A deep breath... SPLOSH!

[The Mighty Badger]

Right then,

After absolutely bl**dy ages in the planning and sidelined by moving house I think there's a fighting chance that the Flying Pig Brewery will see its first AG attempted this weekend. I still have a few bits of engineering to see to, but hopefully a few hours on Saturday will see me with a usable two-thirds shiney set-up. As has been said many times in this place: 'Just Get On With It"...

This is the plan (pulled off the recipe section and altered slightly for hops and with my calcs for water additions etc):

Intended to be a single hop (Challenger) Bluebird type of affair:

Recipe: FPB #1
Recipe Specifications
--------------------------
Batch Size: 22.70 L
Boil Size: 27.34 L
Estimated OG: 1.038 SG
Estimated IBU: 34.5 IBU
Brewhouse Efficiency: 75.00 %
Boil Time: 90 Minutes

3.50 kg 1 - Pale Malt - Maris Otter (5.0 EBC) 92.84 %
0.17 kg 3 - Crystal Malt (125.0 EBC) 4.51 %
0.10 kg 4 - Torriefied Wheat (-6.0 EBC) 2.65 %
46.00 gm Challenger [6.50 %] (90 min) 34.5 IBU
20.00 gm Challenger [6.50 %] (15 min)

5.30 gm Calcium Chloride
5.30 gm Epsom Salt (MgSO4)
21.10 gm Gypsum (Calcium Sulphate)
Added to 40 litres of water in HLT - to cover mash, sparge and any topping up.

1 Pkgs Nottingham Yeast

90 min Mash In Add 9.42 L of water at 73.0 C 66.0 C


All comments, observations, general derision, or howls of laughter at obvious mistakes are most welcome.

I promise to try and put up some pics too.

[MightyMouth]

I have done a similar bluebird clone and it turned out great. I have yet to mess around with water treatment other than Campden tablets and some 5.2 in the mash and as all my brews bar one have turned out brilliant I don't think I will. Is there a reason you are adding the water treatment on your first brew?

[mysterio]

Good luck with it, looks like a good recipe

[The Mighty Badger]

I have done a similar bluebird clone and it turned out great. I have yet to mess around with water treatment other than Campden tablets and some 5.2 in the mash and as all my brews bar one have turned out brilliant I don't think I will. Is there a reason you are adding the water treatment on your first brew?

I guess because I'm a scientist and doing the necessary calcs doesn't hold any horror for me. I also have retired, perfectionist engineers for a father and father-in-law. Let's just say it HAS to be done properly or not at all... Curse or blessing?

Anyway I got our labs to analyse our tap water and it came out pretty much bang on the average reported by UU for the local supply works (our water is in the "so soft it shouldn't really live north of Birmingham" category ) so I felt confident enough that some reasonably precise additions would be appropriate (to the nearest 50 ppm anyway) to Burtonise the water and so I can repeat / adjust for future brews.

I reckoned on giving the brew every help so that the only potential sources of a balls-up are operator or Murphy related...

Good luck with it, looks like a good recipe

Thanks. Bluebird is a favourite of mine so I hope I'll get soemthing drinkable.

[Northern Brewer]

Whereabouts is your water coming from TMB?

[The Mighty Badger]

This is from the United Utilities web-site:

Water supply name: Lowcocks
"The water supply to this area comes from upland reservoir sources in the Trough of Bowland and can be supplemented with supplies from the Lake District. Water quality. The water supply to this area is very soft..."

So pretty much rainwater with a slight hint of peat perhaps. The analyses reflect this.

[SiHoltye]

Good luck, recipe looks tasty

[Northern Brewer]

This is from the United Utilities web-site:

Water supply name: Lowcocks
"The water supply to this area comes from upland reservoir sources in the Trough of Bowland and can be supplemented with supplies from the Lake District. Water quality. The water supply to this area is very soft..."

So pretty much rainwater with a slight hint of peat perhaps. The analyses reflect this.

Call that soft! You want to try the stuff I get from Haweswater...

