OK, two things:
I did not make these up, I've collected them from the net and books over the years.
I've started look at things from a different angle basing things on some minimums, maximums, Cl:SO4 ratios, and RA based on what the particular style demands for color/balance and not on where the beers originally came from.
My most recent Bock (hadn't done a Bock in a long time) came out at 26 SRM. I have 5 reported profiles for Munich water. Four of these are from the literature, none balances electrically and they all give, based on what is clearly under reported bicarbonate, RA's of around 60. A sample of Munich water I measured myself had an RA of 205. So which is more suitable for the beer? Or should I just take Palmer's spreadheet and decide I need 195 - 254 RA and shoot for that or use the EZ spreadsheet only to have it tell me that I will get a mash pH of 4.93 if I take the approach I did which is to completely ignore color and shoot for a slightly elevated (over my well water) RA of 80 acheived by adding a bit of calcium chloride and a bit of chalk. Dough in pH came out at 5.2 and settled in at 5.3 using 2.5% sauermalz. I said earlier that a good RA is <= 0 so why did I raise RA. It was based on Daryl Richman's monograph telling me that some bicarbonate is part of the profile of Bock to which I say, having brewed the beer, hooey. As always, when I make a statement like that I say that if you like bicarbonate taste in your beer go ahead and use it! It's just not to my taste. Raising RA to 80 did not, by any means, spoil the beer. It's delicious but there was no need for the higher RA and and I won't increase it if I brew this beer again.Since the Bock was the first one brought up:
From the Quickie Water Chemistry Primer
http://www.brewery.org/brewery/library/wchmprimer.html
Dark Lagers -- Bocks, for example. Model: Mosher's "Ideal Mild Ale / Dark Lager"
Ca 73
Mg 13
Na 52
Cl 80
SO4 125
HCO3 63
Alkalinity 106
Hardness 51.6
RA 46.3
SRM Low 9.0
SRM High 13.8
Cl:SO4 0.64
Balance Bitter
They certainly don't "align" on the sulfate, the color is largely immaterial (as far as mineral additions are concerned) as are the OG, FG and IBU's. I have no idea what RTE is (an estimate of the true extract?) or BV either. I'm guessing that it is some sort of bitterness per unit of true extract with true extract representing sweetness. That wouldn't be controlled with water chemistry but by rest temperatures, number of decoctions, yeast strain...Based on the style description:
Traditional Bock 5B
SRM 14 to 22
Mean OG 1.068
Mean FG 1.016
RTE* 25.36
Mean IBU 23.5
BV** 0.74
BV Balance Slightly Malty
From:
http://beercolor.netfirms.com/balance.html
*RTE = 0.82 x FG + 0.18 x OG
**BV = 0.8 x IBU / RTE
This would show that the two don't really align.
After some tweaking:
Ca 50
Mg 13
Na 60
Cl 100
SO4 50
CO3 176.5
Alkalinity 150
Hardness 178.7
RA 106.7
SRM Low 13.9
SRM High 18.8
Cl:SO4 2
Balance Malty
Now the colors line up as well as the balance.
Thoughts?
I think you'd do better by trying to find out anything you can about the water that defined the beer.
There is no usable information about water chemistry in beer color and there are no "requirements" for a particular chloride to sulfate ratio.
The spreadsheets that advise setting RA in accordance with color will only lead you astray. Yes, people used dark malt to offset highly alkaline water in the past which is why some styles are dark and others aren't but the spreadsheet formulas are based on poor fits to, AFAIK, colors calculated from grist bills using one of the popular color models and heaven knows what for water chemistry data since most of that out in public is bogus. Palmer came up with a slope of 7 RA per unit of SRM. I can at least measure color but still don't have anything other than reported chemistry to work from and I got a slope more like 1 and Pearson' coefficient for that was less than 0.5. If were were talking money instead of RA I certainly wouldn't be placing any bets based on either model.
