Why did D. G. Taylor state that Ca++ should be 100-200 ppm in mash and sparge H2O?

[Silver_Is_Money]

The recent trend in USA home brewing seems to indicate that 40-50 ppm of calcium ion is sufficient, but in an article titled "The Importance of pH Control During Brewing", which was published in 1990 by the "Master Brewers Association of the Americas", the articles author, D.G. Taylor, was strongly recommending 100-200 ppm Ca++. I'm further aware that to this day in the UK targeting 100-200 ppm Ca++ would seem to be more the norm for home brewers than 40-50 ppm. Should typical calcium levels in mash and sparge water be reconsidered, or is 100-200 ppm Ca++ simply at this juncture "old news"?

https://www.mbaa.com/publications/tq/tqPastIssues/1990/Abstracts/tq90ab22.htm

 

[mabrungard]

That is the English perspective. That level is fine for some brewing, but not for all. I have not seen any recent confirmation for those levels and my research and experience do not indicate that going that high is necessary.

 

[ajdelange]

I often like to point out in this regard that some of the benefits of calcium include its ability to produce bright runoff, help precipitate protein and chelate oxalate to clear the beer and present gushing. All these things happen eventually anyway when calcium levels are low - it just takes longer. In continental brewing beers are lagered so high calcium levels are not required. In the UK the tendency is to get the beer out the door tout suite and so high calcium levels are required.

As for the overall effects on taste and mouthfeel, de gustibus non est disputandem.

I'm sure you are aware that some very fine beers are made with quite soft water.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

From a couple UK based brewing forums I see that there is still a lot of use of Calcium Carbonate (chalk) in the UK, and I presume that this is one means as to how they are getting up to 200 ppm calcium without raising sulfate and chloride levels to the moon. They do not seem to have broadly gotten the memo that calcium carbonate is very hard to dissolve, and it is therefore possible that as an unfortunate consequence many of them are not actually hitting the calcium numbers they think they are hitting.

 

[bierhaus15]

I am curious where the 40-50 ppm "home brew" level comes from, as virtually every professional brewing text I've come across has recommended Ca wort concentrations >100 ppm, although mostly for wort quality and ale flocculation. VLB also recommended about the same concentrations, although similar to ABI/Miller, they are looking at it more as the ratio of Mg:Ca (for fermentation performance).

Aside, only about 30% of calcium is carried over from the mash to boil and boil to wort, so the amount of Ca in most home brew wort is probably pretty low.

 

[ajdelange]

If one knows what he is doing it is quite possible to get all the calcium from chalk.

CaCO3 + HCl --> Ca++ + HCO3- + Cl-

2CaCO3 + H2SO4 --> 2Ca++ SO4-- + 2HCO3-

The trick is to control the acid to bring the pH to 8.3.

 

[ajdelange]

The last post assumes you want some alkalinity as well as more calcium. If all you want is the calcium then go all the way to mash pH

CaCO3 + 2HCl --> Ca++ + CO2 + 2Cl- + H2O

Note that you might as well, in this case, have just added CaCl2.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Well I guess Murphys can be regarded as typical of British thinking, as one of the main labs supporting British brewing :
https://www.murphyandson.co.uk/resources/technical-articles/water-water-everywhere/

which is a good review of what each ion does. Allowing for the headers being one column out they suggest Ca/SO4/Cl of :

Bitter 170/400/200
Mild 100/150/200
Porter 100/100/300
Lager 50/10/10

They recommend a pH 3.7-4.1 for cask beer, a bit lower than US brewers will aim for.

I wouldn't have said many UK brewers were using chalk, that seems a strawman - indeed many struggle with water that comes from chalk aquifers.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I wouldn't have said many UK brewers were using chalk, that seems a strawman - indeed many struggle with water that comes from chalk aquifers.

