Going to try out some chemistry....

[HisDudeness]

Mash PH on the treated batch came out at 5.57 at 30mins so a definite improvement and if the meter is out by around 0.2 then all the readings are pretty close to those predicted by the BF calc. If not at least the treatment has moved the value closer to the ideal range. Wish I had bought some more PH test solution now.....

 

[HisDudeness]

First batch in the fermentor its a smidge over 5L and the OG is a bit under target at 1.036 which I will put down to the losses having a bigger impact on efficiency at this size, plus the mash tun didn't work as well with such a small mash. Anyway not too much of a problem as its the difference between the 2 (if any) that I am interested in.

 

[HisDudeness]

Both batches now in the FV and yeast pitched, the treated batch was bang on 5L in the FV and despite my best hopes came out at pretty much exactly the same OG, its maybe just edging towards 1.037 but that could be down to the slight difference in finished volume. Not the dramatic difference that perhaps could have been expected. So both brews around 66% efficiency. Of course if the PH readings were correct it could be that it just isnt close enough to the ideal range yet but then again I would have thought maybe some difference would have been made going from 5.9 to 5.6ish?? Hmmmm......

 

[HisDudeness]

Bottled the 2 batches tonight, both finished out at 1.006 so a smidge under 4%. A couple of observations at this stage the 2 beers smelt a bit different in the FV, the treated batch had a slightly sweeter floral aroma to compared to the untreated. The yeast appeared to have flocculated a bit more in the untreated batch and as such the treated was a touch cloudy in the bottle. Otherwise both appear identical in colour. Tasting the SG samples there did seem to be a noticeable difference, the untreated seemed a bit more rough/harsh tasting in comparison with maybe a slight touch of astringency to it, the treated in comparison was still quite dry and bitter but seemed smoother. Don't want to read too much into it at this stage but will be interesting to see how conditioning affects those differences.
The beer overall seems on track to be a nice drinker its got quite a spicy lager like character which I think may be from the Liberty hops as they are closely related to Hallertau hopefully will combine nicely with the EKG.

 

[MyQul]

Tbh I haven't read most of the thread but your observation:

"Tasting the SG samples there did seem to be a noticeable difference, the untreated seemed a bit more rough/harsh tasting in comparison with maybe a slight touch of astringency to it, the treated in comparison was still quite dry and bitter but seemed smoother."

But it chimes with my own experience of using bottled water for the first time on a bitter I'm currently slurping on. It's bittering is smoother without and 'afterbite' of astringency I've previously got from bitters brewed with my untreated tap water

 

[cheapbrew]

Good work dude, thanks for taking the time to do all this and update us and looking forward to the final outcome.:thumb:

 

[HisDudeness]

Did another pale ale today that only used a single malt so tried using the similar treatment as before but made sure everything was calibrated first and re-measured alkalinity which was back around 200ppm. As this was a full size batch I thought the impact on efficiency would be more apparent if there was one. Forum calculator suggested 30ml CRS for a total water volume of 32L. I did this and added some Gypsum to the kettle (same as previous test). I set the recipe up as per my usual settings for my equipment with estimated efficiency of 70% and apart from the water treatment was careful to follow my usual method for mash and sparge (3L/kg mash thickness, 2 stage batch sparge). All went as expected and I measured mash PH after 10 mins and it came out at 5.27 which should be right in the sweet spot for conversion etc. At the end of the boil I hit expected volume bang on at 22L and slightly to my surprise was also bang on target OG at 1.042. So my efficiency has remained at the usual 70% :hmm:
This is not a major issue I just find it curious as all the literature I have looked at suggests efficiency should improve with lower PH and the same from several posters on this thread.
Hopefully (and more importantly) there will still be a positive impact on flavour for the finished product.

 

[TartanSpecial]

that's odd its staying at 70% but looks like you've got the alkalinity side of the water treatment sorted. :thumb: I only got above 70% when I started milling my own malt.
Curious to see how the conditioned bottles from the original experiment turn out.