A good RA for all beers is 0 or less. You should never increase alkalinity (of RA) unless 1) Your mash pH is way low 2) You want bicarbonate taste in your beer. The reason I mention this is because some authors think Bock should have some residual carbonate taste. I don't. The less the better.
A couple of papers were written in the UK suggesting that chloride to sulfate ratio was better correlated with taste panel impressions that the absolute values. This is by no means universally accepted. Among German brewers a good ratio is infinite (i.e. no sulfate).
They certainly don't "align" on the sulfate, the color is largely immaterial (as far as mineral additions are concerned) as are the OG, FG and IBU's. I have no idea what RTE is (an estimate of the true extract?) or BV either. I'm guessing that it is some sort of bitterness per unit of true extract with true extract representing sweetness. That wouldn't be controlled with water chemistry but by rest temperatures, number of decoctions, yeast strain...
From:
http://beercolor.netfirms.com/balance.html
*RTE = 0.82 x FG + 0.18 x OG
**BV = 0.8 x IBU / RTE
As noted color really has almost nothing to do with this and it appears you are comparing "balance" based on chloride to sulfate ratio in one case and IBU to TE ratio in the other. The latter would be more valuable IMO.
In summary, my philosophy is that there is no "ideal" profile for any style of beer.
I think you missed my point here. Burton ales are Burton ales because of the Burton water supply. Therefore it makes sense to know something about Burton water if you want to brew Burton ale. But I certainly agree that you shouldn't try to duplicate Burton water exactly because:While I understand the certain beers styles were developed out of necessity based on what the region's water supply allowed, it is a bad idea to try to replicate the water exactly.
We should be examining why these styles were developed and trying to mimic the benefits while staying within moderation.
when attempting to develop a brew water for a batch, we should take into consideration the attributes of the beer that is being brewed and tweak accordingly.
I think they are a good jumping off point and better than nothing or just using the city of origin.
This is also the reason I think so many people want to see an "Ideal" water profile by style.
That way they're not playing around with spreadsheets until they hit the right color and balance while drastically over-treating.
Didn't say that. If you have an RA larger than 0 you can make good beer but you must compensate for it. In Dublin they did that with roast barley and, of course, Guiness wouldn't be Guiness if they had been "smart" enough back then to decarbonate and/or use acid. This brings in another city but it is an intersting example. I use enough roast barley in my Irish stout to give me colors between 60 and 80 SRM. My water has RA that ranges from 1/5 to about the same as Dublin's depending on whose report I look at. I use no chalk in the mash or the water and get a pH of 5.5. That's high. I'd like it lower but I don't use acid. I can make very good Irish stout without even thinking about the water - no spreadsheets, no calculations of any kind. Just a pH check.Really? So any city that has water over an RA of zero can't make good beer? How do explain the success of Dublin?
I agree that it is the ratio and not the absolute amounts that are important. This is right in line with my attempt to use the RTE and BV while designing water.
That's what I figured it had to be. I agree that it might be useful to normalize bittering by TE (most authors simply call it True Extract) but if I thought the IBU/TE for a beer was too low water chemistry would be the last place I'd look to fix it. I'd increase hopping, use a higher alpha hop, convert at a temperature that gives more maltose... Apparently people think that by changing the ratio of sulfate to chloride they can change the bitterness vs maltiness. This is not, IMO, the case at all. Adding sulfate only makes hops bitterness harsher and dryer (and IMO, less pleasant) whereas increasing chloride enhances the mouthfeel and mellowness and up to a point, sweetness. But maltiness is not exclusively sweetness - the melanoiding character is the mainstay of maltiness to me.Real Terminal Extract (RTE) is one way to look a finished beer because it takes attenuation out as a variable unlike a simple IBU:OG ratio.
How would you do that?I think you are missing the point. I'm not saying that the RTE of BV are defined by the water chem but that we should be taking it into account when developing water for styles. We should be looking at adjusting water to it aligns with the balance of the beer.