This online UK water adjustment calculator (which appears to me to be one of the most complex and all encompassing of such tools, and to be a rather amazing achievement) consistently recommends the use of CaCO3 (chalk) to accomplish water profiles. If it has an Achilles heel, CaCO3 appears to be it (this of course being merely my personal opinion). Other Achilles heels are that it lacks Ca(OH)2 and NaHCO3 as potential water adjusting minerals.

https://www.jimsbeerkit.co.uk/water.html

But I will agree with you that the recommendations of this calculator to add CaCO3 generally occur for those starting with RO or distilled water, and this is an unlikely starting point for someone in the UK. Rather, as you said, they would most likely be starting with water which already has an abundance.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Just because one calculator recommends an addition, doesn't mean that it's common in the real world. Also don't forget that because the UK isn't a desert, much of our municipal water supply comes from surface water and is pretty soft, as a result of which we have no tradition of RO water being readily available in supermarkets etc and most brewers tend to use tapwater plus gypsum (and increasingly less gypsum and more CaCl2).

My tapwater is pretty soft, at <100ppm CO3 equivalent and the Jim's calculator never suggests a chalk addition for me. But then few brewers will ever be deliberately increasing carbonate levels, and there's other ways to increase pH. Some British brewers may need to increase pH a little for their darkest beers, but we're talking maybe those beers representing <3% of the beer brewed in the UK, and only a fraction of that 3% being brewed in areas with really soft water - and I suspect not that many will be using chalk.

 

[Soulshine2]

The recent trend in USA home brewing seems to indicate that 40-50 ppm of calcium ion is sufficient, but in an article titled "The Importance of pH Control During Brewing", which was published in 1990 by the "Master Brewers Association of the Americas", the articles author, D.G. Taylor, was strongly recommending 100-200 ppm Ca++. I'm further aware that to this day in the UK targeting 100-200 ppm Ca++ would seem to be more the norm for home brewers than 40-50 ppm. Should typical calcium levels in mash and sparge water be reconsidered, or is 100-200 ppm Ca++ simply at this juncture "old news"?

https://www.mbaa.com/publications/tq/tqPastIssues/1990/Abstracts/tq90ab22.htm

depends on the style youre brewing. Some brews ,when done as per its specific regional water chemistry ,would require varied analyses to be "correct".

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

depends on the style youre brewing. Some brews ,when done as per its specific regional water chemistry ,would require varied analyses to be "correct".

How many breweries within any given region would actually dare to use their regional source water unaltered and straight-up as is? I'm sure that some breweries are lucky enough to have water that can be used unaltered, but many others are not so lucky, and must mildly to heavily alter their local water before actually using it. So for the latter case (which may be the dominant case) it is dangerous for the homebrewer to presume that duplicating a regional water will lead one to making a better beer, or to making a beer that more closely clones a regional beer.

 

[cire]

Why did D G Taylor state that? Because it is so and the basics have been known for possibly 2 centuries, although mineral additions were not permitted in Britain until 1880. There are no recent writings on the topic because the science hasn't changed in more than half a century, just the methods and machinery used. It's not just a British thing, it's worldwide apart from, for some strange reason, American homebrewers. I doubt there can ever being a sticky here with Taylor's, and from many others, work on the benefits of calcium, yet it's blatantly obvious they are either unknown to or disregarded by many contributors. Calcium is much maligned here for it's flavor when in truth it has virtually none and even nullifies some from magnesium. Put Taylor's work on a homebrew forum in Europe and there would likely be a mix of three views, from those in the know, those wanting to know and those influenced by American homebrewers.

German brewing has been and still is great, it hasn't decined in the way it has in Britain where multinational businesses find it easier to infiltrate and gain control. That doesn't mean all is lost in Britain or it isn't known how to brew great beers, but to limit German brewing to one style made with low mineral content shows a distinct lack of knowledge. Even in Bohemia there isn't and never was only one style of beer. Germany and their brewers deserve more far more honest credit than they get here. Sadly few can homebrew in Germany due to limitations imposed by law, so the true story might never be told and the myth perpetuated.

Writing as if lagering is something unique to German brewers is surely as inane as thinking their beers are the only ones with krausens or were lautered. It was once common practice around the world to mature beers for long periods, but bright IPAs were produced in Burton-on-Trent before anything clear came from Pilsner. I too lagered my beers until they were drinkable before learning how to treat my water. I still occasionally do, although not as long as was necessary before better water treatment. One brewed last December with low mineral water, lagered for 6 weeks outdoors in winter, is now in final stages of conditioning for this summer. But I don't have to do that to make a really good beer and one mashed in just one week ago today should be being drank in a week from today.

