Mineral additons for DP recipes

[Vossy1]

I'm about to embark on a DP brewing binge, and really looking forward to it.
I live in a very soft water area my typical water profile being mg/l

Ca 7.92, Na 5.17, Cl 6.47, Mg 1.05 and S04 10.1, so pretty much a blank template

I've been having a good look around the internet at Burton IPA water profiles and there seems to be a massive degree of difference between some,eg, J Palmer Ca 353 S04 820, G Wheeler Ca 130 S04 367.
Now I know it depends where it's drawn from etc, but what I'd like to know from any brewers who've brewed DP IPA recipes is, what water profile/software programme have you found gives the best results (subjective I know) ?

Many thanks in advance :thumb:

 

[Phil]

I'm certainly no expert in water treatment but I have played around with it a little.

It's worth bearing in mind that the fact that you can find so many variations on "Burton" liquor suggests that you don't need to be too accurate anyway. Depending on which well the water was drawn from in Burton the mineral content varied greatly. Although the theme of high calcium and high sulphate is still common.

When I brew DP beers (and any other) I tend to follow the Brupaks instructions based loosely on beer colour. So, CRS and DLS for light beers and nothing at all for dark beers. However, I recently made a 1.040 bitter using twice as much DLS and half as much CRS and it turned out very well indeed.

Though for Burton beers I am planning a different approach. What I'm going to do it to use CRS to lower the alkalinity to about 200ppm then add 0.7g per litre of gypsum to get the calcium up to about 250ppm and the sulphate up to about 600ppm. When I get around to doing this I'll let you know how it works out.

This is based on figures of Burton liquor of Ca 268 and SO4 638 ppm that I got from, I think, John Alexander's book.

Sorry I can't offer anything definitive.

/Phil.

 

[MEB]

Personally, i wouldn't worry about it too much. Some of the IPA's were from Reading-whats the water like in the 1800's in Reading???? Probably full of bacteria and a bit muddy. If you want to duplicate that it would be reasonably easy.

 

[Phil]

MEB, I think you make a very good point. So long as the mash pH is in the right ballpark the beer will be fine. That's why I adjust my liquor depending on the colour of the beer so that I end up with the right pH.

You can take this water thing too far in my opinion. For instance, some people build their liquor from scratch using RO and minerals. I can see the appeal (in the same whay I enjoy culturing yeast and growing 5 litre starters from a smear of yeast when I could just buy a packet of Nottingham) but it's not for me.

The question around Burton water is of interest to me though as the levels of calcium and sulphate are so high that it will give a very particular character to the beers. So that's why I want to try it out and see if it's a character I want in my beers. Rotten eggs probably :hmm:

/Phil.

 

[Aleman]

Base your water treatment on what you want to brew not where it was brewed . . . . Masses of sulphate will not help a brew (pale or otherwise) . . . . ditto for alkalinity . . .. adding a goodly proportion of calcium to soft water is a serious bonus and should be considered essential . . . . unless like MEB you like drinking mud :P :P :P

Phil's idea of treating the water for brew colour is pretty much spot on what I do . . . Pale beers get the alkalinity down to below 30 (Easy mine is 24 anyway ), then add calcium to boost it to around 100 . . . use gypsum if I want a hoppy beer, calcium chloride if I want a Malty beer, and both if I want a balanced beer.

Dark beers get a tsp of chalk in the grist . . . . and the sparge liquor gets 100ppm of calcium supplemented.

 

[Vossy1]

Aleman, do you treat as per final brew length volume, or for total liquor required?

I've been having a play with G Wheelers water calculator. It doesn't mention whether to treat as per total volume or as per brew length. It also gives advice on making the additions, splitting the sulphate between tun and copper and adding the NaCl and MgS04 to the copper. My point being that if you base the additions as per total volume of liquor, the NaCl and MgS04 additions will be too great for the final brewlength volume :hmm:

Common sense would dictate treat the entire liquor volume as that's how water comes out of the tap.

