water expertise requested please

[kohalajohn]

Hello all

I am attaching a laboratory water analysis that I commissioned. It is untreated ground water taken from a Gulf Island on the west coast of Canada. Our club has an oceanfront camping area. River water runs underground, through the "fines" and we collect it. It is untreated. The river waters are in unoccupied forest lands. Nobody has become sick with e coli from drinking it.

I recently took five gallons home. And I sent a liter to a private laboratory for analysis to be used in brewing. I instructed the lab to test for the minerals that are relevant in beer brewing.

I currently have the ingredients to make a three gallon batch of Pale Ale, using this water.

I am new to brew water science. I am just starting to read about it.

If anybody can look at the lab results and give me some helpful suggestions that would be appreciated.

At home, my city tap water is soft. I have a reverse osmosis machine. I have bags of calcium chloride and calcium sulphate.

Maybe this untreated water is fine the way it is. Or maybe I need to add some RO water to lighten it up. Or maybe I need to add minerals.

Your thoughts are appreciated. Again the lab results are attached

 

[Yooper]

From what I see, it looks like near RO quality water. I didn't see some things I'd like to - magnesium- but it looks like with such a low/moderate alkalinty, you can get by with just a few additions on all beers. For light beers, like a cream ale or light lager, you may need some phosphoric or lactic acid, but for all others you should be fine with calcium chloride, and/or calcium sulfate.

The calcium is low- you'd ideally have 50-75 ppm or so, and for malty beers you'd use calcium chloride and probably that would be it. For a hoppy beer, you'd want to use gypsum for the sulfate. Have you looked at an easy water calculator? That helps you get in the ball park.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

I won't claim to be an expertise on water, just curious about how experts review a water report.

When I took a peek at the report earlier today , here's what I looked at:

• Alkalinity, Chloride (Cl) Sulfate (S04); Calcium (Ca); Magnesium (Mg) & Sodium (Na).
• see below for the line items that I looked at

I suspect there are additional details that I'm overlooking. For example, is there additional information in the phrase "as CaCO3" that a brewer should be concerned about? What about "(as S04")? and "..., total"?

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[kohalajohn]

This is super interesting. Keep it coming.

In the meantime I am reading John Palmer and Scott Jainish and getting up to speed.

 

[TexasTea]

mg/l is ppm. That water is clean. You will need to add salts etc. How much did that analysis cost? When I first started brewing, I sent all my water to a lab in Texas the state uses for all its water analysis. They are good, local (I could drive to it), certified and accredited to do that testing. But they were pricey.

I use Ward for everything now. https://www.wardlab.com/services/water-analysis/ Just as good, but cheaper.

I'm on a well and I do a few analysis over the course of a year. I notice it changes a bit with the seasons.

You have everything to adjust the Chloride to sulphate ratio. You have negligible iron so you are looking good. Palmer is a good source for water info so I'm glad you are reading him.. Do you have his book on water "Water-A comprehensive Guide for Brewers" co written with Colin Kaminski? That one is a Great Resource.

 

[kohalajohn]

Yeah, the analysis was expensive. More than I expected, at $260 cad.

Once I finish John Palmer's first book, I will get the one purely on water, the one with Kaminski.

The fun here is the folk in the club will learn about their natural water for the first time, and also enjoy a keg made from it.

 

[TexasTea]

Yeah, the analysis was expensive. More than I expected, at $260 cad.

Once I finish John Palmer's first book, I will get the one purely on water, the one with Kaminski.

The fun here is the folk in the club will learn about their natural water for the first time, and also enjoy a keg made from it.

Yep, Wards is less than 37 USD (Yep, I'm cheap). Oh BTW speaking of Cheap, I get all my books from Thriftbooks (used book dealer). They happen to have that book for sale ($19.95 marked down to $11.69 USD) right now, only 1 copy heh. See Here

Texas Tea, your source for Cheap!

 

[doug293cz]

The water looks pretty clean to me, as others have said already, but something that looks unusual to me is the silicon (most likely as silicates or silica), at 11 mg/L (or ppm.) We don't usually talk much about silicon in starting water, but excess silicates can cause off flavors. Maybe @mabrungard can give us some enlightenment on how much silicon/silicate is a problem.

Brew on

 

[dmtaylor]

This water is so soft, it can be used just like RO water. You'll want to add minerals to build it up using a calculator.

As for silicon... yes, it probably contains a little bit of sand (silicon dioxide).

 

[mabrungard]

Fine water for brewing use since it has relatively low concentrations of any ion. The bicarbonate content is 49 ppm.

Regarding the silicon, I'm not sure that it's in a silicate form and the reported value reports (total) and that could be colloidal or solid silicon. I wouldn't worry about it. This water is essentially mountain runoff and high little ionic content. Silicate most often is a problem in desert settings.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

Yeah, the analysis was expensive. More than I expected, at $260 cad.