 

[HisDudeness]

OK so the results are in! I left the 2 beers for 2 weeks warm 2 weeks cold conditioning to give them a decent amount of time before tasting. In order to prevent any preconceptions influencing the tasting I covered the caps with gaffa tape and mixed the bottles around until I was unable to tell which was which and would only find this out after making tasting notes, both beers were poured into identical glasses that had been well rinsed prior to use. I drank water and ate a bit of a cracker in between tasting each beer to try and cleanse my palate as much as possible. I tried to assess the beers following the tasting suggestions given by Mr Mosher in Radical Brewing.

Before I get to the final verdict (and to build a bit of tension lol!) some general observations of the process overall. Its an easy area to get confused by and thanks to everyone who offered help and advice during this thread, I have found that the best approach is to keep it simple and if possible change only 1 or 2 things at a time in order to keep track of what effect if any you are having on the finished product. From my experience, the advice of others and what I have read the most important things to look at are de-chlorinating, reducing alkalinity (if your water is particularly hard) and adjusting the sulphate to chloride ratio to suit the style you are brewing. As such I would suggest a basic water treatment kit can consist of Campden Tabs, CRS or other suitable Acid, Gypsum and Calcium Chloride to get you started. The old forum water calculator has worked well for me and assuming your alkalinity figures are accurate it should get you into the right ballpark in terms of PH, I have used CRS on all my brews since and measured Mash PH and it generally lands between 5.2-5.3. It has overshot slightly a couple of times where there is a greater quantity of crystal/caramel malts involved, I put this down to the calculator giving the same CRS quantity for bitters as pale ales where I think it should be a touch lower for the bitters and this option should be used for pale beers with 10% + crystal or other speciality malts. Although I didn't see an increase in efficiency from the lower PH it has been consistently in the optimal window through using CRS.

Anyway on to the final verdict! The beer on the left was beer A and the right one beer B. Upon pouring both beers had identical colour, carbonation and clarity. The only difference was that the sediment in beer B appeared a little looser and more beer was left in the bottle to stop this going in the glass. My first impression of beer A was little obvious aroma apart from general beeriness, a lager like character which was quite dry and bitter and a slight astringent/sour finish. Straight away I thought this was the untreated batch as the astringency reminded me of the samples I tasted at bottling time. My first impression of beer B was the same lager like character but a very slightly more prominent hop aroma, also dry but a smoother overall taste and bittering, hop character was more obvious but not massively prominent with a floral spicy presence. Side by side the difference was pretty obvious although I think if you tried them in isolation you might not notice the issues with beer A as much, beer B was definitely my preference and had a cleaner more refreshing flavour overall. At this point I revealed the labels on the bottle caps and as I suspected Beer A was the untreated batch and Beer B was the treated, so a positive result for water treatment.

Conclusion:
Obviously whether it is worth treating your water depends entirely on your local water profile but for me I will be continuing to treat my brewing water from now on. I believe that reducing the alkalinity has had the biggest impact overall for me and especially for pale beers this is worth doing if you have hard water. The sulphate to chloride ratio of my water already slightly favours hoppy beer but there was a noticeable change through the addition of Gypsum and again where it suits the style I will be continuing to add this or Calcium Chloride for malt driven beers. Luckily the actual process of treating the water is pretty straightforward and inexpensive so for me its definitely been worth the extra effort.

 

[TartanSpecial]

good to see results from a 'real' experiment...was worth the wait. great post. :thumb:

 

[cheapbrew]

Thank you Dude, nice write up :thumb:

one day I will have to get round to trying Murphy's recommendations for treating my hard Thames water.

