Imperial stout with TA=322 water; wanting for Cl, SO4...

[user 246304]

Hello all,

I've been gathering up for a first brew on my system tomorrow, and absent to some extent from this forum in the meanwhile, so sorry guys to those who have contributed in other threads. Thanks for the thoughts and I will be coming back in.

I'm hoping to get a reality check for this brew tomorrow, and will be coming back to understanding the background why after the brew.

Bit puzzled by a couple spreadsheet results. My water has TA=322 - 5 weeks apart I got 321.5 and, today's, 322, so have some confidence in the results. Going with a guideline provided by Murphy and Sons - and I'm not saying I'll stay here, but I'd like to try a variety of styles using their guidelines - they have Ca=120-170, SO4=100, Cl=300, TA=150.

My water is highly carbonate while relatively low in the desired anions. Using John Palmer's spreadsheet, which doesn't take into account the grain bill, obviously, I'm adding in gypsum, CaCl, and 37% HCl to get within the desired range of TA and mineral content. This is an RIS, and it doesn't make any sense to me to add in much of anything, most especially HCl, but those are the numbers. (I obviously will need to add in minerals if I wanted higher content here than I have. And I know that will lower the TA. I'm talking about the idea of adding in strong acid to a very dark mash - though I have yet to understand the "weak connection" of color to mash pH).

Plugging in these acid and mineral figures into Martin's spreadsheet, I'm coming in egregiously low - 4.2 pH. To be expected. The only way I can get within a good mash pH range (5.22) is to do nothing whatsoever to the water. But then I have a very low mineral content of SO4 17, Cl=12.

Thoughts?

 

[cire]

Hello all,

Bit puzzled by a couple spreadsheet results. My water has TA=322 - 5 weeks apart I got 321.5 and, today's, 322, so have some confidence in the results. Going with a guideline provided by Murphy and Sons - and I'm not saying I'll stay here, but I'd like to try a variety of styles using their guidelines - they have Ca=120-170, SO4=100, Cl=300, TA=150.

My water is highly carbonate while relatively low in the desired anions. Using John Palmer's spreadsheet, which doesn't take into account the grain bill, obviously, I'm adding in gypsum, CaCl, and 37% HCl to get within the desired range of TA and mineral content. This is an RIS, and it doesn't make any sense to me to add in much of anything, most especially HCl, but those are the numbers. (I obviously will need to add in minerals if I wanted higher content here than I have. And I know that will lower the TA. I'm talking about the idea of adding in strong acid to a very dark mash - though I have yet to understand the "weak connection" of color to mash pH).

Plugging in these acid and mineral figures into Martin's spreadsheet, I'm coming in egregiously low - 4.2 pH. To be expected. The only way I can get within a good mash pH range (5.22) is to do nothing whatsoever to the water. But then I have a very low mineral content of SO4 17, Cl=12.

Thoughts?

Not sure I'm reading this correctly, but you should avoid adding 37% hydrochloric acid to the mash, it should be added to the liquor to reduce the alkalinity to a suitable level first which can be confirmed by measurement when the reaction has completed.

Is TA is alkalinity measured as CaCO3? I've assumed so. Alkalinity of sparge liquor should be lower than that used for the mash although Murphy don't make that clear in their Technical Library and data sheets.

A predicted mash pH of 4.2 seems strange with alkalinity of 150 mg/L as CaCO3, even with an RIS grist. I would use a lower level of alkalinity for the mash liquor, maybe 100mg/l as CaCO3 and reduce sparge liquor alkalinity to 50ppm.

RIS were famously produced in Burton upon Trent using waters with high levels of both alkalinity and minerals. Many porters produced in London in the second half of the nineteenth century were brewed using water transported from Burton or from well drilled into the Green Sand below the chalk, again with higher mineral levels but not as high as in Burton.

 

[user 246304]

Not sure I'm reading this correctly, but you should avoid adding 37% hydrochloric acid to the mash, it should be added to the liquor to reduce the alkalinity to a suitable level first which can be confirmed by measurement when the reaction has completed.

Is TA is alkalinity measured as CaCO3? I've assumed so. Alkalinity of sparge liquor should be lower than that used for the mash although Murphy don't make that clear in their Technical Library and data sheets.

A predicted mash pH of 4.2 seems strange with alkalinity of 150 mg/L as CaCO3, even with an RIS grist. I would use a lower level of alkalinity for the mash liquor, maybe 100mg/l as CaCO3 and reduce sparge liquor alkalinity to 50ppm.

RIS were famously produced in Burton upon Trent using waters with high levels of both alkalinity and minerals. Many porters produced in London in the second half of the nineteenth century were brewed using water transported from Burton or from well drilled into the Green Sand below the chalk, again with higher mineral levels but not as high as in Burton.