Once I finish John Palmer's first book, I will get the one purely on water, the one with Kaminski.

The fun here is the folk in the club will learn about their natural water for the first time, and also enjoy a keg made from it.

Ouch, you could have bought a pretty awesome RO filter for that price.

 

[Brewer Mike]

Yep, Wards is less than 37 USD (Yep, I'm cheap). Oh BTW speaking of Cheap, I get all my books from Thriftbooks (used book dealer). They happen to have that book for sale ($19.95 marked down to $11.69 USD) right now, only 1 copy heh. See Here

Texas Tea, your source for Cheap!

I'm seeing $55.75 for the Brewer's Test, and $44 for the Livestock suitability test. The pricing page doesn't match the ordering prices. I think I saw a post a while back from Bobby that said the Livestock test is suitable for what we need.

 

[day_trippr]

This is from their 2025 catalog downloaded a minute ago. The price shown for the Brewers Test is if the purchaser sends in their own sample bottle. The higher price is if they have to mail a sample bottle and return packaging...

Cheers!

 

[Brewer Mike]

Interesting. I didn't see that option anywhere. I guess shipping them a sample in your own bottle will still push it another $10 or so.

 

[kohalajohn]

I'm in Canada. But I solved the shipping problem. Just don't test mountain runoff again. So that's free from now on.

Seriously, that was the only "wild" water I wish to test.

From now on it will be my own tap water through RO and brew based on zeros.

 

[kohalajohn]

Seriously though, thanks for your interpretation of the testing printout.

Now I know this is basically RO water.

I'm going to make a Pale Ale with it. So according to the BrewFather calculation, I should add Calcium Chloride 55 mg/l and a whopping 300 mg/l for the Calcium Sulfide.

So for my 20 liter batch, that should be 1.1 grams Calcium Chloride and 6 grams Calcium Sulphide.

Stop me if I have this wrong. I plan to brew with this water tomorrow.

 

[dmtaylor]

SulPHATE, not sulphide. Big difference.

 

[kohalajohn]

SulPHATE, not sulphide. Big difference.

Right. The rotten egg smell is not part of the recipe.

 

[Zadkiel]

I suspect there are additional details that I'm overlooking. For example, is there additional information in the phrase "as CaCO3"

edit: ignore this, I misremembered my chemistry maths, and confused CO3 with HCO3, I'm tired and need to go to bed, I'll come back to this in the morning.

 

[day_trippr]

Small Flat Rate Box from USPS Measures 8-11/16" x 5-7/16" x 1-3/4" and costs $8.51. Stick a 4 ounce soda bottle filled with your test water in it and you're good to go. That's what I did - a looong time ago...

Cheers!

 

[Peebee]

Can I have a go? ... Pleeease.

Haven't aired my "Defuddler" spreadsheet for ages (they don't like it back here in the UK 'cos it's so "anti-Hardness", but you don't see that mentioned here, so no bother):

This is just the top of the spreadsheet, but it didn't need any of the stuff lower down so it's as far as I needed to go (apart from entering that tiny scrape of potassium).

The "Alkalinity" on the spreadsheet is calculated. It's reporting as 45mg/L (ppm) "as CaCO3") whereas your report has 40mg/L ... an insignificant difference (I'm only counting six elements of the entire report, so no big deal).

Of the remaining elements: No "nitrate"? But no human habitation and farming so there won't be much anyway. "Silicon" at 11mg/L concerned me (it'll be silicates from all those pine needles), but it doesn't bother Martin B., so it does bother me either! I'm just unused to seeing it. Silicon won't get my "alkalinity" any closer: It, like "phosphorus" ("phosphates" ... fairly low too which you do want ... it's connected with pollution), are on the "alkalinity" side of the equation ... more means more "total alkalinity".

A bit more calcium for mashing, as already suggested. I won't say no more about additions, 'cos I'm British and prefer British "traditional" beer and go for far more "additions" than most would consider!



"Hardness" if you want it (and you most definitely DO NOT!) works out as 40.27mg/L "as CaCO3" (allowing for non-hardness potassium and sodium). Now forget I ever mentioned that bit!

 

[Zadkiel]

For example, is there additional information in the phrase "as CaCO3"

to convert CaCO3 to CO3, multiply the value by 0.6
to convert CaCO3 to HCO3 (which is what most brewing calculators use), multiply by 1.22

You'll notice that matches Peebee's report above, the report will have measured it as CaCO3 (45.23) but then reported it as Alkalinity as HCO3 at 55.18

Personally, I completely ignore HCO3, by which I mean I don't do any additions to make my source water match any HCO3 levels in a defined target water profile, I've found that doing so results in a much better mash pH for me and less acid additions. Is that the right thing to do? I don't know, but not needing to adjust my mash pH makes my brewday easier and less stressful.

