Quick and Dirty: "Historical" Guinness hardness?, my water 291 HCO3/239 Alkalinity?

[user 246304]

Knocking off a quick batch of Guinness per my son's request with the 70:20:10 (MO:flaked barley:roast barley 550L) mash. I've seen two main houses of opinions as to water used; I'd prefer to go with the moderately hard water that was from the Grand Canal, per commentary by @cire.
Sorry, lazy request. Just looking for this older Guinness mineral content, and some suggestions as to mash and sparge water given my water. I have lots to catch up on (I mean, brewing science, even rudimentary stuff as I've forgotten everything) and wanted to get this beer going for him on a winter storm tomorrow.

Please note I won't be doing any sour-blending or the like. Just a dry stout with some qualities shared with draft Guinness.

Here's my water.

Ca: 69.8
Mg: 42.0
Na: 49.0
HCO3: 291.0
SO4: 25.0
Cl: 92.0
Alkalinity as CaCO3: 239

For the mash, I was thinking of doing nothing but adding in some gypsum to get SO4 and Cl at rough equity.

For the sparge, I was thinking of doing 50:50 my water and RO, then just using lactic 88% to get the pH down to 5.7. Any lactic "bite" would just be a bit of a cheat on the Guinness tang (don't think there would be any lactic bite, after the dilution, given the amount needed).

Thoughts?

 

[cire]

It's quite a while since I last brewed Guinness to the well accepted 70:20:10 ratio, but always have a stiff mash with alkalinity preadjusted to between 70 and 100 ppm as CaCO3 using hydrochloric acid. Mash pH usually stabilizes near 5.3 and the acid increases the chloride ion content. I prefer brewing this with a chloride:sulfate ratio of 2:1. My water comes with 135ppm SO4, so chloride will be near 300ppm after adding calcium chloride.

My sparge liquor initially has alkalinity as used for the mash, but small additions of acid are made to reduce alkalinity and stop pH of runnings rising above 5.6.

 

[user 246304]

It's quite a while since I last brewed Guinness to the well accepted 70:20:10 ratio, but always have a stiff mash with alkalinity preadjusted to between 70 and 100 ppm as CaCO3 using hydrochloric acid. Mash pH usually stabilizes near 5.3 and the acid increases the chloride ion content. I prefer brewing this with a chloride:sulfate ratio of 2:1. My water comes with 135ppm SO4, so chloride will be near 300ppm after adding calcium chloride.

My sparge liquor initially has alkalinity as used for the mash, but small additions of acid are made to reduce alkalinity and stop pH of runnings rising above 5.6.

Perfect. Thank you.

 

[mabrungard]

The water quality in the Grand Canal can vary quite a bit, depending on the weather. It was used as a conduit from the various Wicklow Mountain reservoirs to Dublin. But with that said, the water quality delivered to the St James Gate brewery is NOTHING like mentioned above. Their water is almost Pilsen like with very little ionic content and very low alkalinity. It is Wicklow Mountain reservoir water. Guinness has in-house RO systems to refine Dublin water when the City sends water to them from other parts of Dublin. The water in other parts of Dublin is like the water quality mentioned above. Guinness does not use it to brew their stouts.

Guinness developed their stout brewing process under the limitations of their low alkalinity water supply. As you should know, most stout and porter brewing uses high alkalinity water. What Guinness has done is split the mashing process into two separate streams.

The first stream is the pale malt and raw barley mash. The low alkalinity water is very well suited to produce a high quality mash pH and wort.

The second stream is the roast barley steep. The low alkalinity water steep produces a low pH, highly colored wort. If the roast barley had been mashed with the first stream, that combination would have resulted in a wort with a far too low pH that would have favored excessive proteolysis and a resulting thin and bodyless wort.

What Guinness does is blend this wort (Guinness calls it: Guinness Flavor Extract) with the wort from the first stream after both mashes are complete. Its that combined wort that is sent to the fermenters.

This method results in a wort that has both high color, high roast flavor, high acidity, and still has very high body and mouthfeel. Homebrewers can easily mimic the Guinness process by separating their streams too. I can tell you that it produces a remarkably similar product to the real thing.