 

[MyQul]

Most interesting Dude! Your faith in the old forum calculator has inspired me to use some gypsum in the boil for my pseudo lager tommorow. I have been too afraid to put any in up to now in case it causes astringency

 

[HisDudeness]

Most interesting Dude! Your faith in the old forum calculator has inspired me to use some gypsum in the boil for my pseudo lager tommorow. I have been too afraid to put any in up to now in case it causes astringency

Go for it, I certainly didn't get any astringency in the treated brew and as I said it was very lager like in character, more so than I expected to be honest but I think the Liberty hops, grain bill and Nottingham at a lowish temp have combined to give that effect

 

[GHW]

Thank you Dude, nice write up :thumb:

one day I will have to get round to trying Murphy's recommendations for treating my hard Thames water.

Watch this space. Unfortunately I didn't go to the lengths that Dude did (I didn't do an untreated control batch), but my Eldorado and Amarillo pales have three weeks left conditioning before I lay into them.

They were both treated as per the murphys recommendation, and I'm absolutely sure I'll be able to tell if it's made a difference as all my previous beers, especially bitters, suffer from a slight after taste which on my head is chalky. It's so familiar I can even detect it now in my hoppier brews.

If that taste is gone it'll be a definite victory of murphys over Thames water!

 

[cheapbrew]

I was gonna say I was waiting on your experience, but didn't wanna put you on the spot :thumb:

 

[Covrich]

Great to see!!

I have treated my last 2 brews although only tried one so far and its one fo my best (Slovenian IPA) its so clean an hoppy, how much treatment has to do with it I dunno but I am pleased to see more evidence that "fine tuning" is a good thing and worth it.. if you want to that is..

 

[MyQul]

Go for it, I certainly didn't get any astringency in the treated brew and as I said it was very lager like in character, more so than I expected to be honest but I think the Liberty hops, grain bill and Nottingham at a lowish temp have combined to give that effect

I tried the (concentrated) sweet wort gravity sample and it has a 'zing' to it that I haven't tasted before in other sweet wort samples. I don't know wether this is because of the gyspum I added to the boil (it was a teeny amount,the old forum water calc told me to add 0.73g) or wether it was because I opened a brand new pack of 2015 hops (styrian dana)

 

[serum]

I'be been getting into this and was surprised to see how far out my mash ph was on a pale coloured beer despite using quite soft bottled water.

A salifert alkalinity test is one of the best things you can get to start with. There's not much point using the ph meter until you start mashing.

I don't know what's in CRS but sulpguric and hydrochloric acids boost sulphates and chloride too. I understand it's a blend of the two but it can be hard to know exactly what profile you're ending up with.

I've been using lactic acid as its fine for the styles I make but probably not much good for hard water as high quantities can leave a strange taste. It's neutral in terms of sulphate and chloride ratio though.

Another thing that might be helpful is that thinning the mash increased the ph which helped me to get a darker beer with soft water.

 

[ManseMasher]

My water is really soft, and I have never done a brew without adding gypsum, epsom salts etc. Maybe I should try one without.....

 

[Simonh82]

I'be been getting into this and was surprised to see how far out my mash ph was on a pale coloured beer despite using quite soft bottled water.

A salifert alkalinity test is one of the best things you can get to start with. There's not much point using the ph meter until you start mashing.

I don't know what's in CRS but sulpguric and hydrochloric acids boost sulphates and chloride too. I understand it's a blend of the two but it can be hard to know exactly what profile you're ending up with.

I've been using lactic acid as its fine for the styles I make but probably not much good for hard water as high quantities can leave a strange taste. It's neutral in terms of sulphate and chloride ratio though.

Another thing that might be helpful is that thinning the mash increased the ph which helped me to get a darker beer with soft water.

CRS does add sulphate and chloride in roughly equal measure but if need to add lots it will start to favour the sulphate side. It is also quite dilute as some of these acids go.

I've used both CRS and now 75% Phosphoric acid which is very neutral tasting and doesn't influence the sulphate/chloride balance. I can then add minerals if I need to. You also only need 6-10ml depending on the grain bill so much more economical.

I've also just purchased a Salifert test kit. I think it will be useful as i can already see a variation between the test kit and the murphys water report. Thames water get a lot of their water from rivers so this can be affected by rain and dry periods.