Water chemistry Primer questions/advice

[ASantiago]

I am assuming that what you are saying is that your pH reading was "roughly" 5.0 and that the sample was tested at 149*. Correct?

Correct. I don't think I can say "5.0 pH" if I'm using strips.

Two things. It looks like you used too much acid malt and not enough calcium chloride. The primer suggests 2% acid malt as the base and AJ even suggests only putting in half of that amount, testing to see where that gets you, then adding the rest if you need it.

You are correct regarding the base. However, the primer addresses soft water beers specifically with 1/2 the baseline amount of Calcium Chloride and increasing the sauermalz (acidulated malt) to 3%. This is what I went with. I had my concerns about this also applying to a light blonde ale recipe and that's what my post yesterday was about. But I never got any replies addressing that specific question, so I proceeded as planned. I know I should have posted my question a lot earlier than the morning of my brew day.

It's unclear to me how you calculated the calcium chloride addition. From what I understand a teaspoon of calcium chloride weighs very close to 5 grams. Thus the 1 teaspoon per 5 gallons of brewing water works out to roughly one gram per gallon. If you had 8 gallons of brewing water, you would need 8 grams of calcium chloride.

I went by another post in this thread in which ajdelange indicated a teaspoon of CaCl was 3.2 grams. So, based on that and the soft water guidelines, I halved that to 1.6 grams for 5 gallons for a light ale, fed it to BeerSmith, and it in turn calculated 2.72 grams for 8.51 gallons.

PS: Congrats on your first AG!

Thanks, man! I gotta tell you, it was awesome! I totally loved it. I was already doing partial mashes (for a year), so the jump wasn't that much of a change. But I totally dig the control, the freshness, and even the geeky stuff like water chemistry.

 

[SC_Ryan]

Does a teaspoon really weigh 5 grams? That's precisely the density of water.

That's what I was led to believe. I wish I was at home right now so I could throw a teaspoon on the scale and see. I'm sure AJ will be through eventually to set us straight.

 

[SC_Ryan]

You are correct regarding the base. However, the primer addresses soft water beers specifically with 1/2 the baseline amount of Calcium Chloride and increasing the sauermalz (acidulated malt) to 3%. This is what I went with. I had my concerns about this also applying to a light blonde ale recipe and that's what my post yesterday was about. But I never got any replies addressing that specific question, so I proceeded as planned. I know I should have posted my question a lot earlier than the morning of my brew day.

Ah yes, the soft water beers. I think the soft water recommendation is for people who are trying to replicate beers brewed in very soft water regions (ie pilsner and helles). I think with a blonde ale you would want to stick with the original primer. Sounds like you followed the soft water instructions pretty well though. Tough to say exactly where you were because of the accuracy of strips but hopefully it turns out great!

I posted this yesterday but it was probably too late

I brewed a very light 2 SRM beer yesterday and got a metered cool reading of 5.5 using the 1 gram per gallon and exactly 1.4% sauermalz. Hope this helps!

 

[ASantiago]

I saw your post, but it was indeed too late... Next time I'll ask with plenty of time.

The thing is, I *was* trying to get soft water. I'm using the Centennial Blond recipe as a springboard for the lightest beer I can produce with ale yeast.

I still would like to understand the numbers I got, though. And how they may affect the beer.

 

[SC_Ryan]

I still would like to understand the numbers I got, though. And how they may affect the beer.

It's tough to say because pH strips have been reported as being pretty far from perfect. I have never used them myself but from talking to people that have used them, I have heard that they typically read a little low. If that's the case for the strips that you used, then you may have hit your numbers exactly where you want them. If you want real accuracy, you will need a pH meter though.

I suppose the real data will be in the flavor of the beer. I think you certainly hit it close enough to produce a very good beer. The affect in missing mash pH is typically astringency in the hop or malt flavor.

 

[boo boo]

I think I'll try the baseline additions for my next brew to see if what I suspect is too high a PH in my mash.
Nice read.