 

[cire]

The water quality in the Grand Canal can vary quite a bit, depending on the weather. It was used as a conduit from the various Wicklow Mountain reservoirs to Dublin. But with that said, the water quality delivered to the St James Gate brewery is NOTHING like mentioned above. Their water is almost Pilsen like with very little ionic content and very low alkalinity. It is Wicklow Mountain reservoir water. Guinness has in-house RO systems to refine Dublin water when the City sends water to them from other parts of Dublin. The water in other parts of Dublin is like the water quality mentioned above. Guinness does not use it to brew their stouts.

Thank you for the chance to clarify my posting.
My water profile above is almost certainly not what Guinness used, but it makes a beer similar to what it was when their yeast could be used from a bottle of Guinness. That was when I first brewed this recipe and tried side by side with the original article. Today their beer can be thin enough to see through and served ice cold.

The Wicklow mountain reservoirs (Vartry) are southeast of Dublin. The Grand Canal runs west from Dublin, then south into the River Shannon, linking to the Atlantic Ocean. Canal water is supplied from reservoirs above highest points on route, the middle of that Ireland, not from the east and fed to the canal at sea level.
From a contemporaneous account by Alfred Barnard in, The Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland. Vol 3.

Chapter 2, Page 9

Guinness developed their stout brewing process under the limitations of their low alkalinity water supply. As you should know, most stout and porter brewing uses high alkalinity water. What Guinness has done is split the mashing process into two separate streams.

The first stream is the pale malt and raw barley mash. The low alkalinity water is very well suited to produce a high quality mash pH and wort.

The second stream is the roast barley steep. The low alkalinity water steep produces a low pH, highly colored wort. If the roast barley had been mashed with the first stream, that combination would have resulted in a wort with a far too low pH that would have favored excessive proteolysis and a resulting thin and bodyless wort.

The above account suggests the opposite, avoiding soft water for brewing, instead using it for making steam. Guinness was made long before we had a pH scale.

What Guinness does is blend this wort (Guinness calls it: Guinness Flavor Extract) with the wort from the first stream after both mashes are complete. Its that combined wort that is sent to the fermenters.

I have no reason to doubt that your description is accurately for today. They must also supply Nigeria (possibly the worlds largest producer of Guinness) with a treated barley essence to add to beers made not from barley, but sorgum.

This method results in a wort that has both high color, high roast flavor, high acidity, and still has very high body and mouthfeel. Homebrewers can easily mimic the Guinness process by separating their streams too. I can tell you that it produces a remarkably similar product to the real thing.

I'd agree, though I've not tried it because today's Guinness is not like the Original, which they apparently also sell today in bottles. I think @Gadjobrinus wanted an "Historical" version.

 

[user 246304]

The water quality in the Grand Canal can vary quite a bit, depending on the weather. It was used as a conduit from the various Wicklow Mountain reservoirs to Dublin. But with that said, the water quality delivered to the St James Gate brewery is NOTHING like mentioned above. Their water is almost Pilsen like with very little ionic content and very low alkalinity. It is Wicklow Mountain reservoir water. Guinness has in-house RO systems to refine Dublin water when the City sends water to them from other parts of Dublin. The water in other parts of Dublin is like the water quality mentioned above. Guinness does not use it to brew their stouts.

Guinness developed their stout brewing process under the limitations of their low alkalinity water supply. As you should know, most stout and porter brewing uses high alkalinity water. What Guinness has done is split the mashing process into two separate streams.

The first stream is the pale malt and raw barley mash. The low alkalinity water is very well suited to produce a high quality mash pH and wort.

The second stream is the roast barley steep. The low alkalinity water steep produces a low pH, highly colored wort. If the roast barley had been mashed with the first stream, that combination would have resulted in a wort with a far too low pH that would have favored excessive proteolysis and a resulting thin and bodyless wort.

What Guinness does is blend this wort (Guinness calls it: Guinness Flavor Extract) with the wort from the first stream after both mashes are complete. Its that combined wort that is sent to the fermenters.

This method results in a wort that has both high color, high roast flavor, high acidity, and still has very high body and mouthfeel. Homebrewers can easily mimic the Guinness process by separating their streams too. I can tell you that it produces a remarkably similar product to the real thing.

Martin, please see my first post. I have read your comments, as well as those by @cire and others. I am well aware of the two-stream process, as well as the "last minutes of mashing" incorporating of the roasted barley, the comments from the book (mentioned below) cire kindly provided elsewhere (re harder water for brewing, softer water for boiler intake) as well as the discussion of what is apparently happening today re Nigeria, etc.

