Water calc??

[sifty]

Who says that recommended water mineralization levels (also known as "Water Profiles") have the magic to transform beer from bad to good, or even from one style to another?

I dunno.
Nobody...?

 

[peebee]

I dunno.
Nobody...?

Don't take @Argentum's comments personally! His answers are to a much wider audience.

He is why I recommended his calculator, he has a firmly screwed on head ... in a shed full of headless chickens.

 

[Argentum]

What is likely more trustworthy about enhancing and suppressing hop bitterness is that some yeasts seem to enhance the expression of hop bitterness, some yeasts seem to suppress the expression of hop bitterness, and some yeasts are middling in this regard. Yeasts may even go so far as to play some part in determining how many IBU's the final beer will yield upon analysis.

I seem to recall coming across someones synopsis of a presentation by Chris White (White Labs) that detailed this effect for a number of their yeasts, but I can't currently find a link to it.

 

[Argentum]

Found something akin to it:

http://tastingroom.yeastman.com/upl..._WLP940_WLP001_WLP830_WLP051_IBU One Page.pdf

 

[Argentum]

I've been doing my own little experiment (of sorts) whereby to assess the bitterness and/or dryness attributable to mineralization. Two of my favorite lagers are Pilsner Urquell and Great Lakes Dortmunder Gold. Pilsner Urquell is rated at 40 IBU, and is 'presumed' to be the product of water with almost no mineralization to speak of. Dortmunder Gold (which rates at 30 IBU's) is similarly (to me) malt forward, and has a similar light orange color to Urquell (call it gold), and a similar mouthfeel, but for the Dortmunder style it is 'presumed' that one must begin with water that is over the top high with respect to being across the board mineral rich. I've 'critically' drank them side by side three times now. Both taste quite similar to me in many ways when drank alone. My presumption going in was that 30 IBU's plus massive mineralization would taste more bitter and dry and crisp than 40 IBU's and zip for minerals (it might as well be RO or distilled). But this isn't even close to being the case. Despite their very similar overall malt taste (which to me comprises a big part of what I perceive as mouthfeel), the Urquell has pronouncedly more hop bitterness, and also noticeably more crispness (dryness). How can this be if Urquell's source water almost completely lacks sulfate, and every other mineral to boot? When I do this test I sip the Dortmunder first, and it is mega delicious. Then I sip the Urquell and it is even more mega delicious. Then from that point forward the mineral rich Dortmunder tastes flat and muted, and is everything that a mineral free beer should be (per the textbooks and their parrots).

 

[Argentum]

I've heard it stated by several people (who inevitably are fans of US-05) that Nottingham yeast is a hop expression (and IBU's) killer. I have not verified this, but I'm parroting it...

YMMV

But if US-05 is similar to WLP001, and Nottingham is similar to WLP029, then.... H'mmm

Edit: 36.5/57.25 x 100 = 63.76%, or a hop expression reduction of 36.24% for Nottingham vs. US-05!