Great, thank you Cire.

The TA is from the Salifert Kh/Alk test and I don't have it in front of me but I believe that's as CaCO3, yes?

I treat all the water as one, meaning, what I have done so far is use the HLT to treat then transfer to MLT, so all liquor is the same. So yes, the HCl gets added to the HLT prior to transfer of the mash liquor being transferred. Thank you for the idea, however - I'll go back and work up a split liquor and see what I come up with.

Thanks for clearing up the basis of the Murphy's table, too.

And many thanks for the little bit of historical lore, as I love these things. I have some books that tap into this, but I need to go back a maddening number of times for things to stick. Is what it is, but you've piqued me once again.

Much appreciated!

 

[cire]

When all my liquor fits into the HLT I treat it to reduce the alkalinity level to that required for the mash and check the level using the Salifert kit. Then more acid will be added to the remaining liquor in the HLT when the mash pH is known. I aim to measure pH of first and last runnings for future variations.

The Salifert kit table gives readings in mequ/L which when mutiplied by 50 converts the value to mg/L as CaCO3.

Enjoy tomorrows brew. Relax, but if you can, get a set of figures from your setup and a beer to taste for your opinion.

 

[user 246304]

When all my liquor fits into the HLT I treat it to reduce the alkalinity level to that required for the mash and check the level using the Salifert kit. Then more acid will be added to the remaining liquor in the HLT when the mash pH is known. I aim to measure pH of first and last runnings for future variations.

The Salifert kit table gives readings in mequ/L which when mutiplied by 50 converts the value to mg/L as CaCO3.

Enjoy tomorrows brew. Relax, but if you can, get a set of figures from your setup and a beer to taste for your opinion.

Thank you Cire, will do. Looking forward to this, and want to thank you for your considerable help.

 

[Yooper]

That profile is WAY too much mineralization. To have that much sulfate and chloride will be “minerally” and not enhance the beer at all. Instead of adding things, consider that the mash pH is the most important thing first and foremost, and then if you feel you need a wee bit of chloride or sulfate (less than 100 for chloride, less than 150 ppm for sulfate) that’s fine to add some calcium chloride and/or gypsum to get there.

I’d not add much, but maybe some acid to get a mash pH of 5.5, and the sparge water should be acidified to not have a pH of above 6.

 

[bitteritdown]

That profile is WAY too much mineralization. To have that much sulfate and chloride will be “minerally” and not enhance the beer at all. Instead of adding things, consider that the mash pH is the most important thing first and foremost, and then if you feel you need a wee bit of chloride or sulfate (less than 100 for chloride, less than 150 ppm for sulfate) that’s fine to add some calcium chloride and/or gypsum to get there.

I’d not add much, but maybe some acid to get a mash pH of 5.5, and the sparge water should be acidified to not have a pH of above 6.

High mineralization is intentional (and traditional) when treating water the British way.

Check out the British homebrew forums for some lively discussion of water treatment.

 

[Yooper]

High mineralization is intentional (and traditional) when treating water the British way.

Check out the British homebrew forums for some lively discussion of water treatment.

Yes, I know. But remember that many breweries didn’t use highly mineralized water in their beers, and many people don’t prefer a minerally flavor in a barley wine, particularly a RIS.

 

[bitteritdown]

Yes, I know. But remember that many breweries didn’t use highly mineralized water in their beers, and many people don’t prefer a minerally flavor in a barley wine, particularly a RIS.

As they say on the British forums, "It depends what you're accustomed to." To each their own, I guess.

Murphy and Sons water treatments, CRS and/or AMS, are pretty standard over there.

 

[user 246304]

That profile is WAY too much mineralization. To have that much sulfate and chloride will be “minerally” and not enhance the beer at all. Instead of adding things, consider that the mash pH is the most important thing first and foremost, and then if you feel you need a wee bit of chloride or sulfate (less than 100 for chloride, less than 150 ppm for sulfate) that’s fine to add some calcium chloride and/or gypsum to get there.

I’d not add much, but maybe some acid to get a mash pH of 5.5, and the sparge water should be acidified to not have a pH of above 6.

Yooper, I appreciate the input and understand where you're coming from. My "last life" brewing, as I recall it, I was very easy with salts and only used phosphoric to adjust.

I am trying to understand the historical roots of these English ales, meaning, even if it's not to today's palate, I'm trying not to replicate, exactly, but get a sense of the logic. I'm getting the sense that while we eschew minerality here in the U.S., both historically and geographically, it's not so much the case in the British isles. In fact, as a kind of analogue, I really enjoyed Mitch Steele's book and was kind of blown away by what was considered "normal" in historical brews, in Britain. It seemed to me, interestingly so, that a lot of what was likely would be unpalatable, if one was just looking at the numbers.

So, I guess I'm trying to say, I could be blowing it with this one, or any of them, I know. On the other hand, I love English ales and know many of them are highly, highly mineralized. This is interesting:

Since this has some bearing on big beers, I'll add this to the discussion. I recently bought the book: Amber, Gold, and Black which is a British book on many historic beer styles in the UK. In it, there is a chapter on Burton Ale. That is not the beer many might think. Its not an IPA or PA. It was a rich malty beer that was stored and aged. Kind of a Christmas Ale if I recall correctly. It was also related to Russian Imperial Stout.

Anyhow, since these malty beers were brewed in Burton, they did have the high sulfate content typical of their water. So it's apparent that you can successfully brew a big beer with high sulfate. I would not have expected that, but it does make sense since sulfate helps dry the finish in a beer. A big malty beer can use some dryness to help the balance.

Beer for thought!

We'll see. 40 lbs, all in!

 

[user 246304]

High mineralization is intentional (and traditional) when treating water the British way.

Check out the British homebrew forums for some lively discussion of water treatment.

Crossed in the mail. Especially coming to know the view of some British members here, it opened my perspective, and I'm looking forward to trying it.

 

[cire]

Yes, I know. But remember that many breweries didn’t use highly mineralized water in their beers, and many people don’t prefer a minerally flavor in a barley wine, particularly a RIS.

It's possible the exact opposite of this is true. While it is not possible to know what early brewers did to their water, by virtue of chapter V of The London and Country Brewer published in 1736 titled "Of the Nature of Several Waters and their use in Brewing", they knew water was of great importance, but were restricted to their local supply and the drinker to buying locally made ale. Later in that same century, Britain had a network of canal and river navigation which would in time permit improved consumer choice.

While indeed many beers were made in Britain from soft water, they declined as a proportion once beer could be transported greater distances. Burton upon Trent took first place, Tadcaster became second, a town built on limestone containing significant gypsum deposits although less than at Burton.

As Burton started to overtake London, several of the large London Brewers either set up in Burton or transported water from Burton to their breweries in the mid nineteen century, but this changed with the Free Mash-tun Act of 1880 which moved beer tax from malt to the product of the mash tun. This meant that brewers everywhere in Britain could treat their liquor, then knowing that properly treated water improved both extraction rate and the quality of the beer without the fear of accusation of tax avoidance.

A brief history of brewing in Burton can be read at the link below.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1987.tb04474.x/epdf

In 1887 Albert John Murphy began selling brewing materials which became the company now known as Murphy and Son who supply the vast majority of breweries in UK with their liquor treatment and most other chemicals. Many might not agree with the liquor treatment they advise, but it will be hard to find many UK breweries, new or old, that ignor their advice. Most new breweries send a sample of their water to Murphy and Son who return their analysis and advised chemical treatment and how it should be applied. The brewery place an order with Murphy's and the beers thus made go straight to the market, clear and crisp and sell without need to advise the sourness and opaqueness are all part of a new and unique experience. British styles may not appeal to those who don't enjoy a lightly carbonated, hand pulled beer served near to 56 Farenheit, and many such people live in UK who prefer an ice cold, highly carbonated beer, but they don't seem to claim the reason is the mineral content of the water used.

 

[user 246304]

Thank you for such an informative post, Cire. Propels me all the more to dive into both the history and learn and brew with the tradition as a foundation.

Today was wonderful. No complaints after so long a time away, and with a new system. Such an insouciance is not my native way...my usual spirit would wail loudly at the pretty egregiously missed targets - I won't spill them here. But oddly, for me, I couldn't care less. I learned about my system and believe I know the "reasons why" and will see how today's brew finishes out. On to my first loves, bitters.

 

[user 246304]

Guess I'll post it here, since it pertains. First of all, yeast was est. 46% viability, and I did a prop. regimen accordingly.

It was great to see the brewery go, though I missed my intended OG by a mile; Target OG = 1.105, Actual = 1.064. That doesn't bother me too much as I know, I think, the reasons why and going forward I'm pretty confident we're in business.

I've never worked with any Belgian yeast, and specifically, obviously, never worked with this WLP Abbey IV yeast. I've never had a "stuck fermentation" either, so don't have anything to compare it by. That said, with 1 min. O2 injection, fermentation was rocking for 2 days, slowed on the 3rd and has, by all visible signs, ceased (for at least the last few days). I took a hydro reading and it's showing 7 P, which causes me to scratch my head. This isn't high alcohol, and this is an attenuative yeast regardless, etc.