Again,

I've seen two main houses of opinions as to water used; I'd prefer to go with the moderately hard water that was from the Grand Canal, per commentary by @cire....Just looking for this older Guinness mineral content.

In other words, as cire said correctly, I'm interested in the historical viewpoint (it's the title of the thread, actually). Really not interested in its modern iteration.

Thank you by the way, cire, for your links elsewhere to the Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland.

 

[user 246304]

BTW, according to my inputs (trust me, I know how little I know anymore, save my palate and outlook), this is what I have with 50:50 RO:my water, + salts.

Ca: 195
Mg: 34.1
Na: 24.5
SO4: 137.7
Cl: 275.3
HCO3: 145.5
SO:Cl: .5

Not ideal - not real happy with the Mg and NA content in particular, but hope it will turn out well. I acidified the sparge water with 88% lactic for 5.6 pH. If I understand you correctly cire, I'm intrigued by your acidifying only later sparging. I'm presuming to forestall the negative impact of final runnings pH? How do you arrive at when, and how do you calculate how much acid to use?

 

[Peebee]

Sorry to wake up this old post! But I'm just larking about with my current "water" project and the Forum software flagged this up as "Similar threads". So, I felt I had to take a look ...

The water described was an outlandish "American" water that I had been avoiding 'cos I knew it would little bearing on the project I was running in the UK. But "Avoidance" is not a good policy in the long-term, so I'll dive in:


First off, this report is a shambles! Completely mixed up and unbalanced! And how do I know this ...

Because I'm a conceited old git?

Probably. But in this case:

My city supply is hard - alkalinity (CaCO3) is 239. Coincidentally, moments ago as I was writing up this post, I just got the Ward report back:


pH 6.9
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Est, ppm 528
Electrical Conductivity, mmho/cm 0.88
Cations / Anions, me/L 9.5 / 9.0
ppm
Sodium, Na 49
Potassium, K 15
Calcium, Ca 69.8
Magnesium, Mg 42
Total Hardness, CaCO3 350
Nitrate, NO3-N 0.4 (SAFE)
Sulfate, SO4-S 25
Chloride, Cl 92
Carbonate, CO3 < 1.0
Bicarbonate, HCO3 291
Total Alkalinity, CaCO3 239
Total Phosphorus, P < 0.01
Total Iron, Fe < 0.01
"<" - Not Detected / Below Detection Limit

I think Mr @Gadjobrinus has been slightly inaccurate transcribing his water report into this thread.

So, I take this report, convert the SO4-S and NO3-N stuff to ions (SO4-- and NO3-), and shove it in my spreadsheet. Damn, Alkalinity isn't working out quite right ... bit of investigation in order. That reported Potassium didn't help (forces the Alkalinity measure the wrong way), need more (not many) anions. The spreadsheet works out Total Hardness even though it is not actually required: 350 reported, 347.25 calculated ... nowt wrong there! (Note: The calculation takes into account nil-Hardness "Sodium", of which there's lots in this example, so calculations may differ with other calculated examples). But that "Cations / Anions, me/L 9.5 / 9.0" confirms the problem, my spreadsheet is only calculating 9.45mEq/l anions (good!) to 4.21mEq/l anions (bad!).

Hang-on! Ward will report all anions including "bicarbonate" ions (I'm only counting "conservation" anions that are non-alkalinity contributing ... anything that's left to balance cations and ions is "Alkalinity", or in this case "bicarbonate"), so 4.18mEq/l (conservative anions) plus 5.27mEq/l as "bicarbonate" (alkalinity anions) is ... (tap, tap, tap) ... 9.45mEq/l anions. The same as cations, hardly surprising because that's how the equation driving my spreadsheet works ... Total Alkalinity = ∑conservation-cations - ∑conservation-anions ... the result is always "balanced" because that's how it works. Whereas Ward accepts a deficit of 9.5-9.0 = 0.5mEq/l. Flippin' cheats (well, okay, accepting "errors" is how most people get along). Two can play that game though:

(A snip from my "Defuddler" spreadsheet). That was called "thinking on yer feet". But I was sitting down.

Cool! I didn't know this could do that. I've added 0.5mEq/l of anonymous "conservative" anions. Now what was I going to do with this ... Hang-on, again

 

[user 246304]

Let me throw a further wrench in the works. Our city report consistently shows TA as around 300; multiple Salifert tests show TA around 300; my Hanna checker consistently shows TA around 300;

yet Ward's indicates 239. So there's that...

