• Please visit and share your knowledge at our sister communities:
  • If you have not, please join our official Homebrewing Facebook Group!

    Homebrewing Facebook Group

Which national brand of spring water has the best mineral profile for making mead?

Homebrew Talk

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Reporting back: I have rescued a couple of fermentations now (both happened to be variations on Joe's Quick Grape Pyment by substituting different juices) that had started to go sulfurous just by adding calcium. Wish I had known about this at the very start of my mead making!

Conclusion: I'm going to add both potassium and calcium to all future mead experiments. There doesn't seem to be a downside to adding them, but at least sometimes a very clear downside from not adding them.
You're saying calcium chloride helps remove & prevent hydrogen sulfide?
 
You're saying calcium chloride helps remove & prevent hydrogen sulfide?

Good catch. Sorry, I made a stronger statement than I should have.

In my case, where I caught it early, it may have. What I can say is that it hasn't hurt. The reason I can't say for sure is that in both cases I also aerated, which may have done all the work just by itself for all I know. In both cases, however, the yeast foamed up quite a bit after adding the calcium. Whether that was from providing a lot of nucleation points for releasing trapped gas or from yeast happiness, I can't say. Probably the former.

What I can say is that in the batches where I added calcium prior to pitching, they didn't have the H2S problem.

So, the data is suggestive rather than really conclusive. I didn't feel like not aerating just to test the idea, at the risk of losing the entire batch, though I suppose in retrospect I could have split the batch and tried it both ways. Not really an appealing option either though when the starting point is just one gallon. However, what I can do is add the calcium in future batches and see if the rate of sulfurous incidents goes down, particularly with the same recipes.
 
To do an aeration bench trial all you need to do is put a sample into a glass and swirl it :)
 
I acquired some gypsum at the LHBS, so in the future I'll be halving the dose of the calcium chloride and adding a half doe of gypsum, as Lefou does.

So, that would be 0.7g calcium chloride per gallon, and many grams of gypsum? I have got to get a handle on using that brew water calculator for answering these types of questions, but until then....
 
So, that would be 0.7g calcium chloride per gallon, and many grams of gypsum?
There's no right or wrong. It depends what levels you want to hit of which ions.
Calcium is flavor-neutral directly, at reasonable levels, although it is important for fermentation & flocculation.
Chloride and sulfate do affect flavor. In particular, the ratio of these ions affects how sweet/full vs dry/bitter it tastes.

You may not want to add much sulfate once you realize how it affects flavor. I'd suggest some tasting trials to get a handle on the flavor before using a bunch of gypsum in a full batch.

SulFITE gets oxidized to sulFATE, so you will already have some sulFATE in there if you add sulFITE, roughly similar to the concentration of potassium metabisulfite added.

IMO, this looks like a reasonable starting point until you can decide levels for yourself:
Screenshot_20190412-152437.png


Cheers
 
Yes, I'd agree with the comment about keeping sulfates to a minimum.
It's more about getting a balance of minerals without adversely affecting your yeast and water flavors.

Here's a reference from an online PDF by Chris White of White Labs in case anyone hasn't seen it. It's more or less about beer wort but why shouldn't the health of yeast be just as important in must?
https://www.jstrack.org/brewing/Yeast_nutrition_article.pdf
 
Yes, I'd agree with the comment about keeping sulfates to a minimum.
That article you linked to didn't even mention sulfates as a nutrient (except as part of ammonium sulfate to supply nitrogen), so maybe "keeping sulfates to a minimum" implies not adding anything extra at all beyond just DAP?
 
Last edited:
Just came across this report on arsenic in some spring waters...

Report: Bottled water made by Whole Foods and Dr. Pepper has unsafe amounts of arsenic. https://tiny.iavian.net/se1y


Happened to have recently bought 6gals Crystal Geyser -- that I'm returning.

Oh great. I wonder if this is why my grocery store put Crystal Geyser Alpine Spring Water on sale just recently.... and, as a result, I bought 20 gallons of it. :(

Thanks for the warning!
 