 

[Peebee]

... The bicarbonate content is 49 ppm. ...

"49ppm" might muddle some folks up. So I'll add a little "footnote":

It's not reported on the sheet "as bicarbonate", it's "as CaCO3". I've never seen that screwy mix previously! But personally, I consider "as CaCO3" same as "Hardness": Nasty, out-dated, cobblers!

49ppm/1.22 = 40mg/L ("as CaCO3"!). (Sorry Martin, but I can't miss an opportunity to pour scorn in "Water Hardness", even when no-one has asked for it!).



As I have posts about here to the contrary, I have to say I do use "Hardness"; for what I think is it's only value ... It's easier to type than "Calcium and Magnesium".


[EDIT: Ha! Cross post! Thanks @Zadkiel.]

 

[VikeMan]

Personally, I completely ignore HCO3, by which I mean I don't do any additions to make my source water match any HCO3 levels in a defined target water profile, I've found that doing so results in a much better mash pH for me and less acid additions. Is that the right thing to do? I don't know, but not needing to adjust my mash pH makes my brewday easier and less stressful.

Yes, HCO3 (or Total Alkalinity, etc.) should never have a "profile target." If you need to add it to hit a mash pH (not usually needed for most styles), great. But usually, alkalinity is something to be overcome through the addition of acids (or things that produce acid).

 

[Zadkiel]

Yes, HCO3 (or Total Alkalinity, etc.) should never have a "profile target." If you need to add it to hit a mash pH (not usually needed for most styles), great. But usually, alkalinity is something to be overcome through the addition of acids (or things that produce acid).

And yet it's always listed in water profiles along with the other targets.

This caught me out on my first few all-grain brews. I mean, water profiles always list it as one of the amounts, and I'm adding salts to reach the other numbers, so by extension it was logical to me that I should be adding bicarb to also reach the HCO3 number

This ruined several beers - one of them after adding the 'target' HCO3 my mash pH was so bad and I had to put in so much acid that it ended up tasting like vinegar.

 

[Peebee]

While on this little alkalinity "digression":

I was impressed to see on that report (right back on the original post) "Alkalinity, hydroxide (as CaCO3)". Forget the "as CaCO3" bit, I wish I didn't have to see that, but I've seen "Alkalinity, carbonate" and "Alkalinity, bicarbonate" (or worded to mean the same), not "hydroxide". I'd assumed "hydroxide" just quickly transmuted to bicarbonate in water.

In my own water (very low alkalinity) I've just started to conclude alkalinity remains as "hydroxide" (lime, calcium hydroxide, is "dosed" on purpose to kill the pipe rotting acidity of the moorland water). This probably explains the big fall in alkalinity between water works and my home tap (hydroxide is very reactive). @Silver_Is_Money has posts here warning not to mix bicarbonate and hydroxide (hydroxide nobbles the effect of bicarbonate and eats calcium doing it). And it appears that's what I inadvertently do!

I'll get digging, see what else on the subject I can uncover.

Most can ignore this babbling. As @VikeMan is saying above, most folk are adding acid to the mash, not alkalinity inducing salts.

 

[VikeMan]

And yet it's always listed in water profiles along with the other targets.

Well... to be fair, any profile that's physically possible has to have enough anion charges (from negatively charged ions) to balance the cation charges (from positively charged ions). Those anions can come from Bicarbonate, but they can also come from anions that don't directly affect alkalinity, such as Cl and SO4. When you see HCO3 in a profile like "Thames Water" (presumably measured), it just is what it is. When you see it in "generic" profiles ("malty dark beer," or whatever) that's a personal choice by the profile's designer, but potentially partially driven by the water they had to start with (i.e. their tap water already had the alkalinity), or by the fact that they had to add alkalinity to raise mash pH for that beer style. But there's no advantage to focusing on an alkalinity level as an independent variable.

 

[Zadkiel]

Well... to be fair, any profile that's physically possible has to have enough anion charges (from negatively charged ions) to balance the cation charges (from positively charged ions). Those anions can come from Bicarbonate, but they can also come from anions that don't directly affect alkalinity, such as Cl and SO4. When you see HCO3 in a profile like "Thames Water" (presumably measured), it just is what it is. When you see it in "generic" profiles ("malty dark beer," or whatever) that's a personal choice by the profile's designer, but potentially partially driven by the water they had to start with (i.e. their tap water already had the alkalinity), or by the fact that they had to add alkalinity to raise mash pH for that beer style. But there's no advantage to focusing on an alkalinity level as an independent variable.

Yes, the whole point is that I know that now, but as a brand new brewer doing his first grain brews, seeing that 'target' HCO3 number right next to the salts with no distinction between them was extremely misleading and ruined my first 2 beers.