Exactly. Chloride to Sulfate ratio is the "balance" for the brewing water while the IBU to RTE is the balance of the beer. I'm just saying that we need to make sure the two match. I have "Very Malty" water so when I brew a "Very Hoppy" beer, I need to adjust my water to have a "Very Hoppy" ratio.
Again, while I know that the correlation for RA and color are not something you can completely, accurately define, I don't think they should be ignored all together.
I think a lot of people would have been saved from ruining a lot of beer if Palmer had never put that in his spreadheet or had, at least, caveated it in big red letters.They should be taken with a "grain of salt" when creating brewing water.
I think you must. If you are using profiles like the ones you posted originally I know I can have you making better beer than you are. Others besides me understand how this works and are getting similar results. Some of them post here.I don't really care what types of water others are using to brew with.
To me the biggest appeal of homebrewing is the expectation that you will learn to do things better. I've been at this over 20 years and I'm still doing incrementally better beers and expect that trend to continue as long as I can heft a mashing oar.I know what I use and how I do things.
I think the goal of this post and others like it was to give some guidance to people who may be new to brewing or at least to water adjustments so when they want to brew a certain style of beer, they know what types of water to use and not have to fiddle around with the numbers too much.
3) Burton style beers brewed with softer water are better beers than ones brewed with "authentic" water.
That's why I tell people to use RO water, use acid to set mash pH and then worry about the "stylistic" ions. Given that you are going to take this approach you might as well start with a clean sheet of paper and taste your way along rather than trying to deduce how much chalk to add from some seriously flawed model relating that to color.
There is no such thing as an ideal profile for a style IMO. Are you shooting for authenticity or the best beer? The water treatment will be different in many cases.
That's what I figured it had to be. I agree that it might be useful to normalize bittering by TE (most authors simply call it True Extract) but if I thought the IBU/TE for a beer was too low water chemistry would be the last place I'd look to fix it. I'd increase hopping, use a higher alpha hop, convert at a temperature that gives more maltose... Apparently people think that by changing the ratio of sulfate to chloride they can change the bitterness vs maltiness. This is not, IMO, the case at all. Adding sulfate only makes hops bitterness harsher and dryer (and IMO, less pleasant) whereas increasing chloride enhances the mouthfeel and mellowness and up to a point, sweetness. But maltiness is not exclusively sweetness - the melanoiding character is the mainstay of maltiness to me.
I guess I have "hoppy" water. I put in an RO system to get rid of sulfate (that's really the only reason I did it) and now supplement all my beers with calcium chloride so I now have "very malty" water. All my beers, hoppy or not are brewed with this "very malty" water.
I looked at data from 4 recently brewed beers (all measured -not calculated) and while that certainly isn't a very big sample there wasn't much of a correlation (Pearsons r = -0.24) between chloride to sulfate ratio and IBU/TE. But note that the correlation is negative. IOW a scatter plot of IBU/TE vs Cl:SO4 is pretty much centered around a horizontal line. I do not take chloride to sulfate ratio or IBU/TE ratio into account when designing brewing water (but I surely do think about TE and hopping levels in planning grist and hop charges) and based on this data I wouldn't. But you are saying perhaps I should? I'm sure as hell not adding any sulfate to my Pils!!! Or my ale - the bitterness is already too harsh for my taste.
It's not that you can't define it, it's that
1)You can't get data that would let you measure it
2)The data I have measured shows that the correlation doesn't exist (r<1/2 isn't a whole lot better than no correlation at all IMO)
I think a lot of people would have been saved from ruining a lot of beer if Palmer had never put that in his spreadheet or had, at least, caveated it in big red letters.
I think you must. If you are using profiles like the ones you posted originally I know I can have you making better beer than you are. Others besides me understand how this works and are getting similar results. Some of them post here.
Again, I posted the profiles I'd seen around the web because John000smith ask for them in this post. I also said we should discuss and try to make them better and take on the whole gamet of style/water profiles as a group.