Water can be a difficult subject to explain well to others, mainly due to its diversity, but further to that I admit seeing Ward's analyses of some of the worst imaginable waters dispayed here in Brew Science. These can be particularly gruesome when compared across the entire range of waters supplied in Britain. But I find it mind-numbing after someone asks advice on a Ward's report of water that naturally lends itself for simple treatment for the style the brewer desires to read the advice given is to fit an RO system, and an ion exchange system of course to make it easy on the membrane. While I've seen water profiles of natural water which will make a drinkable beer, I don't think I'll ever see one I would consider could not be improved significantly with treatment and that treatment would depend upon the style demanded.

USA has seventyfive times the land area of England. It started raining in the south west of this country an hour or so ago, some will fall here after tea and by early tomorrow be gone after having passed over the entire country and adding fresh water to virtually every domestic water source of the nation and in consequence most water supplies are usually consistent. No supplies that I know of are softened, substituting sodium for calcium and magnesium. If we wish this at home it is usually restricted to supplies to devices used for washing, not for drinking or cooking. Most here live in hard water areas, and all to the south east of a line drawn from the mid point on the south coast to the mid point on the east coast is on chalk and or limestone with typical water supplies circa 100 ppm calcium and >200ppm alkalinity. It's where the population density is greatest (and yes it includes London where calcium was once low, but ony until brewers drilled through the London clay in the 19th century or got their water supplied from Burton by canal or train or from above Teddington) so relatively few brewers in this country need to add alkalinity. Acid is the quickest, easiest and cheapest way to deal with alkalinity and CRS has been available from homebrew shops since they appeared. Hydrochloric is still readily available, but sulfuric acid is not so easily obtained as it was. In Britain we are not restricted to using lactic or phosphoric acids unless only texts originating in America are read.

With a decent calcium level present it is not usually necessary to eliminate all alkalinity and then acidify the liquor. As alkalinity can be quickly, cheaply and accurately measured there are no questions about how much of how strong acid should be added followed by doubt it was that strength and how it may be measured. As most calcium added to the mash is deposited, it requires replenishent when sparging, but this is complicated by the many of different processes used by homebrewers ranging from simple full volume BIAB to thick mashes sparged to achieve 100% extraction cf maybe 60% of a very simple BIAB. Taking mash pH measurements later is a welcome recent step forward, but little is mentioned here about pH and other happenings during sparge extraction of the last percentage points, if both calcium and sugars might be near to exhaustion. Of course the answer commonly given is "I just use a bit extra malt, it's not worth the bother". Shame really, would you expect that of a chef or your wife when cooking a meal, to waste maybe 25% of usable food purchased and many of those would use their expertise to attempt solving that problem in the kitchen.

And then there are FAN, but that's an even longer story and I've already written enough and very probably Cire's epitaph.

 

[Taket_al_Tauro]

Sadly few can homebrew in Germany due to limitations imposed by law, so the true story might never be told and the myth perpetuated.

Great and interesting write up!
But I must correct you on this point. There is a sizeable and very active home brewing community in Germany. And there aren't much limitations imposed by law nowadays. You are just supposed to tell the government you are homebrewing, and then you can brew up to 400 liters a year "for free", meaning without having to pay the so called beer tax (Biersteuer). Beyond that quantity you start paying the beer tax, but as far as I know it isn't much. So basically you can homebrew as much as you want provided you are not selling it.

 

[Vale71]

The recent trend in USA home brewing seems to indicate that 40-50 ppm of calcium ion is sufficient, but in an article titled "The Importance of pH Control During Brewing", which was published in 1990 by the "Master Brewers Association of the Americas", the articles author, D.G. Taylor, was strongly recommending 100-200 ppm Ca++. I'm further aware that to this day in the UK targeting 100-200 ppm Ca++ would seem to be more the norm for home brewers than 40-50 ppm. Should typical calcium levels in mash and sparge water be reconsidered, or is 100-200 ppm Ca++ simply at this juncture "old news"?

https://www.mbaa.com/publications/tq/tqPastIssues/1990/Abstracts/tq90ab22.htm

Considering it was said in an article titled "The Importance of pH Control During Brewing" one could assume that the recommendation is aimed at achieving a proper PH value in the mash? I find such a recommendation to be a bit questionable without knowing the composition of the actual brewing water but on the other hand I haven't read the article so maybe it makes sense in the context it was made in.