EDIT, Grahams just advised total liquor addition...magic

 

[Vossy1]

Well, I've just tested my tap water 3 times for total alkalinity.
I knew my water was a relatively blank template, but I didn't realise just how blank.
All 3 tests came back at 18mg/ltr CaC03 :shock:

 

[MEB]

I spent so much of my former profesional life 'testing water' that i don't even want to test the PH with an electric meter nowadays. Brewing for me is a hobby, testing and buffering water is work in my eyes. And work i grew to hate. :evil:
I add a small amount of gypsum every now and then-the same way that Phil describes. The only alteration i really advocate is adding some salt to the boil. You season your food don't you? I find a teaspoon per 20L at start of boil works way better than any other type of addition i've tried.
(Personally) i find the amount of effort people go to to get 'burtonised water' or the like is a bit of a waste of time really-here's why. You COPY a recipe and then try your hardest to get your water 'right' as per GW(or someone else) instructions and then your gonna boil it with pretty much an unknown evaporation rate-bang goes your calculations and your pissing in the wind. Your then gonna add a yeast that you feel is right-have you brewed many different brews with this yeast? Do you know what effect it has on malt profiles or the effect it has on certain hops? Probably not. When you then come to taste this brew you'll go on about the 'burtonised water' you used but in reality the flavour profile is down to the malts, hops and yeast you used-in conjunction with your mash ph and temp and the temp at which you fermented this brew. The real flavour profiles that ALL of us taste are the malts, hops and yeast combined with the fermenting temp. There is possibly one or two here that could tell the difference between the actual water used. Chances are not one brewer here can EXACTLY duplicate a brew all the time without fail. I can't and if you can't then your never going to be able to tell the difference between a brew made with soft or hard water as there will be many, many more variables to the actual taste of the beer you've brewed.

But this is where Aleman, Phil, Rab Maxwell, Wallybrew(not yet a member) and Master Brewer Dennis Fring etc are operating above the levels of us mere mortals. They do have a good idea of their regular brews because they've been brewing them for years(Dennis is up to 1700 brews) and most of the time with a yeast that they use specifically for that brew. Dennis actually changed his malts to counteract the water here. Enabling him to produce a great brew without having to **** about with water parameters.
My advice to the rest of you who enjoy brewing and drinking your own concoctions is to find your own YEAST first. Then decide what malt profiles you like. Balance them with hops you like and THEN start playing about with your water. As long as you remove the chlorine/Chloramine then you will produce a great beer everytime. Perhaps not an award winning beer Judged by a real beer judge but i bet you'll enjoy every last drop. Just as i do. :thumb:

Yeast is the major factor of beer taste outside of the grist NOT the water you use. Hops are a minor(low use of hops) to a Major(bundles and bundles of hops thrown in) flavour provider. Learn to balance the two-malt and hops with your own house yeast and you will be half way to producing phenomenol beers. Learn to condition your beers for a 3 motnh period, or more and you'll have better beer than most commercial breweries dream of.
Even if you use crappy old muddy water like me. :P

 

[steve_flack]

Aleman, do you treat as per final brew length volume, or for total liquor required?

Not Aleman but I do CRS based on total liquor and DLS on final brew length. I add the appropriate proportion of DLS to the mash then the remainder to the boil (so if my brew length is 40L and I'm using 20L of water in the mash then half goes in the mash).

I don't use DLS in anything but bitters/pale ales.

In your case you'd do the opposite - no CRS but use DLS or other salts.

 

[UserDeleted]

I add a small amount of gypsum every now and then-the same way that Phil describes. The only alteration i really advocate is adding some salt to the boil. You season your food don't you? I find a teaspoon per 20L at start of boil works way better than any other type of addition i've tried.

And all you are really doing is altering the chloride balance which affect the perception of Malt. You get the same effect using Calcium chloride plus the beneficial action of calcium which is important for so many reactions within the boiler/FV/Cask

(Personally) i find the amount of effort people go to to get 'burtonised water' or the like is a bit of a waste of time really-here's why. You COPY a recipe and then try your hardest to get your water 'right' as per GW(or someone else) instructions and then your gonna boil it with pretty much an unknown evaporation rate-bang goes your calculations and your pissing in the wind.