Anyone with thoughts? I roused tonight, but wouldn't think that's related. I may get another pack to goose it. The only thing I can think is that for whatever reason, my thermo reading was weird. Prior to the first brew, I calibrated all thermos and ran an evaporation rate for the BK, so was surprised when I was getting a very strange, low temp reading in the MLT - and saw that I was actually at 160, using a known, long-stem handheld thermo. So yes, I'm going back through everything and re-calibrating, doing dead loss and evap. runs, etc.

I don't believe a preponderance of dextrins would account for this high a FG, at any rate. The good note is that tasting this beer, my family and I all really liked it. It is not an Imperial Stout, but it's a very nicely balanced, rich, robust porter.

 

[ajdelange]

Going with a guideline provided by Murphy and Sons - and I'm not saying I'll stay here, but I'd like to try a variety of styles using their guidelines - they have Ca=120-170, SO4=100, Cl=300, TA=150.

It's not surprising that you ran into difficulty trying to tune for an alkalinity going into the mash tun. You need to be focusing on mash pH which is, of course, the goal of alkalinity management. IOW you reduce (or increase) total mash alkalinity as is necessary to hit reasonable pH in accordance with how much alkalinity is provided by (or lacking in) the liquor and grains. You can still fiddle with chloride and sulfate management without the use of acids and you can, with a sophisticate enough spreadsheet, fiddle with them including the use of acids too but unless you are lucky with respect to what you need and what your water gives you the probability of success is low. At the same time keep in mind that we doubless perceive the effects of ion concentration geometrically rather than arithmeticall (it's that way with seeing, hearing etc. - why would we think tasting would be different) so that rather large percentage errors in ion concentrations from some profile might very well be tolerable. While calculations can help, experimentation is the only way to be sure.

In 1887 Albert John Murphy began selling brewing materials which became the company now known as Murphy and Son who supply the vast majority of breweries in UK with their liquor treatment and most other chemicals. Many might not agree with the liquor treatment they advise, but it will be hard to find many UK breweries, new or old, that ignor their advice. Most new breweries send a sample of their water to Murphy and Son who return their analysis and advised chemical treatment and how it should be applied. The brewery place an order with Murphy's and the beers thus made go straight to the market, clear and crisp and sell without need to advise the sourness and opaqueness are all part of a new and unique experience. British styles may not appeal to those who don't enjoy a lightly carbonated, hand pulled beer served near to 56 Farenheit, and many such people live in UK who prefer an ice cold, highly carbonated beer, but they don't seem to claim the reason is the mineral content of the water used.

I find this fascinating but not surprising. I remember what happened when Rolling Rock was sold. It was pretty awful stuff and the first thing the new owners did was change the process to get the DMS, with which the beer was heavy laden, down to reasonable levels. Sales plummeted. Those who where used to the Rock liked it the way it was and rejected it when it changed - even for the better.

 

[user 246304]

AJ, I'm uncertain that any difficulty I had with this first session had to do with the acidification/mineralization routine, to get down to a certain TA (if this is what you're saying?). To be honest, I pulled some bozo moves in the MLT as I'd just forgotten too much. That, and I'd also forgotten what to shoot for in terms of "batch" when using Promash. Basically, this brew was opaque and black; I started sparging way too soon, way before the floating wort layer even began to approach the grain bed; and hadn't noticed that the HLT pump was way out of whack relative to the MLT-BK pump, so that I'd added virtually all the sparge water (12.5 - a strong surplus). My Spike uses no sparge ring but just the side recirc tube (still not convinced that doesn't cut a channel along the side), and I cut no channels as I usually do; have no idea what the mash temp was, actually, because of the weird thermo issue as mentioned above...etc.

Bottom line, I'd gathered 15.45 gallons into the kettle of good tasting, but way below gravity, wort. I had easily 2 gallons of sweet wort entrapped in MLT, judging by when I opened it fully to drain. All that goodness should have gone into the BK.

And as I mentioned, tasting it yesterday, at 7P: though much higher than I would ever want, it's quite good. I think I overused the portion of de-bittered to straight black patent; it's rich and smooth, perhaps too much so. But otherwise, it's a very good, strong porter so far.

So it feels like this is about my being an idiot after 16 years or so in forgetting many things. Mash pH was a bit low, 5.1, but there, too, I'm not confident in either my initial TA measurement or, using 37% HCl, in my measurement of the HCl in a small beaker (I "eyed" an intermediate volume). I'll use a graduated cylinder from now on. And I think, too, I'll dilute to 10% to reduce measuring errors.

Does any of this make sense?

 

[ajdelange]

Actually i was referring to the comments you made about conflicts in what the spreadsheets told you. Does it make sense that you had problems with the first run in your new system? Absolutely! We've all been there. One thing that may help is to rehearse with water a couple of times. This will at least grant you some experience with when to open which valve etc so that you can focus on other aspects.