P.S. I cannot access the article but I think the following statement I found in the abstract is rather self-explanatory, "Pilot scale brewing experiments were used to investigate the effects of varying conditions during wort production, fermentation and conditioning. It was found that the calcium ion content of brewing liquor has a major effect on wort pH, which falls as the calcium level rises. Both mashing and sparging liquor should ideally have calcium contents between 100 and 200 ppm." Unfortunately I don't have access to the article so I have no idea how the experiments where conducted and especially what kind of water they started with.

 

[Vale71]

But I must correct you on this point. There is a sizeable and very active home brewing community in Germany. And there aren't much limitations imposed by law nowadays. You are just supposed to tell the government you are homebrewing, and then you can brew up to 400 liters a year "for free", meaning without having to pay the so called beer tax (Biersteuer). Beyond that quantity you start paying the beer tax, but as far as I know it isn't much. So basically you can homebrew as much as you want provided you are not selling it.

It's actually 2 hectoliters per household, which for some German households is really not that much. But the amount you would pay on what you brew in excess of that is so tiny that the administrative costs incurred by the public administration to manage those payments probably exceeds the amount paid by far. A very nice example of German lack of pragmatism and common sense...

 

[Taket_al_Tauro]

It's actually 2 hectoliters per household, which for some German households is really not that much. But the amount you would pay on what you brew in excess of that is so tiny that the administrative costs incurred by the public administration to manage those payments probably exceeds the amount paid by far. A very nice example of German lack of pragmatism and common sense...

Yes you're right! Sorry I had the wrong figure in mind. 4 hl is the tax free quantity
in my country (Switzerland). Germany is indeed only 2 hl.
And yes this law is quite ridiculous when applied 1:1 to most homebrewer's typical situations.
But, luckily, this outdated law is in no way a serious obstacle to anyone wanting to homebrew in Germany.

 

[cire]

Germany is indeed only 2 hl.
And yes this law is quite ridiculous when applied 1:1 to most homebrewer's typical situations.
But, luckily, this outdated law is in no way a serious obstacle to anyone wanting to homebrew in Germany

I wonder how much of an obstacle it is. A colleague now finalising details for his new family home in Berlin tells me he might not make space to brew as the bureaucracy might use up the time he could find for brewing. Homebrewing started in earnest in UK only when restricting laws were repealed in 1963, I can say this as I was among those many. It wasn't plain sailing then either, we were at the mercy of winemakers who never had such restrictions, but thought they could advise how beer should be brewed. Results using such guidance were not good and it was several years before people who did brew good beer passed on their knowledge.

@Vale71 , D G Tayor is the author of Chapter 4, Water, of 3rd edition Handbook of Brewing. The first edition was recommended standard text for BSc and MSc courses in Brewing and Distilling at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh. David Taylor has worked for a number of international brewing companies, lectured and published worldwide on brewing technology, a fellow of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling, becoming the Institute's Deputy President and one time chairman of the institute's Board of Examiners. I would imagine the tests were done using DI or distilled water on a known test rig.

He refers to the same paper in chapter 4, but I too have not access to that paper and have not read it. However, a couple of places where he refers to that paper (his ref 21) he wrote.........

