Water treatment, adjusting PH

[Aleman]

I was going to say that you might want to consider Calcium Chloride instead of / AS well as gypsum. Which you use depends on what flavour you want to accentuate. Gypsum accentuates the hop bitterness while calcium chloride accentuates malt flavours . . . of course a blend of the two accentuates both

But as Graham has said, if you are beginning this AG lark, don't even consider thinking about water chemistry, it really is all about getting a point or two extra in a competition, rather than being consistent with the brewing process. Icing on the cake rather than a nice cake

[Redbloke]

Excellent thread fellas, thanks. This, along with GW's book, has cleared a lot of questions up for me. My water is very much the same as andyp's so I can take similar steps for my treatments.
I know some of the more experienced brewers here might think that water chemistry should be learned at a later stage, but for me it seems like going for your driving test and not knowing how to use the clutch!

... knowledge is power Cheers

[Graham]

I know some of the more experienced brewers here might think that water chemistry should be learned at a later stage, but for me it seems like going for your driving test and not knowing how to use the clutch!

... knowledge is power Cheers

I do believe that water chemistry is important, even to a beginner, but I play it down in my books to reduce the risk of frightening people off. Water chemistry can get blinking complicated if the subject is taken too far, particularly for those who are not strong on either chemistry or mathematics; and the subject is often taken too far in my view.

It is pointless in trying to match the waters of particular areas, as seems to be what a lot of people try to do. Not only is that an ancient practice that science has superseded, but the brewers did not brew directly with that water in any case, and they certainly do not today. There is also an erroneous belief that the water in these various areas was ideal for the beers popular in those areas - they certainly were not.

The practical way is to think why different waters made a difference to the beers, and the bottom line to that question is simply that it moved the pH of the brewing process, that is all. The Victorians didn't know that - they couldn't measure it.

What could be simpler than boiling your water to remove carbonates / bicarbonates and then adding calcium in some other form, calcium sulphate or calcium chloride or a mixture of both, until your pH is right, or at least your pH is where you want it to be?

You do not need (inaccurate) water analysis sheets; you do not need complicated maths (apart from a bit of basic calculator arithmetic); you do not need expensive Palintest type test kits; - just a packet of inexpensive pH papers and a bit of trial and error.

Yes, there is a bit of trial and error involved, but by your second mash you will be damn close and by your third mash you should be spot on and there it will remain until you move house. Flavour implications are controlled by the ratio of calcium sulphate and calcium chloride, and is again empirical, but the ratios are known and often too much is made of this anyway.

Apart from being uncomplicated, this method will give you the satisfaction of knowing that your water treatment will be optimum, and that you will be a lot closer to optimality than many of those who use complicated water-treatment spreadsheets or brewing software. You are measuring and treating the cause, not the symptom, and that is the sensible way to go.

[Aleman]

Where is the "We Are Not Worthy Smilie"? I agree with Graham, that it can be determined simply by trial and error, I use a more empirical (ie I measure it!) approach because thats my training. Water treatment can be condensed to

"Reduce the alkalinity of the water, and add gypsum/calcium chloride to ensure the mash pH is in the ballpark"

How you reduce the alkalinity - well there are a variety of methods that can be used, which one suits your brewing practice does depend on how fussy you want to be. . . . . And also how often your water company changes your supply

[andyp]

After doing basic kits on and off for years, I can remember looking at a beer kit and thinking "If I can find any what would happen if I add a few hops to this. Little did I know where it would lead.

Lovin' every minute of it.

[Graham]

Where is the "We Are Not Worthy Smilie"? I agree with Graham, that it can be determined simply by trial and error, I use a more empirical (ie I measure it!) approach because thats my training. Water treatment can be condensed to

"Reduce the alkalinity of the water, and add gypsum/calcium chloride to ensure the mash pH is in the ballpark"

How you reduce the alkalinity - well there are a variety of methods that can be used, which one suits your brewing practice does depend on how fussy you want to be. . . . . And also how often your water company changes your supply

I wasn't in anyway trying to put down those that use fancier methods than boiling to reduce (bi)carbonates. There are various hurdles put in the way of these fancier methods though. The main one being that people need to have the capability of measuring their water composition, and that is expensive in equipment and somewhat complicated. You can not rely on the water board documents because they are giving less and less information as they variously choose to publish to EEC rules rather than W.H.O. rules. W.H.O. rules specify more stuff.

A classic example of this is Andyp's water which he has posted in the Water reports section. It doesn't give alkalinity; it doesn't give sulphate; it doesn't give magnesium. There is no way that Andyp could use CRS with that information.

Another thing is that I have not seen anybody take into account the ions added to their water when using acids. Andyp's water report does tell him that he has 89 mg/l (ppm) of calcium. We do not know how much of that is bound to sulphate, if any (or how much of it is actually magnesium). 89 mg/ Ca = 4.44 millivals of calcium. If it is all bound to bicarbonate, that will give us 4.44 milivals of bicarbonate = 270mg/l bicabonate.

However, that doesn't matter. If you use sulphuric acid, all of that calcium will be converted to calcium sulphate, which equals 213 mg/l of sulphate. If we use hydrochloric acid, the calcium bound to bicarbonate will be converted to calcium chloride - up to 157 mg/l of chloride. Obviously a mixture of the two acids, as in CRS, will produce a mixture sulphate and chloride.

Now, by the water section on Murphy's own website (which really is terrible for a brewing chemist), mild requires about 150mg/l sulphate, porter 100mg/l sulphate, lager 10mg/l of sulphate. In all cases we have exceeded it. The chloride and calcium levels are equally as evasive.