 

[Elisha8685]

The science behind the water is somewhat of a revelation to me as of late. There's so much that I was ignorant of that I feel like my head will explode soon. I will return and reread all of the water postings over the next few days until my small brain can handle the information.

 

[Hermit]

The science behind the water is somewhat of a revelation to me as of late. There's so much that I was ignorant of that I feel like my head will explode soon. I will return and reread all of the water postings over the next few days until my small brain can handle the information.

Just start with the original post in the thread. It is meant to be there to simplify things to get you started.

 

[bernerbrau]

Many beginning and advanced brewers assume that it is necessary when brewing, for example, a Munich Helles, to duplicate Munich water and there are many places where one can find ion profiles for Munich water and spreadsheets into which one can insert those profiles and details of one’s own water and be given advice on what minerals to add to duplicate Munich. There are multiple potential problems with this approach. First, published water reports are very often wrong. Second, it is not enough to know what Munich water is like, You must also know what the brewer did to make the beer with the existing water. In the case of Helles, for example, the water needs to be softened. Finally, the spreadsheets often calculate salt additions based on simplifications of the chemistry involved, consideration of things that are essentially irrelevant (beer color, chloride to sulfate ration) and reliance on models of things (e.g. effects of dark malt on mash pH) that really can’t be modeled very well. When all the approximations are good the result can be fine but when they aren’t the result can be salt addition recommendations that can have a detrimental effect on the beer,

All right, I gotta ask because all this contradictory information is confusing me.

If getting soft enough water, adding a little bit of CaCl2, adding some gypsum if the style calls for it, and adding sauermalz or lactic acid to correct the mash pH is all that is necessary for proper brewing chemistry, why do we have so many people on HBT still advocating the use of complicated math, treatment spreadsheets, and exact mineral profiles?

Is this just one of those things (e.g. HSA, Autolysis, Liquid Yeast is "better") that's "old information" that comes from commercial brewery knowledge, and we're just now learning to do it better? Or is it something (e.g. Extract vs. AG) where one is recommended to beginners over the other?

 

[Hermit]

The primer is a starting point. Nothing more. The idea was to cut though all of the complicated math, etc and give the beginner someplace to start. You build on the information as you go. Personally, I haven't seen the need to budge much off the starting point though. At least not yet.

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

All right, I gotta ask because all this contradictory information is confusing me.

If getting soft enough water, adding a little bit of CaCl2, adding some gypsum if the style calls for it, and adding sauermalz or lactic acid to correct the mash pH is all that is necessary for proper brewing chemistry, why do we have so many people on HBT still advocating the use of complicated math, treatment spreadsheets, and exact mineral profiles?

Is this just one of those things (e.g. HSA, Autolysis, Liquid Yeast is "better") that's "old information" that comes from commercial brewery knowledge, and we're just now learning to do it better? Or is it something (e.g. Extract vs. AG) where one is recommended to beginners over the other?

You left out one of the most important parts: acquire and use a pH meter.

In the case of sauermalz, I want to know how much I will need to hit proper mash pH. That's a big reason I use one of the spreadsheets (sometimes three spreadsheets) for every brew, so I'll know how much sauermalz to crush. Or to get a ballpark figure for lactic acid. People also like to make sure they have enough Calcium after any diluting although the primer takes care of that.

And IMO, "the use of complicated math, treatment spreadsheets, and exact mineral profiles?" is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the effort we go through to make an AG batch. It only takes a few minutes to 'enter' a brew in a spreadsheet.

 

[ajdelange]

All right, I gotta ask because all this contradictory information is confusing me.

If getting soft enough water, adding a little bit of CaCl2, adding some gypsum if the style calls for it, and adding sauermalz or lactic acid to correct the mash pH is all that is necessary for proper brewing chemistry, why do we have so many people on HBT still advocating the use of complicated math, treatment spreadsheets, and exact mineral profiles?

Because they are engineers and engineers just can't help themselves (full disclosure: I'm one too and that's how I know). The potential problem with the creator is found in the old saw "If you have a hammer, everything in the world looks like a nail". The problem with the user is that he is working at a level of sophistication well below that of the guy that developed the spreadsheet. When the IPCC says that the world is going to turn into desert in X years based on a model developed by climate scientists of renown the person that reads it in the paper says "Omigosh. The sky is falling in. Renowned scientists' computers say so." When a spreadsheet says add 10 tablespoonsful of chalk to a stout because it is dark its users, having no more knowledge of water chemistry than of principal components analysis (how the Mann curve became a joke) accept that it must be true. The computer said so.

Is this just one of those things (e.g. HSA, Autolysis, Liquid Yeast is "better") that's "old information" that comes from commercial brewery knowledge, and we're just now learning to do it better? Or is it something (e.g. Extract vs. AG) where one is recommended to beginners over the other?

Is which? In the old days brewers brewed with what they had - they didn't have much choice. They adapted the beer to the water. Now we can do it the other way - adapt the water to the beer. I believe there is a trend towards the use of lower mineral content water with highish chloride and low sulfate. It makes smoother beer with good mouthfeel and lets the hops shine without being overly intrusive. You are giving up an element of authenticity when you do this but the beer will most probably be better than you would get trying to emulate a particular water profile down to the microval. This gets around to the question of what you are trying to accomplish. If you want the most authentic Burton ale you can get then you must emulate Burton water. See Martin's post today in another thread about what a Burton profile is (I have 6 in my collection). Burton water from a balanced (that means electrically - not Cl/SO4) can be emulated very closely but it requires the use of a spreadsheet that models carbonic/bicarbonate/carbonate chemistry in greater detail than the ones out there today do, the used of carbon dioxide gas to dissolve chalk and a pH meter to make sure that there isn't too much CO2 left in solution. If you want ultimate authenticity (or if you are an engineer) you do all that. But probably not more than once or twice.

 

[bernerbrau]

Because they are engineers and engineers just can't help themselves (full disclosure: I'm one too and that's how I know). The potential problem with the creator is found in the old saw "If you have a hammer, everything in the world looks like a nail". The problem with the user is that he is working at a level of sophistication well below that of the guy that developed the spreadsheet. When the IPCC says that the world is going to turn into desert in X years based on a model developed by climate scientists of renown the person that reads it in the paper says "Omigosh. The sky is falling in. Renowned scientists' computers say so." When a spreadsheet says add 10 tablespoonsful of chalk to a stout because it is dark its users, having no more knowledge of water chemistry than of principal components analysis (how the Mann curve became a joke) accept that it must be true. The computer said so.



Is which? In the old days brewers brewed with what they had - they didn't have much choice. They adapted the beer to the water. Now we can do it the other way - adapt the water to the beer. I believe there is a trend towards the use of lower mineral content water with highish chloride and low sulfate. It makes smoother beer with good mouthfeel and lets the hops shine without being overly intrusive. You are giving up an element of authenticity when you do this but the beer will most probably be better than you would get trying to emulate a particular water profile down to the microval. This gets around to the question of what you are trying to accomplish. If you want the most authentic Burton ale you can get then you must emulate Burton water. See Martin's post today in another thread about what a Burton profile is (I have 6 in my collection). Burton water from a balanced (that means electrically - not Cl/SO4) can be emulated very closely but it requires the use of a spreadsheet that models carbonic/bicarbonate/carbonate chemistry in greater detail than the ones out there today do, the used of carbon dioxide gas to dissolve chalk and a pH meter to make sure that there isn't too much CO2 left in solution. If you want ultimate authenticity (or if you are an engineer) you do all that. But probably not more than once or twice.

OK, but I'm not looking to emulate a specific locality, I just want to make sure that my brewing water is properly balanced to make the best beer. I'm not looking for ultimate authenticity.

But the "spreadsheet way" -- enter in your local water mineral profile, enter a target profile for the style you intend to brew, then adjust salts and dilution ratio until you come within 10 PPM of the target numbers -- doesn't seem too much more complicated. You have a few more salts to deal with, but you still come up with clear amounts to add, and the whole "how did those brewers treat their water" question goes out the window if I just want to use profiles that other homebrewers have found work well for them in those styles.