And you are wrong! . . .. Sort Of . . . . :lol: The idea that an IPA or Pale ale MUST have the levels of calcium, magnesium and sulphate that they have in Burton is completely flawed . . . but using calcium chloride / gypsum / magnesium sulphate in known quantities for water treatment is not! Hard water areas have relatively simple requirements, adjust the alkalinity then tweak the hop/malt profile with gypsum/calcium chloride . . the evaporation rate is irrelevant as the loss of three liters /5 liters is only going to concentrate the ions by a tiny amount which is meaningless and not taste able. For brewers afflicted with soft water this is even more important as calcium is required by so many biochemical processes in the mash, boiler, fermenter and cask. If you are brewing with soft water and not adding any water treatment then you can get a significant improvement in beer quality . . . . you might think your beer is acceptable, but may well be surprised when you treat it.

As long as you remove the chlorine/Chloramine then you will produce a great beer everytime.

may be, may be not . . . but along with standardising on a yeast, standardising on a water treatment for a particular beer style(s)will remove one particular variable from the equation.

Yeast is the major factor of beer taste outside of the grist NOT the water you use.

Actually fermentation temperature plays a much more important role than yeast . . . and having a standard temperature profile for your fermentation of a beer style(s) can really help . . . . using specific strains is only of critical help in certain beer styles only . . . you might be surprised by what you can get away with

 

[BrewStew]

Actually fermentation temperature plays a much more important role than yeast . . . and having a standard temperature profile for your fermentation of a beer style(s) can really help . . . . using specific strains is only of critical help in certain beer styles only . . . you might be surprised by what you can get away with

i beg to differ on the temperatures... through no fault of my own my ferment temps have varied between 18'c and 22'c (always recorded in my brew logs) on recipes i've repeated and i've never noticed a difference in flavours

the only time i noticed a different taste was when one brew i've repeated many times overshot 22'c.. ie outside the recommended fermenting range.. even then that was only a subtle change

i did an experiment on a stout, splitting the wort into 4 containers. used a different yeast in every one and the taste difference was phenomenal!!! verging on the point of being completely different brews!

 

[Vossy1]

(Personally) i find the amount of effort people go to to get 'burtonised water' or the like is a bit of a waste of time really-here's why. You COPY a recipe and then try your hardest to get your water 'right' as per GW(or someone else) instructions and then your gonna boil it with pretty much an unknown evaporation rate-bang goes your calculations and your pissing in the wind

I completely disagree. Most water profiles are based on pre boiled water, ie, water from the ground. This is just how Burton brewers get it. If they do boil it, that will not really affect the mineral content, it will simply make the CaC03 insoluable, possibly dropping the Ca level a bit. The only real variable is evapouration but there's nowt we can do about that.

The idea that an IPA or Pale ale MUST have the levels of calcium, magnesium and sulphate that they have in Burton is completely flawed . . . but using calcium chloride / gypsum / magnesium sulphate in known quantities for water treatment is not!

Spot on.

As long as you remove the chlorine/Chloramine then you will produce a great beer everytime

I don't think that's true, it's the luck of the draw as to where you live.

For brewers afflicted with soft water this is even more important as calcium is required by so many biochemical processes in the mash, boiler, fermenter and cask. If you are brewing with soft water and not adding any water treatment then you can get a significant improvement in beer quality . . . . you might think your beer is acceptable, but may well be surprised when you treat it.

My personal experince totally supports this and with the levels of Ca ion my water it's no wonder why. I must thank G Wheeler for sorting this issue for me.
My water has that little calcium, that I was suffering certain problems, which have now been completely cleared up.
The yeast refused to drop out of solution post ferment, with the addition of Calcium and Magnesium I now have no problems with this.
I used to get stalled ferments, I haven't had any since using mineral additions.
I tried to make hoppy beer with little sucess, but now they are fine, using mineral additions.

Mineral additions have completely changed the quality of the beers I produce, I'm very glad I tried it.