Much of bottled water is merely filtered municipal tap water. I have a multi stage filter, and I use my tap water. Judging from my shower head I have plenty of calcium. ;)
 
Much of bottled water is merely filtered municipal tap water. I have a multi stage filter, and I use my tap water. Judging from my shower head I have plenty of calcium. ;)
Everyone here seems to be using spring water because at the very least it shouldn't have chlorine or chloramines in it. I supposes the hope was also that it would have enough other good minerals in it for brewing, but for most brands the data doesn't appear to bear that out.

I have a home RO system, but I buy the bottled stuff mainly for convenience: an already sanitized vessel for fermentation. The water that comes in it is just a bonus. ;)
 
Just came across this report on arsenic in some spring waters...

Report: Bottled water made by Whole Foods and Dr. Pepper has unsafe amounts of arsenic. https://tiny.iavian.net/se1y


Happened to have recently bought 6gals Crystal Geyser -- that I'm returning.
I have serious problems with the fear-mongering that is so prevalent in today's "reporting".
However, Consumer Reports says several experts think that arsenic levels in bottled water greater than 3 parts per billion constitute a health risk.
Who are these experts, and why should we believe them more than all the other experts that say Crystal Geyser is perfectly safe? Arsenic is a pretty common chemical, in nearly all groundwater and vegetable crops.

It is also worth noting that after fermentation the yeast has a higher concentration of arsenic than the beverage does, so it is filtering out a good portion of it. They also create folic acid, which has been shown to reduce arsenic in your blood.
 
I have serious problems with the fear-mongering that is so prevalent in today's "reporting".

Who are these experts, and why should we believe them more than all the other experts that say Crystal Geyser is perfectly safe? Arsenic is a pretty common chemical, in nearly all groundwater and vegetable crops.

It is also worth noting that after fermentation the yeast has a higher concentration of arsenic than the beverage does, so it is filtering out a good portion of it. They also create folic acid, which has been shown to reduce arsenic in your blood.

The article from CR gives more color: https://www.consumerreports.org/water-quality/arsenic-in-some-bottled-water-brands-at-unsafe-levels/

Apparently the federal standards are 10ppb, but some, including CR, think it should be 3ppb. The crystal geyser that CR tested came out at 3.8ppb.

The problem as I see it is that federal regulations are driven partly by science and partly by politics, so it's not surprising there's a gap between what science says is safe and what the actual regulations are.
 
Last edited:
The article from CR gives more color: https://www.consumerreports.org/water-quality/arsenic-in-some-bottled-water-brands-at-unsafe-levels/

Apparently the federal standards are 10ppb, but some, including CR, think it should be 3ppb. The crystal geyser that CR tested came out at 3.8ppb.

The problem as I see it is that federal regulations are driven partly by science and partly by politics, so it's not surprising there's a gap between what science says is safe and what the actual regulations are.
Even that doesn't give how they reached their conclusion that 3ppb is acceptable, unless you count "because we said so". Consumer Reports is out to make money. They can't do that if they agree with everyone else. BTW, I pulled up the most recent report for my tap water and it averages .5ppb, but has tested as high as 5.5ppb in the last year. I'm sure this air will kill me long before the water does.
 
Even that doesn't give how they reached their conclusion that 3ppb is acceptable, unless you count "because we said so". Consumer Reports is out to make money. They can't do that if they agree with everyone else. BTW, I pulled up the most recent report for my tap water and it averages .5ppb, but has tested as high as 5.5ppb in the last year. I'm sure this air will kill me long before the water does.
Your tap water report just reports on the water that leaves the water plant. By the time it gets to your tap, it can be a worse story. Just ask the people in Flint.
 
Your tap water report just reports on the water that leaves the water plant. By the time it gets to your tap, it can be a worse story. Just ask the people in Flint.
My city tests water that comes from the tap, across a variety of sites.
...


Let's not lose perspective. Mead is basically vomit from flying insects, infected with microorganisms that create toxins. Ethanol causes temporarily cognitive impairment, behavioral changes, vomiting, headache, addiction, electrolyte imbalance, dehydration, accidental injury, multi-system organ damage including liver damage, esophageal varices, and peripheral neuron damage, as well as cancer, especially mouth, throat, larynx, and stomach.

That's just off the top of my head.
:mug:
 
Last edited:
Right. At 3.8ppb, I'm not concerned, so I'll use the crystal geyser anyway. I think what matters more, at least at these low doses, is probably one's average overall arsenic consumption over time.
 
Back
Top