Wish there was a way on the home level to dependably measure Ca, SO4 and Cl...

 

[Peebee]

Let me throw a further wrench in the works. Our city report consistently shows TA as around 300; multiple Salifert tests show TA around 300; my Hanna checker consistently shows TA around 300;

yet Ward's indicates 239. So there's that...

Wish there was a way on the home level to dependably measure Ca, SO4 and Cl...

If you are flinging wrenches about, you missed me. Remember that line:

... Ward accepts a deficit of 9.5-9.0 = 0.5mEq/l. Flippin' cheats (well, okay, accepting "errors" is how most people get along).

We can easily undo that, I never knew what the anonymous 0.5mEq/l anions were, and Ward didn't appear to let on either. I could just deploy it so simply in my spreadsheet using an unused feature sitting within it. So, removing it gives ...

Takes it to about 265mg/l as CaCO3 and with no dodgy tricks (instead, I remove a dodgy trick!).

I should post the entire spreadsheet, but the documentation is still to be updated. I only picked on your (@Gadjobrinus) thread because it looked like an extream example to test on (it only gets very bland water to compare back here) and you generally don't beat me for writing weird stuff on your threads. My biggest worry is water "blended" from multiple sources which I haven't had to deal with in the UK. I'm hoping the pH stuff from @Silver_Is_Money can be deployed on that.

But that's for later.

I don't know why I seem to be "trailblazing" with this "conservation ion" stuff? Perhaps homebrewers are collectively suspicious of handing over alkalinity to calculations? Perhaps I'm going to find out with a big bump shortly? But the calculations crop up all over the place, even within the first few lines of the Wikipedia article on "Alkalinity".


[EDIT: Argg! The horrors of having screenshots of something being developed. The screenshots are taken from copies of the work-in-progress, but the last one wasn't and was (very slightly) incorrect. The "Sodium" concentration changed between the last two screenshots when it wasn't supposed to change. The last screenshot is properly up-to-date now, although you'll have to look hard to see the difference (the first screenshot was a few days out-of-date, plus the Sodium figure is wrong).]

 

[Peebee]

@Gadjobrinus: You don't appear to allow unsolicited private messages, so I'll put this in here

Anyone else: If you attempt to use this spreadsheet, you do so at your own risk! i.e. Do not hassle me if it goes wrong ... all-the-same I won't ignore constructive comments. For any non-constructive abuse, just go-put-a-sock-in-it!


I promised a copy of this spreadsheet when it was done. I'm not really ready to release it to the wider "HomeBrewTalk" community until I better understand its relevance to American tap water (there seems to be places it, or anything else, can't help). Fortunately, many of you have reports that don't need the "Defuddler", the reports do not appear to be so nobbled by unnecessary arcane nonsense as over here). But I can't see there's anything dramatically different with tap water over there. This is a bit I wrote for @Silver_Is_Money, the link is in that:

... Forum site with link to my "Defuddler": https://www.jimsbeerkit.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=84296&p=869726#p869719 (a site that's struggling some to keep visitor numbers up). The link is in my signature. "Defuddler" is ridiculously over-engineered, but that's what I do. ...

I attempted get @VikeMan on my side but somehow messed that up ... to the point he was (inadvertently?) using my own argument against me! That line-of-attack certainly confused me! Hopefully he'll give me a second chance and take a look at the finished job? I do know @cire (a fellow Brit but on different sides of this island) and he does know what I'm up to with this "Defuddler". He is very much a "Hardness" supporter, so I know he doesn't entirely support my project, but the guy is unflappable so we do remain on talking terms! I think?

The spreadsheet was created in Microsoft Excel but works in "free" LibreOffice Calc (some loss of display format) and same for online Google Sheets but "Sheets" doesn't support the cell protection so be careful to only enter details in the correct cells and don't overwrite calculations.

Feedback welcome!

Remember, this is a pre-processor (data conditioner?) for a water calculator of your choice. It is not a "water calculator" itself. It removes the stuff from a water report that only creates confusion and erroneous assumption (e.g. "water hardness" and "as CaCO3"). It probably only gets used occasionally (when a new report needs "Defuddling").

 

[user 246304]

Peebee (or anyone), could you send a test PM, to make sure I'm good to go? Thanks.

 

[user 246304]

If you are flinging wrenches about, you missed me. Remember that line:


We can easily undo that, I never knew what the anonymous 0.5mEq/l anions were, and Ward didn't appear to let on either. I could just deploy it so simply in my spreadsheet using an unused feature sitting within it. So, removing it gives ...