 

[user 246304]

Ah, gotcha, AJ, thanks. I need to sit with Bru'n water to understand it better, because it seems pretty robust. It's more of a "gut" thing at this point for me to understand that for the bitters I love making, with my TA at 320-322, I'll need to find a way to get this way down (I'm shooting for 30 ppm or less. Right now, I've a calculated 29) and the way I've chosen is acid treatment, with salts as a secondary means (and palate profile addition). But if I hear you right, too, to do this independent of the actual grist (which is at least one difference between the two programs/spreadsheets) is going to bring about different results, obviously.

On the dry runs (no pun intended), yes of course you're right and I appreciate the comment. I was so damn excited to get a beer down that I did a dry run with 40 lbs of grains and proportional English hops. I do think I'm going to end up with a pretty luscious porter but, er, yep - bit of a cluster, after so long, lol.

Got bronchitis right now or I'd be outside nailing down the dead space losses and evaporation rate of the BK. I cannot believe I'm boiling away 2 gallons an hour, given my last system was only 1.33, but I know that's entirely possible, if not likely. Surprisingly, transfers and recircs went off without a hitch. It was stupid things that I definitely don't want to repeat again!

Thanks very much, AJ. I should slow down, now that I have one in, grab my books (DeClerck is actually on my bed as I write), grab your work, and soak.

 

[cire]

I find this fascinating but not surprising. I remember what happened when Rolling Rock was sold. It was pretty awful stuff and the first thing the new owners did was change the process to get the DMS, with which the beer was heavy laden, down to reasonable levels. Sales plummeted. Those who where used to the Rock liked it the way it was and rejected it when it changed - even for the better.

Indeed, there's no accounting for taste and I too have such stories to recall although from different causes. The situation you describe may have been possible in UK 50 years or more ago. This country is small yet in those times Britain had more miles of railway than USA and beer leaving Burton on Trent this evening could be in any location within Great Britain by breakfast. Brewers of bad beer here don't last.
DMS is a rare problem when brewing traditional British beers with traditional British malts, but that is not to say bad practice doesn't make a bad beer. Diacetyl is another problem UK homebrewers read about and fear, but our traditional styles are more tolerant to it as are some lagers, and when cask conditioned at cellar temperature unfiltered, the yeast has more often than not cleaned it before the first pint is pulled.

There are almost limitless examples that prove you and I live in countries divided by a common language.

 

[ajdelange]

If you have been reading here you should be aware that not much English has been spoken this side of the herring pond for quite some time. Well I remember back in college some 50 years ago when our German instructor was quite puzzled as to why no one seemed to understand what the subjunctive was for. A young lady in the class explained that she had been taught in high school that English used to have a subjunctive but didn't any more. Were that true English would have been stripped of the elements that make it the expressive language it is.

Your comment that DMS is unlikely to raise its head using typical British materials and methods makes me fear you have missed the point which is that is that people any where at any time are subject to the phenomenon I described using DMS as an example. The local beer (often ones home brew) becomes, though not the best beer by objective judgement, the preferred beer they prefer as they are familiar with it and have come to own it in a sense. As another example, I've had some terrible local wheat beers in Germany. I'd bet that were they improved their sales too would suffer but of course I don't have evidence of that as I do with Rolling Rock.

Most people do not have educated or adventuresome palates. They like what they are used to and do not like change. There are, of course, plenty of people who do have adventuresome palates and will eat anything that does not eat them first or run away. These people often wind up with educated palates and it is these that eschew beers laden with DMS or diacetyl (though diacetyl definitely has it's place in continental lagers). These people have 'taste' and of course this involves certain personal preferences. I personally don't much like British style beers (though I loved Old Peculier before they trashed it) which is, of course, no reflection on their quality relative to the beers of other cultures. It's just my personal preference. Thus I think we have to allow the people of Latrobe, Pa and surroundings their preference for DMS just as we have to allow the residents of some village in the Yorksire Dales their preference for beers which I would consider unpalatable from ethyl acetate.

 

[user 246304]

De gustibus non est disputandum. Tough sometimes to distinguish that legitimacy from objectively bad beer. But then, outside an obvious set of flaws, what makes for an "objectively" bad beer?

Call this guy in love with British ales, served in their proper way. Complete respect for German and other continental traditions, but there's nothing that approaches a good English ale, for me.