This has been my whole point all along. Start with the highlights of the water of origin and then tone it back if possible. I think people are asking for the what is the toned back version.
I completely disagree with starting with 100% RO. While you may be able to get water that mimics the big brewing ions, you are also eliminating others that are important that can't be added back with brewing salts. RO should only be used to dilute out practically hard water to get it to a more usable level.
So when you start to brew a certain style, you always use a different water profile or do you use a basic variation of one that you've worked out before for that style? I think people are looking for the "this is what I've found works best for a style ....." profile.
The two go hand in hand. If you want a nice crisp bitterness, you need both. One without the other won't get the job done.
The point is you have to start with a recipe to match a style and then follow it up with a water profile that will work with the attributes of the beer you are trying to brew. The "balance" of your recipe should be in line with the "balance" of your water.
The point is you need to match the water style to the type of beer you are brewing. The fact that you say they don't correlate just means you are doing something wrong in recipe or water design.
Let's be clear, both the balance on the water and recipe side can be calculated. To be the best brewers, we should be taking both into account and making sure they are appropriate.
I know you're new but be carfull trashing the all might Palmer around here, it's like drawing the Proffet Muhamed eating a BLT. jk
Again, I posted the profiles I'd seen around the web because John000smith ask for them in this post. I also said we should discuss and try to make them better and take on the whole gamet of style/water profiles as a group.
Secondly, if there is no correlation between SRM and mash pH, why would it be published? Isn't there more than one way to skin a cat?
Well, I was the one who started this thread, and I think that this dialogue is great. Couple of questions; is there a "recommended range" of a given suite of minerals, like TH's original spreadsheet recommends (from Palmer, I assume). In other words, shouldn't one strive to at least be in that range?
There is a weak correlation, nobody is denying that. It just isn't good enough to rely on and if you try to extrapolate the model to very dark beers it gives absurd recommendations and people using the model seem to uniformly not understand that weakness.
Let me ask you the opposite question, if the correlation exists and is useful, why did only a small handful of the hundreds of people who have written about water in brewing publish it?
You can use Palmer's model and check mash pH with a pH meter and observe that it is wrong nearly all of the time (and badly wrong for dark beers). That is not disputable.
That's not to say Palmer's model isn't useful, just that if you don't understand it's limitations it will do more harm than good.
I tend to think there is and I believe the debate here is as to how to define it as the edges of that range would be, I think, pretty fuzzy. I sometimes refer people to my water map at http://www.pbase.com/agamid/image/57446374. This plots the reported waters of several famous brewing cities by their effective hardness (calcium hardness plus half magnesium hardness) against their alkalinities. If you make such a plot lines of constant residual alkalinity are diagonals and the "map" shows those too.
My water is very soft, almost Pilsen-like. As you can see, the majority of minerals are well outside the "recommended range" for brewing. My pale ales seemed fine however, I was unable to brew stouts that had any body. Hence the addition of CaSO4 and CaCO3 to bring me within an acceptable range. It's quite a shock to me, as well as other people I'm sure, that Palmer's model, and all subsequent revisions have been leading us down the wrong path perhaps. All I want to do is be able to brew the best beer I can, across the SRM ranges. How would one realistically achieve this through water modification without a chemical engineering background?
Here is my starting water profile, via Ward Labs:
Ca-8
Mg-2
Na-25
Cl-15
SO4-11
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)-20
Is that sulfate number SO4-S 11 on the report or have you converted it to as SO4? SO4-S = 11 means SO4 = 33. Taking it as you have posted it the following should serve you well:
Baseline Treatment: add one tsp calcium chloride to each 5 gal of water being treated. Add 2% sauermalz to the grist.
Deviate from the baseline as follows:
For soft water beers (i.e Pils, Helles). Use half that amount of calcium chloride increase the sauermalz to 3%
For beers that use roast malt (Stout, porter): Skip the sauermalz
For British beers: Add 1 tsp gypsum as well as 1 tsp calcium chloride
For very minerally beers (Export, Burton ale): Double the calcium chloride and the gypsum.
