PeeBee wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:26 pm
Eric wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:42 pm
… Brews with 400ppm sulphate take a while to reach their best. Those with 300ppm suphate are not generally a first preference of mine, probably because it can mean the chloride level will be too low. In my book beers need an absolute minimum of 100ppm chloride and preferably a lot more.
Martin's "pale ale" water profile (Bru'n Water) only has 55ppm chloride to GW's 165 (and Martin's calcium is only 113ppm against 190). Would this be the reason I found the "pale ale" profile in Bru'n Water so "surprising"? The SO4/Cl ratio (should it make a difference) will be greatly favouring SO4 in Martin's profile. BTW, this wasn't a one off, I attempted the "Pedigee" clone more than once. I've not built up much of an opinion of chloride, whereas sulphate… now that really does alter taste.
I will still promote a light-weight water profile for a "blonde" ale, but "Brown Beer" shouldn't be un-necessarily put off GW's "dry pale ale" profile on account of my experiences. (Or, if he has already brewed it; shouldn't be having any worry of having used "dry pale ale" profile).
Guy suggested the Dry Pale Ale profile. My choice was different, but was also interested to know what that recipe and water might produce.
I can only think the often pushed American homebrewer's preference for low mineral profiles is to lessen the malt flavours of ales, which are further reduce by serving such beers chilled and heavily carbonated as are certain lagers. Those brewers requiring more flavour will do so by adding, such as in the proposed recipe, extra low colour crystal malts. In British terms to me, that recipe suggested a mild because of the level of sweetness and mouthfeel those dextrine malts would bring when brewed with a more nrmal quantity of calcium and chloride.
James, pleased to hear the brew is going nicely. Your question will have hit a nerve in many brewers who for have years turned out excellent ales, treating tap water that a few self proclaimed experts say should be put through an RO system. If Guy, WallyBrew, myself and many,many more British homebrewers were to employ an RO unit, the result would likley be similar to what comes unfiltered from your tap. The effect has been to even sow doubts in your mind about the mineral level soft British water being excessive.
Yes Heron, Graham's notes contain a lot of valuable information. However, I'd like to make a point about the sulphate/chloride ration which does seem to be misunderstood by many. It was WallyBrew who advised me that he though the first person to mention a ratio between sulphate and chloride was A A D Comrie, who did research through the twenties to the sixties. However, reading those works, it appeared that ratio was probably in context to a set amount of calcium which, from his findings, would be chosen to be betweem 100ppm and 200ppm which match with Graham's. I suspect athe same sulphate:chloride ration in a British profile and an American one will be utterly different. I will first determine the amount of calcium best for the beer about to be made, and then choose how to split the chloride and sulphate to get the best from the ingredients.
Without patience, life becomes difficult and the sooner it's finished, the better.