 

[ajdelange]

Objectively bad would, obviously, refer to a pint that is turned, for example. But I was given one in a British pub once and it was actually quite tasty - nice lactic tartness. I gave it back more because I knew I was supposed to than because I didn't like the taste. Other objective flaws would be esters in a lager and lack of esters in an ale. Diacetyl at sarcina sickness levels. I was once told, and by a professional brewer yet, that "There is no place for diacetyl in lager beer". My comment was "I don't think they know that in Pilsen or Ceske Budejovice". Beers mashed without respect for mash pH which are just insipid because of that. High levels of DMS. I saved DMS for last because as the Rolling Rock case shows even though the brewing scientists from corporate we appalled the consumers liked the beer (or thought they did) as it was just as I liked the turned pint (or thought I did). So indeed an objectively bad beer may not be subjectively bad to some drinkers. I've sat in investor meetings, mostly populated by self appointed beer experts (home brewers etc.) and listened to them complain that the "Saison is not to style" to which management responds "It's one of our best sellers". End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.

If you like a particular style or a representation of a particular style, even though it be flawed to brewing scientist, I don't really care. If I think you might enjoy it more by, for eample, paying attention to mash pH, I suggest you pay attention to mash pH. De gustibus indeed!

 

[user 246304]

Yep, I should have been clearer, AJ. It's a bit fuzzy, isn't it, to discuss ester levels, for example, as an objective criterion for a given beer "style" - especially in places with such microclimates of brewing as to rival the map of Italian (or Burgundian) wine? Obviously infected beer, or, as I had the other night (and let the brewery know about it), just a massive presence of diacetyl in an "American IPA." Tough though, when a touch of diacetyl for one means undrinkable, for another, a kind of richness that lends itself to that particular pint.

Edit: As to mash pH, yes, absolutely concerned. I'm also concerned about learning everything I can about the British brewing tradition, what an old teacher (in another language) would have said, "stealing the mind." I don't think those things are mutually exclusive, sorry if I've conveyed that.

 

[cire]

Might the population of the Yorkshire Dales be not quite as you perceive, from where I observe, they drink more lager than ale. You may have more in common with they than you think as the majority don't care to drink British style beers either. Most dales folk drink at home from cans bought in supermarkets or bottles, some cheap white cider from the corner shop. British style beer can only at its best when cask conditioned and pulled by hand which few can experience at home and accordingly avoid when in the pub for the reasons you describe.

Old Perculiar has evolved since the takeover by Matthew Brown then Scottish and Newcastle and back again. One of those versions was good in my book but I'm not sure it was the same as thet in yours.

 

[ajdelange]

Might the population of the Yorkshire Dales be not quite as you perceive, from where I observe, they drink more lager than ale.

I am well aware that not all the pubs in Yorkshire are not Tap and Spile. This just reinforces the concept that people like what they like and not what CAMRA has told them they should like. There is no criticism of CAMRA intended in that statement.

You may have more in common with they than you think as the majority don't care to drink British style beers either. Most dales folk drink at home from cans bought in supermarkets or bottles, some cheap white cider from the corner shop.

Not that it matters but I don't have anything in common with them a I don't buy beer in cans - in fact I don't buy beer.

British style beer can only at its best when cask conditioned and pulled by hand which few can experience at home and accordingly avoid when in the pub for the reasons you describe.

Actually, hand pulled beers are extremely popular in the states just now. Many brewpubs over here have several engines and I know at least 20 people who have them in their homes. I've met people from Angrams at parties over here. Nevertheless, of course, many people also buy beers in cans over here too. I think you are refusing to allow yourself to appreciate that lager is just more appealing in many ways than the best cask conditioned and hand pulled beers. If the traditional ales were really better many people in pubs (both sides of the pond) would prefer them and the pubs would have 20 engines instead of 2 or 3. I know this is killing a sacred cow to those who turn up their noses at anything but hand pulled pints but to me those folks have always seemed to carry on as if following religious dogma rather than based on open minded tasting, comparing, evaluating. If you prefer hand pulled beers that's fine. Enjoy them but understand that in today's world they are an acquired taste. In our parents and grandparents time lagers were an acquired taste but they were amazingly quickly accepted throughout the world including the UK to the point that had CAMRA not stepped in you would probably not be able to obtain a beer engine today.

Although my personal experience doesn't count for much except anecdotally, I will mention that I tried very hard to acquire a taste for these beers because if you didn't rave about them in my club you were considered a little weird. I've brewed them. I serve them through an engine in Nonix glassware. I wish I could like them. All the ceremony with taps, spiles and ash mallets is neat and these beers certainly are a lot easier to brew than lagers. I think that may have a lot to do with the apparent preference for them in my club at least years ago when I joined. I have noticed now that with advances in the technology (inexpensive RO systems) and the availability of small cylindroconicals that some of our better brewers are shifting to lagers somewhat. One of the major events of the club year is still the 'Real Ale' competition but now there are also 'gravity served lager' events as well.

Anyway my attempts did not work. I just couldn't convince myself that I liked these beers. I always dreaded having to judge the Real Ale Competition.* But this is my preference and everyone else has his. You can decide that I have no palate (and at this point in my life it certainly isn't what it was) or that I'm a phillistine or that I have never had the opportunity to drink a properly brewed properly pulled pint but the fact is that to me, and millions of other drinkers world wide lagers are just more enjoyable beers. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else of this. You like what you like. I like what I like.