CA - LC = 9.41 v HW = 7.57

CL - LC = 7.54 v HW = 6.85

MG - LC = 1.10 v HW = 0.97

NA - LC = 6.05 v HW = 4.82

SO4 - LC = 12.9 v HW = 8.15

I was curious about the amount of salts you were chucking in. Historically, I have just treated my 12 litres of mashing water with 1 tsp of Calcium Sulphate and 1/2 tsp of Magnesium Sulphate and everything has worked out fine, with brewhouse efficiency averaging 79%. During a recent re-read of Wheeler's book I came to appreciate how much harder Burton water is, so I upped the anti to 2 rounded tsp Calcium Sulphate, 1/2 tsp Magnesium Sulphate and 1/4 tsp sodium chloride. This possibly put a point or two on my efficiency, but going into the keg I felt the beer tasted much drier than I prefer; hence I'm returning to where I used to be with regards salts.

[The Mighty Badger]

Looks like you're King of the Softies then...

Interesting point about the water treatment. I basically took some"typical Burton water" analyses (I think from a book by Dave Line) and put a spread sheet together to work out concentrations and the mass of salts that would come close. I actually left it comfortably short for most ions to avoid over doing it, but made sure I had at least 150 mg/l Ca ions to help the mash, sparging and to keep the yeast happy).

These were the Burton concentrations (in mg/l)

Calcium 268
Magnesium 62
Sodium 30
Chloride 36
Sulphate 638
Carbonate 141

So adding the following salts to my HLT (should have said that the weights in the recipe are based on 40 litres in total for the brew)

Calcium Sulphate 21.1g
Magnesium Sulphate 5.3g
Calcium Chloride 5.3g

and adding in my water analysis, this gives the following liquor concentrations:

Calcium 213mg/l
Magnesium 28mg/l
Sodium 6mg/l
Chloride 92mg/l
Sulphate 491mg/l
Carbonate 20mg/l

Any thoughts on whether this is too little, OK, or too much?

[Northern Brewer]

Both of our water supplies are incredibly soft by Burton standards. Wheeler says that the water beneath Burton varies, and that "there are several instances where two wells sunk a few feet apart provide water of completely different mineral contents". He goes on to provide a "typical" mineral content as being...

Ca = 294
Cl = 36
HCO3 = 0
Mg = 24
Na = 24
SO4 = 801

He then indicates that soft water would require the following additions to achieve the above.

1000 mg/l of Calcium Sulphate (provides 294 x Ca and 705 x SO4)
150 Mg/l of Magnesium Sulphate (provides 24 x Mg and 96 x SO4)
60 Mg/l of Sodium Chloride (provides 24 x Na and 36 x Cl)

As I understand things, although mineralisation affects other things, the primary reason for trying to mimic Burton water is because of the impact it has upon mash PH. On that basis, and with the notion that less is always best, I have always aimed to treat my 12.5 litres of mashing water only.

The mineral content of my water is so low that it can be largely ignored, so on Wheeler's figures my 12.5 litres would need 12.5g of Calcium Sulphate (approx 2 heaped tsp), 1.875g Magnesium Sulphate (approx 1/2 tsp) and 0.75g Sodium Chloride (approx 1/4 tsp).

For years I have simply bunged in 1 tsp of Calcium Sulphate and 1/2 level tsp Magnesium Sulphate. I've been more than happy with the outcome and achieved a brewhouse efficiency averaging 79% (but swinging a couple of points either side). Upon re-reading Wheeler I decided to "improve things" and added the extra salts as above. The brew in question hit 81% so I was able to persuade myself how clever I was (even though I've historically hit 83% on occasions under the old regime).

When I kegged the beer a few days ago, I noticed that it tasted much drier than usual, to the extent that I wasn't so keen on it. It will probably improve with time though and I won't be drinking it before Christmas. I do however prefer full bodied beers with a residual sweetness and I mash at 67C to achieve this. When I knocked out a brew yesterday, I reverted to my original mineralisation regime.

So, I suppose it all depends upon what you are out to produce. Somebody once said on here that most brewing books could be improved by dumping the paragraphs about water treatment and I am now very much inclined to agree. Compare Dave Line's treatment for 25 litres of soft water (1 tsp Calcium Sulphate and 1/2 tsp Magnesium Sulphate) with Graham Wheeler's equivalent (2 heaped tsps Calcium Sulphate, 1 tsp Sodium Chloride and 1/2 tsp Magnesium Sulphate).