View attachment 848712

Takes it to about 265mg/l as CaCO3 and with no dodgy tricks (instead, I remove a dodgy trick!).

I should post the entire spreadsheet, but the documentation is still to be updated. I only picked on your (@Gadjobrinus) thread because it looked like an extream example to test on (it only gets very bland water to compare back here) and you generally don't beat me for writing weird stuff on your threads. My biggest worry is water "blended" from multiple sources which I haven't had to deal with in the UK. I'm hoping the pH stuff from @Silver_Is_Money can be deployed on that.

But that's for later.

I don't know why I seem to be "trailblazing" with this "conservation ion" stuff? Perhaps homebrewers are collectively suspicious of handing over alkalinity to calculations? Perhaps I'm going to find out with a big bump shortly? But the calculations crop up all over the place, even within the first few lines of the Wikipedia article on "Alkalinity".


[EDIT: Argg! The horrors of having screenshots of something being developed. The screenshots are taken from copies of the work-in-progress, but the last one wasn't and was (very slightly) incorrect. The "Sodium" concentration changed between the last two screenshots when it wasn't supposed to change. The last screenshot is properly up-to-date now, although you'll have to look hard to see the difference (the first screenshot was a few days out-of-date, plus the Sodium figure is wrong).]

And sorry, don't know why I missed this originally @Peebee . I for one am really appreciative of your posts. Though they are way beyond my understanding. Generally I can get there but my memory is really bad, so I have to work through slowly and repetitively to some extent, to start getting a handle on things. But I'll get there and, absolutely, I appreciate what you do.

 

[Peebee]

Peebee (or anyone), could you send a test PM, to make sure I'm good to go? Thanks.

Yeap, that's fixed it! (You've got the original I was putting together now. Nothing new, just ignore it).

 

[Peebee]

And sorry, don't know why I missed this originally ...

You failed to read my "flinging wrenches" post?

I might not be able to get over this ... (Is that beer mine? ... Yes?) ... Phew, it's okay, I'm over it.

Don't look too deeply into that "Defuddler". You only need to have those top five boxes filled and "job done". The sixth ("Alkalinity" or "Bicarbonate") is done for you. Ot the stuff lower down, I think your report had "Nitrate"? Put that in, it might help. You have "Potassium" but it's so small as not make much difference (you have it, so chuck it in). The report you had included "Hardness", but the spreadsheet will figure it out for itself (it won't need it).

Here's where I was digging out the details: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/thread...-291-hco3-239-alkalinity.730671/post-10371650. Watch out for that NO3-N and SO4-S stuff.

There's a diluter bit I think you might use?

The aim is to have all these numbers cleaned up and ready to put into the next calculator down the chain!

 

[user 246304]

You failed to read my "flinging wrenches" post?

I might not be able to get over this ... (Is that beer mine? ... Yes?) ... Phew, it's okay, I'm over it.

Don't look too deeply into that "Defuddler". You only need to have those top five boxes filled and "job done". The sixth ("Alkalinity" or "Bicarbonate") is done for you. Ot the stuff lower down, I think your report had "Nitrate"? Put that in, it might help. You have "Potassium" but it's so small as not make much difference (you have it, so chuck it in). The report you had included "Hardness", but the spreadsheet will figure it out for itself (it won't need it).

Here's where I was digging out the details: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/thread...-291-hco3-239-alkalinity.730671/post-10371650. Watch out for that NO3-N and SO4-S stuff.

There's a diluter bit I think you might use?

The aim is to have all these numbers cleaned up and ready to put into the next calculator down the chain!

Thanks again, Peebee. I'm going to do my level best to come to understand what you're doing. Any shortfall is very definitely mine!

 

[Peebee]

... Any shortfall is very definitely mine!

Don't worry about that. The local government here describe me as "Seriously Mentally Impaired" ("SMI" - result of "crashing" the horse I was on over a decade ago). Ha ha. Better not let everyone on this forum know that.

...

I've just told everyone haven't I. Again! Damn, I keep doing that!