*As a footnote to the Real Ale Competition one year it yielded the best judge's score sheet comment I have ever seen by far: "I don't condone the use of the sparkler with northern style mild'.

Old Perculiar

Actually its Peculier with a "Peculier [being] an ecclesiastical district, parish, chapel or church outside the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese in which it is situated". The label of the beer depicts The Seal of the Official of the Peculier of Masham with the old boy shown kneeling in prayer. As I recall, but I'm terrible with dates, it was in the 90's that the transition from excellent to rather insipid took place.

 

[cire]

I think you are refusing to allow yourself to appreciate that lager is just more appealing in many ways than the best cask conditioned and hand pulled beers. If the traditional ales were really better many people in pubs (both sides of the pond) would prefer them and the pubs would have 20 engines instead of 2 or 3. I know this is killing a sacred cow to those who turn up their noses at anything but hand pulled pints but to me those folks have always seemed to carry on as if following religious dogma rather than based on open minded tasting, comparing, evaluating. If you prefer hand pulled beers that's fine. Enjoy them but understand that in today's world they are an acquired taste. In our parents and grandparents time lagers were an acquired taste but they were amazingly quickly accepted throughout the world including the UK to the point that had CAMRA not stepped in you would probably not be able to obtain a beer engine today.

Quite honestly your thoughts are misplaced for should I think that way my purpose would be better served on a more popular forum than Brew Science. I think we might stop the jousting and consider my objective is to provide evidence of how British ale styles have been produced and that they might not be better made using lager liquor treatments, profiles and methods. While they are both beers each have their virtues they are different, made using different ingredients, liquors and yeasts, finished differently and served differently at a different temperature.

Might you not think an expectation of 20 beer engines in a pub is unrealistic? Cask beers are live, not filtered, not centrifuged, not pasteurised and the yeast still active providing natural carbonation. Once tapped they are at their best for between 3 to 7 days meaning a lot of beer needs to be consumed to have that choice, a level I've not seen for long-life filtered and pasteurised lager from pumps.

 

[user 246304]

Given the short shelf life of real ales, I'm astounded any publican has any ale on cask - and my hat is off to those who do. It's one of the things about British brewing I truly admire - the important role the publican plays in bringing forward an ale at peak condition. One of the best experiences of my life was drinking at the Pear Tree Inn where we stayed, a literal stone's throw from the Hook Norton Brewery. I drank pints with gents from lorry men in their blaze yellow jackets to the beer writer for the Financial Times. I felt like I was drinking in centuries of English tradition. And the ales were exquisite.

I like lagers well enough, and appreciate their artistry, but I vastly prefer ales and of those, British ales with English ales leading the pack.

The lagers I generally saw in England were not the quality lagers we're talking about, but the insipid brews designed for, well, a global market. I think much the same here. That's the world trend I see. I'd love to see for regular consumption some good Munich helles, dunkles or Dortmunders, or alts or kolschs, bad as they must be compared to drinking them over there.

 

[ajdelange]

Quite honestly your thoughts are misplaced

No they aren't. They are things you should be thinking about. Were you to do so your perspective would be broadened and you can only benefit from that. Another thing you should be thinking about is our old friend confirmation bias. Your posts show quite a bit of that and, of course, mine do to. We are both human.

...for should I think that way my purpose would be better served on a more popular forum than Brew Science. I think we might stop the jousting and consider my objective is to provide evidence of how British ale styles have been produced and that they might not be better made using lager liquor treatments, profiles and methods.

Well now we know what your objective is at least. Perhaps your purpose would be better served on a more popular forum as the discussions here seem to be devolving into a "My Mac is better than your PC" sort of thing though I have tried to prevent that. OTOH the Murphy's recommendations are fascinating. I have certainly gained insight into British brewing practices from them.

I think the jousting is extremely valuable. In science one researcher publishes a paper and a horde of others try to prove he's wrong. The resulting back and forth is what produces significant scientific discoveries. But if you are uncomfortable with it...

To keep the discussion going here you would have to recognize that the applicable science goes beyond alkalinity and acids dipping into the behavioural sciences. Perhaps these beers might not be made 'better' by applying water treatments other than what Murphys recommends but on the other hand they very well might. The fact that you are campaigning to show that there is no possibility for improvement suggests that you feel these beers are optimum under the current practices but you have not said what your criterion for optimality is (though it's pretty evident). One cannot use the term 'better' with out defining what it means. There are several criteria for optimality potentially applicable here and which one chooses to consider depends on what he is trying to accomplish. In this thread at least two optimality criteria have been presented. One in

That profile is WAY too much mineralization. To have that much sulfate and chloride will be “minerally” and not enhance the beer at all.

and the other in

High mineralization is intentional (and traditional) when treating water the British way.