Controlling mash pH, particularly by increasing the Ca2+ level, can significantly influence wort
composition. For example, it has been reported that decreasing the mash pH from 5.5 to 5.2 by increasing the Ca2+ content by 200 mg/L, not only increased runoff rate but also led to increased extract, and increased levels of total soluble nitrogen (TSN), and of free amino nitrogen (FAN). In addition, pH control during sparging can be of importance in limiting the excessive extraction
of polyphenols and silica compounds (principally derived from malt husk), both of which increase
as the pH increases. As extract gravity reduces during wort runoff, the pH of the wort tends to increase (thus favoring increased extraction of tannins and silica), unless the sparging liquor con-
tains a relatively high level of Ca2+ ions (up to 200 mg/L), in order to ensure a consistent wort pH
value throughout runoff. Lloyd Hind (as long ago as 1938!) recommended that sparging water
should contain sufficient Ca2+ ions to achieve a wort pH of 5.2, after boiling.

also.......

Ca2+ plays a key role in pH control, especially in mashing. It increases the TSN and FAN levels
in wort, improves wort runoff, limits extraction of polyphenols and silica, and protects malt
α-amylase from heat inhibition. Ca2+ also improves wort clarification and protein coagulation,
accentuates yeast flocculation, precipitates oxalate, prevents haze formation and gushing, and stimulates yeast growth.

Those are in stark contrast to the oft given advice here to keep calcium levels low (<50 ppm) and add acid to achieve a satisfactory mash pH.

 

[Vale71]

I would imagine the tests were done using DI or distilled water on a known test rig.

Imagining doesn't work for me, we definitely need access to the paper before we can make any sort of informed comment on its conclusions. Adding 200 mg/l equivalent of Ca to distilled water would yield a residual alcalinity of around -1.4 mval/l which is rather low but probably OK if you're a big commercial brewery brewing a light beer with 100% extra light pilsner malt, which could have a DI PH of almost 6.0, and mashing rather thin. If you're brewing with any darker malts such an extreme RA will quickly drop PH below 5.0 especially if you're mashing a bit thick and that would get you into sub-obtimal territory.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

When starting with RO or distilled, and if only adding CaSO4 and CaCl2, it looks like ~100 ppm Ca++ can be achieved in conjunction with roughly (ballpark) the following:

0 ppm SO4 and 180 ppm Cl
50 ppm SO4 and 140 ppm Cl
75 ppm SO4 and 120 ppm Cl
100 ppm SO4 and 100 PPM Cl
150 ppm SO4 and 65 ppm Cl
200 ppm SO4 and 35 ppm Cl
245 ppm SO4 and 0 ppm Cl

Double the above for 200 ppm Ca++

The only other ways I can think of to raise Ca++ to 100-200 ppm in conjunction with RO or distilled involve adding CaCO3 or Ca(OH)2.

 

[cire]

They add sodium carbonate or sodium bicarbonate for alkalinity. It has been standard procedure for probably a century. Here is a link to a paper from Schwarz Laboratories, NY from 1963. The additions are shown beneath Tables III and IV.

You will also find reference to 50 ppm calcium in the mash, but says much added calcium is lost and at the end of the same paragraph advises between 60 and 80 ppm calcium in finished beer is favourable, which suggests additions >100 ppm calcium.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Ca2+ plays a key role in pH control, especially in mashing. It...limits extraction of polyphenols...improves...protein coagulation...prevents haze formation

Of course, whilst these might be advantages for production of British bitter, they would be considered negatives for NEIPA-y beers. Horses for courses.

 

[ajdelange]

The benefits of calcium (protect enzymes, scavenge oxalate...) are well known and have been cited in this forum many times. The problem with high calcium is that one cannot get it without equivalent high anion, either sulfate or chloride and high sulfate and/or chloride, while they may be desired by some and tolerated by others there is a large group of beer drinkers to whom they are neither.

Some here seem to be of the opinion that American home brewers passionately prefer low calcium beers and are actively engaged in proselytizing for their faith. This is, of course, nonsense as calcium itself is flavorless. Some home brewers this side if the pond prefer low anion beers (as do home brewers and drinkers around the world). But they are not the totality of brewers/drinkers here (or elswhere). I know lots of home brewers who clear the LHBS shelves of gypsum and calcium chloride every time they go in.

So Taylor is not right when he says calcium should be 100 - 200 mg/L. Nor is Palmer right when he says a minimum of 50 is required. The correct level is the amount that makes the best beer in the opinion of the people who are drinking it. As I said many posts ago "de gustibus..."