 

[Peebee]

@Gadjobrinus: Just to assist filling that spreadsheet in, this is your Ward's report (snatched from one of your posts). My comments added in red:

pH 6.9 NOT USED. That's quite low, but I can't see why?
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Est, ppm 528 NOT USED. Can be used to help confirm rest of report, but it shouldn't be necessary.
Electrical Conductivity, mmho/cm 0.88 NOT USED. Can be used to estimate TDS, but to what end?
Cations / Anions, me/L 9.5 / 9.0 NOT USED. But if they're not the same (e.g. like 9.5 / 9.5) you're not being told something.
ppm Information only. The units being used for the following numbers. In water (or watery liquid) ppm is near enough the same as mg/l.
Sodium, Na 49 USE THIS!
Potassium, K 15 USE THIS? But not essential. Worth including, especially if over 10ppm. Spreadsheet uses it as if it's Sodium.
Calcium, Ca 69.8 USE THIS! But it can be approximated from a "Total Hardness" figure.
Magnesium, Mg 42 USE THIS!
Total Hardness, CaCO3 350 NOT USED! But can be used to approximate Ca and Mg if you don't have them. Calculated but not needed.
Nitrate, NO3-N 0.4 (SAFE) USE THIS! It's useful for "balance". IMPORTANT: Multiple by 4.43 to use as "NO3".
Sulfate, SO4-S 25 USE THIS! IMPORTANT: Multiple by 3.00 to use as "SO4".
Chloride, Cl 92 USE THIS!
Carbonate, CO3 < 1.0 NOT USED. Only makes an appearance in waters over pH8.3. I haven't decided how to best deal with >8.3. Not your problem!
Bicarbonate, HCO3 291 NOT USED. The spreadsheet calculates it, it doesn't need it! Note it's "Alkalinity" x 1.22.
Total Alkalinity, CaCO3 239 NOT USED. The spreadsheet calculates it!
Total Phosphorus, P < 0.01 NOT USED. Can be a PO4-P number but it's an embarrassment (and PO4 is not a "conservative" ion).
Total Iron, Fe < 0.01 NOT USED.
"<" - Not Detected / Below Detection Limit

You have to look a little deeper in the spreadsheet to put the "Potassium" and "Nitrate" figures, but otherwise they all (five of 'em) go into the boxes on the top line (make sure "unlocked" is selected at the top so you can see where to enter the numbers). The defaults see to the rest of goings on. So, nothing to it!

There was something else done to make your entries complete. But that was an "advanced" trick (aka. a bodge, it covered for what Ward's weren't telling you with "Cations / Anions, me/L 9.5 / 9.0") and we'd concluded it wasn't necessary. So nothing to do there.

There's a "dilution" calculator lower down the spreadsheet if you use it (they're also available in the many water calculators too).

Put the cleaned numbers into your water calculator. If the calculator thinks it needs more, don't look for it, look for a different water calculator instead!

A "Ward's" report is a "point-in-time" report (not an average or mean of several tests over time). Such reports can play havoc for me (very "soft" water), but probably mean less to a more "robust ("hard") water.

P.S. "Phosphate is mainly due to human activity ... "pollution"! Hence "an embarrassment". The number is much smaller if displayed as just "P"! It is also responsible for "Alkalinity" so the spreadsheet won't use it (it has already calculated a "Total Alkalinity" figure because it is central to the spreadsheet's workings).



BTW: This is all useful practical feedback so I can keep developing the spreadsheet into a more and more useful tool. With worldwide value instead of "just a little corner of Wales".

[EDIT: Where'd all that PO3 stuff pop up from? Sorry about that. Not really important in the context it was in (so no-one noticed?), but all replaced with PO4 now.]

 

[Peebee]

I'll post an example of why I'm currently not very confident of posting this "Defuddler" stuff outside my UK "comfort zone". The following seems quite common your side of the Atlantic (anywhere within any large continental landmass for that matter?):

I am using my well water for my first batch of ale. I can use the water after the sand filter and BUT prior to the calcite tank (which brings the pH up to about 8).
It tastes better to me before the calcite tank, so I was going to use that. It's what I normally drink.

Or I can use the water AFTER the calcite tank.

I had the water analyzed at a lab (I do that periodically) and here are the specs.

Before calcite tank- Alkalinity 100 ppm, pH 6.5, Total Hardness -100 ppm as Calcium Carbonate- I was going to use this because it tastes better to me, slightly acidic and its not as hard.

