appropriate for brewing lighter beers. My lighter beers taste much brighter and cleaner than they ever had before mineral adjustments.

 

[Reelale]

^+1. I have the opposite, I have very soft, pilsen-type water. Pretty good for light beers, but darker beers and stouts really lacked body. Getting all of the minerals within the recommened brewing range has greatly helped all the way around.

 

[Edcculus]

As far as water adjustment - I agree with Yoop on. You really should get a lab to analyze it so you can see your baseline. Most municipal water will be pretty middle of the road as far as color goes. I've used un-adjusted water for a Kolsch and a RIS before I started adjusting. Adjustments are probably a bigger deal when you have very hard, or very soft water. In those instances, without adjustments, mash pH for either light or dark beers will be off.

Kaiser did a good post a while back on sparge temp. On small scale home brewing setups, he pretty much figured hot vs cold didn't effect efficiency too much. Obviously, its important not to let it get too hot though. The theory of hot sparge is that it helps solubilize the sugars left on the grain after you take the first runnings (hence the whole point of a sparge). The biggest reason I wouldn't switch to a cold sparge is that it takes too long to get the wort back up to a boil.

 

[Bobby_M]

I agree that blind tasting is a good idea. I attempted two small batches of APA to do it but I over bittered both of them. While I noted a difference, I couldn't pick a "better" one. It's also really hard to isolate just the water.

 

[jkarp]

The first batch I made after I had my analysis from Ward Labs was the exact same IPA I sill had in the beer fridge pre-water adjustments. Had the mrs. swap 'em up for me and oh yes, a massive difference. My IPAs were never really bitter prior to adjustment - no matter how much hops I put in. Once I saw my actual chloride to sulfate ratio, the problem was obvious.

 

[bad coffee]

but I am just afraid that too much of homebrew technique may be derived from superstition as opposed to science.

Yeast used to fall into that category. Superstition/Magic! to make the beer. Sure, there's a lot of info out there that's 25 years old, and not necessarily correct. Not that it wasn't 'wrong' two decades ago, but we've learned that there's better way to do things (7 days primary-then transfer to secondary, anyone?) So you're saying that the way we do things are 'superstition?' I have to disagree.

S:Cl ratio is pretty real. Just do two tests. Take your regular tap water and brew a batch. Then brew the same recipe with adjusted water profile. See how the beers do. I've brewed a couple of batches here in my new apartment, and they don't turn out the same as my old place. Same equip, same recipe, different beers. The only thing that's different is different tap water.

Before I start my summer brew schedule, I'll pull out the test kits and see how the water really is. Then I'll adjust for the style of the beer. I'm not looking to match 'bass ale' water, but I'll shoot for a 'english pale' profile.

I'm drinking River Horse tripel (10%!) so this may or may not make sense tomorrow

B

 

[pjj2ba]

I have high carbonates in my water. My hoppy beers used to take a long time for the bitterness to mellow. Once I started treating to lower the carbonates the bitterness smoothed out tremendously. I would suspect those who say there is no need to make adjustments probably have pretty ideal brewing water, not too hard, not to soft. We need to keep in mind that everyones water, and brew set up is different, so what one person finds might not be another's experience because of this.

As to hot water and greater solubility, I don't think this is the major issue. The important fact is that any hot liquid FLOWS better. The sugars in wort are highly soluble, otherwise malt extract would crystallize out. Everything is already dissolved, so you can't dissolve it more. It is a mixing thing. Hot things mix together faster than cold things.

 

[Sedge]

Other people are covering water pretty well so I'll just throw my 2 cents in about sparging.

A very simple reason to sparge hot is because at higher temps everything is less viscous, which makes running off a lot easier, and stuck sparges less common.

Starch gelatinization shouldn't really concern you unless you are using unmalted grains. A cereal mash or decoction step is all about gelatinization. Breaking apart the chemical bonds and unraveling protein chains to make them available for enzymatic reactions later. This happens at high temperatures, hence the boiling or long hot soak involved in those types of mashing. Once broken apart the bonds can hook up with water via hydrogen bonds and swell, getting thicker (and doughy). I agree this is not something you want in your traditional sparging techniques, so keep that temp low enough to avoid that. the ~170 temperature hits this magic area of avoiding over gelatinizing while still getting enzyme denaturation, keeping tannin extraction at bay, and decreasing wort viscosity.

Also, the torrefaction process is another way to break down starch compounds to make them available to enzymes. It is a reversed process that occurs anaerobically to remove substances (mostly water) from the plant matter. This process is used heavily in preparing plant matter for bio-fuel production, another fantastic implementation of fermentation science.