If the sulfate was SO4-S = 11 then you will want to cut the water 1:1 with RO water when doing anything using noble hops because that much sulfate is too much for them.
This should get you started but won't necessarily give you the "best" beer (remembering from the discussion in this thread that "best" has multiple definitions). To move from the baseline to "best" you will need to experiment increasing one salt on one brew and decreasing it on the next both in order to educate you palate with respect to what the individual salts do and to give you guidance on how ultimately to set them. It is really extremely helpful to have a pH meter available. This is the only way to be sure you are getting mash pH correct.
Why sauermalz instead of an acid rest or lactic acid. Ease, personal preference?
Ease and certainty. An acid rest takes hours, needs to be done at elevated temperature, has the lactos consuming some extract and risks spoilage. With acid you need to do calculations and measure out the acid rather precisely. If a pH meter is available, then that's a good way to go but if you are relying solely on the 1 % of grist per 0.1 pH drop rule of thumb the sauermalz seems to me the easier way to do it. In continental beers sauermalz also adds subtle complexity that actually improves the beers. It is definitely not traditional in British brewing but the more authentic alternative, CRS, is not available in the US (AFAIK).
Is that sulfate number SO4-S 11 on the report or have you converted it to as SO4? SO4-S = 11 means SO4 = 33. Taking it as you have posted it the following should serve you well:
Baseline Treatment: add one tsp calcium chloride to each 5 gal of water being treated. Add 2% sauermalz to the grist.
Deviate from the baseline as follows:
For soft water beers (i.e Pils, Helles). Use half that amount of calcium chloride increase the sauermalz to 3%
For beers that use roast malt (Stout, porter): Skip the sauermalz
For British beers: Add 1 tsp gypsum as well as 1 tsp calcium chloride
For very minerally beers (Export, Burton ale): Double the calcium chloride and the gypsum.
If the sulfate was SO4-S = 11 then you will want to cut the water 1:1 with RO water when doing anything using noble hops because that much sulfate is too much for them.
Both spreadsheets require sulfate as sulfate AFAIK. It's Ward Labs that's a bit out of kilter here. In the brewing and water treatment industries it's reported as sulfate. In the revised spreadsheet he has included a notice that if you have a report that lists it SO4-S you should multiply by 3. That is the conversion factor.
No, the resason for using calcium sulfate instead of carbonate is that carbonate is powerfully alkaline and increases mash pH dramatically. We are adding acid (sauermalz) to most grists to get the pH lower. CaCO3 would send it higher - exactly the opposite of what we want to do.
Again, AFAIK, all the spreadsheets want sulfate specified as sulfate. I have never used Ward Labs so I've only seen reports in places like your post where people just say SO4 11. I had noticed for some time that I never got the same anion numbers that people posted from their Ward Labs reports and could never figure it out until one day some guy cut and pasted from an e-mail report, I noticed the -S and the mystery was resolved. I can't believe I was the first guy to notice this but perhaps I was.
I dont think the people are asking for an end all be all water profile that will never need any personal adjustments. In actuality, unless they are using DI and not their own water, they will only be able to get in the ballpark anyway. What Id like to help produce is a starting point or some target ranges for styles (or families of styles), that can then be personally tweaked on subsequent brews.The problem with that approach is that it doesn't please everyone. Personal taste really comes into it.
Ive got a degree in Cellular and Molecular Biology which required coarse work included General, Organic, Physical and Bio Chem as well as Physics, Statistics and Calc. Ive worked in the Biotech industry for 16 years, so yeah, Id say I have a little science training but thanks for the condescension. Im not saying that there is one optimal profile that will serve all cases. If you can give someone who is new to AG or is starting to adjust their water a good starting point they can adjust later on. Youve expressed displeasure in the models that are out there and that simply relying on an RA:SRMI don't know if you have any training in science but if you do you know that you cannot speak of optimality without having an optimality criterion. Win a ribbon, make a beer my mates like and make a beer my wife will like are distinct criteria which may result in three different water profiles for the same beer.