After calcite tank - Alkalinity 200 ppm, pH 8.0, Total Hardness -190 ppm as Calcium Carbonate

What do you guys think?

and he goes on:

Thanks CascadesBrewer.
I have these numbers. Most were below the threshold of detection for the test except for chloride
chloride - 150 ppm
copper < 0.05 ppm
Iron/Fe3+ < 0.05 ppm
Nitrate + Nitrites total < 1.01 ppm
Nitrates < 1.00 ppm

Relatively few have their own boreholes/wells supplying their water over here. So, we (UKers) don't have to deal with too much "weirdness". But I've alerted @TexasTea to this post so I'll complete it.

There's a lot missing from the "analysis", but taking what I've got and the comment "Most were below the threshold of detection" I'll go with zeroing any user inputs in the spreadsheet ("Defuddler"), stick in 150 ppm for Chloride (as per report), ... sorry, got to dig about in the "Foetid Mire" for this bit: "Total Hardness -100 ppm as Calcium Carbonate"; now it one of the reasons "as CaCO3" remains so popular, Calcium "as Calium Carbonate" is exactly the same as "Hardness" when there's no Magnesium, or any other "Hardness" anions reported, so "100" is plugged into the "Calcium Hardness" box and it's source changed to "Private Reports" (it was "Live Data"). We're prompted to put 40.05 into the topline "Calcium" box ...

What? ... Slam on the brakes!

The spreadsheet reckons "Calcium" should be a minimum of 84.78 ppm to provide zero Alkalinity?

Is that a good enough demonstration why I'm currently not very confident of posting this "Defuddler" stuff outside my UK "comfort zone"? There's nowt wrong with the "Defuddler", but the information being provided is a bit (lot!) dodgy. The spreadsheet is attempting to account for that "Chloride" plus a "Hardness" of 100 ppm. That is simply IMPOSSIBLE, and we haven't got about to trying to increase the "Alkalinity". It might be possible to presume (invent?) a good amount of "non-hardness" anions to deal with that chloride (e,g. Sodium?) to get it to add up, but that wasn't the remit.

Well, a useful demonstration. I noticed a few display anomalies to correct, and I really need a flag to make it clear when utter garbage has been input and the spreadsheet can't handle it. I've wasted an entire morning trying to figure this one out! (Well ... not "wasted", it's good to know these traps exist).

 

[Peebee]

This will be a test to see how the information my spreadsheet ("Defuddler") puts out compares with "others". The "others" will be represented by @mabrungard's "Bru'n Water" as Martin does lurk about on this forum (he posted earlier on this thread) so this provides a chance to correct any "liberties" I might take with his (well known) water calculator. The other reason I'll use "Bru'n Water" is it's the water calculator I used for years on end! Remember, this "Defuddler's" only purpose is "to cut the junk", this illustration is only to show the "junk" is not needed!

They're the six ions cleaned up out of @Gadjobrinus's water report, along with two other ions that appear lower down (I'll bring them up higher in a future release - they do come in handy even if they have no direct bearing on beer brewing):

No tricks to cover the minor imbalance in the Ward's report (that, credit to Ward's, they do admit to with "Cations / Anions, me/L 9.5 / 9.0"), so my spreadsheet is reporting a slightly higher Alkalinity/Bicarbonate level which was considered more true to the experienced level (300mg/L "as CaCO3" of Alkalinity).

The eight figures (including the calculated "Bicarbonate") were entered into an otherwise blank "Bru'n Water":

Well, that was easy! A bit lower down that "Bru'n Water" sheet are some conclusions drawn from those figures:

The "Ion Balance Results" isn't a fluke, my spreadsheet works that way! Bicarbonate is calculated so "Cation/Anion Difference" must always equal zero (or an insignificant "0.01"; probably a rounding difference).

Things take a different track with "Hardness and Alkalinity Results". "Total Hardness" and "Alkalinity" (both "as CaCO3") will always be identical in the two sheets. "Total Hardness" the sum of both Calcium and Magnesium expressed "as CaCO3" (Ward's reported it as 350 ppm "as CaCO3" which is very slightly over as might be expected, "Hardness" should include the minute insignificant amounts of other anions). "Alkalinity" and "Bicarbonate" are one and the same thing in these environments (safe drinking water) so divide "Bicarbonate" by 1.22 to represent "as CaCO3".

"Total Hardness" is also the sum of "Permanent Hardness" and "Temporary Hardness". And here the two spreadsheets take very different tracks. But remember "Hardness" is of no value to brewing beer, but both spreadsheets calculate it because people are used to seeing it. Bru'n Water takes the popular track (in this environment) of making it equal "Alkalinity", so it's 264 ppm "as CaCO3". The "Defuddler" has it as 193 ppm "as CaCO3".