Yooper's optimaliy criterion is beer that tastes good. Beers with the level of mineralization suggested are not pleasing to most. Certainly not to Yooper and certainly not to me. But clearly they are to some. bitterdown points out that despite this tradition calls for this high mineralization. Yooper's criterion for goodness is that the beer tastes good. bitterdown's is that it is authentic. Other common optimality criteria are that the beer sells well, has good shelf life, is pleasing to some demographic etc. Of course what we would like is beer that is authentic, tastes good and sells. In the US pubs get this by brewing ales and then serving them on the wood through an engine but they do not mineralize to the extent that Murphy's seems to suggest. Thus they have the appearance of authenticity but they don't taste as minerally as the British examples would.

While they are both beers each have their virtues they are different, made using different ingredients, liquors and yeasts, finished differently and served differently at a different temperature.

Do you really suppose that anyone reading the Brewing Science Forum is not aware of that?

Might you not think an expectation of 20 beer engines in a pub is unrealistic?

O.K. Fifteen. That's how many are in the picture you posted.

Cask beers are live, not filtered, not centrifuged, not pasteurised and the yeast still active providing natural carbonation. Once tapped they are at their best for between 3 to 7 days meaning a lot of beer needs to be consumed to have that choice

Do you really suppose that anyone reading the Brewing Science Forum is not aware of that?

I've not seen for long-life filtered and pasteurised lager from pumps.

I don't believe I've ever seen lager served from a pump either.

 

[user 246304]

Well, I think I may have at least one understanding of why this was a weird brew. I listed TA = 322. Our water utility gives it as 283, and hovering around that figure is a fairly constant number. I probably should have looked at the report again, done a re-think and re-titrated. Salifert today gave me 296, and a .1N SO4 titration just gave me a TA = 270 (overshot - endpoint = pH 4.38 - not sure how the correction calculates out).

I better understand why in setting up the liquors on that day, Salifert was so bizarre (e.g., HLT, went pink immediately). At any rate, moving on. A strong bitter, entirely first gold for late and dry hopping. Really looking forward to this one!

And this "RIS" is a really nice, er, porter. It will drink great, and I'm pleased to share it with the people who helped me build the system, who loaned me their equipment liberally.

 

[ajdelange]

Salifert today gave me 296, and a .1N SO4 titration just gave me a TA = 270 (overshot - endpoint = pH 4.38 - not sure how the correction calculates out).

You are on the flat part of the titration curve where very little acid moves pH a lot. Since you only undershot pH a little you only overshot the acid addition by a very little bit. If you really want to calculate the correction look at https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/calculating-bicarbonate-and-carbonate.473408/ to see how to calculate Qc(pH). You used 270/50 = 5.4 mEq/L acid to get to pH 4.38. At pH 4.38 the hydrogen ion concentration is 1000*10^(-4.38) = 0.0416869 mEq/L so that needs to be deducted from the 5.4 meaning that 5.4 - 0.0416869 = 5.35831 mEq/L of acid were used to convert bicarbonate to carbonic. Qc(pH) is the charge on one mmole of carbo. Thus it takes Qc(pHe) - Qc(pHs) mEq of acid to change water with 1 mmol of carbo from its sample pH, pHs to the end point pH, pHe. Thus you must have had C = 5.35831/(Qc(pHe) - Qc(pHs)) mmol of carbo. I'll assume pHs = 7 here to continue the numerical example so C = 5.35831/(Qc(4.38) - Qc(7)) = 6.72287 mmol. Getting C is the key to the problem. C and pHs really specify the water. The carbo contribution to alkalinity to any arbitrary endpoint is simply C*(Q(pHe) - Q(pHs)). For this example the alkalinity to end point 4.5 (ISO) is 6.72287*(Qc(4.38) - Qc(7)) = 5.3374. The water's contribution to total alkalinity at this pH is 1000*10^(-4.5) = 0.03162 so the total alkalinity is 5.3374 + 0.03162 = 5.36902. This differs from the 5.4 mEq/L you measured to 4.38 by 5.4 - 5.36902 = 0.03098. In ppm the alkalinity WRT 4.5 is 50*5.36902 = 268.451. Not much different from that WRT 4.38 and thus, IMO even at this pretty high level of alkalinity, not worth worrying about.

The important message here is that if you measure the alkalinity to any end point pH you can calculate the alkalinity WRT any other pH. If you put the formulas into a spreadsheet so that the calculation is easily carried out it is no longer necessary to hit an particular end point. You only need to get close.

Glad the beer turned out to be something you will enjoy drinking.