So why not reply to my original post with here is what I have found is close to authentic but is slightly higher/lower in x,y,z and has worked for brewing some great, to style, Bocks followed by the disclaimer that people may need to adjust based on their initial brews? I think people would find that more helpful than the back and forth weve been having. Its better to be a helper than a hater.The latter. I have figured out how to do this over the years but I'm always experimenting. If you ask me how to brew a style I have brewed I can tell you what to do with the water but I can't guarantee that you will agree that what I have given you is optimum. It depends, as I noted above, on your criteria for optimality.
So forget what makes the best beer that I, my wife or my friends may like, but focus on what would make the best to style beer. These are what the general water profiles would focus one. Think about it in terms of the dog show. I have two great mutts. If I rolled up to Westminster dog show, no matter if they are the best dog in the city that day, they wouldnt come close to winning (or even being let in the building for that matter) because they arent to breed. We should try to focus on what would be the most authentic to the attributes of the style without just listing city water profiles.Very soft water is required for authenticity in Bohemian Pilsner, for example, and very soft water makes great Boh. Pils if you use acid properly to set the pH (and this, is of course, exactly what the brewers of these beers in the Czech republic do). But suppose we added some extra chloride. Might the beer be "better". Not by the authenticity definition of optimality but perhaps by the "my wife likes" it one.
Again, I think as home brewers, at least Id like to try to get as close to the style as possible and not make the best-selling mass marketed beer that appeals to the most people. I agree that a brew pub is a different beast in that they could have the most authentic whatever but if it doesnt sell, theyre out of business. If we can give the people the starting profile and then they can tune it to their tastes, theyre better off than trying to dump some salts and pray.The anecdote I've told here and in other fora till I'm sick of typing it regards identical Burton style ales I brewed for a water class. One was done with "authentic" Burton water and the other with much softer, much less gypseous water. Everyone who tasted them agreed that the "authentic" wate one was more authentic but the softer water one was better. That included a professional brewer who asked "how do you get that wonderful smooth hops character". I'd seen the sacks of terra alba (gypsum) at his brewery and told him to just refrain from dumping one of those into the mash tun. So again we have the question of definition of optimum. In the business optimum is defined in terms of how well it sells. Period.
I dont think the Ninkasi winners out there would really care about the profile/styles that would be posted. They understand how to brew great, to style beer and what everything does. Its the inbetweeners out there that are looking for some guidance or people trying to get out of their brewing comfort range with new styles or water treatment as a whole.The best brewers will understand what the effects of each ion are and will have determined by experimentation, what makes the beer that is "best" under his optimality criterion. If he wants a stingingly (to quote Dave Miller) hoppy pils he'll know that his sulfate should be, ideally 0 (i.e. chloride to sulfate ratio infinite). I chose this example because it flies in the face of hoppy beers requiring low chloride to sulfate ratio.
So then we should give up and mix some malta, sugar and Fleischmans and call it beer then? I think you are taking it to the extreme. So if you dont have your own lab to test the water you are about to brew with, a QC lab to test the malt shipment and hops real-time, then just throw your hands up and dont even try to build some style parameters into your beers? I understand not everybody has ready access to nice balances, HPLCs, Spectrophotometers, microscopes, pipettes, incubators, -80C Freezer and so on but Im not following how a good start in the right direction with a water profile for a particular style is a bad thing.How does one calculate when he has no data to work with? We've established that the reports for water that you have are largely flawed and water reports you get from you water supplier are hokey too because they often represent averages or the sulfate is measured on alternate thursdays wheras the chloride on measured every tuesday. You can, of course, measure the water parameters yourself. Are you willing to do that. And you can measure true extract (quite simply actually) yourself but are you willing to do that. The same goes for color and bitterness but these take expensive equipment and time.