That's because the "Defuddler" estimates just over 70 ppm "as CaCO3" can be "associated" with non-Hardness anions (like Sodium and Potassium). This becomes more relevant when the amount of Sodium (etc) means there isn't enough "Hardness" anions to associate with "Alkalinity" cations (i.e. such as "Bicarbonate") at which point Bru'n Water (and most other water calculators that insist on retaining "Hardness") start to lie! It doesn't matter, "Hardness" figures have no real value to brewing. But I don't feel comfortable telling lies.

That's enough for now. I have an example of an "Irish Stout" <sic> recipe which I can complete this illustration with.

[EDIT: Oops, missed out one of my illustrations (I was in a hurry not to miss the tour of the local mead brewery/winery/whatever). Well back now:

In the depths of the spreadsheet, the "Hardness" stuff does exist. Solely for "academic" purposes, it serves no practical value. If you add the "non-Hardness" cations to Temporary Hardness (and those cations are mainly Sodium, measured "as Calcium Carbonate" ... yeah, screwy or what) and subtract them from Permanent Hardness (they are "equivalence" measures so I can get away with that) you end up with amounts like in Bru'n Water. But if the amount of "non-Hardness" cations was to exceed the amount of "Permanent Hardness" and you do the maths again ... (at that point you'd best start lying).]

 

[Peebee]

Part Two!

I've cleaned up the original Ward's report of unnecessary dross (and Ward's reports are pretty good ... compare with some municipal reports that run to sheets and sheets, to us, Ward's reports are very good!) and have just seven values plus one "calculated" value). Plug just those values into Bru'n Water, and then give it a recipe. I've found a "bog-standard" Irish Stout as an example (from the library in Beersmith ... the usual recipe builder I use):

0.12gms per litre of gypsum (<3gms in all) added to get the calcium up to a more respectable level and nudge the predicted mash pH below 5.5, and the SO4/Cl ratio as close as I dare to the 2.9 suggested by that "Dublin" profile. One thing that still annoys me with Bru'n Water is all that primary "red" ... as a water calculator I think it should be guiding, the "red" gives it an unnecessarily dictatorial tone ... more shades of Amber perhaps (and perhaps it will significantly reduce earache from some of the UK brewers?).

Magnesium and Sodium are a little bit high (compared to what most of us have to put up with). But despite Bru'n Water's terror-inducing colours, Martin's profuse notes don't exactly earmark them as most definately excessive.

Job done? It's so much easier when all the unnecessary bumph about "Hardness", "as CaCO3", things that never amount to over 1 part in a million in the water, etc. is removed (and ignored).


[My thanks to @Gadjobrinus for putting up with me deploying my "Defuddler" spreadsheet on his thread ]

 

[user 246304]

Part Two!

I've cleaned up the original Ward's report of unnecessary dross (and Ward's reports are pretty good ... compare with some municipal reports that run to sheets and sheets, to us, Ward's reports are very good!) and have just seven values plus one "calculated" value). Plug just those values into Bru'n Water, and then give it a recipe. I've found a "bog-standard" Irish Stout as an example (from the library in Beersmith ... the usual recipe builder I use):

View attachment 851909

0.12gms per litre of gypsum (<3gms in all) added to get the calcium up to a more respectable level and nudge the predicted mash pH below 5.5, and the SO4/Cl ratio as close as I dare to the 2.9 suggested by that "Dublin" profile. One thing that still annoys me with Bru'n Water is all that primary "red" ... as a water calculator I think it should be guiding, the "red" gives it an unnecessarily dictatorial tone ... more shades of Amber perhaps (and perhaps it will significantly reduce earache from some of the UK brewers?).

Magnesium and Sodium are a little bit high (compared to what most of us have to put up with). But despite Bru'n Water's terror-inducing colours, Martin's profuse notes don't exactly earmark them as most definately excessive.

Job done? It's so much easier when all the unnecessary bumph about "Hardness", "as CaCO3", things that never amount to over 1 part in a million in the water, etc. is removed (and ignored).


[My thanks to @Gadjobrinus for putting up with me deploying my "Defuddler" spreadsheet on his thread ]

Thanks so much for all the work man. I will be slower than a tortoise through quicksand getting through it, but will work to get there.