The bottom line is that with Murphy's own product, Andyp cannot achieve Murphy's own guidelines for three out of the four beer styles they mention. Nor can I, my water is even harder, and nor can anybody who lives in a hard water area - it is impossible when using CRS. By using acids you are not removing anything except bicarbonate, you are adding stuff and just moving the remaining stuff around. There is no precipitate, the calcium is still there, you are simply adding sulphate or chloride.

You can achieve it by boiling though. By boiling you are removing both calcium and bicarbonate. You are starting with a clean sheet (or at least with a cleaner sheet).

Not that I believe Murphy's guidelines, but that is a different story.

[WallyBrew]

Any previous has been removed edited coz my brains gone wrong

[andyp]

Can I just clarify one small thing.

After that initial boil (and nothing added) has that done the business (as much as it's going to) or does it then need to cool, rest, then get drained leaving the bottom inch or so which would contain anything precipitated out?

And you're right Graham I looked at my local water report and thought

[Graham]

Any previous has been removed edited coz my brains gone wrong

Likewise. Just removed my vociferous reply.

I should have said 213 mg/l and I put 230mg/l. Just corrected it.

[andyp]

Actually Graham I've found what you and others have contributed very useful even though I've only understood 89 mg/l (ppm) of it!

I always assume everything is open to interpretations, is given in good faith and then it's my responsibility to decide what to do.

[Graham]

Can I just clarify one small thing.

After that initial boil (and nothing added) has that done the business (as much as it's going to) or does it then need to cool, rest, then get drained leaving the bottom inch or so which would contain anything precipitated out?

And you're right Graham I looked at my local water report and thought

Yes, it's done it good enough.
If leaving it overnight, I prefer to rack it off the precipitate, for fear of the chalk recombining if CO2 gets absorbed in the water from the atmosphere when cool, but I doubt if it makes much difference in reality. I wouldn't worry about it that much. Time available and convenience is more important.

[Graham]

Actually Graham I've found what you and others have contributed very useful even though I've only understood 89 mg/l (ppm) of it!

I always assume everything is open to interpretations, is given in good faith and then it's my responsibility to decide what to do.

Yes, that's true. The last longish post was really me indulging myself. If you don't understand it, ignore it.

Many people latch onto new or different ideas without giving very much thought to what really happens. The fact that I am not so ready to embrace these ideas so quickly makes me appear to be a bit of a Luddite.

Using acids, like CRS, to reduce carbonates is one example that illustrates of my point of view. Many people use CRS because it is quicker than boiling, and they sometimes assume that it simplifies things, when in fact it makes the situation much more complicated and can make it more difficult to achieve whatever it is that they are trying to achieve.

It depends, of course, what they are setting out to achieve, but I bet that 70% are not achieving what they think they are achieving. If that makes sense.

[Graham]

Many people use CRS because it is quicker than boiling, and they sometimes assume that it simplifies things, when in fact it makes the situation much more complicated and can make it more difficult to achieve whatever it is that they are trying to achieve.

Care to explain why for us acid users as some people don't have the luxury of planning ahead and boiling their water the night before? It'd most likely be be acid or nothing for me in most cases.

It depends on what you set out to achieve. If you want to get your mash pH right, and CRS helps in that matter, then you have achieved what you set out to do.

If, however, you set out to achieve the "ideal" water for a mild, porter, stout or, particularly, lager (from Murphy's own style guidelines) it is impossible to achieve these water profiles using CRS with the majority of water supplies in Britain.

If you use the water profiler in something like Promash or other brewing software to profile your water, and then use CRS to reduce bicarbonates, you are going to be miles out. Nowhere near the profile you thought you were getting.

there are other acids, such as phosphoric or lactic acids, that can be used that will not mess around with water chemistry as much, but they can be tasted.

You do not get these problems, to the same degree at least, with boiling.

[Jim]

I can see what Graham's getting at - you're only putting extra stuff into the water with acid treatment. Your treated water is unlikely to resemble a good brewing water that occurs naturally.

Having said that, the only real test (as far as I can see) is whether the beer tastes good (unless it's important to you to brew a true style that needs a low mineral content, such as pilsners, in which case you're probably stuffed).

(Prepares to be shot down in flames!)

[Graham]

The CRS gasses off as co2 and becomes calcium sulphate and chloride in the process of taking out the bicarbonates so as far as I can tell it does pretty much the same job as boiling but leaves behind a quantity of beneficial salts.

The draw back is how much do you add if you don't trust your water report. As my water always comes from testwood lakes which are always supplied from the river itchen I suspect it's reasonably consistent and besides the targets are reasonably broad and even if I don't hit them i'll still be in a better situation had I no reduced the bicarbonates using CRS.

The main issue I see is how much other salts to add but that's no different had you boiled the water.
(Prepares to be shot down in flames!)

I agree with you entirely, but they are only beneficial salts if you want them there. If you don't, as Jim says, you are stuffed. If you already have high levels of calcium sulphate or calcium chloride in your water, you might not want to add any more. Should you wish to reduce calcium; it can't be done with CRS. Then there is the question of how much of the bicarbonate has been converted into these beneficial salts, and in what ratios. Without a detailed knowledge of the ratios of sulphuric / hydrochloric acids and their strengths in CRS, it is not easy to calculate it.

If we have only a rough idea of what is in our water due to the poor water company reports to begin with, the water is in an even more confused state after CRS is added. So it is pointless to use water treatment spreadsheets / software in conjunction with CRS without access to better quality information and unless the software can cope with it.

However, I will repeat that I do not go along with the idea that one style of beer needs one type of water and another style of beer needs another. If the pH is right, that's fine as far as I am concerned, which is all that CRS is supposed to do. What is ironic is that most people will not be able to match Murphy's own style guidelines using Murphy's own product - it's just not possible.

Mind you, I can't imagine that even Murphys believe Murphys water / style guidelines.