Hand waving is not great but some basic rules and ranges are better than nothing. Even though I may not know to an exact SRM/IBU what a brew will turn out to be, I still make some approximations and know that they calculated numbers are not the gospel truth. Im willing to live with some variability and loose controls that get me in the ball park. Even though Ill never win a gold medal on the dream team, Ill still shoot some hoops every now and then.I've known John for years... He himself posted on another forum that the color/SRM thing is "nothing but handwaving". It's like the Cl:SO4 ratio thing. Guys starting out are adrift in a stormy sea (of brewing water) and grasp at straws. Wouldn't it be great if you could plan you water by looking at the SRM and the BU/TE ratio? You could put together a simple spreadsheet.... The problems come in when you go about using a rule that's based on a weak correlation between two variables with high associated uncertainties. You get huge estimation errors.
Exactly. Im not proposing we can come up with a model that will take into account the exact pH of a mash based on the percentages of the different types of malts/salts used. Models are always a start and can be continually improved with new data/experience/techniques/equipment. I know Rager/Tinseth arent perfect but its better than saying, F it and just tossing in a handful of some random hops because Ill never know the exact IBUs Im getting anyway; my watershed is different now than the report was so why weigh out salts, stick with a dash and smidgen, thats good enough since Ill never be right on anyway.The same things happen when guys try to use the Tinseth rule to predict hops bitterness. Yes, it's a model (doubtless the best) but it doesn't fit the data very well. And when you try to predict mash pH based on Kolbach's RA based pH shift and titratable acidity of malt. You get a general idea but the result can't be expected to be accurate enough for planning. That's why you must measure/experiment.
Sorry for at least I was trying to help and spur discussion. You could have made some suggestions as to corrections.Before you post a profile you pick up from the web, a magazine or book you should at least check the cation/anion balance. Most of published ones don't.
Use RO water with a tsp of calcium chloride per 5 gal, adjust pH with acid and add gypsum to taste on subsequent brews.
Baseline Treatment: add one tsp calcium chloride to each 5 gal of water being treated. Add 2% sauermalz to the grist.
Deviate from the baseline as follows:
For soft water beers (i.e Pils, Helles). Use half that amount of calcium chloride increase the sauermalz to 3%
For beers that use roast malt (Stout, porter): Skip the sauermalz
For British beers: Add 1 tsp gypsum as well as 1 tsp calcium chloride
For very minerally beers (Export, Burton ale): Double the calcium chloride and the gypsum.
So forget what makes the best beer that I, my wife or my friends may like, but focus on what would make the best to style beer. These are what the general water profiles would focus one. Think about it in terms of the dog show. I have two great mutts. If I rolled up to Westminster dog show, no matter if they are the best dog in the city that day, they wouldnt come close to winning (or even being let in the building for that matter) because they arent to breed. We should try to focus on what would be the most authentic to the attributes of the style without just listing city water profiles.
Second, what do we even mean by "to style"? Almost any beer style you can describe is made in different places with different water. Do you mean historical? Do the published reports match history? If so for what particular well? Each brewery had their own.
That said, the information needed to get an informed and motivated home brewer on the right track to brewing with authentic water exists. There are plenty of texts about beer styles (including the Brewers Publication series, or at least some of them) that exist, so why reinvent the wheel? History hasn't changed.
That's what I tried to do in #18. I think KISS is absolutely essential here. This has got to be totally bewildering to most brewers. But I doubt you'd approve of that approach because, while I suggest holding back on the sauermalz for beers with roast grains, color is not otherwise a factor nor are OG, FG, TE, or IBV.What Id like to help produce is a starting point or some target ranges for styles (or families of styles), that can then be personally tweaked on subsequent brews.
Yes, I had a couple of prof's like that too....which required coarse work included...
...General, Organic, Physical and Bio Chem as well as Physics, Statistics and Calc. Ive worked in the Biotech industry for 16 years, so yeah, Id say I have a little science training but thanks for the condescension.