Neither of them come near to what you have in mind though

[WallyBrew]

.........
So adding the following salts to my HLT (should have said that the weights in the recipe are based on 40 litres in total for the brew)

Calcium Sulphate 21.1g
Magnesium Sulphate 5.3g
Calcium Chloride 5.3g

and adding in my water analysis, this gives the following liquor concentrations:

Calcium 213mg/l
Magnesium 28mg/l
Sodium 6mg/l
Chloride 92mg/l
Sulphate 491mg/l
Carbonate 20mg/l

Have you worked these out on an anhydrous basis

Excluding your water analysis my calcs give resultant figures as: 1st figure anhydrous basis, 2nd figured hydrated basis

Calcium 203, 159
Magnesium 27, 13
Sulphate 478, 346
Chloride 85, 64

These assume the normal dihydrate for the calcium salts and the heptahydrate for the magnesium sulphate

[The Mighty Badger]

As I understand things, although mineralisation affects other things, the primary reason for trying to mimic Burton water is because of the impact it has upon mash PH. On that basis, and with the notion that less is always best, I have always aimed to treat my 12.5 litres of mashing water only.

Sounds like I'm treading the right path then. I'll be checking the mash pH and will be able to see if my additions are OK and can adjust accordingly. The theory behind treating all my liquor is that it seems to be what the pros do in order to help the sparge and make sure the Ca ion concentration is high enough in the boil / FV.

Neither of them come near to what you have in mind though

Probably the curse of being a scientist with the family that I have (see above...)

[MightyMouth]

I like things to be done right as long as I know what right is. Doing something just because that's the way its is done or is perceived to be the correct way to do it something I try to avoid. Regardless of my water I would personally brew at least one brew without any additions to see what happened, which is exactly what I have done. I am not sure that adding things to the water would improve any clones I try to make regardless of where the original is brewed, so I would be inclined to brew the beer without any additives and see how it turned out. Maybe if the brewery had my water they would use it as is, it might make the beer better - who knows. The relevant details of my water are below but I have no idea what they mean or what I would have to change or even if it should be changed. I get decent efficiency, my beer tastes good, I am happy. Conversely if you are the type of person who likes things to be right in the sense that it is the same as something else that you are trying to emulate as closely as possible, regardless of if it could be made better with less work, then I can understand that too.

Calcium 60
Magnesium 13
Sulphate 76
Chloride 37
Alkalinity 116

[Northern Brewer]

John Palmer discusses the topic of water treatment here http://www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter15.html I found it necessary to use the index link to reach page 15.4, as opposed to the Next Page button

Palmer has Burton water containing more calcium than Wheeler, but the fact remains that Burton water seems very different from other parts of the world. The article suggests that some water treatment is necessary if your supply is very soft. For example it seems that Magnesium in the range of 10-20 ppm is a yeast nutrient, whereas my water contains virtually none. Palmer says that "calcium is instrumental to many yeast, enzyme, and protein reactions, both in the mash and in the boil. It promotes clarity, flavour, and stability in the finished beer" and indicates a brewing range of 50-150 ppm, which is significantly above my 7.5 ppm. He does however suggest that sulphate at concentrations over 750 ppm can cause diarrhoea, which makes me question how the good people of Burton get along with their 801 ppm

It appears that I've not been that far away with my original regime of 5g Calcium Sulphate and 2g Magnesium Sulphate in my 12.5 litres of mashing water only. As well as helping with the mash PH, it has created useful background concentrations in the eventual 23 litres (Ca = 70 ppm, Mg = 13.5 ppm and SO4 = 220 ppm) that would not otherwise be there.

[The Mighty Badger]

Have you worked these out on an anhydrous basis

Excluding your water analysis my calcs give resultant figures as: 1st figure anhydrous basis, 2nd figured hydrated basis

Calcium 203, 159
Magnesium 27, 13
Sulphate 478, 346
Chloride 85, 64

These assume the normal dihydrate for the calcium salts and the heptahydrate for the magnesium sulphate

Good man - I had completely forgotten to allow for the crystal water . Very happy I decided to post it all up now.
Thank you.

Having had a read NB's last post and referred back to my Big Beer Textbook over lunch, I have come to the conclusion that rather than aim for an apparently mythical Burton Water, I'll tone down the additions and actually end up somewhere nearer the concs had I proceeded with the anhydrous calcs anyway. Ho hum.

On a less theoretical note I have just bought the hole saws I need to slice big chunks out of my 50lt Thermobox and turn it into an HLT... Let the butchery commence

Looking set fair for brewing this weekend