People here seem to be saying that fussing about magnesium and sodium, chloride/sulfate ratio, bicarbonate levels, etc. is largely overkill and your main concerns are proper wort acidity, a baseline of calcium for yeast health, and chloride and sulfate to match the flavor of the beer style. If that's so, then why do we have people advocating spreadsheets and insisting that ion balance needs to be any more precise than that?

And you seem to be saying that spreadsheets are inherently flawed because they don't model the chemistry accurately enough. You also seem to be saying that anything more complex than keeping Calcium, Chloride, Sulfate, and pH within a reasonable range is reserved for sticklers trying to exactly duplicate some flavor and isn't going to make your beer any better. Again, if this is so why are spreadsheets so popular around here and why do some people on HBT ardently recommend their use? Just misinformation?

 

[bernerbrau]

And IMO, "the use of complicated math, treatment spreadsheets, and exact mineral profiles?" is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the effort we go through to make an AG batch. It only takes a few minutes to 'enter' a brew in a spreadsheet.

Really? I usually just plug my grain weight, water volume, and target rest temperatures into a calculator to get my strike temps and infusion/decoction volumes. That doesn't seem like a ton of effort, unless you're referring to the 3-4 extra hours on the actual brew day.

 

[bernerbrau]

Salt additions for ppm in your water is simple and easy (I mean its just inorganic aqueous chemistry). But how the interaction with the malt and the water profile effects mash pH is more complicated, depending on the malt itself, which is organic.

If you are interested in hitting pH values you must have a good pH meter (and take readings at the reference temp.). Only then can you tune in your system with your malts and your water. So, using sauermalt or lactic acid without a pH meter is shooting in the dark. Doesn't mean its going to make bad beer, but it doesn't mean its going to make good beer either.

If you are solely interested in salt additions to make hops pop or bring the malt forward stick with the spreadsheets. But know that salt additions have the potential to effect your mash pH, which can effect the quality of your beer in the end. If you think the salts may be messing with your pH, get a pH meter and use it every time you brew.

If you have soft water: dark beers (a lot of roasted malts) will be an issue in terms of pH being too low.

If you have high alkalinity water: light beers will tend to be a problem (too high pH)

***The last two lines are way over simplified***

Well, my light beers all tend to carry an unpleasant thinness to the mouthfeel and flavor, even when fully carbed. This is why I'm trying to grok water chemistry so I can know if I'm doing the right thing or not.

The OP seems to say distilled + CaCl2 for very light beer, and that's going to get you very good beer, and don't sweat it. And I get people telling me spreadsheets are no good if you don't know the science.

But then I get a couple people on here telling me the more precise salt additions and the spreadsheets are good but you don't need to be exact, and you do need to get a pH meter to get the proper wort acidity.

On the specific water chemistry thread for my brew next Saturday, I worked out a series of salt additions using the Bru'n Water sheet. Then I get people jumping on to tell me I'm overthinking it and to forget about everything except for the CaCl2 and sauermalz as predicted by BeerSmith. Then on this thread I get people telling me, variously, that the spreadsheet stuff isn't stuff I need to worry about, and it's flawed anyway, or that some spreadsheets are more or less flawed than others, and that it IS stuff I need to worry about, but not to the point of obsession.

And regarding pH, some of these spreadsheets and calculators will let you put in your grain bill and give you the resulting mash pH from the treated water, and tell you how much sauermalz to use to get into the ideal range. So those of you telling me a pH meter is absolutely vital to getting the right wort acidity, is it just because the spreadsheets aren't accurate enough to trust?

So yeah, my head is spinning in circles and I'm going to break for lunch.

And for the record, I'm going to take the distilled + CaCl2 + sauermalz approach this weekend unless someone tells me it's a bad idea.

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

Really? I usually just plug my grain weight, water volume, and target rest temperatures into a calculator to get my strike temps and infusion/decoction volumes. That doesn't seem like a ton of effort, unless you're referring to the 3-4 extra hours on the actual brew day.

Yeah, I meant the entire amount of effort we put into each batch, including brewing/packaging...purchasing ingredients...everything.

I've been using both the TH and Bru'n calculators my last two brews just to see how close they match each other as well as predict my mash pH. Comparatively speaking, Bru'n Water seems way more complex but once you enter your water ands use it a couple of times it's easy and only takes a few minutes.

What is 'way overthinking' to one guy is just 'being thorough' to another (or just gettin' your geek on...whatever melts your butter). Between AJ, Kaiser, and Martin I think they cover the topic of 'brewing water' pretty well. Being that I trusted JP and his work on brewing water in How To Brew (unfortunately, to my beer's detriment) I now have a pretty tight filter for any advice that is brewing-water related. Your last post had people telling you this then other people telling you that...a tight filter helps here.

Also, I have noticed that my light beers are more full and malty since using primer water but it's not like there was a controlled test. So much so that I need to adjust my mash temp. It's a constant evolution...make an adjustment here and it makes an impact there so then you have to go back and adjust something else.

 

[bernerbrau]

Being that I trusted JP and his work on brewing water in How To Brew (unfortunately, to my beer's detriment) I now have a pretty tight filter for any advice that is brewing-water related.

Ah, and see, in another thread, someone linked me to a couple chapters in the How To Brew online book and said that was all I'll ever need to know about brewing water.

A tight filter is all well and good but when you're just starting out it's kind of hard to tell where that filter should be applied.

 

[bernerbrau]

Also, I have noticed that my light beers are more full and malty since using primer water but it's not like there was a controlled test. So much so that I need to adjust my mash temp. It's a constant evolution...make an adjustment here and it makes an impact there so then you have to go back and adjust something else.

If by "primer water" you mean the water described in the OP of this thread (CaCl2 + dilution + pH control), then I think I will go for that to start, and get more sophisticated if it doesn't come out right.

You mentioned experimenting with how well the Bru'n Water spreadsheet predicts mash pH, but you didn't actually mention how good your results were. How accurate has it been?

 

[jkarp]

Dusting off this original thread that kicked off ajdelange's water "rules of thumb" for some results feedback.

I've now done 4 batches using ajdelange's approach, all recipes I'd previously brewed in the past. I gotta say, with exception of a pils, none came out as good as before. All the ales "lost" substantial hop flavor and were very bland. Listening to the last CYBI, "Tasty" McDole made a fantastic point - he said 90% of the pro brewers they talk to add gypsum. He also said he generally uses just two water profiles:

Mild: 40 ppm calcium, 180 ppm sulfate
Pale: 80 ppm calcium, 350 ppm sulfate

Now I'm calling a bit of BS on Tasty as I don't think those numbers are even attainable with just gypsum, but I am now convinced some gypsum is critical to most beers. I'm going back to gypsum as my primary source of calcium and adding calcium chloride as necessary to express malt flavor to style.

All of ajdelange's fine work is not completely lost on me however. I've definitely learned the importance of pH and after testing, now add lactic to both my mash and boil to keep the numbers in line.

Curious if others have any feedback yet on their water tweaks...

 

[jmf143]

What number are you keeping in line by adding lactic to the boil?

 

[jkarp]

What number are you keeping in line by adding lactic to the boil?

Boil pH of 5.2 - 5.4, per Kai Troester. My water is relatively high in alkalinity and as my system is no-sparge, sometimes the boil needs a minor tweak.

 

[ajdelange]

I've now done 4 batches using ajdelange's approach, all recipes I'd previously brewed in the past. I gotta say, with exception of a pils, none came out as good as before. All the ales "lost" substantial hop flavor and were very bland.

Remember that the Primer says to start with low gypsum and increment to taste. Obviously you like the effects of sufate on hops. I (and some others) don't. So you should do exactly what you say you intend to do - get your calcium primarily from gypsum.

Listening to the last CYBI, "Tasty" McDole made a fantastic point - he said 90% of the pro brewers they talk to add gypsum.

True but then I remember a conversation with a professional brewer who asked be how I got the qualities I do in my ales (I'm not an ale brewer). I'd seen the sacks (yes sacks) of terra alba lying around his place and suggested he try without using so much or any of that. He did but I never got to taste the beer.

He also said he generally uses just two water profiles:

Mild: 40 ppm calcium, 180 ppm sulfate
Pale: 80 ppm calcium, 350 ppm sulfate

Now I'm calling a bit of BS on Tasty as I don't think those numbers are even attainable with just gypsum,

You're right that you cannot get that much (350) ppm sulfate from just gypsum. If you did calcium would be at 147 mg/L.

..but I am now convinced some gypsum is critical to most beers.

I think that is very much a matter of taste. I think most people would agree that low sulfate is important in lager brewing. German brewing textbooks caution against pH control using sulfate for this reason.

I'm going back to gypsum as my primary source of calcium and adding calcium chloride as necessary to express malt flavor to style.

Perhaps it wasn't clear enough in the Primer but that is exactly what it wants you to do if you like sulfate. It's trying to help you to brew a beer you like - not one to A.J's liking. I'd be the first to admit that most of my experience and preference is for delicate lagers. There's no place for sulfate in those beers and try though I may to suppress it I suppose my prejudices shine through from time to time.

All of ajdelange's fine work is not completely lost on me however. I've definitely learned the importance of pH and after testing, now add lactic to both my mash and boil to keep the numbers in line.

In a nutshell my pitch is "Get the pH right and then fiddle with the stylistic ions to taste". This will get you good beer every time.

Curious if others have any feedback yet on their water tweaks...

Me too!

 

[jkarp]

I think that is very much a matter of taste. I think most people would agree that low sulfate is important in lager brewing. German brewing textbooks caution against pH control using sulfate for this reason.

100% agreed. I've never used Gypsum in my pilsners, but this year's attempt was by far my best. No doubt due to proper pH management.

 

[chrisdb]

thanks again for your help and support.
I infer from your response that it's not practical to make ph adjustments once things are in the fermenter, but might be useful in establishing benchmarks for future brews. I'd be happy to add that to my process as I pull a sample for FG readings once ferntation is done but before racking and conditioning... taking a PH measurement would be easy then.
Is there a particular ph range I should looking for, or does it change with the style of beer I'm making?

 

[joeybeer]

Great post !

 

[ajdelange]

I infer from your response that it's not practical to make ph adjustments once things are in the fermenter...

I've never heard of it being done but that doesn't mean that someone might not be doing it. Going into the fermentor it is the mashing/boiling process including additions of salts and or acids that sets wort pH but once in the fermenter it is the yeast.

.. but might be useful in establishing benchmarks for future brews.

That's exactly it.

Is there a particular ph range I should looking for, or does it change with the style of beer I'm making?

It's really the way the beer tastes that is important at this point so that what you are really trying to do is correlate good beer with its pH value. If a lager tastes funny and you measure the pH as 4.0 but pH going into the fermentor was 5.2 and previous brews of the same beer have measured 4.6 then you have a clue as to what your problem was (infection, bad yeast...). So what you are trying to do here is correlate pH with beer quality. If a beer tastes a little off in quality and is a little off in pH then you know your assessment is valid. pH is one more tool for those who disdain the "snowflake" school of brewing (no two brews alike). If you consistently hit the same color, alcohol content, true extract and pH for a particular brew then you know you have mastered that beer. And you know that you are a pretty darn good brewer.

The range does vary with type. Obviously, sour beers are going to have low pH (below 4 in extreme cases). In more normal beers ales tend to have slightly lower pH than lagers but the ranges overlap. The range might be 4.3 - 4.9 with the ales populating the lower 2/3 of that range and the lagers the upper 2/3.

 

[RonRock]

Good dialogue here. AJ as always very helpful information. You should write a book.

 

[ajdelange]

It will probably never see the light of day but there is one in progress.

 

[RonRock]

Sign me up for one of the first copies. Looking forward to it.

 

[wildwest450]

It will probably never see the light of day but there is one in progress.

Hopefully you can dumb it down, so us fools can read and understand it, i'd buy it.


_