If you can give someone who is new to AG or is starting to adjust their water a good starting point they can adjust later on.
Youve expressed displeasure in the models that are out there and that simply relying on an RA:SRM
So why not reply to my original post with here is what I have found is close to authentic but is slightly higher/lower in x,y,z and has worked for brewing some great, to style, Bocks
I think people would find that more helpful than the back and forth weve been having.
Reelale said:Well, I was the one who started this thread, and I think that this dialogue is great
Given the amount of time I have put into these forums and the number of people I believe I have helped improve their beer I suppose I should take umbrage at that but I don't. The statement is true enough. But hating stuff that leads people down the garden path can be a good thing!Its better to be a helper than a hater.
We should try to focus on what would be the most authentic to the attributes of the style without just listing city water profiles.
If we can give the people the starting profile and then they can tune it to their tastes, theyre better off than trying to dump some salts and pray.
...
..Im not following how a good start in the right direction with a water profile for a particular style is a bad thing.
Hand waving is not great but some basic rules and ranges are better than nothing.
If models weren't of some value we wouldn't bother to make them. But when the models are statistical one needs to understand the implications and shortcomings and few, including, unfortunately, professional scientists such as the aforementioned Dr. Mann don't. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he isn't a statistician. It took a couple of statisticians to figure out what he had done (though it was pretty obvious) wrong.Im willing to live with some variability and loose controls that get me in the ball park. Even though Ill never win a gold medal on the dream team, Ill still shoot some hoops every now and then.
Models are always a start and can be continually improved with new data/experience/techniques/equipment.
I know Rager/Tinseth arent perfect but its better than saying, F it and just tossing in a handful of some random hops because Ill never know the exact IBUs Im getting anyway;
Sorry for at least I was trying to help and spur discussion.
You could have made some suggestions as to corrections.
So this is great. Why not apply this to other styles with ranges and limits?
ajdelange
This all seems to make sense to me. Take a clean base, mineral free water, and adjust it to maximize the sweetness of the residual unfermentable malt sugars and then use hops to balance? Do you ever adjust the calcium chloride levels or do you stick with 1 tsp per 5 gallons regardless of doing an American Light Lager or a Barley Wine?
I think people would find that more helpful than the back and forth we’ve been having.
Sorry for at least I was trying to help and spur discussion.
Here is the disconnect.
First, water is a secondary factor at best, maybe tertiary.
Yeah, let's not reinvent anything, maybe just create a single repository on the HBT to find them and all cull out the ones that are inaccurate..
I'm sure the first poster has moved on to another topic/forum for answers by now.
Those that have less experience blindly follow along and put tablespoonsfulls of chalk in their stout.
Actually, taken as a whole, this discussion has proven very enlightening. Dialogue is good.
This thread has been a real bargain.....I originally asked for Mosher's profiles for input into an apparently innaccurate model, and this dialogue was spawned. Sometimes a little off-topic, and sometimes a little ego, but very informative nonetheless. The truth is out there......
Hi AJ,
I have been through a brief discussion with you before concerning my water. I believe the ion balance is slightly off. I was wondering if you would mind giving me some general addition amounts for general styles as you did earlier in this thread. Thanks
Report
Ca 7
Mg 1
Na 33
K 1
SO4-S 4
Cl 18
Carbonate CO3 <1
Bicarbonate HCO3 52
Total Alkalinity 43
Total Hardness CaCO3 22
Nitrate NO3-N 2.8 safe
pH 7.5
Thanks, I appreciate the advice. I brewed a stout once with my straight water and it had the most horrible flavor, really undrinkable. This was before I had a pH meter but I imagine the pH was very low. I don't think I can get away with this style without adding some alkalinity. On another note, what do you mean by using sauermalz to "set" mash pH. I would think that it would serve to lower mash pH but to me set means that it would somehow buffer or lock it in to a certain range within reason. Is this what happens? Thanks
Enter your email address to join: