Bottoms_Up
Well-Known Member
I think I found it. Was it "Mineral Profile in the Glass: How Water Minerals Change Through Brewing"? BYO, September, 2017.Do you recall what issue that was, @beervoid, or even the approximate year?
I think I found it. Was it "Mineral Profile in the Glass: How Water Minerals Change Through Brewing"? BYO, September, 2017.Do you recall what issue that was, @beervoid, or even the approximate year?
BTW, I should add that I'm not clear about the "minerally" beers. He says to "double" the calcium chloride and gypsum, but since gypsum is not included in the "baseline", then I assume he must be referring to doubling the previous line, where gypsum IS used. Hopefully someone can clarify this.
Hi Brewbuzzrd. Thanks for the link. However, I feel that I'm already fairly knowledgeable about brewing water basics, and was instead particularly asking about what A.J. deLange meant in the first message of this thread ("Primer") as modified by his later comments, particularly regarding "minerally" beers.https://www.brewersfriend.com/2017/11/19/brewing-water-basics-part-1/
See if this link helps.
Hefeweizen: Baseline
Baseline: Add 1 tsp of calcium chloride dihydrate (what your LHBS sells) to each 5 gallons of water treated. Add 2% sauermalz to the grist.
Deviate from the baseline as follows:
Hefeweizen: For soft water beers (i.e Pils, Helles). Use half the baseline amount of calcium chloride and increase the sauermalz to 3% (you can make great Hefe with soft water too).
Porter: For beers that use roast malt (Stout, porter): Skip the sauermalz.
Light Ale: For British beers: Add 1 tsp gypsum as well as 1 tsp calcium chloride
IPA: For very minerally beers (Export, Burton ale): Double the calcium chloride and the gypsum.
If you follow just the baseline without any of the deviations you won't make a 'dumper'. That's the whole idea behind the primer. Should get you a decent beer whatever the style.
I wish I had seen this last weekend...Hi,
I have been developing a new water calculator (oh no, not ANOTHER one......!). With some input it calculates a good water profile for most styles of beer. It also calculates acid or alkalinity additions, salt additions and target pH. If interested it's located here:
https://watercalc.azurewebsites.net/
Hi,
I have been developing a new water calculator (oh no, not ANOTHER one......!). With some input it calculates a good water profile for most styles of beer. It also calculates acid or alkalinity additions, salt additions and target pH. If interested it's located here:
https://watercalc.azurewebsites.net/
Hey Brian,
Used the calc and found it to be very user friendly. Good work.
Brooo Brother
BTW - Is that you on the 'boom or in the KC? Never yanked gear on the 320 but did fly from the left side for 8 years. Lots of good times.
I wish I had seen this last weekend...
Hey Brian,
Used the calc and found it to be very user friendly. Good work.
Brooo Brother
BTW - Is that you on the 'boom or in the KC? Never yanked gear on the 320 but did fly from the left side for 8 years. Lots of good times.
BTW, if you do use the calculator, any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks!
Got it fixed. Thanks!"The web app you have attempted to reach is currently stopped and does not accept any requests"
"Do what is needed to brew great beer, and not much more. Set your system up to be as complex as necessary, but no more." I really wish I could remember where I got that quote from. If anyone knows, please let me know!Actually, some people do just that.
And some don't measure what their base tap water is, and make or don't make any mineral/pH adjustments.
And some don't bother measuring pH.
And you know what? Beer is still made and enjoyed.
You decide what feels right for you.
Currently, I brew with RO/distilled water and I do not use "calculator software" for "water chemistry".Does anyone not use calculator software
That would be awesome !Currently, I brew with RO/distilled water and I do not use "calculator software" for "water chemistry".
If you are brewing with RO/distilled water and are willing to spend money on some additional resources, I can make some time to write up a "point in time" snapshot of what I do (and what I've learned).
I guess I was just confused with the first post by aj giving a RO baseline with the addition of 1 tsp of calcium chloride for every 5 gallons of water and 2% sauermalz, and then tweaking this baseline for different beer styles. Reading through that post it seemed like he skipped online water calculators all together. I’m just unsure whether to use that approach or use a program like Bru’nAs long as your brewing conditions are not in a state of flux as to initial water, added mineralization, acidification, recipe, water to grist ratio, etc... you should be able to find your own ideals, even if merely by trial and error. It is when things change that it gets a bit trickier. For example, many water authorities blend greatly differing water sources, whereby each time you turn on the tap you have no idea what blend is coming out. And if you change your water to grist ratio without also changing your mineralization levels you are not going to make the same beer. There are twice as many calcium and magnesium ions in 10 gallons of water as for 5 when the very same water and recipe and grist and overall volumes/weights are being used (such as for the case of sparge vs no-sparge).
Reading through that post it seemed like he skipped online water calculators all together.
Pick one and start.I’m just unsure whether to use that approach or use a program like Bru’n
Thanks for the response! Sounds like trial and error is the way to go. On a side note aj mentioned adding 1tsp of calcium chloride, what’s the conversion to ppm? I ask because he listed ppms to describe the baseline profile of RO, and was curious what 1tsp would add to the profile in ppmThe intent of the approach, written 10 years ago, was/is to provide a KISS to brewing water chemistry. Take a look at #1404, #1471, & #1568 for some additional insights. There are similar approaches (#1619, Zymurgy magazine, HomeBrew Con presentations).
From #938: "If you are using the Primer, forget the spreadsheet(s). If you are using a spreadsheet, forget the Primer".
Pick one and start.
The advantage of starting with this approach is that you don't need to learn a new piece of software. Order some malt and some minerals - and start brewing.
ppm is a totally flawed means to the measurement of mineralization. It is what I was speaking of when I mentioned "conditional" above. The "condition" being the mashes water to grist ratio. For example, if you sparge, and my process uses no sparge (such as it does), and for the intentionally simplified case whereby you therefore mash in half the water that I mash in, my mash liquor at 50 ppm calcium will expose the grist to twice the calcium that your mash water (also at 50 ppm calcium) exposes it to. That's a massive difference, which simply looking at ppm's totally ignores and effectively thereby denies.
For this case your mash water must contain 100 ppm calcium if the two of us are attempting to brew the same beer. But a couple centuries worth of ppm use, and many hundreds of brewing books and magazine articles can't be wrong, right?
You mean to tell me that if we both use 7 gallons total, but you mash with 7 and me 3.5, that your more dilute mash will be exposed to twice the calcium for an equivalent dose? I’d have to see the numbers on that. Unless I’m missing something, while the mEq/l would vary, the mEq, and this the part that would affect the mash from a mineralization standpoint, is equivalent no matter the mash volume.
There are twice the Ca++ ion mEq's in 7 gallons of 50 ppm calcium water as for 3.5 gallons of 50 ppm calcium water. It is the mEq's/L that is a fixed quantity.
So your telling me that 3 g of Gypsum in 7 and 3.5 gal of mash volume, respectively, yields the same mEq/l?
So your telling me that 3 g of Gypsum in 7 and 3.5 gal of mash volume, respectively, yields the same mEq/l?
No, I'm telling you that in 7 gallons of 50 ppm calcium ion water there are twice the mEq's of Ca++ ions as for 3.5 gallons of 50 ppm water.
So, for the sake of posterity, let’s make that distinction here and now. You are referencing source water with mineralization, and I’m talking about mineralization added to RO/Distilled.
Many people who make their own water up to a certain ppm level of Ca++ (etc...) (be it from RO or otherwise) subsequently mash in only some portion of it. They do so because myriads of books and magazines said to them that a certain level of ppm (I.E., a water profile) is what is required. They are rarely guided to the world of mEq's unless they go much higher in their educational development as to water chemistry. They are thus both completely deceived by called for "water profiles" and left to be clueless of such deceit. I'm merely trying to open their eyes to the deceit.
A few thoughts:
1.) ppm or mg/l is a perfectly acceptable form of telling how much of an ion is in the brewing water. Hopefully we can agree there.
2.) You can’t dismiss water profiles outright. For instance, if I want to brew a Rochefort clone, I am going to actually use thier water profile verbatim. Should we be more conscious of how certain profiles are treated? Absolutely.
3.) Deceit is a strong word. Homebrew Dogma and misunderstanding has existed, still exists, and sometimes goes by the wayside. That people writing in this sphere are purposefully deceiving people is something I can’t get on board with.
1) No, we do not agree. mEq's/L, leading to the requisite of mEq's in and of themselves is perfectly acceptable, but ppm's are flawed (as in being merely partial truth) and thereby ppm's are not in and of themselves worthy of being proclaimed "perfectly acceptable".
2) You will need to know their water to grist ratio whereby to totally duplicate their process. Knowing only their water mineralization as regards ppm's is not in and of itself sufficient.
3) Deceit does not necessarily imply outright "intent" (to deceive). It also implies flaw, error, and primarily ignorance of intent, and thereby blind perpetuation from ignorance to ignorance, whereby achieving the perpetuation of a negative while blindly believing it to perpetuate a positive.
Conclusion: I can indeed dismiss water profiles based solely upon ppm's.
We can at least agree the savvy brewer typically needs to have pertinent information in order to use the data they possess.
You’re starting to sound like a curmudgeon by the way!
Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.
There are few things more dishonorable than misleading the young.
Hopefully, this will help make things somewhat clearer.
1) No, we do not agree. mEq's/L, leading to the requisite of mEq's in and of themselves is perfectly acceptable, but ppm's are flawed (as in being merely partial truth) and thereby ppm's are not in and of themselves worthy of being proclaimed "perfectly acceptable".
2) You will need to know their water to grist ratio whereby to totally duplicate their process. Knowing only their water mineralization as regards ppm's is not in and of itself sufficient.
3) Deceit does not necessarily imply outright "intent" (to deceive). It also implies flaw, error, and primarily ignorance of intent, and thereby blind perpetuation from ignorance to ignorance, whereby achieving the perpetuation of a negative while blindly believing it to perpetuate a positive.
Conclusion: I can indeed dismiss water profiles based solely upon ppm's.
Enter your email address to join: